The death of a young woman after a vaccination is a terrible tragedy. Any word, any comment, even any opinion should not be entitled to asylum. The only thing that can and must be done is to try to understand what it can teach us to decide how to proceed from now on.
The opportunity to propose the anti-Covid vaccine to the very young, in particular AstraZeneca, the subject of discussion for some time by various exponents of the scientific world. It would be idle to report the different positions here.
What everyone is presumed to agree on is that those who choose to get vaccinated must always be protected. Camilla’s case undoubtedly draws attention to this point, even without necessarily going into the merits of the story: was the autoimmune disease declared during the anamnesis? Was that disease a critical risk factor? Questions to be answered not only for Camilla and her family but also for those called to set up vaccination policies and strategies.
Answers that are also indispensable to avoid dangerous simplifications.
Reiterated that a life is priceless, it appears painful but necessary to look at the overall picture, which tells us, for example, that since the vaccination campaign began the number of deaths from Covid in our country passed from about 520 per day on average in the second week of January, to just over 60 in the second week of June. If we then broaden our gaze to the world we can realize how these vaccines are protecting many hundreds of millions of people.
It is not a question of celebrating them whatever, for an uncritical trust in scientific progress, it is a question of take note of the data. Of course, today it is more difficult, but you have to have the strength to do it.
And necessary do not lose confidence when we see that strategies change along the way, as in the case of the choice to do the second booster dose with a vaccine other than the first. a decision that has a scientific rationale, regardless of Camilla’s case. Viral vector vaccines, in fact, need an information-carrying virus that serves to produce the protein against which to manufacture antibodies, and it is possible that in some cases the organism, sensitized to this harmless virus, synthesizes antibodies also against of it, neutralizing it in subsequent administrations.
This does not mean that these vaccines are ineffective, far from it, e the possible second dose with an RNA vaccine does not mean that there are those who are wrong and now he’s trying to run for cover: it was something that had been thought about for some time, however.
In this case, there are no mistakes to admit, rather knowing how to modulate the interventions based on the information that gradually becomes available both from the laboratories and from the real world.
It should be remembered that since the pandemic began, everyone has had to try to understand how to navigate an unknown sea. This navigation for has led to incredible results and others will bring. The technologies developed for these vaccines, in particular those with RNA, will probably reverberate in many other sectors and it is not too dangerous to think that we could be at the beginning of a new era in medicine.
It is painful to have to remember all this now, because there is nothing as painful, unnatural and inhuman as crying for a child. Nonetheless necessary, thinking about how many lives these vaccines have saved and will save.
And what to suggest to the many parents who were wondering and even more now, whether to vaccinate their children or not? Scientists of indisputable experience and stature have explained, also in this journal, the reasons for this decision. What can be said is important to read up on reliable sources, talk to your doctor, pediatrician, and then together with the kids, to make a decision that is, in one sense or another, informed and mature.