FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Disgusted 12 to 16 years old vaccination UPDATE
Disgusted 12 to 16 years old vaccination UPDATE
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Parents will need to give their consent before pupils can have the jab – reports According to The Times, written consent from parents will be needed before their children are given a COVID jab." " In the same way that we have to give consent for a flu vaccination or for a teacher to administer paracetamol (or even hay-fever meds) on a school trip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are these teens disgusted with and why only the disgusted being offered the vaccine? " It wasn't my original post - but the other one closed at the 175 limit. Just saw an update to the story, so I posted it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Miss pc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers." I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers." Hopefully there will also be some form of appeal for the children who don’t want it if their parents are forcing it upon them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. Hopefully there will also be some form of appeal for the children who don’t want it if their parents are forcing it upon them. " i suspect it's the same form/test... One that says the child has the capacity to make an informed decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I presume that it was in one of the red tops then ? They only ever put the sensationalised crap out there and I’m sure that it’s just another non story just to sell papers
"telegraph irrc. But almost all papers are the same now ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. Hopefully there will also be some form of appeal for the children who don’t want it if their parents are forcing it upon them. i suspect it's the same form/test... One that says the child has the capacity to make an informed decision. " It would probably need to be tested in the family courts (which could take some time seeing how all courts are backed up). But the underlying rule is "in the best interest of the child". The second example might be harder to argue than the first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely disgusting! The state should be free to inject chemicals into children in secret lol!" Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers." There is already provision for situations like this. I have worked in schools and I know of at least 2 cases where parents refused to sign the consent form for their child to have the HPV vaccine but the child wanted it and was deemed of sound enough mind and maturity to make their own decision and was administered. I'm not exactly sure what the processes and criteria are as a wasn't directly involved but I do know but it does happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say "Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it. "
Saved me writing it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it. "Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?"I dont understand how that is relevant to my post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it. "Not sure having the state choosing what medical procedures a parents children have is a good road to go down. I imagine there will be a few edge cases but by and large kids will have a jab to go on a holiday so having another jab I'm sure wo t challenge too many of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?
I dont understand how that is relevant to my post."We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Not sure having the state choosing what medical procedures a parents children have is a good road to go down. I imagine there will be a few edge cases but by and large kids will have a jab to go on a holiday so having another jab I'm sure wo t challenge too many of them."I dont think you fully understand how it all works a child over the age of 11 can and does have a say in any medical treatment that they received as long as they are deemed capable and informed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?
I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.
We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant "You know full well there is no information on long term side effects because the vaccines have only been available for less than a year so why even ask? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?"No we don't, but we do have lots of information on the short term effects of not being vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?
I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.
We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant
You know full well there is no information on long term side effects because the vaccines have only been available for less than a year so why even ask?"You seem to be advocating for vaccinating children so I genuinely thought that you may have know something I didn't. I here to learn. Another question for you. What happens if a childis vaccinated against the will of their parents and develops and illness? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?
No we don't, but we do have lots of information on the short term effects of not being vaccinated."
I just find it strange that people want there to be an option for children to be able to opt out of having it but seem to be appalled that they might be able to opt in without consent to. If they are deemed mature enough to decide they don't want it then surely they are mature enough to decide they do want it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?
I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.
We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant
You know full well there is no information on long term side effects because the vaccines have only been available for less than a year so why even ask?
You seem to be advocating for vaccinating children so I genuinely thought that you may have know something I didn't. I here to learn.
Another question for you. What happens if a childis vaccinated against the will of their parents and develops and illness?"Exactly the same as already happens because children can all ready opt into having vaccinations against their parents consent this is not something that is new. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say
Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.
Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?
I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.
We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant
You know full well there is no information on long term side effects because the vaccines have only been available for less than a year so why even ask?
You seem to be advocating for vaccinating children so I genuinely thought that you may have know something I didn't. I here to learn.
Another question for you. What happens if a childis vaccinated against the will of their parents and develops and illness?
Exactly the same as already happens because children can all ready opt into having vaccinations against their parents consent this is not something that is new. ""Ecactly the same" meaning what? I asked because I'm curious and because I don't know what happens at present lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Panic over. Children (except further groups of identified at risk groups) aged 12-15 won't be given the vaccine. The risk to benefit ratio has been assessed by JCVI. BBC News - Not enough benefit to offer all teens Covid jabs https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58438669" Yep, kind of expected this as it was always going to be marginal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes." But that's not true that it's one in a million. 1 in 7 children have long covid after contracting the virus. People seem to think as long as you dont die or end up in hospital coverd isn't a problem but the hundreds of thousands the struggling with long covid tell a different story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes." Your point stands but a child under 14 has between 1 and 2 in million chance of death from covid and 1 in 50000 chance of ending up in ICU. I do agree the numbers don't point hugely to vaccinating children certainly under 14s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. Your point stands but a child under 14 has between 1 and 2 in million chance of death from covid and 1 in 50000 chance of ending up in ICU. I do agree the numbers don't point hugely to vaccinating children certainly under 14s. " But thats the whole point everyone keeps assuming if you dont die it doesn't mean it's not serious and that isn't the case. I'm not sure how I feel about children being vaccinated however I believe them and their parents should be given The Choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it " To right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it To right " Except the chief medical officer is still discussing whether to press ahead with vaccinating the under-15s anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it To right Except the chief medical officer is still discussing whether to press ahead with vaccinating the under-15s anyway." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it To right Except the chief medical officer is still discussing whether to press ahead with vaccinating the under-15s anyway." All so they have expanded the list of conditions that would enable a child to be offered the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also if it was one in a million children, there are estimated to be 12 million children in the uk under 16 so that would mean only 12 children have gotten sick with covid to the point they need hospital treatment however 5,830 have needed hospital treatment. " 5830 healthy children have not needed hospital treatment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also if it was one in a million children, there are estimated to be 12 million children in the uk under 16 so that would mean only 12 children have gotten sick with covid to the point they need hospital treatment however 5,830 have needed hospital treatment. 5830 healthy children have not needed hospital treatment " Look it up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly let’s put it simply do not risk a child’s life to save some one over 80, that’s the long and short of it sorry " Except the majority of people that are currently in hospital or on the 50. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. But that's not true that it's one in a million. 1 in 7 children have long covid after contracting the virus. People seem to think as long as you dont die or end up in hospital coverd isn't a problem but the hundreds of thousands the struggling with long covid tell a different story. " ** I didn't make those numbers up, it's what the data from the U.S shows and they have vaccinated teens. Check the figures on any major news site. There's no mention of deaths in those particular stats. Maybe here 1 in 7 children do get 'long covid' but throw us a legitimate source with those stats.... As a parent, I'd look at actual stats and discuss it with the child. Fortunately I don't have a child in this particular age bracket, My daughters are both 16+ and we're vaccinated already. My son has years yet before he reaches this age bracket. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. But that's not true that it's one in a million. 1 in 7 children have long covid after contracting the virus. People seem to think as long as you dont die or end up in hospital coverd isn't a problem but the hundreds of thousands the struggling with long covid tell a different story. ** I didn't make those numbers up, it's what the data from the U.S shows and they have vaccinated teens. Check the figures on any major news site. There's no mention of deaths in those particular stats. Maybe here 1 in 7 children do get 'long covid' but throw us a legitimate source with those stats.... As a parent, I'd look at actual stats and discuss it with the child. Fortunately I don't have a child in this particular age bracket, My daughters are both 16+ and we're vaccinated already. My son has years yet before he reaches this age bracket." OK you're legitimate sources are the NHS, ONS and public health England. The US stats may well be different but they have been vaccinating the under fifteens for about 3 months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. But that's not true that it's one in a million. 1 in 7 children have long covid after contracting the virus. People seem to think as long as you dont die or end up in hospital coverd isn't a problem but the hundreds of thousands the struggling with long covid tell a different story. ** I didn't make those numbers up, it's what the data from the U.S shows and they have vaccinated teens. Check the figures on any major news site. There's no mention of deaths in those particular stats. Maybe here 1 in 7 children do get 'long covid' but throw us a legitimate source with those stats.... As a parent, I'd look at actual stats and discuss it with the child. Fortunately I don't have a child in this particular age bracket, My daughters are both 16+ and we're vaccinated already. My son has years yet before he reaches this age bracket. OK you're legitimate sources are the NHS, ONS and public health England. The US stats may well be different but they have been vaccinating the under fifteens for about 3 months." I can say it again don’t risk a child’s life it’s as simple as that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The jvci are using the stats that are available, which in this case is the stats provided by the U.S. I didn't realise that 1 in 7 children was actually confirmed and published by the NHS, given how I wasn't aware that long covid had actually been medically confirmed or defined yet either but I'll catch up over the weekend. " Long covid is almost certainly post viral fatigue syndrome which has definitely been confirmed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it To right Except the chief medical officer is still discussing whether to press ahead with vaccinating the under-15s anyway." They might be but not productive right now and revision based on effects individually rather than society based protection, more so for boys | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly let’s put it simply do not risk a child’s life to save some one over 80, that’s the long and short of it sorry " Unfortunately I agree And think most 80 year olds would agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do not risk a child's life How moral corrupt is this goverment and country" You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes." I agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree" But those stats aren't true! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true!" There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do not risk a child's life How moral corrupt is this goverment and country You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months." Doesn't make it right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do not risk a child's life How moral corrupt is this goverment and country You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months." By the way we have had a vaccine available for 12 months get your facts right. Vaccine been available 8 months. Have you got children | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do not risk a child's life How moral corrupt is this goverment and country You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months. By the way we have had a vaccine available for 12 months get your facts right. Vaccine been available 8 months. Have you got children " Yes the vaccine has been available for 8 months and children have been being vaccinated for about 3 months in other countries and the last question is none of your business and not relivent in any way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk "In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine. "Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine. "Yes it is my choice (and theirs) at the moment it doesn’t warrant him having the vaccine. Even those in that age group with health issues are only being offered one shot due to risks involved with two shots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out "Exactly this is about the child not the wider community | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community "I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice. "Yes so they only recommended for vulnerable 12-15 yr olds...not healthy ones! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice. "Because all vaccines prior to this were to help yourself and the wider community | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.
Yes so they only recommended for vulnerable 12-15 yr olds...not healthy ones!"You are wrong because they are also being offered to children who are perfectly healthy but live with a vaunable person so that is not entirely true. Also 1 in 7 children who get covid where healthy until they developed long covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice. "I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.
Because all vaccines prior to this were to help yourself and the wider community "No the vaccine rollout is to help yourself and it is hoped that as a result will help the wider community so there is a big difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.
I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time "Exactly but Choice isn't available to parents who would like their children to have it so it's not a choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.
I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time
Exactly but Choice isn't available to parents who would like their children to have it so it's not a choice. "Thats because its unfair to enforce it on a child based simply on the benefit to that child. The science says they are better off without it so please explain who on earth would want to vaccinate a child who has more chance of damage from vaccine than catching covid? and dont come with that Longcovid palava! its not even a recognised condition | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.
I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time
Exactly but Choice isn't available to parents who would like their children to have it so it's not a choice. "Is that any different to any adult early in the year that wanted it but didn’t have the choice to ? Each parent does what they think is right for their child / family. If they don’t like it they can lobby their mp to try and get it changed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.
I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time
Exactly but Choice isn't available to parents who would like their children to have it so it's not a choice.
Is that any different to any adult early in the year that wanted it but didn’t have the choice to ?
Each parent does what they think is right for their child / family. If they don’t like it they can lobby their mp to try and get it changed "I am relieved I do not have to make that decision mine have all flew the nest, I can sympathise with parents and guardians who are now looking at their children and a pen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thats because its unfair to enforce it on a child based simply on the benefit to that child. The science says they are better off without it so please explain who on earth would want to vaccinate a child who has more chance of damage from vaccine than catching covid? and dont come with that Longcovid palava! its not even a recognised condition " Derek Draper and thousands of others recognise it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it funny that the very people that are against children being offered the vaccine and for them and their parents to have a choice are the same people that stamp their feet and say it's their choice not to have it so I guess they are only are pro choice when it suits them. " I find it funny that the very people in favour of vaccines for children are the ones who all along have been telling us to trust the science. I guess they only trust the science when it suits them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Yes it is my choice (and theirs) at the moment it doesn’t warrant him having the vaccine. Even those in that age group with health issues are only being offered one shot due to risks involved with two shots. "Why only one dose of there's a risk should not have it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do not risk a child's life How moral corrupt is this goverment and country You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months. By the way we have had a vaccine available for 12 months get your facts right. Vaccine been available 8 months. Have you got children Yes the vaccine has been available for 8 months and children have been being vaccinated for about 3 months in other countries and the last question is none of your business and not relivent in any way. " Yes it's, relevant if you have children you have insight as parent trying to protect. If you haven't a child then you don't get it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true! There is no benefit to child being vaccinated. As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society. Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To. I have been double vaccinated my child won't be. I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk
In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.
Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out
Exactly this is about the child not the wider community
I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.
Yes so they only recommended for vulnerable 12-15 yr olds...not healthy ones!
You are wrong because they are also being offered to children who are perfectly healthy but live with a vaunable person so that is not entirely true.
Also 1 in 7 children who get covid where healthy until they developed long covid. "Do we know how many children develop long flu or other post viral fatigue problems? Do we know the severity and duration statistics of those children who get long covid? Without full support of the vaccine committee and a big promotional push then I suspect take up for under 16s is going to be low. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million. If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes. I agree But those stats aren't true!" ** So st it being broadcast incorrectly on all the major news outlets or the U.S have fabricated those stats? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it funny that the very people that are against children being offered the vaccine and for them and their parents to have a choice are the same people that stamp their feet and say it's their choice not to have it so I guess they are only are pro choice when it suits them. I find it funny that the very people in favour of vaccines for children are the ones who all along have been telling us to trust the science. I guess they only trust the science when it suits them " Very true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose. The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway?" Remember, trust the science Unless the science doesn't tie in with government policy In which case fuck the science | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose. The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway? " The JVCI didn't really advise against. What they said was that the benefit to the individual was marginal. However, there is more to consider than the individual and this is where political decisions need to be taken. What about schools, parents, grandparents, wider society etc.? It's a tricky one, and the decision was never going to be welcomed by everyone whichever way the Government leapt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose. The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway?" JCVI provided a recommendation not to rollout simply because the benefits 'marginally outweighed' the potential harm to that group of children. The government take that advise and then make a decision based on that plus other factors. For example, if rolling out to 12-15 year old reduces transmission and subsequently saves large numbers of people above 16 catching it and being hospitalised or dying then the government will more approve the rollout to protect others. Once that decision is made, back to JCVI to ask if 2nd dose is beneficial to 12-15 year olds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose. The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway? JCVI provided a recommendation not to rollout simply because the benefits 'marginally outweighed' the potential harm to that group of children. The government take that advise and then make a decision based on that plus other factors. For example, if rolling out to 12-15 year old reduces transmission and subsequently saves large numbers of people above 16 catching it and being hospitalised or dying then the government will more approve the rollout to protect others. Once that decision is made, back to JCVI to ask if 2nd dose is beneficial to 12-15 year olds." Jcvi have said the benefits directly to 12-15yr olds are marginal - meaning it is just about worth having for them but when you factor in the risks of myocarditis against the chances of contracting covid or having already recovered fron covid then that makes it less worthwhile. If ot was simply covid risk v jab risk then the jab wins | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers." Hopefully not as parents usually know best, I say 16+ can make there own decisions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Something that keeps playing over in my mind though, is should we even take the slightest risk with healthy kids having the jab, to reduce potential risk to other members of the community?" Yes, of course we should. Parental consent is also not required according to the BBC. We have told our 15 year old daughter that the choice is hers. We hope she takes it, as it is likely to reduce potential disruption to her GCSE year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Something that keeps playing over in my mind though, is should we even take the slightest risk with healthy kids having the jab, to reduce potential risk to other members of the community?" No of course they shouldn’t. Why should they risk their future when they are healthy. Should they want to at a good age then that’s upto them. Until then just like marriage sex and joining the army I think should wait until 16+ to make the choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
If you have been a good parent you shouldn't have anything to worry about | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. " Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So potentially a load of parents that snort all weekend can tell their kids what they should do
If you have been a good parent you shouldn't have anything to worry about "Sorry talking about drugs is against forum rules | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Something that keeps playing over in my mind though, is should we even take the slightest risk with healthy kids having the jab, to reduce potential risk to other members of the community?" I'm not sure this is the reason tho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose. The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway? JCVI provided a recommendation not to rollout simply because the benefits 'marginally outweighed' the potential harm to that group of children. The government take that advise and then make a decision based on that plus other factors. For example, if rolling out to 12-15 year old reduces transmission and subsequently saves large numbers of people above 16 catching it and being hospitalised or dying then the government will more approve the rollout to protect others. Once that decision is made, back to JCVI to ask if 2nd dose is beneficial to 12-15 year olds. Jcvi have said the benefits directly to 12-15yr olds are marginal - meaning it is just about worth having for them but when you factor in the risks of myocarditis against the chances of contracting covid or having already recovered fron covid then that makes it less worthwhile. If ot was simply covid risk v jab risk then the jab wins " Surely JCVI looked at the myocarditis evidence... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So potentially a load of parents that snort all weekend can tell their kids what they should do
If you have been a good parent you shouldn't have anything to worry about
Sorry talking about drugs is against forum rules "How do I delete it then? It was mentioned in a negative way, not condoning it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves " Of course you do know that the vaccine isn't 100% effective? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves " It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence 
Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.
If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.
The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence
Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.
If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.
The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable."Vaccine won’t stop the sniffles. If a kid goes to class with sniffles vaccine or not everyone has to isolate no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence
Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.
If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.
The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable."The concept being is that only unvaccinated can catch the virus, whereas as it has been confirmed time and time again, you can carry the virus whether you are vaxxed or not So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others) One of the main positives if the vaccine is that it reduces symptoms. Which is a double edged sword as someone may know have the virus when vaxxed and due to having lesser symptoms may carry on their daily business whilst infected. In children (whom aren't terribly affected by the virus anyway) this is a bigger problem The government saying kids getting the jab will reduce interruption is them saying 'take this Jan so we, the government, won't interfere and cause said disruptions' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others) " This is what some of the virologists etc are saying. Its not an example it is simply part of the debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. " Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people " Says an understandably labour voter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others) " No no no no If you get the vaccine you are much less likely to contract the vaccine and much much much less likely to be hospitalised if you do. If a kid turns up at school unwell or with covid symptoms then they would be isolated regardless of vaccine status pending a negative test. Vaccine status is not a determiner in how someone is treated. Symptomatic persons are treated exactly the same regardless of vaccine status | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence
Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.
If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.
The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable.
The concept being is that only unvaccinated can catch the virus, whereas as it has been confirmed time and time again, you can carry the virus whether you are vaxxed or not
So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)
One of the main positives if the vaccine is that it reduces symptoms. Which is a double edged sword as someone may know have the virus when vaxxed and due to having lesser symptoms may carry on their daily business whilst infected. In children (whom aren't terribly affected by the virus anyway) this is a bigger problem
The government saying kids getting the jab will reduce interruption is them saying 'take this Jan so we, the government, won't interfere and cause said disruptions'"If you have no symptoms you are likely to have a low viral load and be less able to spread it. Some people can have a high load and have no symptoms but this is rare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence
Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.
If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.
The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable.
The concept being is that only unvaccinated can catch the virus, whereas as it has been confirmed time and time again, you can carry the virus whether you are vaxxed or not
So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)
One of the main positives if the vaccine is that it reduces symptoms. Which is a double edged sword as someone may know have the virus when vaxxed and due to having lesser symptoms may carry on their daily business whilst infected. In children (whom aren't terribly affected by the virus anyway) this is a bigger problem
The government saying kids getting the jab will reduce interruption is them saying 'take this Jan so we, the government, won't interfere and cause said disruptions'
If you have no symptoms you are likely to have a low viral load and be less able to spread it. Some people can have a high load and have no symptoms but this is rare."Cam you cite a source or are you just saying stuff | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. " And that's fine and a personal / family choice. Just as long as the 14 year olds... Having had a jab to protect whomever else..realise that they can still get it and can still pass it on so still need to maintain distance and mask up and so on. It would be good to see a better idea of how much it protects others against delta variant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. " The last I understood was that vaccinated people could carry the same viral load as unvaccinated, for Delta. If so I'm not convinced that getting children vaccinated will protect those around them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence
Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.
If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.
The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable.
The concept being is that only unvaccinated can catch the virus, whereas as it has been confirmed time and time again, you can carry the virus whether you are vaxxed or not
So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)
One of the main positives if the vaccine is that it reduces symptoms. Which is a double edged sword as someone may know have the virus when vaxxed and due to having lesser symptoms may carry on their daily business whilst infected. In children (whom aren't terribly affected by the virus anyway) this is a bigger problem
The government saying kids getting the jab will reduce interruption is them saying 'take this Jan so we, the government, won't interfere and cause said disruptions'
If you have no symptoms you are likely to have a low viral load and be less able to spread it. Some people can have a high load and have no symptoms but this is rare.
Cam you cite a source or are you just saying stuff"from what I've seen there's been evidence for both sides of the claim. Title of one paper supporting the claim Delta variant and mRNA Covid-19 vaccines effectiveness: higher odds of vaccine infection breakthroughs (I know the OU one contradicted so no idea what the answer is!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. The last I understood was that vaccinated people could carry the same viral load as unvaccinated, for Delta. If so I'm not convinced that getting children vaccinated will protect those around them? " The article that I read suggesting this had one very important word in the title and you have used it too. "COULD" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. The last I understood was that vaccinated people could carry the same viral load as unvaccinated, for Delta. If so I'm not convinced that getting children vaccinated will protect those around them? The article that I read suggesting this had one very important word in the title and you have used it too. "COULD"" Actually the article I read said "can". Maybe the strategy should be to do as we please on the basis that some people "COULD" be immune?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people " Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some. "Which vaccine is this there is more than one covid vaccine. Only an idiot would call any vaccine gene therapy because it simply is not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some. "Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such. The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.
Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.
The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance. "I think it's very emotive and it's confusing. They say follow the science but who do you believe.? The JCVI who only last week despite being put under pressure, refused to recommend jabs to 12 to 15 as their science assessed there was not enough benefit. Or the 4 chief medical officers who are recommending it because their science says there is..? Thankfully my kids are older but I don't envy parents of kids who feel confused by all of the war cries on their behalf and only want to do what's best for their kids. What's worse is the storm the media love to whip up about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.
Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.
The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance.
I think it's very emotive and it's confusing. They say follow the science but who do you believe.? The JCVI who only last week despite being put under pressure, refused to recommend jabs to 12 to 15 as their science assessed there was not enough benefit. Or the 4 chief medical officers who are recommending it because their science says there is..? Thankfully my kids are older but I don't envy parents of kids who feel confused by all of the war cries on their behalf and only want to do what's best for their kids. What's worse is the storm the media love to whip up about it. "THAT'S NOT WHAT THE JCVI SAID They said the direct benefits to the child exist but are marginal The government is offering the jab because the wider community and social benefits are huge | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.
Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.
The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance.
I think it's very emotive and it's confusing. They say follow the science but who do you believe.? The JCVI who only last week despite being put under pressure, refused to recommend jabs to 12 to 15 as their science assessed there was not enough benefit. Or the 4 chief medical officers who are recommending it because their science says there is..? Thankfully my kids are older but I don't envy parents of kids who feel confused by all of the war cries on their behalf and only want to do what's best for their kids. What's worse is the storm the media love to whip up about it.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE JCVI SAID
They said the direct benefits to the child exist but are marginal
The government is offering the jab because the wider community and social benefits are huge"Quore from the jcvi report. Which can be found here... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021 "The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time" And went on to say... "There is considerable uncertainty regarding the impact of vaccination in children and young people on peer-to-peer transmission and transmission in the wider (highly vaccinated) population. Estimates from modelling vary substantially, and the committee is of the view that any impact on transmission may be relatively small, given the lower effectiveness of the vaccine against infection with the Delta variant. Delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine programme for children and young people is likely to be disruptive to education in the short term, particularly if school premises are used for vaccination and there is potential for a COVID-19 vaccine programme to impact on the efficiency of roll-out of the influenza programme. Adverse reactions to vaccination (such as fevers) may also lead to time away from education for some individuals." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you class as anti vax tho because people thats kids are vaccinated but just refusing this one are being put in the same catagory as tree hugging nutters that wont give them any We arent stupid we would just like to see the long term test data which as they were only made and started distribution a year or so ago that information just simply is not available Look into what trials medication has to go through before public release it is usually at least 5 years of trials and tests in private with people being paid and monitored " All these questions have been answered time and again. The only thing i ever hear is shit about long term data and its insane how ignorant people who keep repeating these questions are. There is NO MECHANISM for the vaccine to have ANY EFFECT on someone years later in a way thelat wouldnt be clear within a couple of months. The vaccine CANNOT HAVE ANY LONG TERM EFFECT THAT DOES NOT START TO TAKE EFFECT PRETTY MUCH STRAIGHT AWAY- AND WE HAVE SEEN THOSE EFFECTS AND THE RISKS OF THEM. This is all part of the trial data. PAHSE 3 TRIALS ARE COMPLETE!!! Trials take time normally because of money amd resources and the number of volunteers they need to find. COVID VACCINE RESEARCHERS HAD UNLIMITED MONEY AND RESOURCES AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOKUNTEERS ALL OVER THE WORLD. GET VAXXED | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you class as anti vax tho because people thats kids are vaccinated but just refusing this one are being put in the same catagory as tree hugging nutters that wont give them any We arent stupid we would just like to see the long term test data which as they were only made and started distribution a year or so ago that information just simply is not available Look into what trials medication has to go through before public release it is usually at least 5 years of trials and tests in private with people being paid and monitored All these questions have been answered time and again. The only thing i ever hear is shit about long term data and its insane how ignorant people who keep repeating these questions are. There is NO MECHANISM for the vaccine to have ANY EFFECT on someone years later in a way thelat wouldnt be clear within a couple of months. The vaccine CANNOT HAVE ANY LONG TERM EFFECT THAT DOES NOT START TO TAKE EFFECT PRETTY MUCH STRAIGHT AWAY- AND WE HAVE SEEN THOSE EFFECTS AND THE RISKS OF THEM. This is all part of the trial data. PAHSE 3 TRIALS ARE COMPLETE!!! Trials take time normally because of money amd resources and the number of volunteers they need to find. COVID VACCINE RESEARCHERS HAD UNLIMITED MONEY AND RESOURCES AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOKUNTEERS ALL OVER THE WORLD. GET VAXXED" Look at you and your shouty capitals. A teen is six times more likely to end up in a hospital after receiving a vaccine than catching covid itself. If you're vaccinated - you've nothing to fear of. If you're vaccinated- I have two things to fear of: 1. You giving me the bloody thing. Not any more, now that I already had it anyway. 2. Absolutely horrendous mentality that one drug fits all fine and dandy and it is in any way okay to dictate who's children. Not adults. Children! Get it or not. Kids aren't even allowed to get sunscreen put on them without parental permission, nevermind this vaccine that is designed for adults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.
Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.
The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance.
I think it's very emotive and it's confusing. They say follow the science but who do you believe.? The JCVI who only last week despite being put under pressure, refused to recommend jabs to 12 to 15 as their science assessed there was not enough benefit. Or the 4 chief medical officers who are recommending it because their science says there is..? Thankfully my kids are older but I don't envy parents of kids who feel confused by all of the war cries on their behalf and only want to do what's best for their kids. What's worse is the storm the media love to whip up about it.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE JCVI SAID
They said the direct benefits to the child exist but are marginal
The government is offering the jab because the wider community and social benefits are huge
Quore from the jcvi report. Which can be found here...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021
"The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time"
And went on to say...
"There is considerable uncertainty regarding the impact of vaccination in children and young people on peer-to-peer transmission and transmission in the wider (highly vaccinated) population. Estimates from modelling vary substantially, and the committee is of the view that any impact on transmission may be relatively small, given the lower effectiveness of the vaccine against infection with the Delta variant.
Delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine programme for children and young people is likely to be disruptive to education in the short term, particularly if school premises are used for vaccination and there is potential for a COVID-19 vaccine programme to impact on the efficiency of roll-out of the influenza programme. Adverse reactions to vaccination (such as fevers) may also lead to time away from education for some individuals.""Thanks for digging that out. I'm still on the fence with kids. I have always said follow the science, but when we start dealing in such small risk numbers both for vaccine and disease it a tricky call to make and do nothing seems the most logical approach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thanks for digging that out. I'm still on the fence with kids. I have always said follow the science, but when we start dealing in such small risk numbers both for vaccine and disease it a tricky call to make and do nothing seems the most logical approach. " "it is expected that winter 2021 to 2022 will be the first winter in the UK when seasonal influenza virus (and other respiratory viruses) will co-circulate alongside COVID-19" "Therefore, those eligible for NHS influenza vaccination in 2021 to 2022 are: all children aged 2 to 15 (but not 16 years or older) on 31 August 2021 those aged 6 months to under 50 years in clinical risk groups pregnant women those aged 50 years and over those in long-stay residential care homes carers close contacts of immunocompromised individuals frontline health and social care staff employed by: a registered residential care or nursing home registered domiciliary care provider a voluntary managed hospice provider Direct Payment (personal budgets) and/or Personal Health Budgets, such as Personal Assistants. All frontline health and social care workers are expected to have influenza vaccination to protect those they care for. A separate communication will follow about staff vaccination" "live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) should be offered to eligible children aged 2 years and over, unless contraindicated" I assume that anti-vaccination types won't be having their children vaccinated against flu this year then..... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-flu-immunisation-programme-plan/national-flu-immunisation-programme-2021-to-2022-letter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Says an understandably labour voter" I don’t vote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thanks for digging that out. I'm still on the fence with kids. I have always said follow the science, but when we start dealing in such small risk numbers both for vaccine and disease it a tricky call to make and do nothing seems the most logical approach. "it is expected that winter 2021 to 2022 will be the first winter in the UK when seasonal influenza virus (and other respiratory viruses) will co-circulate alongside COVID-19" "Therefore, those eligible for NHS influenza vaccination in 2021 to 2022 are: all children aged 2 to 15 (but not 16 years or older) on 31 August 2021 those aged 6 months to under 50 years in clinical risk groups pregnant women those aged 50 years and over those in long-stay residential care homes carers close contacts of immunocompromised individuals frontline health and social care staff employed by: a registered residential care or nursing home registered domiciliary care provider a voluntary managed hospice provider Direct Payment (personal budgets) and/or Personal Health Budgets, such as Personal Assistants. All frontline health and social care workers are expected to have influenza vaccination to protect those they care for. A separate communication will follow about staff vaccination" "live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) should be offered to eligible children aged 2 years and over, unless contraindicated" I assume that anti-vaccination types won't be having their children vaccinated against flu this year then..... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-flu-immunisation-programme-plan/national-flu-immunisation-programme-2021-to-2022-letter " Be interesting to see if they attempt flu vax passes while they are at it... Or flu passes for access to places and travel and events. Though we have been flu jabbing folks voluntarily and quite successfully for many years without that need. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Says an understandably labour voter I don’t vote " You have nothing to complain about then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are these teens disgusted with and why only the disgusted being offered the vaccine? " Exactly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes" Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children." Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people Says an understandably labour voter I don’t vote You have nothing to complain about then "How does that add to the conversation your just saying anything | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control "Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control
Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour."That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases. I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control
Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.
That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence."Agree with that example but then applying that to decisions on vaccination by a pre-pubescent it falls down IMO. My child is not ready to decide that for herself. She will undoubtedly be swayed by her friendship group at school and a desire to be the same and fit in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control
Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.
That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence.
Agree with that example but then applying that to decisions on vaccination by a pre-pubescent it falls down IMO. My child is not ready to decide that for herself. She will undoubtedly be swayed by her friendship group at school and a desire to be the same and fit in."Gillick competency does not apply to children that young. 12+, and rarely as young as 12. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control
Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.
That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence.
Agree with that example but then applying that to decisions on vaccination by a pre-pubescent it falls down IMO. My child is not ready to decide that for herself. She will undoubtedly be swayed by her friendship group at school and a desire to be the same and fit in.
Gillick competency does not apply to children that young. 12+, and rarely as young as 12."Ah ok thanks didn’t know that - should have googled but hey, I’ve got you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control
Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.
That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence.
Agree with that example but then applying that to decisions on vaccination by a pre-pubescent it falls down IMO. My child is not ready to decide that for herself. She will undoubtedly be swayed by her friendship group at school and a desire to be the same and fit in.
Gillick competency does not apply to children that young. 12+, and rarely as young as 12.
Ah ok thanks didn’t know that - should have googled but hey, I’ve got you "No worries
Two real examples to make a fictitious case for this purpose, how it might apply.
I had hideously heavy periods in my early teens. Life disrupting, irregular, painful. I was offered the pill.
I had friends whose parents thought anyone taking the pill was a filthy sex worker.
Pretend those parents were mine. Imagine a doctor giving me the leaflets (it was the 90s) and seeing if I understood the material. (I was reasonably bright), and, if they thought I understood it, allowing me to decide for myself.
Yes, it also applies to vaccines. But - example in my life where yeah, I probably would have taken the pills (and I suspect at that age I was Gillick competent). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children." Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right." Understood but who decides based on what criteria? Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business. Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring? What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right. Understood but who decides based on what criteria? Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business. Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring? What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision?" In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right. Understood but who decides based on what criteria? Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business. Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring? What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision? In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible)" And that feels right when you are in an emergency time sensitive situation. But that is not the case with Covid. The data continues to show us that kids are very low risk. So the time sensitivity is not there so parents should make the decisions. IMO that means up to 16* *although tangentially the whole 16 vs 18 thing in UK is weird. 16-17 still need parent’s permission to get married. You can drive a car or join the army at 17. Can’t vote until 18. All messed up and needs alignment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right. Understood but who decides based on what criteria? Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business. Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring? What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision? In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible)" Have you got a job you spend all day on here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right. Understood but who decides based on what criteria? Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business. Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring? What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision? In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible) And that feels right when you are in an emergency time sensitive situation. But that is not the case with Covid. The data continues to show us that kids are very low risk. So the time sensitivity is not there so parents should make the decisions. IMO that means up to 16* *although tangentially the whole 16 vs 18 thing in UK is weird. 16-17 still need parent’s permission to get married. You can drive a car or join the army at 17. Can’t vote until 18. All messed up and needs alignment." I'm definitely not talking about Covid vaccination. The definitive case is a very small child needing a blood transfusion whose parents refuse for religious reasons. I'm saying what's possible in medicine in general. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge" If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children. Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right. Understood but who decides based on what criteria? Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business. Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring? What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision? In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible) Have you got a job you spend all day on here " I'm a freelance content creator and I do very well for myself, but thank you for your concern  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers. I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
