Note:
The original article at the link below was far too long, and included too many numbers. I selected a small portion of the article, shown below.
Ye Editor
... "Here’s the benefits model:
As of Oct. 30, the CDC stated 170 children ages 5 to 11 have died of COVID-related illness since the start of the pandemic. (That represents less than 0.1% of all coronavirus-related deaths nationwide even though children that age make up 8.7% of the U.S. population).
The Pfizer mRNA shot only “works” for about six months (it increases risk in the first month, provides moderate protection in months two through four and then effectiveness begins to wane,
which is why all of the FDA modeling only used a 6-month time-frame). So any modeling would have to be based on vaccine effectiveness in connection with the 170 / 3 = 57 children who might otherwise have died of COVID-related illness during a six-month period.
At best, the Pfizer mRNA shot might be 80% effective against hospitalizations and death.
That number comes directly from the FDA modeling (p. 32).
I am bending over backwards to give Pfizer the benefit of considerable doubt because again, the Pfizer clinical trial showed no reduction in hospitalizations or death in this age group.
So injecting all 28,384,878 children ages 5 to 11 with two doses of Pfizer, which is what the Biden administration wants to do, would save, at most, 45 lives (0.8 effectiveness x 57 fatalities that otherwise would have occurred during that 6-month time period = 45).
So then the Number Needed To Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent a single fatality in this age group is 28,384,878 / 45 = 630,775 .
But it’s a two-dose regimen, so if one wants to calculate the NNTV per injection the number doubles to 1,261,550.
It’s literally the worst NNTV in the history of vaccination.
If you inject that many children, you certainly will have lots and lots of serious side effects, including disability and death.
So let’s look at the risk side of the equation.
Here’s the risk model:
Because the Pfizer clinical trial has no usable data, I have to “immuno-bridge” from the nearest age group.
To be clear, I do not believe that immuno-bridging is a valid way to calculate these numbers.
But since the FDA used immuno-bridging to estimate benefits, then I will also use it to show harms.
31,761,099 people (so just about 10% more people than in the 5 to 11 age bracket) ages 12 to 24 have received at least one coronavirus shot.
The COVID vaccine program has existed for only 10 months and younger people have had access only more recently (children 12 to 15 have had access for five months — since May 10)
— so we’re looking at roughly the same observational time period as modeled above.
During that time, there are 128 reports of fatal side effects following coronavirus mRNA injections in people 12 to 24.
(That’s through Oct. 31. There is a reporting lag though, so the actual number of reports that have been filed is surely higher).
With potentially deadly side effects including myocarditis and pericarditis disproportionately impacting youth it is reasonable to think that over time, the rate of fatal side effects from mRNA shots in children ages 5 to 11 might be similar to those in ages 12 to 24.
Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford (2021) estimate the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System undercounts fatal reactions by a factor of 41, which would put the total fatal side effects in this age-range at 5,248.
Kirsch et al. represent a conservative estimate because others have put the underreporting factor at 100.
Death is just one of a multitude of possible adverse events that are reported following vaccination.
Dr. Jessica Rose recently calculated an underreporting factor of 31 for all severe adverse events following vaccination.
Simply put, the Biden administration plan would kill 5,248 children via Pfizer mRNA shots in order to save 45 children from dying of coronavirus.
For every one child saved by the shot, another 117 would be killed by the shot.
The Pfizer mRNA shot fails any honest risk-benefit analysis in children ages 5 to 11." ...
