There was an interesting, albeit minor, brouhaha earlier this week, when vaccine sceptic and activist Alex Berenson posted a story claiming that UK data definitively revealed that death rates amongst the vaccinated in the UK – of all causes – were substantially higher than death rates amongst the unvaccinated. His figures were based on UK Government data, tracking the deaths in people aged between 10 and 59. “I don’t know how else to explain it”, he wrote, “other than vaccine-induced mortality”:
https://twitter.com/not_dgribbs/status/1462107256745463819
The problem for Berenson is that there was, in fact, another way to explain it. In short: People die much more at age 59 than they do at age 10. The older you get, the more likely you are to die, and the more likely you are to be vaccinated. The vaccinated population is older, and therefore more likely to die, than the younger, less vaccinated population. This was explained, ably, by a UK data cruncher called Stuart McDonald:
Vaccine uptake varies significantly with age. Vaccination rates are very high among those in their 40s and 50s in the UK, but very few children and teens have had two vaccine doses. A second dose has only just been approved for those aged 16 and 17, and vaccines have not currently been approved for use in the UK for children younger than that.
So what the chart in the tweet linked above is really showing is that, within the 10-59 age band, the average unvaccinated person is much younger than the average vaccinated person, and therefore has a lower death rate. Any benefit from the vaccines is swamped by the increase in all-cause mortality rates with age.
McDonald is right. Berenson was wrong.
But there remains a problem: For this data to be correct – which it is – it must be true – which it is – that covid 19 mortality amongst children is, to all intents and purposes, a non-factor. The reason that children skew the data so much as to make it look as if vaccinated people are dying at a greater rate is that they – the children – are unvaccinated, and not dying.
In fact, it is not just this data which makes that case. The covid death rate for children in the United States is lower than the death rate for children from the flu. We do not, readers will note, generally vaccinate children against the flu.
So what, then, is the case for vaccinating them at all? Anti-vaccine campaigners have a tendency to over-inflate the risk of some known side effects, like myocarditis. But those side effects, though overstated, are nonetheless real and documented. Several countries have suspended the use of vaccines in children and young adults as a result. So, there is a risk, however small.
And what is the benefit? We know, definitively and indisputably, that the covid 19 vaccines are not sterilising jabs: You can still transmit the virus, even after you have been vaccinated. So vaccinating children – even if one considered it moral to expose children to a risk in order to protect adults – is unlikely to provide much, if any, protection to adults at all.
But the Irish Times, publishing a Q&A on the matter the other day, ignores that point entirely, in favour of this evidence-free assertion:
While the chances of serious illness from Covid-19 is low, if children are not vaccinated they risk spreading the virus to others, or developing long Covid, as well as missing school and other activities.
It is true, of course, that unvaccinated children run the risk of spreading the virus to others. The problem is that the exact same thing is true of vaccinated children.
The problem is, of course, that western society is presently deeply embroiled in a vaccine culture war, where, for many people on both sides of the argument, science and reason have gone out the window. For some people, vaccinating children is a sign of unparalleled evil. For other people, vaccinating their children is a sign of their commitment to science and society. We’ve also set things up, here in Ireland, to the point where even raising concerns about the suitability of a vaccine for children is enough to get one tarred as an anti-vaxxer, even if they have taken all their shots themselves.
And so, there is a very real risk that Ireland will proceed towards a programme of vaccination for children without any debate about the relative risks, and rewards, of such a programme.
The evidence suggests, overwhelmingly, that the potential rewards of such a programme are tiny. Just as – by the way – it suggests that the rewards of vaccinating the elderly are enormous. An older, at risk person who declines a vaccine is, based on the data, taking a needless risk with their life. But a child whose parents decide that the risk/reward ratio is too high is not being exposed to any such risk.
Ultimately, matters about what medication a child takes are – and must remain – a matter for parents, and parents alone. But we urgently need a national discussion about this which is cool, calm, balanced, and informative. There does not, at present, seem to be any prospect of us getting one.