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The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date.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.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

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