We Debunk 5 Anti-Vax Myths About Kids’ COVID-19 Vaccines

Or more like “prebunk”.

Students listen to their teacher during their first day of transitional kindergarten at Tustin Ranch Elementary School in Tustin, CA. Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images)Paul Bersebach/MNG/Orange County Register/Getty Images

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

On Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee recommended that the agency authorize Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 5-11. That approval could come any day now—listen closely, and you may hear a collective sigh of relief emanating from millions of parents.

But not everyone is celebrating: Anti-vaccine activists are already planting seeds of doubt. Among disinformation experts, there’s a strategy called “prebunking”—basically, educating people about the kinds of rumors they can expect to encounter. It’s like, well, an immunization—but for disinformation. In that spirit, here are five claims that anti-vaxxers are already making, along with the reasons they’re wrong.

1. “Almost all kids who get severe cases of COVID-19 have pre-existing conditions, so we don’t need vaccines for healthy kids that age.”

Nope: About a third of kids hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and June 2021 had no underlying conditions. What’s more, the conditions that can increase a child’s risk of severe COVID-19 are relatively common: They include asthma (7 percent of kids), immune-system problems, premature birth (nearly 10 percent), and obesity (20 percent). This year, COVID 19 is the sixth leading cause of death among 5-11-year-olds.

2. “The kids’ trial wasn’t big enough to detect potential harmful effects from the vaccine.”

It’s true that the size of the Pfizer trial for kids ages 5-11 was small—around 2,268 people, compared to about 44,000 in the adult trial. But here’s some context: Among teens, the most common serious side effect was inflammation of the heart muscle, called myocarditis. Almost all cases of this condition resolved, and the risk of suffering from myocarditis as a result of COVID-19 infection was far greater. There weren’t any cases of myocarditis in the kids’ trial. One reason for this could be that the dose of the shot is lower, about a third of that given to teens and adults. But it’s reasonable to believe that if this condition does crop up, it will follow a similar pattern to what we observed among teens.

3. “Parents of vaccinated teens have reported many severe side effects to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the CDC/FDA/mainstream media/etc. is covering it up.”

This is a classic anti-vaccine talking point: Activists point to statistics from this government database as evidence that immunizations cause far more harms than are reported. The problem is that anyone can submit to VAERS, and the reports aren’t verified.

4. “Experts disagree about whether it’s a good idea to vaccinate kids.”

On Tuesday, when the FDA’s 18-person expert committee met to decide whether to recommend that the agency authorize the shot for kids ages 5-11, 17 experts said yes to the shot, and one abstained.

5. “The risk of severe side effects from the vaccine outweighs the risks of getting COVID-19 for this age group.”

If COVID-19 incidence were truly near zero, this would be true, epidemiologists have found. But save for in a few communities in the United States during a few weeks this past June, those conditions simply haven’t existed yet. Basing our vaccination decisions on a hypothetical optimistic scenario doesn’t make a lot of sense. And there’s good reason to believe that vaccine side effects will be uncommon: In the trial, only a handful of adverse events were reported—and none had anything to do with the vaccine. For example, in one case, a trial participant swallowed a penny (which is a side effect of, um, being a five-year-old).

There will be more claims that bubble up in the coming weeks. Be on the lookout for supposed miracle cures (think Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) that are touted as safer than vaccines and conspiracy theories about government control. Remember that preying on parents’ fear is a tactic in and of itself—and a remarkably effective one at that.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate