Connect with us

Science

A COVID-19 vaccine is now available for young kids. Should they get it?

Published

on

A COVID-19 vaccine is now available for young kids. Should they get it?

As any child will let you know, grown-ups prefer to make issues difficult. They usually not often miss an opportunity to argue about stuff.

Working example: the COVID-19 vaccination for kids ages 5 to 11.

The U.S. Meals and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization for kid-sized doses of the vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech, and the Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention adopted up by recommending broad use of the vaccine among the many nation’s 28 million elementary-school-age youngsters.

The motion had been really helpful by two panels of unbiased specialists who advise the FDA and CDC on vaccines. Now pictures are going into little arms.

Advertisement

In relation to adults and older children, teams like this have virtually all the time mentioned everybody ought to get vaccinated. However this time was totally different: A number of members of the FDA advisory panel made clear that they don’t assume the vaccination needs to be given to as many younger youngsters as potential, at the least proper now.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices didn’t share these reservations, particularly in mild of information suggesting the vaccine was greater than 90% efficient in stopping COVID-19 in 5- to 11-year-olds.

“Primarily based on our experience and the data that we now have, we’re all very enthusiastic,” mentioned committee member Dr. Beth Bell, a professor of world well being on the College of Washington.

Advertisement

Right here’s a better take a look at the talk over the vaccination of younger youngsters.

Why all of the drama?

You is perhaps questioning why there’s even a query about whether or not to vaccinate children in opposition to COVID-19.

The hazard of the illness appears clear: Not less than 94 youngsters ages 5 to 11 have died of COVID-19 because the pandemic started, and eight,300 have develop into so sick they wanted to be hospitalized.

Even some who had solely gentle signs went on to develop MIS-C, a situation wherein the immune system goes haywire and begins attacking completely wholesome elements of the physique. By early October, 5,217 children had come down with MIS-C, together with 2,034 between 6 and 11. Between 1% and a couple of% of them died.

There’s additionally the chance they may develop “lengthy COVID.” In Nice Britain, about 8% of youngsters who knew they’d a coronavirus an infection suffered signs that lingered for months. They’d fatigue or muscle aches or respiration issues or hassle concentrating in class.

Advertisement

There’s one other huge purpose to contemplate vaccinating younger children: getting again to regular.

Nobody loves sporting a masks all day, or having to spend two weeks in quarantine after being uncovered to an contaminated individual. If most children received vaccinated, lots of pandemic restrictions would most likely get tossed out and youngsters might resume their regular lives.

What’s to not like?

Not everybody sees it this fashion. Some mother and father nonetheless aren’t able to get their children vaccinated, and never all specialists are certain that each child must be. Over your entire pandemic, the possibility {that a} child of any age would die of COVID-19 by no means rose above one in 2 million (and was often approach decrease). That’s 4 occasions lower than the percentages of being struck by lightning in any given 12 months.

Plus, greater than half of younger children with coronavirus infections have virtually no signs in any respect. The children which were least prone to get very sick or die are those between 5 and 11. Infants and youngsters had been extra prone to get sick in the event that they received contaminated, and extra of them died.

Given all that, these skeptics ask, why would you run the danger of getting each younger child jabbed with COVID-19 vaccine — particularly if there are issues of safety that researchers don’t but perceive?

Advertisement

A scary coronary heart drawback

One of many foremost issues the FDA advisors argued about was a uncommon vaccination facet impact that will not even have an effect on children beneath 12 after they get this COVID-19 vaccine. The facet impact is known as myocarditis, and it irritates the center muscle, inflicting some swelling and sometimes chest ache.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccination is unquestionably uncommon: For those who vaccinated 1 million 16- or 17-year-old boys and gave them the grownup model of this Pfizer vaccine, about 70 of them would expertise some type of the situation. It appears to go away by itself, however if you happen to get it, you’ll most likely spend a number of days within the hospital. When these sufferers get out, they’ll be suggested to stop sports activities for 3 to 6 months simply to make certain they’re OK.

The issue is that nobody is bound whether or not myocarditis hurts a baby’s coronary heart in any lasting approach. Nor do they know whether or not youthful children who haven’t began puberty might get it within the first place. They’re relying on the kid-sized dose to be too small to set off any such response.

How will we discover out?

This is without doubt one of the issues that comes with judging the security of a brand new vaccine throughout a public well being emergency. To hurry the duty of creating certain this vaccine works safely in younger children, authorities specialists relied on a number of the security knowledge from earlier trials and requested Pfizer to check smaller doses in a couple of thousand children within the 5-to-11 age group.

Even when myocarditis occurred as typically in little children because it does in youngsters, you’d want greater than 14,000 children in your take a look at group to have one case of myocarditis. With a take a look at group of lower than 3,000 children, odds are good you gained’t see any circumstances.

Advertisement

However that doesn’t imply they gained’t occur — and nobody will know till hundreds of thousands of youngsters begin getting vaccinated.

The thought of marching hundreds of thousands of youngsters into such an unsure state of affairs is unnerving to some specialists. However the authorities has a system for preserving tabs on reviews of potential vaccination negative effects. The FDA assured its advisors that if circumstances of myocarditis begin cropping up, they’ll put vaccinations on maintain whereas they work out whether or not there’s a connection and let individuals know what they’ve discovered.

Do children have already got some safety?

Possibly. Youngsters in grade faculty can catch the coronavirus simply. Even when it doesn’t make them sick, their immune techniques be taught to acknowledge it so the subsequent time the virus comes calling, their pure defenses can act shortly to close it down.

A research by researchers on the CDC discovered that at the least 40% of youngsters are on this class. However because the coronavirus is new, nobody is bound how lengthy a baby’s immune system will keep in mind it, or how robust the safety shall be.

With all this in thoughts, does it make sense to hurry out and vaccinate all of them? Some specialists don’t assume so.

Advertisement

Is it over but?

Plenty of adults have been certain the pandemic was nearly over, and, boy, have they been proved mistaken. 4 separate occasions, we’ve seen infections and deaths climb, then fall. And each time to date, they’ve gone again up once more.

However when contemplating whether or not most youthful children want the vaccination, it actually issues whether or not the top is in sight. If the virus simply can’t unfold as quick as a result of so many individuals have immunity, perhaps most children don’t want extra safety — particularly since there could also be dangers to getting all children on this age group vaccinated.

Alternatively, if one other surge is on the horizon, taking that threat is perhaps a extremely good strategy to cease it from occurring.

Does the vaccine do extra to guard younger children or these round them?

Though most younger children with coronavirus infections don’t get sick themselves, they’re good at spreading the virus — and it may be arduous to inform that it’s occurring as a result of they might appear completely high-quality whereas they’re doing it. That’s an actual drawback in the event that they stay with or go to high school with individuals who might get very sick in the event that they’re contaminated.

That features different children who’ve bronchial asthma, diabetes or weight problems, in addition to mother and father or grandparents who’ve had most cancers or continual coronary heart issues. The younger youngsters in these conditions most likely ought to get vaccinated to chop off the chain of transmission earlier than it reaches those that are susceptible.

Advertisement

The children with these higher-risk well being circumstances should get vaccinated too to guard themselves, specialists say.

Why does anybody get vaccinated?

Principally, to guard ourselves. But additionally to guard one another.

The extra individuals who get vaccinated, the extra safety there’s for essentially the most susceptible amongst us. For lots of people, it could be value working a small threat of a vaccination facet impact — even one like myocarditis — to assist defend a classmate or grandparent.

One factor is obvious: Youngsters needs to be protected

Right here’s the very last thing value saying about grown-ups: They love their little children, and — no shock right here — will defend them fiercely in opposition to any hurt. That’s why some adults who’ve been vaccinated in opposition to COVID-19 themselves would possibly want extra data earlier than they’d get their youngsters vaccinated, whereas others take their children straight to the pediatrician for his or her first dose.

It’s difficult.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

Published

on

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week set maximum levels for lead in baby foods such as jarred fruits and vegetables, yogurts and dry cereal, part of an effort to cut young kids’ exposure to the toxic metal that causes developmental and neurological problems.

The agency issued final guidance that it estimated could reduce lead exposure from processed baby foods by about 20% to 30%. The limits are voluntary, not mandatory, for food manufacturers, but they allow the FDA to take enforcement action if foods exceed the levels.

It’s part of the FDA’s ongoing effort to “reduce dietary exposure to contaminants, including lead, in foods to as low as possible over time, while maintaining access to nutritious foods,” the agency said in a statement.

Consumer advocates, who have long sought limits on lead in children’s foods, welcomed the guidance first proposed two years ago, but said it didn’t go far enough.

“FDA’s actions today are a step forward and will help protect children,” said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, the agency took too long to act and ignored important public input that could have strengthened these standards.”

Advertisement

The new limits on lead for children younger than 2 don’t cover grain-based snacks such as puffs and teething biscuits, which some research has shown contain higher levels of lead. And they don’t limit other metals such as cadmium that have been detected in baby foods.

The FDA’s announcement comes just one week after a new California law took effect that requires baby food makers selling products in California to provide a QR code on their packaging to take consumers to monthly test results for the presence in their product of four heavy metals: lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium.

The change, required under a law passed by the California Legislature in 2023, will affect consumers nationwide. Because companies are unlikely to create separate packaging for the California market, QR codes are likely to appear on products sold across the country, and consumers everywhere will be able to view the heavy metal concentrations.

Although companies are required to start printing new packaging and publishing test results of products manufactured beginning in January, it may take time for the products to hit grocery shelves.

The law was inspired by a 2021 congressional investigation that found dangerously high levels of heavy metals in packaged foods marketed for babies and toddlers. Baby foods and their ingredients had up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to five times the mercury level that the U.S. allows to be present in bottled or drinking water, the investigation found.

Advertisement

There’s no safe level of lead exposure for children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The metal causes “well-documented health effects,” including brain and nervous system damage and slowed growth and development. However, lead occurs naturally in some foods and comes from pollutants in air, water and soil, which can make it impossible to eliminate entirely.

The FDA guidance sets a lead limit of 10 parts per billion for fruits, most vegetables, grain and meat mixtures, yogurts, custards and puddings and single-ingredient meats. It sets a limit of 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables and for dry infant cereals. The guidance covers packaged processed foods sold in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes.

Jaclyn Bowen, executive director of the Clean Label Project, an organization that certifies baby foods as having low levels of toxic substances, said consumers can use the new FDA guidance in tandem with the new California law: The FDA, she said, has provided parents a “hard and fast number” to consider a benchmark when looking at the new monthly test results.

But Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, called the FDA limits “virtually meaningless because they’re based more on industry feasibility and not on what would best protect public health.” A product with a lead level of 10 parts per billion is “still too high for baby food. What we’ve heard from a lot of these manufacturers is they are testing well below that number.”

The new FDA guidance comes more than a year after lead-tainted pouches of apple cinnamon puree sickened more than 560 children in the U.S. between October 2023 and April 2024, according to the CDC.

Advertisement

The levels of lead detected in those products were more than 2,000 times higher than the FDA’s maximum. Officials stressed that the agency doesn’t need guidance to take action on foods that violate the law.

Aleccia writes for the Associated Press. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Continue Reading

Science

NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration

Published

on

NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration

Anyone hoping for a clear path forward this year for NASA’s imperiled Mars Sample Return mission will have to wait a little longer.

The agency has settled on two potential strategies for the first effort to bring rock and soil from another planet back to Earth for study, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said Tuesday: It can either leverage existing technology into a simpler, cheaper craft or turn to a commercial partner for a new design.

But the final decision on the mission’s structure — or whether it should proceed at all — “is going to be a function of the new administration,” Nelson said. President-elect Donald Trump will take office Jan. 20.

“I don’t think we want the only [Mars] sample return coming back on a Chinese spacecraft,” Nelson said, referencing a rival mission that Beijing has in the works. “I think that the [Trump] administration will certainly conclude that they want to proceed. So what we wanted to do was to give them the best possible options so that they can go from there.”

Advertisement

The call also contained words of encouragement for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, which leads the embattled mission’s engineering efforts.

“To put it really bluntly, JPL is our Mars center in NASA science,” said Nicky Fox, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate. “They are the people who landed us on Mars, together with our industry partners. So they will be moving forward, regardless of which path, with a key role in the Mars Sample Return.”

In April, after an independent review found “near zero probability” of Mars Sample Return making its proposed 2028 launch date, NASA put out a request for alternative proposals to all of its centers and the private sector. JPL was forced to compete for what had been its own project.

The independent review board determined that the original design would probably cost up to $11 billion and not return samples to Earth until at least 2040.

“That was just simply unacceptable,” said Nelson, who paused the mission in late 2023 to review its chances of success.

Advertisement

Ensuing cuts to the mission’s budget forced a series of layoffs at JPL, which let go of 855 employees and 100 on-site contractors in 2024.

The NASA-led option that Nelson suggested Tuesday includes several elements from the JPL proposal, according to a person who reviewed the documents. This leaner, simpler alternative will cost between $6.6 billion and $7.7 billion, and will return the samples by 2039, he said. A commercial alternative would probably cost $5.8 billion to $7.1 billion.

Nelson, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Florida, will step down as head of the space agency when Trump takes office. Trump has nominated as his successor Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who performed the first private space walk, who must be confirmed by the Senate.

NASA has not had any conversations with Trump’s transition team about Mars Sample Return, Nelson said. How the new administration will prioritize the project is not yet clear.

“It’s very uncertain how the new administration will go forward,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy for the Planetary Society, a Pasadena nonprofit that promotes space research. “Cancellation is obviously still on the table. … It’s hard to game this out.”

Advertisement

Planetary scientists have identified Mars Sample Return as their field’s highest priority in the last three decadal surveys, reports that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine prepare every 10 years in order to advise NASA.

Successfully completing the mission is “key for the nation’s leadership in space science,” said Bethany L. Ehlmann, a planetary scientist at Caltech in Pasadena. “I hope the incoming administrator moves forward decisively to select a plan and execute. There are extraordinary engineers at JPL and NASA industry partners eager and able to get to work to make it happen.”

Continue Reading

Science

Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate

Published

on

Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate

Night fell as the two scientists got to work, unfurling long nets off the end of their boat. The jungle struck up its evening symphony: the sweet chittering of insects, the distant bellowing of monkeys, the occasional screech of a kite. Crocodiles lounged in the shallows, their eyes glinting when headlamps were shined their way.

Across the water, cargo ships made dark shapes as they slid between the seas.

The Panama Canal has for more than a century connected far-flung peoples and economies, making it an essential artery for global trade — and, in recent weeks, a target of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s expansionist designs.

But of late the canal has been linking something else, too: the immense ecosystems of the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The two oceans have been separated for some three million years, ever since the isthmus of Panama rose out of the water and split them. The canal cut a path through the continent, yet for decades only a handful of marine fish species managed to migrate through the waterway and the freshwater reservoir, Lake Gatún, that feeds its locks.

Advertisement

Then, in 2016, Panama expanded the canal to allow supersize ships, and all that started to change.

In less than a decade, fish from both oceans — snooks, jacks, snappers and more — have almost entirely displaced the freshwater species that were in the canal system before, scientists with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama have found. Fishermen around Lake Gatún who rely on those species, chiefly peacock bass and tilapia, say their catches are growing scarce.

Researchers now worry that more fish could start making their way through from one ocean to the other. And no potential invader causes more concern than the venomous, candy-striped lionfish. They are known to inhabit Panama’s Caribbean coast, but not the eastern Pacific. If they made it there through the canal, they could ravage the defenseless local fish, just as they’ve done in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

Already, marine species are more than occasional visitors in Lake Gatún, said Phillip Sanchez, a fisheries ecologist with the Smithsonian. They’re “becoming the dominant community,” he said. They’re “pushing everything else out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending