Hepatitis Surge in Young Children / May '21 Now Thought To Be Linked to COVID [MERGED]

[Cornell]

Once more for those who conveniently - or ignorantly - don’t get the nuance, “anti-COVID-vaxx” is a term newly coined with the advent of COVID-19 that refers to those who previously were not anti-vaxx and have gotten the COVID vaccines, while simultaneously and hypocritically propagating mis/disinformation that leads others to mistrust and not get the COVID vaccines.

I know, that’s too many characters for those who prefer to swim and win in the social media cesspool, but it’s really not that difficult to understand. Even Bill has acknowledged its origin and tried to explain it once or twice on this forum.

Actually I haven't lost the nuance. Gwynth Paltrow was tossed out here and she's anti-vaxx across the board. Please Sue, try to keep up. I know it's hard.

 

[SueDonJ]

Actually I haven't lost the nuance. Gwynth Paltrow was tossed out here and she's anti-vaxx across the board. Please Sue, try to keep up. I know it's hard.

Let's review:

Please highlight all the occasions that I've done all that I can to scare other into not getting vaccinated. You'll find that I regularly state that vaccination prevents you from developing serious symptoms, not exactly a scare tactic is it? I also didn't post anything about injected adenoviruses mutating. The topic I raised (not perpetuated or claimed was fact but rather introducing it as a theory worth investigating, you know, discussion, something adults do to establish whether something is worth looking into further) was the prospect of contracting another adenovirus after being vaccinated and the possible effect on that virus including prospect of mutation.

I suggest you stop trying to stifle debate and smothering those you disagree with by false accusations and puerile smear tactics. Your pathetic responses won't silence me so I suggest you try elsewhere.

I can find several threads that you are avid anti-mandate about vaccines. Other than that, your opinion has become irrelevant. I am positive you feel the same about my opinions, so no need to respond.

There's a huge difference b/w being anti-mandate and anti-vaccine.

Where did I say he was anti-vaccine?

You haven’t . Others have in this thread.

So, to recap, you weren't responding to the post about Paltrow, you were directly quoting and responding to posts in a sequence referencing Pompey Family, and in doing so you brought up "others ... in this thread" who you thought alleged that he is anti-vaxx. It doesn't make any sense that you'd now bring Scoop's post about Paltrow into it because he made no connection to Pompey Family. So who exactly were you referencing with "others ... in this thread?" And who is it who needs to try thinking beyond 280 characters in an effort to "try to keep up?"

 

[Pompey Family]

So who exactly were you referencing with "others ... in this thread?"

Bluehende believes that I'm anti-vax for some unfathomable reason.

 

[Cornell]

Associative Property

 

[bluehende]

Bluehende believes that I'm anti-vax for some unfathomable reason.

Maybe the fact that an unassociated problem with children had to be immediately linked to vaccines in post 5.

About misrepresenting transmission suppression with vaccines. Calling the truth dangerous.

Yet no comment on the data from the IMHE I posted.

 

[SueDonJ]

Associative Property

Odd response from someone whose meaning is frequently as logical as 2 + 5 = Purple.

 

[Pompey Family]

About misrepresenting transmission suppression with vaccines.

Do the vaccines prevent transmission, yes or no?

 

[geekette]

Do the vaccines prevent transmission, yes or no?

Not so simple. In some people, the answer could be yes, yet, in others, the answer might be no.

regardless, decreasing chance of infection decreases chance of transmission, so, yes, they can prevent transmission.

it will be a long time before there is absolute Yes or No in any of this.

 

[bluehende]

Do the vaccines prevent transmission, yes or no?

Yes at the levels of the data I posted. Or do they have to be 100% effective as no vaccine in history to pass your bar.

Wonder why you refuse to discuss the data I posted. Your question was answered very well by that.

 

[Pompey Family]

Or do they have to be 100% effective as no vaccine in history to pass your bar.

They're effective in reducing the severity of symptoms, that's what they do best however far too many people believe that being vaccinated means they are immune from contracting the virus. That's a dangerous viewpoint for some people who are in a high risk category yet for some strange reason there are people who will label you as an anti-vaxxer for pointing out that they do not completely protect you from infection.

 

[bluehende]

They're effective in reducing the severity of symptoms, that's what they do best however far too many people believe that being vaccinated means they are immune from contracting the virus. That's a dangerous viewpoint for some people who are in a high risk category yet for some strange reason there are people who will label you as an anti-vaxxer for pointing out that they do not completely protect you from infection.

Still refuse to discuss the actual data. You are again presenting a strawman. I know no one that believes they are immune and have never heard one person here claim that. I have no idea how that notion got in your head. But nice deflection and change from your original nonsense of vaccinated from covid adults have passed some undetected adenovirus to children causing what this thread is about. Talking about mixing and matching vaccines and diseases.

 

[SueDonJ]

They're effective in reducing the severity of symptoms, that's what they do best however far too many people believe that being vaccinated means they are immune from contracting the virus. That's a dangerous viewpoint for some people who are in a high risk category yet for some strange reason there are people who will label you as an anti-vaxxer for pointing out that they do not completely protect you from infection.

Who on this forum has said anything to lead you to think that they, "believe that being vaccinated means they are immune from contracting the virus?"

Who on this forum has labeled you as an anti-vaxxer (or as an anti-COVID-vaxxer) for saying the exact same thing that every vaccine proponent on this forum acknowledges as universal truth, i.e. that while the vaccines do not completely prevent contracting the virus they do significantly lessen the incidents of severe illness and death after contracting the virus?

 

[Pompey Family]

Who on this forum has said anything to lead you to think that they, "believe that being vaccinated means they are immune from contracting the virus?"

There is life beyond this forum!

 

[SueDonJ]

There is life beyond this forum!

Are you making the point that what's posted outside this forum has ramifications for this forum? If that's the case, how is that any different from me saying that what's posted on this forum has ramifications beyond it? Because I've had plenty of people tell me that what's posted on TUG is in no way related to the greater social media world at large.

 

[geekette]

They're effective in reducing the severity of symptoms, that's what they do best however far too many people believe that being vaccinated means they are immune from contracting the virus. That's a dangerous viewpoint for some people who are in a high risk category yet for some strange reason there are people who will label you as an anti-vaxxer for pointing out that they do not completely protect you from infection.

anyone that believes the vax prevents infection has not paid attention. Presumably they are dangerous to themselves in other ways, too. Immune to car crashes, job layoffs, divorce…. People believe what they believe.

I have yet to hear of any noted epidemiologist or scientist involved being labeled antivax for speaking truth that vax doesn’t prevent infection. We knew this before vax rollout.

 

[Pompey Family]

Are you making the point that what's posted outside this forum has ramifications for this forum?

Of course it does. No-one is using this forum and no other website.

 

[VegasBella]

These children were all too young to be vaccinated. So it wasn't a side effect of vaccination.

Furthermore, in the US this is occurring in places with VERY LOW vaccination rates.

Additionally, this Hepatitis is occurring in places using different vaccines, so it's unlikely related to vaccines at all.

"Isolation of the youngest children during the pandemic lockdown may have left them immunologically vulnerable because they haven’t been exposed to the multiplicity of viruses, including adenoviruses, that typically attend toddlerhood."

This hypothesis doesn't pass the sniff test because:
- this Hepatitis is occurring in places that never locked down
- many of these children are too young to have been going to school so weren't impacted directly by school closures even in places where school closures occurred
- some of these children with "mysterious" Hepatitis are babies... they aren't old enough for this hypothesis to make any sense
- there's zero evidence to support this hypothesis (lack of exposure in to various pathogens has never increased rates of Hepatitis in children anywhere)

Do the vaccines prevent transmission, yes or no?

The vaccines likely reduce transmission somewhat. The vaccines are most protective against hospitalization and death. That is, these vaccines mostly work after infection. They likely reduce the amount of time that someone is ill, which reduces transmission. They likely prevent most infections from becoming more than an upper respiratory illness, protecting the rest of the body. But a vaccinated person can get infected and can spread the virus.

Herd immunity is not possible through vaccination. It's also not possible though infection. The protection wanes from both. It just doesn't last long enough to provide a herd immunity type of protection. We need better vaccines and/or layered protections to achieve herd immunity or to force the virus into an endemic state.

Get vaccinated to protect yourself. Keep up with boosters. But also wear an n95 whenever you might have exposure to the virus. And use HEPA in your workplaces and homes to reduce the amount of virus in the air.

 

[ScoopKona]

The dingbat brigade: "Unless something works 100% of the time, without any exceptions, we should avoid it and do nothing at all. The talking head on TV, who is dumber than a sack of hair has the only opinion for me! I don't trust those physicians and their 'organic chemistry,' and 'knowledge of anatomy.' They're on the take! The talking head on TV knows what's what."

 

[VegasBella]

It's in Japan now too.
"Of those infected, one child has died and 17 have required liver transplants."

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/27/symptoms-of-mysterious-liver-disease-affecting-children-covid-links.html

 

[Cornell]

These children were all too young to be vaccinated. So it wasn't a side effect of vaccination.

Furthermore, in the US this is occurring in places with VERY LOW vaccination rates.

Additionally, this Hepatitis is occurring in places using different vaccines, so it's unlikely related to vaccines at all.


This hypothesis doesn't pass the sniff test because:
- this Hepatitis is occurring in places that never locked down
- many of these children are too young to have been going to school so weren't impacted directly by school closures even in places where school closures occurred
- some of these children with "mysterious" Hepatitis are babies... they aren't old enough for this hypothesis to make any sense
- there's zero evidence to support this hypothesis (lack of exposure in to various pathogens has never increased rates of Hepatitis in children anywhere)


The vaccines likely reduce transmission somewhat. The vaccines are most protective against hospitalization and death. That is, these vaccines mostly work after infection. They likely reduce the amount of time that someone is ill, which reduces transmission. They likely prevent most infections from becoming more than an upper respiratory illness, protecting the rest of the body. But a vaccinated person can get infected and can spread the virus.

Herd immunity is not possible through vaccination. It's also not possible though infection. The protection wanes from both. It just doesn't last long enough to provide a herd immunity type of protection. We need better vaccines and/or layered protections to achieve herd immunity or to force the virus into an endemic state.

Get vaccinated to protect yourself. Keep up with boosters. But also wear an n95 whenever you might have exposure to the virus. And use HEPA in your workplaces and homes to reduce the amount of virus in the air.

I’m just quoting the article you provided

 

[VegasBella]

I’m just quoting the article you provided

You bolded and italicized it, you didn't "just" quote it.

I provided multiple links in that first post, including scientific studies. This hypothesis about lockdowns is simply ridiculous.

 

[Cornell]

You bolded and italicized it, you didn't "just" quote it.

I provided multiple links in that first post, including scientific studies. This hypothesis about lockdowns is simply ridiculous.

It’s a statement from a clinical virologist. Isn’t he/she an expert ?

 

[SueDonJ]

It’s a statement from a clinical virologist. Isn’t he/she an expert ?

The formatting/editing of that Science/AAAS science.org article linked in the first post isn't really all that clear as to whether the statement you selected to bold and italicize is actually a direct quote from Will Irving, the clinical virologist who is referenced in the same section of that article:

>>Isolation of the youngest children during the pandemic lockdown may have left them immunologically vulnerable because they haven’t been exposed to the multiplicity of viruses, including adenoviruses, that typically attend toddlerhood. “We are seeing a surge in typical childhood viral infections as children come out of lockdown, [as well as] a surge in adenovirus infections”—but can’t be sure that one is causing the other, says Will Irving, a clinical virologist at the University of Nottingham.<<

If that one statement were a direct quote from him, and not the words of the article's writer or editor, wouldn't the writer or editor have enclosed it in quotation marks the way they did other words directly attributed to him?

As for whether his professional position should be qualification enough to deem him an expert in the related sciences, that's debatable. What is his breadth of experience? What opinion do his peers and the renowned experts in those sciences hold of him? Aren't they the only ones qualified to determine his level of expertise and the cache it might deserve?

 

[Cornell]

The formatting/editing of that Science/AAAS science.org article linked in the first post isn't really all that clear as to whether the statement you selected to bold and italicize is actually a direct quote from Will Irving, the clinical virologist who is referenced in the same section of that article:

>>Isolation of the youngest children during the pandemic lockdown may have left them immunologically vulnerable because they haven’t been exposed to the multiplicity of viruses, including adenoviruses, that typically attend toddlerhood. “We are seeing a surge in typical childhood viral infections as children come out of lockdown, [as well as] a surge in adenovirus infections”—but can’t be sure that one is causing the other, says Will Irving, a clinical virologist at the University of Nottingham.<<

If that one statement were a direct quote from him, and not the words of the article's writer or editor, wouldn't the writer or editor have enclosed it in quotation marks the way they did other words directly attributed to him?

As for whether his professional position should be qualification enough to deem him an expert in the related sciences, that's debatable. What is his breadth of experience? What opinion do his peers and the renowned experts in those sciences hold of him? Aren't they the only ones qualified to determine his level of expertise and the cache it might deserve?

I don't have the answers to your questions. I'm just pointing out that the whole isolation deal was mentioned in the original article and it referenced that it came from a person-of-science. Seems a little rash just to be immediately discounting this possibility.

 

[SueDonJ]

I don't have the answers to your questions. I'm just pointing out that the whole isolation deal was mentioned in the original article and it referenced that it came from a person-of-science. Seems a little rash just to be immediately discounting this possibility.

But that's my point about the formatting/editing of the article! Does it "reference that it [the one statement you selected and italicized] came from a person-of-science?" Or did the writer or editor use creative license to give the reader the appearance that it was Will Irving's intended meaning? What is quoted from him is not a direct parallel to the sentence that precedes it.

I do agree that rashly discounting, or only supporting, any of a number of proposed possibilities doesn't do any of us any good. That's why I said early on in this thread that I'm looking forward to the experts eventually reaching a more uniform consensus than what exists now.