The NIH director was appointed by Trump, which came with a pretty strong anti-mask, anti-vaxx, and general ‘covid was a hoax’ sort of baggage, so he is unfortunately not that credible.
There is a study that correlates to the ages he specifies, but the conclusion is that the risks inflicted by the vaccine were still lower than the risks of COVID itself even for that age group, but no matter how they sliced it the risks either way for the age group was minimal, neither the vaccinne nor COVID were too risky overall. Pre-vaccine chicken pox was deadlier to kids than COVID was to that age group, and we didn’t consider that to be particularly risky, mostly worth vaccinating due to heading off the chances for shingles later.
The NIH director was appointed by Trump, which came with a pretty strong anti-mask, anti-vaxx, and general ‘covid was a hoax’ sort of baggage, so he is unfortunately not that credible.
There is a study that correlates to the ages he specifies, but the conclusion is that the risks inflicted by the vaccine were still lower than the risks of COVID itself even for that age group, but no matter how they sliced it the risks either way for the age group was minimal, neither the vaccinne nor COVID were too risky overall. Pre-vaccine chicken pox was deadlier to kids than COVID was to that age group, and we didn’t consider that to be particularly risky, mostly worth vaccinating due to heading off the chances for shingles later.
Gotcha thanks for the info, yeah I don’t follow politics too much so was unaware the director was appointed by trump and came in with that baggage.
Wish Huberman had specified that in the caption