Well it doesn't help when outlets like the NY Times have been subtly questioning vaccination in younger kids and are now openly doing so. Specifically when David Leonhardt does their morning news letter. I don't know if anyone had a chance to read his take this morning. Ultimately every expert he asks in the US says "yes, if my kids were age 5-11, I would absolutely get them vaccinated right away." Even though their risk from disease is much lower than the risk for adults, it's significant enough, the burden of disease is high enough in the US, that it's worth the lower risks of very rare vaccination side effects. And yet Leonhardt also says "Should young children be vaccinated? I know some readers will recoil at the mention of that question, but I think it’s a mistake to treat it as unmentionable. There is not the scientific consensus about vaccinating children that there is about adults." There is scientific consensus in the US. I just had a meeting with 10,000+ front line pediatricians and our expert advisors and panels who unanimously recommended that those who are 5-11 be vaccinated once approved. I get that there is not international consensus, as nats80 has pointed out in the UK. But the risk/benefit balance is different in the US compared to other countries (as Leonhardt even shows in a graph comparing child hospitalization risk in US vs UK). The US is not the UK, or any other affluent country. We have the lowest adult vaccination rate of privileged and wealthy countries. We have the least public health protective measures in place. And we have horribly inequitable access to health care. He is not doing the medical community any favors with his spin on the medical information available regarding vaccines, and I think many pro-vaccine liberal readers could potentially walk away from that newsletter like, oh, wait, maybe I should wait or think about this more. As far as reporters covering science and medicine go he is very good. But he's also not perfect and as I've mentioned before he has had some grossly incorrect and misleading statements or interpretations of medical studies and has not corrected them. His agenda all along has been to keep kids in school. And that is GREAT. I agree most (not all) kids do better socially, emotionally, and academically with in person learning vs virtual. The risk from COVID infection in kids is much much lower than the risk in adults and the benefits of in person school far outweigh those risks. So I'm glad that he has advocated for kids in that way, and has tried to help reduce parental fear and anxiety so that kids can continue to do the things they need to do to learn and thrive. But I'm not happy about how he's misrepresented medical consensus in pediatrics in the US.That is so incredibly sad.