There’s a TV commercial that takes place in a diner. A waitress slips and falls to the floor with a thud. Immediately, a woman customer jumps up and announces: “It’s okay. I’ve got this.” A man in a nearby booth asks: “Are you a doctor?” “Negative,” she answers. “I just watch a ton of medical dramas on Sling TV.” She leans in over the waitress for a moment, then announces “Good news. Her kidneys are beating. I need tweezers, rubbing alcohol, and a Western omelette.”
It’s very funny if you’re willing to embrace the new American reality, where everyone is convinced they’re an expert. And in this universe, where Donald Trump still thinks he’s President, why not embrace the possibility that as long as her kidneys are beating and her new doctor scores that Western omelette, the waitress will soon be fine and dandy.
We’re living in an upside-down world. COVID vaccines, which, after billions of doses, have proven remarkably effective in lessening the severity of the disease, limiting hospitalizations and the necessity for ICU treatment, and diminishing deaths are somehow imagined to be more dangerous than a disease which has killed more than 900,000 of us.
And so it is that whether or not to vaccinate is open to debate. And when it comes to setting public policy for a town, a state, or the nation, every personal opinion now strangely seems worth the weight of every other. As if vaccine policy and mask mandates are not a matter of science, requiring expertise, a thorough checking and re-checking of the ever-changing data. As if podcaster Joe Rogan’s off-the-cuff opinion is equal to the decades-long experience of Anthony Fauci, studying and fighting infectious diseases all over the world, or of doctors and nurses on the front lines actually treating real patients who are suffering from a real disease. Yet, I get the impulse. Rogan was a pretty damn good host of TV’s “Fear Factor,” so why not let him hook everyone on Ivermectin. What’s the worst it can do, except maybe kill you.
Recently the whole issue of COVID came home for me. I watched hours of vaccination discussions at the December 8, 2021 meeting of the Berkshire Hills Regional School Committee and two Great Barrington Board of Health meetings on December 9, 2021 and January 11, 2022.
The meetings revolved around the desire of the Berkshire Hills Regional School District (BHRSD), the School Committee, and Superintendent Peter Dillon to revise a COVID policy for our schools. In November, Dillon reached out to the Great Barrington Board of Health for guidance. They were considering whether a vaccine mandate made sense, and investigated two different policies adopted at two different school districts. One would have required vaccination, which is where the Great Barrington Board of Health would come in, the only Great Barrington agency with the authority to add the COVID vaccine to the list of vaccines required to attend school. The other policy would encourage vaccination, but would not exclude the unvaccinated from attending, although they couldn’t participate in after-school extracurricular activities, including sports.
In fact, the Great Barrington Board of Health delayed responding. And while he had initially favored the second approach, Superintendent Dillon explained how “after getting a lot of feedback on this … the more I felt uncomfortable around excluding students from extracurricular activities. I am amending my proposed policy to say that unvaccinated students must participate in weekly pool testing to participate in any extracurricular activities.”
All three meetings included public comments, and as I quickly re-learned people are fond of reminding everyone that “this is America,” that choosing to get vaccinated or remain unvaccinated is a right. And while I listened to many make that point, I was reminded of the Sling TV faux doctor, and the difference between normal times and emergencies, when we’re talking life or death. When one person’s exercise of personal privilege could easily endanger the health and safety of others.
I found myself thinking that this was one of those times when a new standard must prevail. When minority rights ought to take a back seat to protecting the well-being of the far larger majority. As for the basic right to choose, I thought why not let people follow their conscience and remain unprotected in their own homes and businesses, but limit their interactions with those who very much want to protect themselves and others. Yes, let’s make the sensible and honorable choice to respect the well-being of the larger community. And let me go so far as to say I believe it is incumbent on educators and the Great Barrington Board of Health, who have chosen to accept an added burden and significant responsibility, to recognize that this is one time when they should be willing to absorb the anger and wrath of the clearly outspoken and mobilized minority as they bravely and actively protect the public health.
Let me explain where I’m coming from. While we recognize the right of Americans to drink alcohol, we still criminalize the act of driving drunk. We’ve recently lived through the insistence of many not to wear seat-belts, but got to the point where an analysis of unnecessary deaths convinced us to mandate their use and ticket offenders. For many millions, their right to smoke cigarettes anywhere and everywhere was paramount, but we gained an appreciation of the dangers of second-hand smoke and prohibited smoking in many public places.
I’m reminded of the America I grew up in and the fierce public debate, up to and including the 1950s and ’60s, pitting personal freedom against social responsibility. You might say the issue for both sides was stark, black and white, even. White people in the South and even parts of the North wanted the right to live in white neighborhoods, rent to whites, socialize with white friends, send their white kids to white schools and eat in restaurants far from black people. It was their right as Americans, wasn’t it? And hadn’t they bent over backwards and compromised enough to allow blacks to ride in the back of bus, in the baggage car at the end of the train, sit in a designated section of the balcony in movie theaters. They even had their own baseball league. Personal choice. The freedom to live one’s own life, make one’s own choices.
Sometimes the exercise of one’s personal rights severely restricts and compromises the rights of others. You might even say racism is a disease. As for restricting and impacting the lives of others, our hospitals are filled with the unvaccinated, while thousands of people who got vaccinated but need medical care are waitlisted and go untreated. The unvaccinated are putting enormous strain on our hospitals, our already exhausted hospital staff, nurses, and doctors. None of these issues is academic when it comes to COVID, a disease that as of February 11, 2022 has infected 408,959,299 people worldwide, 77, 652,197 Americans, and killed 918,451. It’s a disease that here in Berkshire County continues to inflict damage, infecting 1 in 6 of us, killing 388 of us (1 in 323).
While cases may be falling — and that could easily be a result of an inaccurate count, as many positive home tests never make it into the state database — deaths continue at a high rate.
As for misinformation, let me start with the myths about Ivermectin, a drug often used to kill worms and parasites in livestock and sometimes effective in humans when used in controlled doses by medical professionals if you have roundworms. According to medical experts, including the drug company that manufactures and profits from it, at the very best, Ivermectin provides negligible help when it comes to treating COVID, while at its worst causes potentially dangerous side-effects.
A recent review of 23 randomized clinical trials of Ivermectin, including 3,349 patients found that Ivermectin “did not show a statistically significant effect on survival … or hospitalizations … Ivermectin displayed a borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care.” Still, even today patients and family members insist that doctors abandon their chosen and successful treatment methods for COVID hospitalizations and substitute Ivermectin. And some doctors and nurses have been harassed and physically abused for refusing to administer Ivermectin, https://esupporthealth.com/ivermectin-stromectol/.
Because its use is growing, reaching more than 88,000 prescriptions in the week ending August 13, 2021, the CDC had to issue this advisory:
“Adverse effects associated with ivermectin misuse and overdose are increasing, as shown by a rise in calls to poison control centers reporting overdoses and more people experiencing adverse effects … clinical effects of ivermectin overdose include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Overdoses are associated with hypotension and neurologic effects such as decreased consciousness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death. Ivermectin may potentiate the effects of other drugs that cause central nervous system depression such as benzodiazepines and barbiturates. [Emphasis added]
On February 2, 2022, USA Today noted: “doctors continued to prescribe it, and insurance companies continued to pay for it. A study published in JAMA Network this month estimated private and Medicare plans may have paid nearly $2.5 million for ivermectin prescriptions in the week of Aug. 13 alone.”
USA Today continues: “‘Most of us have really repudiated its use for COVID-19. It’s frustrating that people continue to prescribe it and direct people away from proven therapies’ … said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. ‘The fact is this has become more of a political crusade now rather than a scientific one,’ he said. ‘It’s out of the realm of scientific discussion.’ … ‘It’s disinformation. You’re failing to use proven therapies in favor of disproven therapies, and that’s wrong.’ Dr. Miriam Merad, director of the Precision Immunology Institute at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine, called the drug cocktail ‘terrifying’ and ‘frankly, dangerous.’”
USA Today tells us: “Dr. Benjamin Marble, a former ER doctor and founder of another COVID-19 telemedicine platform, says he and about 20 other doctors working for his site have written more than 100,000 ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19. The consultation is free, but after the prescriptions are sent, the site asks patients for a $125 donation. Before prescribing any medications, many of the doctors listed on the FLCCC’s [Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance] website charge patients a consultation fee of $50 to $300. “We’re trying to help as many people as we can,” said Marble, who is based in Florida.” [Emphasis added]
I’d like to talk about, as Dr. Adalja puts it, the growing displacement of scientific discussion and expertise with political ideology and personal conviction. At the BHRSD meeting and Board of Health meetings, several commenters suggested that the school administration’s willingness to consider a new vaccination policy might be motivated by money. Betraying a sense of obligation to the federal government, a desire to repay the Elementary and Secondary Emergency Education Relief Funds (ESSER) they received to help deal with the impact of COVID on teaching and learning. Recasting the decision to review vaccine policy and possibly considering a mandate as some kind of quid pro quo.
Given the significant numbers of cases the school community is dealing with, I found it particularly sad that some couldn’t or wouldn’t see their work as a legitimate concern for the health and safety of staff, faculty, the students and their families. A rational response to a real health problem.
One articulate student acknowledged their COVID reality during the January 13, 2022 meeting:
“Student Member Item(s) – J. Beadell – Last week as we returned from break, COVID was absolutely brutal. It was taking people out left and right. People were dropping like flies but I think hopefully, knock on wood, that we can say that in a few months, last week was probably the worst of it and hopefully we are on the other side of it. Pool testing was the absolute key. There really wasn’t anything else that got us through that and it is a testament to that and how thankful we are to have it. Tests were sparse throughout the county and the nation so for all of us to be able to come back from break and know that we had a PCR test through the school was a really amazing thing.”
Let me be clear. We can all be wrong. We can all convince ourselves and argue passionately even though we’re mistaken. About a particular memory and who did what to whom and when. About the best quarterback or the best way to way to make lasagna.
But when it comes to CCOVID-19 in February 2022, the stakes about what’s right and wrong couldn’t be higher. We all know that most people are tired of COVID. Tired of talking about it. Tired of the masks and talk of mandates and continuing restrictions. Not seeing friends and family with the usual regularity, the old ease. Of the constant concern and worry. And people exhausted by the subject are all the more susceptible to turning their backs on the inconvenient measures we need to take to minimize our risks.
I want to address some of the misconceptions that were shared during these discussions. The first is the often-cited notion that the COVID vaccines were rushed and that the technology itself is experimental and hardly tested. A Board of Health member made the following claim: “I think it has to be appreciated that these are novel technologies. They’re very promising but they’re also very new and they’re doing things – they’re affecting our immune systems in a way that we can’t appreciate because we don’t have the data – they’re not even been out a year and now they’ve been approved for emergency use for kids and as you said we want to look at what data is out there and from what I’ve seen and I read the data would seem to suggest that kids are at the lowest risk of COVID, normal health kids are at extremely low risk for this disease.”
First, as for the technology behind these vaccines, let me recommend “The Code Breaker” by Walter Isaacson, an in-depth and detailed look at the scientists around the world who have spent years investigating DNA and RNA and quickly turned their efforts to helping fight the Coronavirus. Two of the scientists Isaacson features, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, won the Nobel Prize in 2020.
As Isaacson notes, the most recent work with mRNA vaccines builds on decades of previous investigations: “It was fitting that a virus-fighting team would be led by a CRISPR pioneer. The gene-editing tool that Doudna and others developed in 2012 is based on a virus-fighting trick used by bacteria, which have been battling viruses for more than a billion years. In their DNA, bacteria develop clustered repeated sequences, known as CRISPRs, that can remember and then destroy viruses that attack them. In other words, it’s an immune system that can adapt itself to fight each new wave of viruses — just what we humans need in an era that has been plagued, as if we were still in the Middle Ages, by repeated viral epidemics.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explains the process, emphasizing how precise the testing regime is. Contrary to the prevailing misinformation, great effort is put into assuring the safety of these vaccines:
“Scientists have been working for many years to develop vaccines against coronaviruses, such as those that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is related to these other coronaviruses. The knowledge that was gained through past research on coronavirus vaccines helped speed up the initial development of the current COVID-19 vaccines.
“After initial development, vaccines go through three phases of clinical trials to make sure they are safe and effective. For other vaccines routinely used in the United States, the three phases of clinical trials are performed one at a time. During the development of COVID-19 vaccines, these phases overlapped to speed up the process so the vaccines could be used as quickly as possible to control the pandemic. No trial phases have been skipped. [Emphasis added]
“The clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have involved tens of thousands of volunteers of different ages, races, and ethnicities. Clinical trials for vaccines compare outcomes (such as how many people get sick) between people who are vaccinated and people who are not. Because COVID-19 continues to be widespread, the vaccine clinical trials have been conducted more quickly than if the disease were less common. Results from these trials have shown that COVID-19 vaccines are effective, especially against severe illness, hospitalization, and death. The clinical trials showed no serious safety concerns within 8 weeks following vaccination. This is an important milestone, as it is unusual for adverse effects caused by vaccines to appear after this amount of time. Now that COVID-19 vaccines are available to the public, CDC and FDA continue to monitor their safety and alert the public about health problems that are reported after vaccination.” [Emphasis added]
I was surprised to hear the suggestion on December 9, 2021 that the usual risk benefit analyses hadn’t been performed for the COVID vaccines: “a stratified risk analysis which has never been done, is never talked about, is always part of a normal protocol, vaccines are being developed for and distributed … people like Dr. Robert Malone have suggested that and I agree with him that this is the greatest experiment in human history, because never have we developed and deployed en masse a novel technology like this in the midst of an ongoing pandemic. We’ve never done this and the data is still coming in about not only how effective this is but what are the long-term implications.”
A stratified risk benefit analysis weighs the chances of someone dying from a disease or benefiting from treating for it, or in this case, getting vaccinated against it. The CDC routinely performs these tests and researchers routinely hold public sessions explaining their tests and presenting their data to other researchers, to doctors and the general public. An example, here’s the report from a recent CDC session: “COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults: Benefit-Risk Discussion” by Hannah Rosenblum, MD, July 22, 2021.
The CDC is constantly conducting risk benefit analyses on every aspect of the current vaccines. You can easily access their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports addressing “COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety.” The January 14, 2022 report examined “Effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA Vaccination Against Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Among Persons Aged 12–18 Years — United States, July–December 2021.”
Many critics of the COVID vaccines, including some at these Berkshire County meetings, often point to the CDC’s own reporting system, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), repeating the errors of several prominent anti-COVID vaccine skeptics, including Dr. Malone, who invariably frighten people. One board member stated: “I think that the adverse events from these vaccines … are not being focused on and are really being looked over and glossed over, and I think to the detriment of a lot of people who have suffered from them … I’m not in a position to say how common or rare they are but I do think they’re there are increasing signals that they’re not so small and so rare as is being asserted by some of the officials at the highest level.”
But the CDC explains how the VAERS process really works: “VAERS gives vaccine safety experts valuable information so they can assess possible vaccine safety concerns, including the new COVID-19 vaccines. It is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of health problems (also called ‘adverse events’) that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine … Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. The majority of reports to VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination have been non-serious adverse events.”
Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including patients, parents or caregivers, healthcare providers, and vaccine manufacturers. Very importantly, as a result: “VAERS reports alone generally cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. Some reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. VAERS reports often lack contextual information, such as total vaccinations given or information on unvaccinated groups for comparison. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they may be subject to biases. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.” [Emphasis added]
Some distort the data to claim that a great many people are being harmed by the COVID vaccines. There’s Steve Kirsch, the executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, which promotes antiviral medicines. Implying he’s associated with the FDA, he has inserted video of himself into a proceeding of the Food and Drug Administration’s 167th Meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. In fact, he was just one of many who took advantage of the FDA’s policy of allowing anyone to offer public comments.
On September 23, 2021, the Reuters news agency offered this Fact Check about Kirsch: “He makes a number of claims, including that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe and that they kill more people than they save, before estimating the number of deaths to be around 150,000.”
Reuters continues: “‘Firstly, Kirsch is not and has never been an FDA employee or member of the VRBPAC,’ the FDA told Reuters in an email. FDA’s spokesperson told Reuters: ‘the statements made by Mr. Kirsch during the open public hearing portion of the meeting were not based in science and go against FDA’s public health mission … FDA strongly disagrees with the analysis Mr. Kirsch put forth during the VRBPAC meeting, as we believe the data from VAERS that he referenced were not properly interpreted.”
Reuters explains that “Of more than 380 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S. up to Sept. 13, VAERS received 7,653 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who were vaccinated. Healthcare providers are required to report any death after vaccination to VAERS even if there is no indication it was caused by the vaccine and reported incidents are not evidence of a causal link, according to CDC guidance. It says reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare.”
“An analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink that monitored more than 10 million people, including 6.2 million vaccinated, found no vaccine-outcome association met the requirement to signal serious adverse effects, including death … Vaccine Safety Datalink is a vaccine-monitoring effort by the CDC and nine healthcare organisations … The FDA said: ‘A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.’” [Emphasis added]
One of the doctors often cited, and mentioned at the Board of Health Meeting is Dr. Robert Malone, who offers the often-refuted claim to have been the major force behind the development of mRNA vaccines. In a December 18, 2021 interview about the COVID vaccines, Dr. Malone stated: “I do not regard them as safe, particularly in children. The risk benefit ratio is completely upside down. More children will die from these vaccines than will be saved. The data are quite clear … I have not said they shouldn’t be used, I’ve said they should be reserved. We should not have universal vaccination. We should absolutely not have vaccine mandates. That is in my opinion illegal and grossly immoral. You know based on the Nuremberg Code, the common rule of the Helsinki Accord, everything else there we do not have adequate disclosure.” [Emphasis added]
He went on to declare that “On average, between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 3,000 children that receive these vaccines will be hospitalized in the short term with vaccine-caused damage … These genetic vaccines can damage your children. They may damage their brains, their heart, their immune system and their ability to have children in the future. Many of these damages cannot be repaired.”
A February 1, 2022 article by Factcheck.org offered a convincing rebuttal:
“The approved and authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. are effective at preventing severe disease, and experts say the benefits of vaccination for children outweigh any known or potential risk. But social media users have shared video of Dr. Robert Malone misleadingly asserting that the COVID-19 vaccines are ‘not working’ and claiming without evidence that many children ‘will be hospitalized’ and may experience brain damage and infertility due to the vaccines.
“Overall, the CDC says that COVID-19 vaccination is safe for children and recommends the shots for anyone 5 years or older. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases also has advised parents to vaccinate their eligible children against the disease.
“To be clear, none of the COVID-19 vaccines are capable of changing someone’s DNA, as Malone’s use of the phrase “genetic vaccines” could lead some to believe. The CDC has explained on its website that neither the mRNA vaccines, nor viral vector vaccines, such as the one made by Johnson & Johnson, ‘change or interact with your DNA in any way.’
“Experts also have said that infertility has not been shown to be a side effect of vaccination. ‘There is no evidence that the vaccine can lead to loss of fertility,’ the American Academy of Pediatrics says on its FAQ page about COVID-19 vaccination. ‘While fertility was not specifically studied in the clinical trials of the vaccine, no loss of fertility has been reported among trial participants or among the millions who have received the vaccines since their authorization, and no signs of infertility appeared in animal studies. Similarly, there is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine affects puberty.’”
Myocarditis in children is often mentioned at these meetings, and its incidence and effects distorted. Factcheck.org offered this February 1, 2022 report: “A study published in the journal Circulation in early December reported on 140 episodes of confirmed or suspected myocarditis in 139 adolescents and young adults ages 12 to 20. The authors found that more than 90% of patients were male, the median patient age was 15.8 years and the most common symptom, chest pain, was experienced by over 99% of patients. Also, nearly 19% of patients were admitted to the ICU; the median hospital stay was two days. There were no reported deaths.
“The authors said that ‘most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis’ in that age group ‘have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms.’ ‘We feel that it is very important to have children vaccinated for COVID-19,’ one of the study’s lead authors, Dr. Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiology specialist at Boston Children’s Hospital, who said: “That’s because myocarditis from the vaccination, and other vaccine-related complications, are really rare, and much more rare than the more serious kinds of complications that can happen after infection with COVID-19 itself.” [Emphasis added] A clear example of risk/benefit.
Meanwhile, another study directed by Dr. Adrienne Randolph, a critical care physician at Boston Children’s Hospital emphasizes the importance of vaccination for older tweens and teens. “It looked at vaccination status in two groups of 12- to 18-year-olds: 445 who were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 777 who were hospitalized but didn’t have COVID-19. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, it showed how serious COVID-19 can be. “Overall, 40 percent of those hospitalized with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU, 29 percent needed life support, and 2 percent died. More than 95 percent of those hospitalized and 99 percent of those needing life support had not been fully vaccinated. The team estimates that vaccination was 94 percent effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations and 98 percent effective in preventing both ICU admissions and the need for life support.” [Emphasis added]
For those younger than 12, the CDC’s Dec. 31 study on vaccine safety said “myocarditis among children aged 5–11 years appears rare,” as there were only 11 verified reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, after administration of approximately 8 million vaccine doses. In addition, “in an active vaccine safety surveillance system, no chart-confirmed reports of myocarditis were observed during the 1–21 days or 1–42 days after 333,000 vaccine doses were administered to children of the same age,” the paper said.” [Emphasis added]
In fact, rather than hide information as some believe, the CDC publishes updates and offers on-going analysis about reports of adverse effects from vaccinations, specifically addressing incidences of Anaphylaxis, Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and incidences of diseases about which many have made inaccurate claims, Myocarditis and Pericarditis.
Meanwhile, a wide variety of medical experts have weighed in and contradicted Dr. Malone. Dr. David Chun, a pediatric cardiologist at the Children’s Heart Institute, at the Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital in Long Beach, California has written: “As a pediatric cardiologist, one of things I hear most – since pediatric COVID-19 vaccines have been made available – when parents and their child visit us in our Children’s Heart Institute Outpatient Clinic is, ‘What are the chances of the COVID-19 vaccine, giving my child myocarditis?’ And the answer I tell them each time, ‘Extremely low – much, much lower than your child getting COVID-19, which can result in heart issues.’ [Emphasis added]
“As a parent it’s completely normal to feel concerned about any vaccine side effect your child may have. But, it’s important to weigh the risk of side effects against the risk of infection. With COVID-19, children and teens have a much greater chance of being infected with COVID-19 that results in a heart issue, than experiencing myocarditis as a side effect of the vaccine. In addition, children who were vaccinated against COVID-19, if they were to get myocarditis – studies show that post-vaccine-related myocarditis is much more mild than classic myocarditis.”
Meanwhile, as several commenters before the BHRSD and Board of Health spread the myth that children rarely get COVID, there is in reality a recent and frightening increase in cases. A report from the American Academy of Pediatrics states: “Reported COVID-19 cases among children have spiked dramatically in 2022 during the Omicron variant surge, over 3.5 million child cases were reported in January. For the week ending January 27th, over 808,000 additional child COVID-19 cases were reported, down from the peak level of 1,150,000 reported the week ending January 20th. However, child cases this week remained extremely high, triple the peak level of the Delta surge in 2021.
“Over 11.4 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic; nearly 2 million of these cases have been added in the past 2 weeks. For the 25th week in a row child COVID-19 cases are above 100,000. Since the first week of September, there have been almost 6.4 million additional child cases.” [Emphasis added]
And as the CDC points out, there are serious dangers for children who come down with COVID: “As of October 2021, children ages 5 through 11 years have experienced more than 8,300 COVID-19 related hospitalizations and nearly 100 deaths from COVID-19. In fact, COVID-19 ranks as one of the top 10 causes of death for children aged 5 through 11 years. Additionally, children can experience both short and long-term conditions after infection. Children who get infected with COVID-19 can also develop post-COVID conditions that can last for several weeks or longer and can also develop serious complications like multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) — a condition where different body parts become inflamed. From April 2020 to October 2021, more than 2,300 cases of MIS-C have been reported in children ages 5 through 11 years.”
As the Board of Health continued to discuss the wording for their response to BHRSD, one commenter had problems with: “the very last sentence on that page balancing individual rights with the needs of the community – I feel that, that could be a slippery scope as there are different people, that where the line is between individual rights and community rights and needs of the community – it’s very easy to put that too far into something like collectivism or even communism … [and] the middle paragraph with transmission of COVID-19 as rampant, as it recently is, there’s contention as to how rampant things are – I feel that that’s a really strong word that pushes parents and teachers – it introduces bias into the letter which I don’t think is the intention of the letter. I feel that is um as you now you guys are trying to be very neutral and um I just feel that that word probably isn’t appropriate for that.”
We’ve gotten to the point where just stating the facts, the reality of more than dozens of cases a day is considered “bias.” And where concern for the community is communism. If only Putin cared about community.
But it did feel to me that, in fact, the Board was trying to be neutral about a clear and present and continuing health emergency. Some odd version of See No COVID. Hear No COVID. Speak No COVID.
Thankfully, Rebecca Jurczyk, Great Barrington’s Health Agent, and Board member pediatrician Dr. Ruby Chang, who sees and treats patients and interacts with family members of those with COVID, appreciate how “pervasive” COVID is in our community. And, as Dr. Chang reminded everyone, COVID “is spreading without control … it’s just unbelievable and people are not sure where they’re getting it from, it’s just …it is rampant right now … [and] it’s not part of this but this disease has caused so much stress with parents, unbelievable pressure. It’s unbelievable how emotionally draining this has been for parents …” But quickly, another Board member cautioned that “here we are adding pressure – make a decision as soon as possible.”
Later Dr. Chang noted: “I think that if you have to use a less fearful word … I guess it could be taken as threatening or scary, but what we are dealing with is a surge … higher than we’re ever had before. You know I personally I’m scared. I’m scared because of what I’m seeing …so this is thirty-five years of treating children – this is unbelievable, so if anybody is scared, I’m scared OK I’m the first to say that … I’m not here to produce fear. My job is to calm and have logical conversations … so we could just write ‘with surging COVID-19 cases currently.”
I’ve experienced the surge. In just this last month, four people I know have gotten COVID. With varying seriousness of symptoms. They went to work with unvaccinated colleagues, traveled, and played tennis. And they got sick.
Here in Berkshire County, we can celebrate that as recently as January 3, 2022 we had 522 cases in one day, for a 7-day average of 166, but by February 11, 2022 the cases were down to 79, with a 7-day average of 92, with one death and a total of 388. But for some perspective about the rising and falling waves of COVID, let’s not forget that as recently as May 17, 2021 the number of cases was 5, with a 7-day average of 8, and a total of 285 deaths. Since then, 103 more of us have died in Berkshire County.
And while the case numbers go down, the danger remains:
Sadly, the final much-too-late letter from the Board of Health to BHRSD sounded to me like a press release from a politician determined not to alienate anyone.
“The Board of Health recommends that parents, if not already having done so, immediately seek education and advice from medical professionals in order to determine their child’s health risks and the most appropriate course of action. With COVID-19 surging in our community, we urge parents of school aged children to consider this matter as soon as possible. The Board of Health recognizes the importance of informed consent in regards to preventative measures. It is important that parents of school-aged children understand the risks and benefits of vaccination.
Understanding treatment options after infection may help with the ability to make a decision without compulsion. The Board of Health emphasizes the importance of continued efforts to implement public health measures such as; social distancing, staying home when sick, proper mask usage, and frequent hand washing.
“In conclusion, the Board of Health recommends that parents and legal guardians make a decision regarding the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible. This recommendation is in line with the goals of the Great Barrington Board of Health.”
Some of it barely make sense. Public health officials suggest that instead of doing everything possible to avoid getting COVID people should think about how to treat it? As if compulsion is more serious than a disease that’s already killed 388 of us.
Especially tepid considering the overwhelming difference in COVID cases and COVID deaths between the vaccinated and unvaccinated:
However much some people might want it to be, these are not ordinary times. The decision a person makes to go unvaccinated while still insisting to live and work and shop and congregate amongst us could easily have consequences they may never fully appreciate — unknowingly infecting many others.
And so it is that the Great Barrington Board of Health, in lieu of a sensible vaccine mandate, suggests that parents consider, and without their professional guidance, study the risks and benefits not so much of the virus but of vaccination. And, of course, seek advice from medical professionals. Leaving exactly who in Great Barrington to protect the public health. Leaving us with no mandate on vaccines or masks and susceptible to even more misinformation.
