Connect with us

Community

Study Finds Hesitancy Among Parents, Caregivers To Vaccinate Children Against COVID-19

The study of 971 ParentsTogether members also found discrepancies in vaccine hesitancy by race and income level.

Published

on

Less than two-thirds of parents and caregivers would vaccinate their children against COVID-19 once the vaccine is approved for pediatric use, according to a study released last week.

  The study, conducted by the family advocacy group ParentsTogether, found that 70% of parents said they would “probably or definitely” get the COVID-19 vaccine or have already been vaccinated. 

  However, just 58% of those same parents and caregivers said they would vaccinate their children once state and federal public health experts determine the vaccine is safe for children under age 16.

  The study of 971 ParentsTogether members also found discrepancies in vaccine hesitancy by race and income level.

  According to ParentsTogether, just over 20% of Native American and Indigenous parents, 15% of white parents, 13% of Hispanic parents and less than 10% of Asian American and Pacific Islander parents said they would not vaccinate their children.

  Among Black parents, 26% of respondents said they would not vaccinate their children, the most of any racial demographic.

  In addition, families and caregivers of color were 70% more likely than their white counterparts to say they’re “not sure” about their children getting vaccinated. 

  The study also found that 23% of families with an annual household income of less than $35,000 were hesitant about vaccinating their children while 8% of families with incomes over $75,000 said the same. 

  ParentsTogether Co-Founder and Co-Director Bethany Robertson argued the results of the survey showed the need for informative community outreach about the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine before the vaccines are approved for pediatric use, likely later this year.

  “We have to make sure that the pandemic’s unequal impact on communities of color and low-income families doesn’t get repeated when it comes to vaccinating children against COVID-19,” Robertson said.

  ParentsTogether’s study, released Wednesday, came the same week that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced that its two-dose vaccine was found to be safe and 100% effective among children ages 12 to 15.

  The biotechnology company Moderna, which also developed a two-dose vaccine, is currently studying its efficacy among children younger than 16. 

  Pfizer officials hope to request emergency use authorization for the 12-15 age group in the coming weeks, with the goal of vaccinating the children in that group by the time school starts in the fall. 

  ParentsTogether’s study found that vaccine hesitancy was relatively soft among respondents, and due more to uncertainty and a lack of information than hardline opposition. 

  Responding to parents and caregivers raised concerns about short- and long-term side effects as well as the speed of the COVID-19 vaccine’s development.

  Moderna and Pfizer, who developed the first two vaccines available on the market, got them to the public in under a year due in part to advances in the use of genetic material called messenger RNA, or mRNA.

  Vaccine hesitancy was also significantly weaker among respondents who knew someone who had already been vaccinated. Roughly 44% of responding parents and caregivers said they would vaccinate their children and knew someone who had already been vaccinated. 

  Comparatively, just 22% of parents who did not know anyone else who has been vaccinated said they would definitely vaccinate their children. 

  “We need to start the conversation with parents now, to build trust and understanding about how getting kids vaccinated against COVID-19 protects their health, their family’s health, and the health of our communities,” Robertson said.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of January 15 – 21, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of January 15 – 21, 2025

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of January 8 – 14, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of January 8 – 14, 2025

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

#NNPA BlackPress

Supreme Court Decision Confirms Convicted Felon Will Assume Presidency

NNPA NEWSWIRE — In a 5-4 ruling, the court stated that Trump’s concerns could “be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal” and emphasized that the burden of sentencing was “relatively insubstantial” given that Trump will not face prison time. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority, with four conservative justices dissenting.

Published

on

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s emergency request to block criminal proceedings in his New York hush money case, ensuring that a sentencing hearing will proceed as scheduled on Friday. The decision makes it official that, on January 20, for the first time in its history, the United States will inaugurate a convicted felon as its president.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court stated that Trump’s concerns could “be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal” and emphasized that the burden of sentencing was “relatively insubstantial” given that Trump will not face prison time. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority, with four conservative justices dissenting.

Trump was convicted in May for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in a state criminal case, particularly before all appeals in state courts were exhausted.

Trump’s legal team claimed the sentencing process would interfere with his transition to power and argued that evidence introduced during the trial included official actions protected under the Supreme Court’s prior ruling granting former presidents immunity for official conduct. Merchan, the New York judge who presided over the trial, ruled in December that the evidence presented was unrelated to Trump’s duties as president.

Prosecutors dismissed Trump’s objections, stating that the sentencing would take less than an hour and could be attended virtually. They said the public interest in proceeding to sentencing outweighed the President-elect’s claims of undue burden.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the four dissenting justices, confirmed speaking to Trump by phone on Wednesday. Alito insisted the conversation did not involve the case, though the call drew criticism given his previous refusals to recuse himself from politically sensitive matters.

The sentencing hearing is set for Friday at 9:30 a.m. in Manhattan. As the nation moves closer to an unprecedented inauguration, questions about the implications of a convicted felon assuming the presidency remain.

“No one is above the law,” Bragg said.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.