Coronavirus (Los Angeles, San Gabriel: first date, singles, hair salon)

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

What?

I replied to your statement, "Eventually, you can't help those that won't help themselves." My reply listed a few categories of people who cannot take the vaccine. They are certainly not among "those who won't help themselves."

That was my post, not his. By and large people under 16 don't get Covid. There are some people who cannot take the vaccine. Do we die as a society for those people?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

That was my post, not his. By and large people under 16 don't get Covid. There are some people who cannot take the vaccine. Do we die as a society for those people?

Sorry; I thought it was you. (I still don't think anyone here is talking about dying as a society.) And I know several teenagers who've had COVID, one who was hospitalized in December.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Sorry; I thought it was you. (I still don't think anyone here is talking about dying as a society.)

I certainly am. See Are we turning into animals, courtesy of Covid-19?

[SFBayBoomer]

Originally Posted by Racer46

None of the vaccines are recommended for anyone under 16. Not good for them.

Vaccines get recommended based on age cohorts, meaning that if you test a vaccine on people aged 18 through 80, and it is proven to be safe and effective for that age group, then the vaccine is recommended for the age group that was tested and for whom the vaccine proved to be safe and effective.

It does not meant that the vaccine is not good for younger people. The next step is testing the vaccine on people younger than 18. When that happens, and it shows that the vaccine is safe and effective for that age group, then the vaccine will be administered to them, too, and likely in stages. For example, 12 to 18 could be tested, then maybe 8 to 12, and so forth.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

That was my post, not his. By and large people under 16 don't get Covid. There are some people who cannot take the vaccine. Do we die as a society for those people?

Kids get COVID-19. Pre-teens rarely get bad symptoms.

Free advice: use facts.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Kids get COVID-19. Pre-teens rarely get bad symptoms.

Free advice: use facts.

You may be literally right. Does that mean we lock down society indefinitely for people who barely get sick?

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer

Vaccines get recommended based on age cohorts, meaning that if you test a vaccine on people aged 18 through 80, and it is proven to be safe and effective for that age group, then the vaccine is recommended for the age group that was tested and for whom the vaccine proved to be safe and effective.

It does not meant that the vaccine is not good for younger people. The next step is testing the vaccine on people younger than 18. When that happens, and it shows that the vaccine is safe and effective for that age group, then the vaccine will be administered to them, too, and likely in stages. For example, 12 to 18 could be tested, then maybe 8 to 12, and so forth.

They do not know for sure if they are safe or not.

• COVID-19

• Home
• Blog

What about ages 0 to 15? When can we expect a COVID-19 vaccine for infants, kids and younger teens?

With any luck, a full pediatric vaccine will be available by late 2021.
Why isn’t a COVID-19 vaccine available to kids at the same time as adults?

Children’s immune systems are very different from adults’, and their immune responses can be different at different ages, from infancy through the teenage years. So the research that’s been done on the COVID-19 vaccine for ages 16 and up needs to be repeated in children of younger ages.
Both Pfizer and Moderna recently began new vaccine trials including children as young as age 12. If they’re successful, the data will need to go through FDA review, followed by the time it takes for production and distribution. This process can take awhile, especially for very young ages, which are usually tested last.

[CA4Now]

Dr. Drew Pinsky infamously dismissed COVID-19 early on, to the point where he later apologized for calling it a "press-induced pandemic" and saying it was comparable to the standard flu.

By late December, his feelings had changed greatly, as he disclosed his own diagnosis of the coronavirus. He's revealed that, when the virus hit him, the symptoms were so severe, he worried it was cancer.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dr-d...201221450.html

[newbienoob9]

Sorry I don't know where to post this: my family lives in Los Angeles county, San Gabriel valley. The school where my TK and 2nd grade boys are going gives us options: the kids either go to school this March 22 OR continue to stay home doing the distance learning. These two kids will go back to our home in San Gabriel valley from their aunt' house in Arizona. They are currently healthy. My family members, though (my parents, myself and my sister) all got sick of Covid last Feb 14 (tested positive on Feb 15). We all have recovered but the doctor said the virus is still in our bodies for 90 days since Feb 14. Should we send the kids to school or let them stay in our home?
If they stay at home, they will interact with us (we have masks on and try to avoid the kids as much as we can). If they go to school, they still interact with us after school time.
Continue to stay in Arizona is not an option as my wife would lose her job if she stays in Arizona with the kids. She got to be back. Thanks for your inputs.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

You may be literally right. Does that mean we lock down society indefinitely for people who barely get sick?

What's so difficult about wearing masks and limiting indoor dining and nearly forbidding large indoor gatherings until a very small percentage of cases caused by this highly contagious virus cause major problems or the positivity rate is very low?