FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Whitty called to the HoC?
Whitty called to the HoC?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public." Jesus this is beyond bland. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public." It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? " yea polly they should just shut the fuck up and not have an opinion eh,why shouldnt they ask questions not everyone is following the cult of covid like yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? " This 
It’s not compulsory, so I don’t understand why all the hoo-ha. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing..."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... "Interesting to see that the Court of Appeal upheld Gillick competency this week, too. In another matter, of course, but allowing teenagers to make their own decisions if deemed competent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They probably care that the body of professionals (JCVI)that advises the Govt on immunisation matters state that the risks outweigh the benefits when jabbing children for covid. And want to know why Whitty overuled them. " He Hasnt over hold them because they didn't say it shouldn't happen under any circumstances. They also didn't say the risks outweigh the benefit they just said there is some merit but don't think it's necessary right now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He Hasnt over hold them because they didn't say it shouldn't happen under any circumstances. They also didn't say the risks outweigh the benefit they just said there is some merit but don't think it's necessary right now. " Exactly this. Kids are going to acquire immunity one way or another - vaccine (safe) or virus (spin the wheel). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He Hasnt over hold them because they didn't say it shouldn't happen under any circumstances. They also didn't say the risks outweigh the benefit they just said there is some merit but don't think it's necessary right now. Exactly this. Kids are going to acquire immunity one way or another - vaccine (safe) or virus (spin the wheel)." There is no denying there is potential risks with the vaccine regardless of your age but this is the case with every single medication. I do understand the hesitancy of some parents because let's be honest we dont know for sure if there are any long term effects but I genuinely believe everybody should be given a choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it very interesting that these concerned parents who are refusing to allow their children to have the vaccine because they want a choice, don’t wanta choice for the parents and children that would like the vaccine. " There's also a significant overlap between people who are now saying "trust the JCVI" who also say "don't trust the government". Odd, that. Maybe if the government isn't trustworthy, international data might be looked at on the administration of vaccines? ... Hmm. Most countries seem to be administering them. Why trust the UK government now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing...
Interesting to see that the Court of Appeal upheld Gillick competency this week, too. In another matter, of course, but allowing teenagers to make their own decisions if deemed competent."In individual cases it may be helpful. As a general policy, I can't see any upside in introducing more tension in a teenager / parent relationship. It is much more in communities interests that parents be allowed to parent their kids their way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing...
Interesting to see that the Court of Appeal upheld Gillick competency this week, too. In another matter, of course, but allowing teenagers to make their own decisions if deemed competent.
In individual cases it may be helpful. As a general policy, I can't see any upside in introducing more tension in a teenager / parent relationship. It is much more in communities interests that parents be allowed to parent their kids their way. "Why is it adding more? Gillick competency has been the law since the mid 80s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing..." I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? " People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now" The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now" Spot on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now" As has always been the case. Follow the science when you agree with it. If not...label them as rubbish and Find another scientist who you do agree with. There's lots of them around to choose from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... "Not when you are not basing on a Medical conclusion Jcvi beieve a child's. Well being is par amount. Please can you give a reason why a child should be put at risk. Children are not at risk from covid that is shat we have been told for 18 months | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions." Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing...
Not when you are not basing on a Medical conclusion
Jcvi beieve a child's. Well being is par amount.
Please can you give a reason why a child should be put at risk.
Children are not at risk from covid that is shat we have been told for 18 months "Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing...
Not when you are not basing on a Medical conclusion
Jcvi beieve a child's. Well being is par amount.
Please can you give a reason why a child should be put at risk.
Children are not at risk from covid that is shat we have been told for 18 months "Sadly it doesn't seem as black and white as that. We all knew that some kids are at risk from Covid and could spread it, they are also at risk from long covid even though it was reported as no risk etc. Parents just have to weigh up the risk of that against the risk of the jab , I am glad I am not a parent with children of that age at the moment as it must be a worry of what to do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing...
Not when you are not basing on a Medical conclusion
Jcvi beieve a child's. Well being is par amount.
Please can you give a reason why a child should be put at risk.
Children are not at risk from covid that is shat we have been told for 18 months
Sadly it doesn't seem as black and white as that. We all knew that some kids are at risk from Covid and could spread it, they are also at risk from long covid even though it was reported as no risk etc.
Parents just have to weigh up the risk of that against the risk of the jab , I am glad I am not a parent with children of that age at the moment as it must be a worry of what to do"It is clear its about child welfare. Spreading it is not a reason to give a child the risk of vaccination get your facts rights. It's not to help society it is if is a risk or not to there medical health. It is so they should not have it as a risk to child for no reason is poor. If there at so much risk schools should be shut!!!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha "Science is consensus developed from evidence. It's not a monolith or a single thing. I'd be questioning why an agent of the government - we're not locking down, we won't lock down over Christmas, how dare Starmer suggest Christmas be ruined, everything is fine - oops! - has very different results from the rest of the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing...
Not when you are not basing on a Medical conclusion
Jcvi beieve a child's. Well being is par amount.
Please can you give a reason why a child should be put at risk.
Children are not at risk from covid that is shat we have been told for 18 months
Sadly it doesn't seem as black and white as that. We all knew that some kids are at risk from Covid and could spread it, they are also at risk from long covid even though it was reported as no risk etc.
Parents just have to weigh up the risk of that against the risk of the jab , I am glad I am not a parent with children of that age at the moment as it must be a worry of what to do
It is clear its about child welfare. Spreading it is not a reason to give a child the risk of vaccination get your facts rights.
It's not to help society it is if is a risk or not to there medical health.
It is so they should not have it as a risk to child for no reason is poor.
If there at so much risk schools should be shut!!!!!! "Now that is an angry post For clarity, my post was a general one and not giving any reason why they are vaccinating. Maybe read the post before ranting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha
Science is consensus developed from evidence. It's not a monolith or a single thing.
I'd be questioning why an agent of the government - we're not locking down, we won't lock down over Christmas, how dare Starmer suggest Christmas be ruined, everything is fine - oops! - has very different results from the rest of the world. "I have no clue what your post means, sorry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing...
Not when you are not basing on a Medical conclusion
Jcvi beieve a child's. Well being is par amount.
Please can you give a reason why a child should be put at risk.
Children are not at risk from covid that is shat we have been told for 18 months
Sadly it doesn't seem as black and white as that. We all knew that some kids are at risk from Covid and could spread it, they are also at risk from long covid even though it was reported as no risk etc.
Parents just have to weigh up the risk of that against the risk of the jab , I am glad I am not a parent with children of that age at the moment as it must be a worry of what to do
It is clear its about child welfare. Spreading it is not a reason to give a child the risk of vaccination get your facts rights.
It's not to help society it is if is a risk or not to there medical health.
It is so they should not have it as a risk to child for no reason is poor.
If there at so much risk schools should be shut!!!!!!
Now that is an angry post
For clarity, my post was a general one and not giving any reason why they are vaccinating. Maybe read the post before ranting"At least you got a reply. I got nothing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha
Science is consensus developed from evidence. It's not a monolith or a single thing.
I'd be questioning why an agent of the government - we're not locking down, we won't lock down over Christmas, how dare Starmer suggest Christmas be ruined, everything is fine - oops! - has very different results from the rest of the world.
I have no clue what your post means, sorry."The government and those speaking for them have lied over and over again, as we keep finding out to our cost. If lots of countries all over the world think it's in the best interest of their children to vaccinate them (some good, some bad countries) - why would we trust our government, who've shown time and time again that they do what they want? (No the JCVI isn't the government, but I am unsure how even an agent of the government can be trusted after the mess we've been through) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So those agree with whitty Your happy to put a child's health at risk So a child's health is not important to you. Get some morals Chase the 5 million adults who haven't had vaccine not a child ... Is that bullying " It's widely agreed that we'll all contract Covid eventually. A US study (this is not "the science", I searched "risk of myocarditis children Covid" - CDC MMWR 9 July 2021*) suggests that children are 37x more likely to develop myocarditis from Covid than from a vaccination. I don't see reducing a child's risk of myocarditis as immoral, but maybe you could explain that to me. * I'm not equipped to give "the science", but I've heard it repeatedly from people who are, so I found a source to back up what I remember. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha
Science is consensus developed from evidence. It's not a monolith or a single thing.
I'd be questioning why an agent of the government - we're not locking down, we won't lock down over Christmas, how dare Starmer suggest Christmas be ruined, everything is fine - oops! - has very different results from the rest of the world.
I have no clue what your post means, sorry.
The government and those speaking for them have lied over and over again, as we keep finding out to our cost.
If lots of countries all over the world think it's in the best interest of their children to vaccinate them (some good, some bad countries) - why would we trust our government, who've shown time and time again that they do what they want?
(No the JCVI isn't the government, but I am unsure how even an agent of the government can be trusted after the mess we've been through)"As you say, they are not the Government so your argument is moot on that however I am questioning Whittys integrity at the moment but seems people are believing him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha
Science is consensus developed from evidence. It's not a monolith or a single thing.
I'd be questioning why an agent of the government - we're not locking down, we won't lock down over Christmas, how dare Starmer suggest Christmas be ruined, everything is fine - oops! - has very different results from the rest of the world.
I have no clue what your post means, sorry.
The government and those speaking for them have lied over and over again, as we keep finding out to our cost.
If lots of countries all over the world think it's in the best interest of their children to vaccinate them (some good, some bad countries) - why would we trust our government, who've shown time and time again that they do what they want?
(No the JCVI isn't the government, but I am unsure how even an agent of the government can be trusted after the mess we've been through)
As you say, they are not the Government so your argument is moot on that
however I am questioning Whittys integrity at the moment but seems people are believing him"And I'm questioning the JCVI's integrity. If the disease is the same in all countries then you'd think they'd come to similar conclusions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police" Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So those agree with whitty Your happy to put a child's health at risk So a child's health is not important to you. Get some morals Chase the 5 million adults who haven't had vaccine not a child ... Is that bullying " Kids are a soft target. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children" Well said. I’m vaccinated but my son has said no. I respect his choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child?" You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children Well said. I’m vaccinated but my son has said no. I respect his choice" Your a, parent your are responsible for the child | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children " which bit of the report makes you think this is the case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! " This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? This
It’s not compulsory, so I don’t understand why all the hoo-ha. "What if at some point down the line they say something like..."to go on school trips, sit in assemblies, attend sports days, etc...children must be vaccinated"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children" My frustration got the better of my good sense in the way that I worded that. What I actually intended to say is that the current situation seems to be that parents are being allowed to have their children vaccinated if they wish, but there is no compulsion for them to be vaccinated. Hence ALL parents should now be happy. What is not required is for anti-vaccination parents to be putting pressure on MPs in order to attempt to deny the pro-vaccination parents the chance to protect their children. We keep hearing the anti-vaccination voices saying "vaccination should be a choice", but then we find them building pressure groups with the explicit intention of taking that choice away from others. I want my grandchildren to be given the chance to be vaccinated if they and their parents decide this is the wise thing to do (being scientifically literate, and being vaccinated themselves, I rather expect that this will be their wishes - however I have not personally pressured them in either direction regardless of my own beliefs). What raises my frustration and anger is parents who already have the right to prevent their children being vaccinated, attempting to take away the right of my grandkids to ask to be vaccinated. Every other country is allowing kids down to the age of 10 or 11 to be vaccinated, the dangers to children from the virus are real, the evidence is daily accumulating for brain damage and other long lasting injuries being caused to children by the virus even when it initially seems that there are no serious symptoms. Faced with the chance that my grandkids might grow up with impaired mental abilities due to the current actions of anti-vax pressure groups, I hope that you can understand my anger leading me to make my original short sharp comments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be fair he didn’t go against JCVI. The JVCI said that medically it was a finely balanced decision that could have gone either way. They where not tasked/equipped to look at the wider picture and they put it back to the medical chiefs to make a final assessment and decision. Personally I wouldn’t be rushing to jab teenagers but then I haven’t studied all the research because it’s no my job to do so... " Thank you for someone actually mentioning exactly what the JCVI said…. And there are 4 CMO’s that came to a joint decision ( remember that Whitty is the CMO for England!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? This
It’s not compulsory, so I don’t understand why all the hoo-ha.
What if at some point down the line they say something like..."to go on school trips, sit in assemblies, attend sports days, etc...children must be vaccinated"?"“…..What if at some point down the line they say something like..."to go on school trips, sit in assemblies…” ——————————— Well they haven’t said that, have they? And the answer is: they haven’t; and that’s my point, it isn’t compulsory it’s an option. | |||
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) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha
Science is consensus developed from evidence. It's not a monolith or a single thing.
I'd be questioning why an agent of the government - we're not locking down, we won't lock down over Christmas, how dare Starmer suggest Christmas be ruined, everything is fine - oops! - has very different results from the rest of the world.
I have no clue what your post means, sorry.
The government and those speaking for them have lied over and over again, as we keep finding out to our cost.
If lots of countries all over the world think it's in the best interest of their children to vaccinate them (some good, some bad countries) - why would we trust our government, who've shown time and time again that they do what they want?
(No the JCVI isn't the government, but I am unsure how even an agent of the government can be trusted after the mess we've been through)
As you say, they are not the Government so your argument is moot on that
however I am questioning Whittys integrity at the moment but seems people are believing him
And I'm questioning the JCVI's integrity. If the disease is the same in all countries then you'd think they'd come to similar conclusions."You have spent the last 18 months telling people you believe the experts, now you are saying you don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children My frustration got the better of my good sense in the way that I worded that. What I actually intended to say is that the current situation seems to be that parents are being allowed to have their children vaccinated if they wish, but there is no compulsion for them to be vaccinated. Hence ALL parents should now be happy. What is not required is for anti-vaccination parents to be putting pressure on MPs in order to attempt to deny the pro-vaccination parents the chance to protect their children. " How do you know the parents are anti vaxxers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As of three weeks ago, 20 UK children had died of coronavirus Of the 20, the 'vast majority' had some pre-existing comorbidity. I don't know what is meant by 'vast majority'. 18? 19? The extremely low risk of coronavirus can't justify taking the risk of injecting healthy children" On the other side of the coin there are children in hospital with Covid and others who have had long covid for a while, not all get it mild | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As of three weeks ago, 20 UK children had died of coronavirus Of the 20, the 'vast majority' had some pre-existing comorbidity. I don't know what is meant by 'vast majority'. 18? 19? The extremely low risk of coronavirus can't justify taking the risk of injecting healthy children On the other side of the coin there are children in hospital with Covid and others who have had long covid for a while, not all get it mild " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing...
Interesting to see that the Court of Appeal upheld Gillick competency this week, too. In another matter, of course, but allowing teenagers to make their own decisions if deemed competent."This  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha
Science is consensus developed from evidence. It's not a monolith or a single thing.
I'd be questioning why an agent of the government - we're not locking down, we won't lock down over Christmas, how dare Starmer suggest Christmas be ruined, everything is fine - oops! - has very different results from the rest of the world.
I have no clue what your post means, sorry.
The government and those speaking for them have lied over and over again, as we keep finding out to our cost.
If lots of countries all over the world think it's in the best interest of their children to vaccinate them (some good, some bad countries) - why would we trust our government, who've shown time and time again that they do what they want?
(No the JCVI isn't the government, but I am unsure how even an agent of the government can be trusted after the mess we've been through)
As you say, they are not the Government so your argument is moot on that
however I am questioning Whittys integrity at the moment but seems people are believing him
And I'm questioning the JCVI's integrity. If the disease is the same in all countries then you'd think they'd come to similar conclusions.
You have spent the last 18 months telling people you believe the experts, now you are saying you don't. "I'm saying I don't trust these experts at this moment. There's something fishy going on if the UK has wildly different recommendations from the rest of the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought choice was a good thing... I thought following the science was, but seems it isn't now The JCVI is way out of step with the rest of the world and the conclusions international experts have come to. In such a case of conflict, I'm glad parents (and teenagers, where applicable) will be allowed to come to their own decisions. Ah I see. So people follow the science when it suits, gotcha
Science is consensus developed from evidence. It's not a monolith or a single thing.
I'd be questioning why an agent of the government - we're not locking down, we won't lock down over Christmas, how dare Starmer suggest Christmas be ruined, everything is fine - oops! - has very different results from the rest of the world.
I have no clue what your post means, sorry.
The government and those speaking for them have lied over and over again, as we keep finding out to our cost.
If lots of countries all over the world think it's in the best interest of their children to vaccinate them (some good, some bad countries) - why would we trust our government, who've shown time and time again that they do what they want?
(No the JCVI isn't the government, but I am unsure how even an agent of the government can be trusted after the mess we've been through)
As you say, they are not the Government so your argument is moot on that
however I am questioning Whittys integrity at the moment but seems people are believing him
And I'm questioning the JCVI's integrity. If the disease is the same in all countries then you'd think they'd come to similar conclusions.
You have spent the last 18 months telling people you believe the experts, now you are saying you don't.
I'm saying I don't trust these experts at this moment. There's something fishy going on if the UK has wildly different recommendations from the rest of the world. "There have been fishy things going on worldwide | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html" Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm saying I don't trust these experts at this moment. There's something fishy going on if the UK has wildly different recommendations from the rest of the world. " In which case the people who for last 18 months have said something fishy has been going on shouldn't have been shot down because of it To clarify, I am not talking the out and out conspiracy theorists, I am talking people questioning the science when trying to make sense of it all and being shot down as anti vaxxers and conspiracy nutters | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm saying I don't trust these experts at this moment. There's something fishy going on if the UK has wildly different recommendations from the rest of the world. In which case the people who for last 18 months have said something fishy has been going on shouldn't have been shot down because of it To clarify, I am not talking the out and out conspiracy theorists, I am talking people questioning the science when trying to make sense of it all and being shot down as anti vaxxers and conspiracy nutters" 'Conspiracy theorists' and 'nitters' are terms of abuse to stop people questioning what has been happening | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm saying I don't trust these experts at this moment. There's something fishy going on if the UK has wildly different recommendations from the rest of the world. In which case the people who for last 18 months have said something fishy has been going on shouldn't have been shot down because of it To clarify, I am not talking the out and out conspiracy theorists, I am talking people questioning the science when trying to make sense of it all and being shot down as anti vaxxers and conspiracy nutters" I of course apologise for moments when I've spoken out of turn. Unfortunately it's difficult to tell, sometimes, and obviously this issue can be emotive for all of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm saying I don't trust these experts at this moment. There's something fishy going on if the UK has wildly different recommendations from the rest of the world. In which case the people who for last 18 months have said something fishy has been going on shouldn't have been shot down because of it To clarify, I am not talking the out and out conspiracy theorists, I am talking people questioning the science when trying to make sense of it all and being shot down as anti vaxxers and conspiracy nutters I of course apologise for moments when I've spoken out of turn. Unfortunately it's difficult to tell, sometimes, and obviously this issue can be emotive for all of us." It wasn't aimed at one person, lots of people do it, I was just pointing out a bit of tolerance for others views is always a good thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order." Well said!!!! It should be down to parents to have the conversation with their own children and make a choice. My sister is jabbed, my 15 year old niece doesn't want it. I support both choices to have and not to have. I think our youngsters have been through enough, without the pressure of the covid vaccination programme politics. How is caused grown adults to behave is bad enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children My frustration got the better of my good sense in the way that I worded that. What I actually intended to say is that the current situation seems to be that parents are being allowed to have their children vaccinated if they wish, but there is no compulsion for them to be vaccinated. Hence ALL parents should now be happy. What is not required is for anti-vaccination parents to be putting pressure on MPs in order to attempt to deny the pro-vaccination parents the chance to protect their children. How do you know the parents are anti vaxxers?" Because pro-vax parents would not be pressuring government to disallow vaccination of children. The original post was regarding pressure groups campaigning to block child vaccinations, hence by definition this would be anti-vax parents - or unscrupulous anti-vax groups with no actual concern for children, just using the issue as an excuse to interfere with the vaccination programme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children My frustration got the better of my good sense in the way that I worded that. What I actually intended to say is that the current situation seems to be that parents are being allowed to have their children vaccinated if they wish, but there is no compulsion for them to be vaccinated. Hence ALL parents should now be happy. What is not required is for anti-vaccination parents to be putting pressure on MPs in order to attempt to deny the pro-vaccination parents the chance to protect their children. How do you know the parents are anti vaxxers? Because pro-vax parents would not be pressuring government to disallow vaccination of children. The original post was regarding pressure groups campaigning to block child vaccinations, hence by definition this would be anti-vax parents - or unscrupulous anti-vax groups with no actual concern for children, just using the issue as an excuse to interfere with the vaccination programme." No the op was about concerned parents. You are assuming things not said as you seem to wish to make anyone who doesn't advocate for vaccines for children as anti vax. I'm not anti vax but I'm not going to berate parents who want clarity and who have concerns about the lack of a compelling case and also why suddenly the jcvi guidance should be ignored. It's a reasonable demand to ask for that explanation. It's not anti vax to ask for that clarification. Indeed you may even find that some parents advocate for vaccines when a Compelling case is made so to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children My frustration got the better of my good sense in the way that I worded that. What I actually intended to say is that the current situation seems to be that parents are being allowed to have their children vaccinated if they wish, but there is no compulsion for them to be vaccinated. Hence ALL parents should now be happy. What is not required is for anti-vaccination parents to be putting pressure on MPs in order to attempt to deny the pro-vaccination parents the chance to protect their children. How do you know the parents are anti vaxxers? Because pro-vax parents would not be pressuring government to disallow vaccination of children. The original post was regarding pressure groups campaigning to block child vaccinations" It wasn't. It said concerned parents. You can be concerned without being an anti vaxxer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order." Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? " Maybe because the jabs could be dangerous for them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine." You don't get it we don't trust the goverment. All along goverment said very insignificant risk to children now moved goal posts, All long gov said follow science Niw ignore jvci moved goal posts. You don't get it a child should not be put a risk of vaccination when no need to. Im way doesn't matter as most parents will not put their child at risk and therefore uptake wil be low. Why don't you pursue the 5 million adults who have not taken vaccination Im double vaxed but my children not be having it as their no reason for them to. .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 )
and the spanish flu the way it came in waves and the fact its hit different age groups amoung diffrtent waves(obviously here we have vaccines here where there is nobe for h1n1) the fact that it came in atleast 4 waves over a duration of 2 yrs atleast,folk seemed yo act much the same over the duration..there waa multable lockdowns andthen thsy were lifted multiple times..mthen ya had folk after a yr or do just throwing in the towel whdn it came to adhereing to the restriction and so on....which added to the spread and ultimately...the death of alot of folk wbo chose to do there own thing....lets just hope this delta variant wave is the last big one that has hurt and changed alot of folks lives.......lets just hope these waves come again way weaker come the new yr by the latest....
All those that consider this a joke in any way shape or form.. maybe you werent futloughed.....join the club.....maybe you had to work jo matter what.....join the club.....maybe you had kids outa school last yr and earlier this yr....join the club....does it make me sceptical cause of some mucked up new world order.. NO...it a setious virus tgats making everyday folk sick and struggling to breath if it affects them in a serious way....theres alot of healthy younv folk who are dealing with this atm amoung all ages.. just like a cancer.. a virus as in cov-sar2 has no discrimination....anti vaxer folk...wise up..or hide away
..take your ivermectim(which wont help with catching jack)
And mon beleivers...just take a wee tfip yo your local hospital....it is a real thing...just be a decent person and consider to your fellow person and give them there space and choice without the drama of ifs and buts and crazy ass statements from joe bloggs..
Will we learn from a 100yr history of a pandemic that killed millions or will we as a race jyst do the same selfizh shit to some degree...scary how alike these 2 prolonged panddmics have been panning out....lets hope 2022 is a beyter outcome(fingers crossed)  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine." Have you got children So you haven't addressed 5 million adults who have refused vaccine. Don't use children as a political tool. Jcvi says the balance of risks points to no vaccine as puts, at more risk. Why are we bothered because parents want to protect their child and there are 2 risks medical risk and a goverment we don't trust added to whitty who is being political not medical. All talking won't convince to put child at risk cos we don't trust giv and whitty. I'm not antivax and double jabbed but won't risk a child. If Jcvi say no that should mean no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine." If there's a risk to children why haven't we shut schools | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public." The other thing about that is that whitty is the only CMO that could be called up as the other 3 CMO’s would only be able to be called up to their regional administrations as health and healthcare is a devolved issue! Whitty can only talk about issues revolving around England….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. If there's a risk to children why haven't we shut schools " Why haven't we shut schools because of risk? . Lockdowns aren't favoured so much by many. It's essential that kids get improved education, compared to the start of this all too. Few parents are home to care for them, as lockdown ended a while ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public." But the JCVI didn't say the risk outweighed the benefit. Additionally the 4 CMOs are not "going against" the JCVI...the JCVI actually referred it to the CMOs so that a decision could be taken based on the wider picture. Of course, feel free to ignore that and don't let the facts get in the way of a good story  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. You don't get it we don't trust the goverment. All along goverment said very insignificant risk to children now moved goal posts, All long gov said follow science Niw ignore jvci moved goal posts. You don't get it a child should not be put a risk of vaccination when no need to. Im way doesn't matter as most parents will not put their child at risk and therefore uptake wil be low. Why don't you pursue the 5 million adults who have not taken vaccination Im double vaxed but my children not be having it as their no reason for them to. .. " I just gave you one example on whether there is a risk or not for children, however minimal is this. You don’t trust the government? Neither do I. But this does not cloud my mind and my judgement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. You don't get it we don't trust the goverment. All along goverment said very insignificant risk to children now moved goal posts, All long gov said follow science Niw ignore jvci moved goal posts. You don't get it a child should not be put a risk of vaccination when no need to. Im way doesn't matter as most parents will not put their child at risk and therefore uptake wil be low. Why don't you pursue the 5 million adults who have not taken vaccination Im double vaxed but my children not be having it as their no reason for them to. .. I just gave you one example on whether there is a risk or not for children, however minimal is this. You don’t trust the government? Neither do I. But this does not cloud my mind and my judgement. " Judgement why do you think a child should be put a risk. In one sentence please!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. But the JCVI didn't say the risk outweighed the benefit. Additionally the 4 CMOs are not "going against" the JCVI...the JCVI actually referred it to the CMOs so that a decision could be taken based on the wider picture. Of course, feel free to ignore that and don't let the facts get in the way of a good story "It shouldn't be judged on wider picture its based on the individual child. A child should not be vaccinated to help wider society utcwas always based on the risk to child. Therefore no benefit to child | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. If there's a risk to children why haven't we shut schools Why haven't we shut schools because of risk? . Lockdowns aren't favoured so much by many. It's essential that kids get improved education, compared to the start of this all too. Few parents are home to care for them, as lockdown ended a while ago. "That's not a Medical reason so parents babysitters so they can go to work. If there's a risk a child they should not be in school and get vaccinated If it's safe to send a child unprotected to school then obviously vaccination is needed to protect THEM!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. If there's a risk to children why haven't we shut schools Why haven't we shut schools because of risk? . Lockdowns aren't favoured so much by many. It's essential that kids get improved education, compared to the start of this all too. Few parents are home to care for them, as lockdown ended a while ago. "Education is not more important then health Or do you believe their health isn't important | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because that does nothing in thegrand scheme of things.. ya cant hide from this....we have a major tool.in the arsenal that wasnt here ladt yr...its called a vaccine...yes nothings 100% its not a magical cure thatll turn time back to say halloween 2019 when the world just got on without the worry of a killer virus....jvci are not the be all and end of when it comes to all this...look around folks....msny countries around have been vaxing youths from 12 up for months and there doing alot better atm when it comes to testing postive...whoch will allow majority of schools to carry on without the whole isolating situ for alorlt of folk just like the adult population....covid or any vurys diesnt care about age groups...it dies not discriminate against shit like that...yes ive kids too....these are scary trying times for us all...keep safe "It's not about grand scheme the decision is suppose to based on risk to child. Oh sorry moving goal posts again. Children should not be risked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. You don't get it we don't trust the goverment. All along goverment said very insignificant risk to children now moved goal posts, All long gov said follow science Niw ignore jvci moved goal posts. You don't get it a child should not be put a risk of vaccination when no need to. Im way doesn't matter as most parents will not put their child at risk and therefore uptake wil be low. Why don't you pursue the 5 million adults who have not taken vaccination Im double vaxed but my children not be having it as their no reason for them to. .. I just gave you one example on whether there is a risk or not for children, however minimal is this. You don’t trust the government? Neither do I. But this does not cloud my mind and my judgement. Judgement why do you think a child should be put a risk. In one sentence please!!!! " Cause the schools have opened, the flu season is starting soon, the delta varriant is more infectuous and transmitted more easily and a large number of children in the UK will get infected. There you go. In one sentence. You may not see the covid risk in children but do you disagree with any of the above in my - customised for you - one sentence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. Have you got children So you haven't addressed 5 million adults who have refused vaccine. Don't use children as a political tool. Jcvi says the balance of risks points to no vaccine as puts, at more risk. Why are we bothered because parents want to protect their child and there are 2 risks medical risk and a goverment we don't trust added to whitty who is being political not medical. All talking won't convince to put child at risk cos we don't trust giv and whitty. I'm not antivax and double jabbed but won't risk a child. If Jcvi say no that should mean no" Ultimately children and parents will say no. So please focus on the 5 million adults who have not taken the jab.. That's the real issue What do you think of the 5 million who haven't taken it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. Have you got children So you haven't addressed 5 million adults who have refused vaccine. Don't use children as a political tool. Jcvi says the balance of risks points to no vaccine as puts, at more risk. Why are we bothered because parents want to protect their child and there are 2 risks medical risk and a goverment we don't trust added to whitty who is being political not medical. All talking won't convince to put child at risk cos we don't trust giv and whitty. I'm not antivax and double jabbed but won't risk a child. If Jcvi say no that should mean no Ultimately children and parents will say no. So please focus on the 5 million adults who have not taken the jab.. That's the real issue What do you think of the 5 million who haven't taken it? " Say no as much as you want and wait for the government to address the 5 million adults while your children are attending school. My friend vaccinated her 3 children. Ages 16, 14 and 14. Do you think such parents are stupid? She is worried as much as you do. The virus does not look what is your political allegiance. You are rolling the dice and you play with the probabilities on potential risks. You are rolling the dice at your own peril. I am not trying to convince you but you are taking a gamble, no matter how small is this gamble. You are still taking a gamble. You put all your chips on the roulette table and you have covered all numbers except one and you are sure that the number you have not played will not come. Most likely it will not. But you can not be 100% sure. Therefore you are taking a gamble. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. You don't get it we don't trust the goverment. All along goverment said very insignificant risk to children now moved goal posts, All long gov said follow science Niw ignore jvci moved goal posts. You don't get it a child should not be put a risk of vaccination when no need to. Im way doesn't matter as most parents will not put their child at risk and therefore uptake wil be low. Why don't you pursue the 5 million adults who have not taken vaccination Im double vaxed but my children not be having it as their no reason for them to. .. I just gave you one example on whether there is a risk or not for children, however minimal is this. You don’t trust the government? Neither do I. But this does not cloud my mind and my judgement. Judgement why do you think a child should be put a risk. In one sentence please!!!! Cause the schools have opened, the flu season is starting soon, the delta varriant is more infectuous and transmitted more easily and a large number of children in the UK will get infected. There you go. In one sentence. You may not see the covid risk in children but do you disagree with any of the above in my - customised for you - one sentence? " Summary OK. But the rules are a vaccine should be taken if there's a reduction in risk for the child and there is not. Read up the rule Therefore for greater good is not a Medical reason for the invidusl child also fundamental it damage a whole child's life but for elderly its worth risk. . This goverment has the highest rate of deaths per capita in world . This after getting vaccine first. We are now between 10 and 15th in World in rates vaccination Please focus real issue no trust in this goverment no parent is going to rusk a child if they don't trust source of information Please don't challenge the government's record it's a national disgrace. Boris trying have early election so to avoid inquiry Highest death rate Abandoned care home residents Vaccination success being wasted. NHS on its knees and its September!! Moing goal posts and lies To slow to lockdiwn 1 and 2 Diesnt follow the science. Dominic Cummings Barnard castle was the flag So how can you trust this goverment to the right thing by your child Whitty goverment puppent Jcvi independent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unbelievable but someone will try and defend government!!!! " Over 150 k deaths why is our country's rate so high!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. But the JCVI didn't say the risk outweighed the benefit. Additionally the 4 CMOs are not "going against" the JCVI...the JCVI actually referred it to the CMOs so that a decision could be taken based on the wider picture. Of course, feel free to ignore that and don't let the facts get in the way of a good story
It shouldn't be judged on wider picture its based on the individual child. A child should not be vaccinated to help wider society utcwas always based on the risk to child. Therefore no benefit to child "And yet it isn't mandatory is it? So it's still an individual decision. If you or your child doesn't want to have the covid vaccine that's ok. All that's happened here is that it has been made available to those who do want it. And just as a person has no right to call out parents/children who choose not to have it, you have no right to call out those who do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unbelievable but someone will try and defend government!!!! " Over 150 k deaths why is our country's rate so high!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine." 1. Point to where I said “No Child is at Risk”? You can’t because I didn’t. What I did do was point out reasons parents have concerns. Like them or not they remain concerns. I also pointed out that posting a story a out one child with a rare issue as if that is evidence children are at risk is in the same camp as citing rare blood clots as evidence the vaccine are dangerous. 2. I confess to not yet reading you whole post. It is a tad long so need to put the kettle on.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. But the JCVI didn't say the risk outweighed the benefit. Additionally the 4 CMOs are not "going against" the JCVI...the JCVI actually referred it to the CMOs so that a decision could be taken based on the wider picture. Of course, feel free to ignore that and don't let the facts get in the way of a good story
It shouldn't be judged on wider picture its based on the individual child. A child should not be vaccinated to help wider society utcwas always based on the risk to child. Therefore no benefit to child
And yet it isn't mandatory is it? So it's still an individual decision. If you or your child doesn't want to have the covid vaccine that's ok. All that's happened here is that it has been made available to those who do want it. And just as a person has no right to call out parents/children who choose not to have it, you have no right to call out those who do"Im not calling anyone out about from whitty and goverment they need to honest with parents and not use children as a political tool. All along was, a child at very low risk and very unlikely vaccination right. No all sudden goal posts moved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. 1. Point to where I said “No Child is at Risk”? You can’t because I didn’t. What I did do was point out reasons parents have concerns. Like them or not they remain concerns. I also pointed out that posting a story a out one child with a rare issue as if that is evidence children are at risk is in the same camp as citing rare blood clots as evidence the vaccine are dangerous. 2. I confess to not yet reading you whole post. It is a tad long so need to put the kettle on. "Simply really do you think risking a child's heath vaccine is right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So please focus on the 5 million adults who have not taken the jab.. That's the real issue What do you think of the 5 million who haven't taken it? " If they were all vaccinated do you think children won't get Covid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. 1. Point to where I said “No Child is at Risk”? You can’t because I didn’t. What I did do was point out reasons parents have concerns. Like them or not they remain concerns. I also pointed out that posting a story a out one child with a rare issue as if that is evidence children are at risk is in the same camp as citing rare blood clots as evidence the vaccine are dangerous. 2. I confess to not yet reading you whole post. It is a tad long so need to put the kettle on. "Simply really do you think risking a child's heath vaccine is right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So please focus on the 5 million adults who have not taken the jab.. That's the real issue What do you think of the 5 million who haven't taken it? If they were all vaccinated do you think children won't get Covid?" You miss the point. Is it in child's best interest not society to have vaccine when no medical reason to have it All long gov not worried about kids getting covid If your worried about kids getting covid why they in school. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unbelievable but someone will try and defend government!!!! " So are you against vaccinations for children because you don't trust the Gov / because you don't trust the vaccine or that you think there is a risk with the vaccine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police" The government didn't refer it to Whitty. The JCVI referred it to all 4 CMOs, not just Chris Whitty and it was their collective decision. Furthermore the JCVI at no point said the risks outweighed the benefits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of interest, for those saying school age children should/shouldn't be vaccinated, how many of you have children that fall within that category? It's an emotive subject and for me, my kids' health and wellbeing will always be more important than that of a stranger. " Exactly how it should be. I think most parents would weigh up all the info and make an informed decision from that. However, people can still talk about it if they have a view on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unbelievable but someone will try and defend government!!!! So are you against vaccinations for children because you don't trust the Gov / because you don't trust the vaccine or that you think there is a risk with the vaccine?" There is a risk with ever vaccine therefore yes risk vaccine is not worth putting child's health at risk for. Don't trust goverment and therefore if lack of trust more likely not to take a risk. Think vaccine works for the people, at risk of hospital and death and we should think careful before use | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So please focus on the 5 million adults who have not taken the jab.. That's the real issue What do you think of the 5 million who haven't taken it? If they were all vaccinated do you think children won't get Covid? You miss the point. Is it in child's best interest not society to have vaccine when no medical reason to have it All long gov not worried about kids getting covid If your worried about kids getting covid why they in school. " You keep reading into peoples posts that are not there, which makes it hard to debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of interest, for those saying school age children should/shouldn't be vaccinated, how many of you have children that fall within that category? It's an emotive subject and for me, my kids' health and wellbeing will always be more important than that of a stranger. Exactly how it should be. I think most parents would weigh up all the info and make an informed decision from that. However, people can still talk about it if they have a view on it. " How can you make informed decision as facts come from this goverment and their puppet whitty so no trust Jcvi in dependant therefore more trust | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's make this simply Yes or no Do you think children should be vaccinated Yes or no" Is that to me or all of us? My answer would be whatever the parent and child decides | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So please focus on the 5 million adults who have not taken the jab.. That's the real issue What do you think of the 5 million who haven't taken it? If they were all vaccinated do you think children won't get Covid? You miss the point. Is it in child's best interest not society to have vaccine when no medical reason to have it All long gov not worried about kids getting covid If your worried about kids getting covid why they in school. You keep reading into peoples posts that are not there, which makes it hard to debate " As I asked do you agree with a child being vaccinated Yes or no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's make this simply Yes or no Do you think children should be vaccinated Yes or no Is that to me or all of us? My answer would be whatever the parent and child decides" Everyone By the way is your answer a yes or no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why did the government even refer it to Whitty when the JCVI had said the risks outweighed the benefits for children To my mind, anyone who gets an otherwise healthy child jabbed should be referred to the police Even parents who've done their own research, turned off the BBC, exercised critical thinking to make a personal choice that is the reflection of the sacred bond they feel for their child? You don't get it whitty is suppose to advise parent on medicals issues so they can make decision. He didn't No medical reason give child vaccine. He should grow a. Pair and stand upto gov. Its not a voice like ordering a takeaway A child shoundbe protected Agree child soft target Parents, are digusted I'm. I'm double jabbed but my children won't be vaxed as no medical reason to put there health at risk!!! This is a medical reason which you chose to ignore earlier. Children are at risk. At a much smaller risk. People can choose to take a gamble or not. In the news today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10002539/Eight-year-old-girl-left-paralyzed-COVID-triggered-rare-auto-immune-disease-encephalomyelitis.html Was gonna keep sitting on the fence, keeping out of all this tribalist nonsense, and munch my popcorn on this one but gotta say this... Would love to see that actual stats on this. Two people have quoted this story (from the Daily Heil/Fail no less) which is about one child who clearly had some kind of unique condition right? I think quoting this as evidence of risk to children is as incorrect as citing incredibly rare occurrences of blood clots caused by the vaccines as evidence the vaccines are dangerous. The reason some parents are concerned include: 1) Lack of long term data (impact on fertility is still unknown and the vaccines are impacting on some women’s menstrual cycles which is disconcerting for some). 2) If you take the vaccine you are 100% exposed to the risks of the vaccines however small that might be. You are 100% exposed to the risks of Covid if you catch it but the vast majority of the population do not have and have not had Covid. 3) Statistically Covid is low risk for almost all children, so is it really necessary? 4) The constantly changing rhetoric. Originally the plan was the vaccinate the at risk. That has evolved to driving towards universal vaccination with regular boosters. BTW not an anti vaxxer, just think balanced discussion is in order. Thanks for the time you took to write your thoughts. I am always up for a good conversation but my aim is not to win an argument. At the same time though I can not read nonsense like No Child is at risk. Of course children are at risk. At much less risk than the risk in much older people but still at risk. You ask for stats. The story did not come with stats. But I am aware of stats from CDC. In one of the past weeks right after schools started in the US, there were 220,000 children who were found positive to covid in one week. Out of 800,000+ total positibe cases in one week, a quarter of positive cases were kids. The hospitalisations of children within that week compared to hospitalisatioms of adults were insignificant. 19,000 children got hospitalised in one week. Some in serious condition. Now 19,000 children being hospitalised is definitely a risk. A minimal risk but still a risk. If you knew for certaim that your healthy child was going to be hospitalised, tell me that you would still not do the vaccine to your child. That you would take your chances that your child would recover well and fast. I do not know whether I would believe you. This news about the 8 year old girl broke a day ago and today the daily mail and the mirror wrote about it. Most likely such news would be covered by a tabloid here in the UK. Now, it is clearly that you and some others do not rate the source, hence the daily heil/fail but I rather rely on a mainstream news source than on facebook and youtube for news and info. If you have read the daily fail story you would have learnt that the child was healthy. At least this is what his doctor claimed. No preexisting condition. This does not mean that there was no hidden preexisting condition but the doctor says the child was healthy. The child was found covid positive and even though she did not get really sick a few days later was found uncomscious. The doctor said that rare virus in her brain that caused all this issues is caused by a virus and the girl got tested positive few days ago to a virus. The covid virus. I quoted this story because it was reported today and only because a fellow forumer said there is no risk in children. There is some risk and even if it is minimal it is still a risk. And I believe it is damgerous to say there is no risk. We can not be absolute. As we can not be absolute that the vaccines are of no risk. Like you said, this is dangerous too. I understand the concerns of parents. Lack of long term data on fertility. Yes but it is impossible to have long term data for these vaccines. As it is impossible to have long term data on the future health issues that covid sufferers who got hospitalised will face. Some scientists (revered and quoted by antivaxxers) were saying that the vaccines will affect fertility. So far, it does not seem to affect the fertility including the fertility of women that took part dirimg the trials and did not know they were already pregnant. But what we know though is that some covid patients got scarred or damaged lungs or other organs and some of these people (including children) will face problems in the future. We do not need long term data for this. As for the irregular periods there was another study if I am not mistaken that seems to reduce fears. Exposure 100% to the risks of the vacccines? What risks? The long term ones? We do not know them. Are you 100% sure that there will be long term risks? There may not be any risks. But I can not be certain either. I did the H1N1 10 years ago, I have not seen any risks yet. Some scientists favoured by antivaxxers were saying that a significant percentage of people would die from the vaccines within a few weeks. Has this happened? I have not read anything on daily fail or cnn or on bbc. Have you? Surely you would know and I would know. I do not agree you ate exposed 100% to the risks of covid should you catch it. Many are unsymptomatic, their only risk is infecting their family friends, colleagues. If you are younger and healthy, it is the roll of the dice whether you will be exposed 100% to the risk of covid. If you are older late 40s early 50s and;/or have other health issues you roll the dice with a greater certainty that you will be exposed to the risks of covid. And so on. Like most doctors have said for people of these ages, the benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (antivaxxers mainly) forget that the risk is not just death. And this is why I got vaccinated. Because I want to avoid serious hospitalisation due to covid. I do not want to roll the dice. I understand that 95% is not 100%. I understand that with the Delta varriant is less. Tough luck. We were unlucky that Delta variant is more infectuous and is not addressed that well by the current vaccine. I chose to do something to protect myself now. Right now I amconcerned of now and not what will happen long term. Just because we do not have long term data, does not nevessarily mean that something will happen. Statistically covid is low risk to almost all children, I have already answered above. In the UK we are lucky so far cause the cases are low. But look at the USA now. 19,000 children hove been hospitalised in one week only because the Delta varriant is more infectuous than the Alpha variant. We are better off than USA in terms of overall vaccination rates but if the child catches covid and gets hospitalised do the stats matter for this child and his parents.? Not so much. They start praying. Even if you think it is not necessary, I believe that most baccinated people who caught covid (or whose baccinated child got covid) and got hospitalised thanked their lucky stars that they had it and the sceptics and possibly some antivaxxers regretted not having it. The constantly changing rhetoric. I am not going to say that it is not frustrating. Covid was a new thing and a once in a lifetime thing and I understand that the scoentists would not get everything right the first time. As someone who was in a country greatly affected by SARS 18 years ago I was more in tune with the pandemic even before it became a problem in Europe and the USA. Stuff like they told us not to wear masks and then told us to wear do not bother me really. What is more important to me is that I am still ok. I did not get covid. Scientists are still learning and during this course things changed. With Delta changed again. I am happy that we got the vaccine and a significant number of people got vaccinated before Delta, even though the current vaccines do not offer as much protection. It is better than no protection. I do not want to think how things would be right now if we did not have the vaccines. With the high hospitalisations and deaths and in January and without vaccines and with a more infectuous delta taking over, it could be a different ball game, not just in terms of covid casulaties but lots of other disruptions. It is unfortunate that the vaccine is not lasting a lifetime and we may need a booster but thats the way it is. I believe it would be a lot worse if we did not have a vaccine (and scientists were hoping for a vaccine offering protection of around 60% or higher). Therefore, I can not complain. Even with the flu vaccine, we have to take it once a year. If I take the Covid vaccine a couple of times more, it does not matter to me. If covid does not go away anytime soon and we need the vaccine yearly, I hope the vaccine will be once a year like the flu vaccine. 1. Point to where I said “No Child is at Risk”? You can’t because I didn’t. What I did do was point out reasons parents have concerns. Like them or not they remain concerns. I also pointed out that posting a story a out one child with a rare issue as if that is evidence children are at risk is in the same camp as citing rare blood clots as evidence the vaccine are dangerous. 2. I confess to not yet reading you whole post. It is a tad long so need to put the kettle on. "Take your time. You have a whole day to read my reply. At least, I read and replied to the long post. If you want a balanced conversation this is what I gave, a balanced conversation. But I am not expecting a continuation of the balanced conversation or my whole answer to ne read. It is nice to read that many claim to want a balanced conversation. But can they have a balanced conversation when they can not even read the arguments of the other side? I do not think so. But I understand that the need for a balanced conversation is not really a need by some who claim it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's make this simply Yes or no Do you think children should be vaccinated Yes or no Is that to me or all of us? My answer would be whatever the parent and child decides Everyone By the way is your answer a yes or no" I can't change my answer just to suit you no matter how much haranguing you do. I happily don't have to make the decision and have not looked into it enough to be able to say yes or no, but for the people who have because they have children that age then it should be their choice to vaccinate or not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's make this simply Yes or no Do you think children should be vaccinated Yes or no Is that to me or all of us? My answer would be whatever the parent and child decides" As a father of 2 children in this category, my children have independently said no and I support their decision | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NO" For God’s sake John, I understand you are upset with everything and everyone but there is no need to pepper the thread with multiple one sentence or one word posts. What do you try to accomplish? Bring this thread to the magic number of 175 posts? You continue like this, there is a high risk this will happen very soon! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of interest, for those saying school age children should/shouldn't be vaccinated, how many of you have children that fall within that category? It's an emotive subject and for me, my kids' health and wellbeing will always be more important than that of a stranger. " 2 of my children are in the age group that will be offered it and they have both decided to have it Children should be deciding for themselves on the issue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public." The JCVI did not say that The JCVI said the benefits were very marginal That is the NET benefits- because the benefits outweighed the risks But because it was so marginal they couldnt recomend a wider roll out on that basis alone...which was their only remit. Gov need to also consider the wider benefits of young people being vaccinated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread will soon close for being too long, especially with us all quoting War and Peace by @Straight_no_ice Never ceases to amaze me how much people misquote or misunderstand what others are saying. It’s like the three wise monkeys whenever it doesn’t fit with your personal agenda. Makes discussion impossible. @Straight_no_ice you totally projected off the back of my post and made statements that had no bearing or relation to what I had said. You also need to understand what “exposure to risk” is because clearly you don’t. EVERYONE (100%) who catches Covid is exposed to the risks of Covid. However, they say approx 2/3 become symptomatic. Of those a percentage get ill. A smaller percentage get very ill, a smaller percentage get hospitalised and a smaller percentage die. However, NOBODY (0%) is exposed to the risks of Covid if they do not catch it. They don’t have it so they cannot be exposed. Currently that is the vast majority of people in the UK. Being exposed to the risks of Covid is not the same as being exposed to the chances of catching Covid. Two different risk profiles. I am not going to address all your points, there’s just too much there but will come back on two more... 1) Long term data - stop mansplaining! Of course there is no long term data because the vaccines are only a year old! Everyone understands that. The point is that does not reassure those who are concerned about unknown long term issues. That is why some parents are concerned. You can make a decision for your own body as it is yours. But it is far harder when you have parental responsibility for your child and their long term health. 2) And again as I said above, you cannot point to where I said “no child is at risk” because I didn’t. It is really not good practice to misquote or imply someone has said something they haven’t. Try to be better!" Apologies if you think that I misquoted you. I replied in the way I understood your post. I m happy to let the others say what they want. I am enjoying as much reading what others have to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's my understanding that the risks of Covid in children outweigh the risks of the vaccines by some margin. I have no idea how we've come to the point where the public discourse argues the opposite. I do not have children, and it is not my decision to make, but I wish the best for the nation's children." Because once again the messages and comms are unclear. It really should not be that hard to take comparable data sets and present that information in an easy to understand format that enables people (parents in this case) to make properly informed decisions. As said ad infinitum on these fora, this is all about understanding risk profiles. Likelihood of an event happening and impact (catching Covid, becoming ill with Covid, becoming very ill, death and not forgetting long* covid) measured against mitigations. But people cannot do that with garbled mixed messages and incomparable data sets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread will soon close for being too long, especially with us all quoting War and Peace by @Straight_no_ice Never ceases to amaze me how much people misquote or misunderstand what others are saying. It’s like the three wise monkeys whenever it doesn’t fit with your personal agenda. Makes discussion impossible. @Straight_no_ice you totally projected off the back of my post and made statements that had no bearing or relation to what I had said. You also need to understand what “exposure to risk” is because clearly you don’t. EVERYONE (100%) who catches Covid is exposed to the risks of Covid. However, they say approx 2/3 become symptomatic. Of those a percentage get ill. A smaller percentage get very ill, a smaller percentage get hospitalised and a smaller percentage die. However, NOBODY (0%) is exposed to the risks of Covid if they do not catch it. They don’t have it so they cannot be exposed. Currently that is the vast majority of people in the UK. Being exposed to the risks of Covid is not the same as being exposed to the chances of catching Covid. Two different risk profiles. I am not going to address all your points, there’s just too much there but will come back on two more... 1) Long term data - stop mansplaining! Of course there is no long term data because the vaccines are only a year old! Everyone understands that. The point is that does not reassure those who are concerned about unknown long term issues. That is why some parents are concerned. You can make a decision for your own body as it is yours. But it is far harder when you have parental responsibility for your child and their long term health. 2) And again as I said above, you cannot point to where I said “no child is at risk” because I didn’t. It is really not good practice to misquote or imply someone has said something they haven’t. Try to be better! Apologies if you think that I misquoted you. I replied in the way I understood your post. I m happy to let the others say what they want. I am enjoying as much reading what others have to say." I don’t think you misquoted me, you clearly did! However, I will accept the apology as the heat in these discussions does get turned up too high sometimes (hence my opening comment on tribalism). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's my understanding that the risks of Covid in children outweigh the risks of the vaccines by some margin. I have no idea how we've come to the point where the public discourse argues the opposite. I do not have children, and it is not my decision to make, but I wish the best for the nation's children. Because once again the messages and comms are unclear. It really should not be that hard to take comparable data sets and present that information in an easy to understand format that enables people (parents in this case) to make properly informed decisions. As said ad infinitum on these fora, this is all about understanding risk profiles. Likelihood of an event happening and impact (catching Covid, becoming ill with Covid, becoming very ill, death and not forgetting long* covid) measured against mitigations. But people cannot do that with garbled mixed messages and incomparable data sets." True enough. Ugh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read a lot of madness and delirium in this post " It's not exclusive to this post.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines." I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. " I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal." I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. " You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question " You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government." Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government." The data supports this conclusion. I dont know why soany are determined to think otherwise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more " Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results)" Have you got children. I. Would guess no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal." You don't risk a child on marginal. 80 year old yes. Case closed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of interest, for those saying school age children should/shouldn't be vaccinated, how many of you have children that fall within that category? It's an emotive subject and for me, my kids' health and wellbeing will always be more important than that of a stranger. 2 of my children are in the age group that will be offered it and they have both decided to have it Children should be deciding for themselves on the issue "That's it take no responsibility as a parent. They are children if they weren't they could vote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no " No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the end of the day each family and child will make their own decision on what they think is best for them at this time. What someone else thinks about that decision is of no consequence. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did." Appreciate honesty you do have a say but being parent you protect your child and the vaccine has side effects some serious all Vaccines do therefore a child's life is very precious and you don't risk it with a goverment that no one trusts. If we trusted goverment may sway decision but I don't and I think most reasonable people don't trust them ask the 150 k who are dead that many should never have died | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Appreciate honesty you do have a say but being parent you protect your child and the vaccine has side effects some serious all Vaccines do therefore a child's life is very precious and you don't risk it with a goverment that no one trusts. If we trusted goverment may sway decision but I don't and I think most reasonable people don't trust them ask the 150 k who are dead that many should never have died " I don't trust the government. Never said I did. Which is why I do not trust what the JCVI is saying - it does not fit with international data. Covid means that a child is significantly more likely to get myocarditis. I fail to see how exposing a child to higher risk is protecting them. I think parents should have an informed choice. And I don't think "the vaccine has risks therefore don't give it" is a reasonable assessment. The vaccine has risks in children. The vaccine has significantly lower risks than Covid in children. It is up to the parent or Gillick competent child, but I think decisions should be based on the data. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Appreciate honesty you do have a say but being parent you protect your child and the vaccine has side effects some serious all Vaccines do therefore a child's life is very precious and you don't risk it with a goverment that no one trusts. If we trusted goverment may sway decision but I don't and I think most reasonable people don't trust them ask the 150 k who are dead that many should never have died " Yes part of being a parent is protecting your child, however another part of being a parent is teaching them about life, how to make decisions based on researching information to hand, discussing issues and concerns before making a choice that affects them. This is one of those situations and it isn’t just down to the parent to decide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did." Yep all comes back to probability of realising the risk. And let’s be frank here (not a dig specifically at you @_naswingdress) unless you are a parent with children currently aged 12-15 or soon to enter the age range, then you don’t really have the same level of right to an opinion as you are not the ones facing a moral dilemma. If children were as severely impacted by Covid (in as great a number/proportion) as adults then there probably wouldn’t be an argument. They’re not and we have 18mths of data to support that now. As I said earlier, there are some fears on potential impact on fertility. The vaccines are changing some women’s menstrual cycles (seems odd when they are supposed to be dealing with a respiratory illness but I am not a virologist). While you say some babies have been born, that is not conclusive evidence things are fine. We won’t know for some time and the point here is giving the vaccine to children entering puberty. If we don’t really know and the benefits are marginal then why do it? Again though, this all comes down to using comparable data sets and communicating clearly. THAT is how you build trust. If there are risks (there are) then quantify them and then compare/contrast with the Covid risks (using identical methodologies). *BTW - do we know why children aren’t as affected yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allegedly, Whitty has been called to the HoC next week to present his evidence for jabbing children and going against the recommendation of the JCVI to not jab children as the risk outweighs the benefit. Allegedly this is because of a huge amount of pressure put on MPs by letters written by concerned parents and public. It's not being made compulsory. So why don't these "concerned parents" just shut the fuck up and let other people get on with it? People should never shut the fuck up when something concerns them, especially with their own children "This . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did. Yep all comes back to probability of realising the risk. And let’s be frank here (not a dig specifically at you @_naswingdress) unless you are a parent with children currently aged 12-15 or soon to enter the age range, then you don’t really have the same level of right to an opinion as you are not the ones facing a moral dilemma. If children were as severely impacted by Covid (in as great a number/proportion) as adults then there probably wouldn’t be an argument. They’re not and we have 18mths of data to support that now. As I said earlier, there are some fears on potential impact on fertility. The vaccines are changing some women’s menstrual cycles (seems odd when they are supposed to be dealing with a respiratory illness but I am not a virologist). While you say some babies have been born, that is not conclusive evidence things are fine. We won’t know for some time and the point here is giving the vaccine to children entering puberty. If we don’t really know and the benefits are marginal then why do it? Again though, this all comes down to using comparable data sets and communicating clearly. THAT is how you build trust. If there are risks (there are) then quantify them and then compare/contrast with the Covid risks (using identical methodologies). *BTW - do we know why children aren’t as affected yet? " as if I'd typed it myself. The lack of that information being made communicated and made readily available is suspicious in my opinion. Surely any one wishing to achieve something would make a compelling evidence based case for it? Rather than just continuing to bluster and coerce their way through it? I even heard a radio advert today saying... If you want your kids to be able to do stuff this autumn and winter... Get them jabbed... For those misquoting what the jcvi reported to government... Heres the link 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 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did. Yep all comes back to probability of realising the risk. And let’s be frank here (not a dig specifically at you @_naswingdress) unless you are a parent with children currently aged 12-15 or soon to enter the age range, then you don’t really have the same level of right to an opinion as you are not the ones facing a moral dilemma. If children were as severely impacted by Covid (in as great a number/proportion) as adults then there probably wouldn’t be an argument. They’re not and we have 18mths of data to support that now. As I said earlier, there are some fears on potential impact on fertility. The vaccines are changing some women’s menstrual cycles (seems odd when they are supposed to be dealing with a respiratory illness but I am not a virologist). While you say some babies have been born, that is not conclusive evidence things are fine. We won’t know for some time and the point here is giving the vaccine to children entering puberty. If we don’t really know and the benefits are marginal then why do it? Again though, this all comes down to using comparable data sets and communicating clearly. THAT is how you build trust. If there are risks (there are) then quantify them and then compare/contrast with the Covid risks (using identical methodologies). *BTW - do we know why children aren’t as affected yet? " Well I am a parent and my child (not living with me) is of that age. My child though is living with 3 people in the same house, all three vaccinated but high risk. And my child is going to school. Only for this reason, whether it is a low risk or no to be vaccinated. I will have no issue to get vaccinated to protect the other three members of the household who are at risk, even though all 3 are vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not taken as a dig. I know I care in an abstract sense - and I hope I've made it clear that I'm arguing for accurate information and the right to make a choice, here. (on that basis I would vaccinate my hypothetical child or any child I had responsibility over - but again, I know that's very different to being a parent or guardian)" Cool. A civilised discussion (you always are, others not so much). You say: “Covid means that a child is significantly more likely to get myocarditis. I fail to see how exposing a child to higher risk is protecting them.” I think therein lies the issue. Only those children who get Covid are exposed to the risk of potentially getting myocarditis. None of the kids who don’t get Covid (deliberate double negative) are exposed to that risk. We cannot assume 100% infection rate. To determine the risk profile of Covid vs Vaccine you first need to factor out all those who have not caught Covid (yes that changes but so does the number who have had it and recovered with no detrimental impact). Again it is about creating comparable data sets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not taken as a dig. I know I care in an abstract sense - and I hope I've made it clear that I'm arguing for accurate information and the right to make a choice, here. (on that basis I would vaccinate my hypothetical child or any child I had responsibility over - but again, I know that's very different to being a parent or guardian) Cool. A civilised discussion (you always are, others not so much). You say: “Covid means that a child is significantly more likely to get myocarditis. I fail to see how exposing a child to higher risk is protecting them.” I think therein lies the issue. Only those children who get Covid are exposed to the risk of potentially getting myocarditis. None of the kids who don’t get Covid (deliberate double negative) are exposed to that risk. We cannot assume 100% infection rate. To determine the risk profile of Covid vs Vaccine you first need to factor out all those who have not caught Covid (yes that changes but so does the number who have had it and recovered with no detrimental impact). Again it is about creating comparable data sets." But the likelihood is that without a vaccine then all children *will* eventually get covid. Especially if you are trying for herd immunity. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not taken as a dig. I know I care in an abstract sense - and I hope I've made it clear that I'm arguing for accurate information and the right to make a choice, here. (on that basis I would vaccinate my hypothetical child or any child I had responsibility over - but again, I know that's very different to being a parent or guardian) Cool. A civilised discussion (you always are, others not so much). You say: “Covid means that a child is significantly more likely to get myocarditis. I fail to see how exposing a child to higher risk is protecting them.” I think therein lies the issue. Only those children who get Covid are exposed to the risk of potentially getting myocarditis. None of the kids who don’t get Covid (deliberate double negative) are exposed to that risk. We cannot assume 100% infection rate. To determine the risk profile of Covid vs Vaccine you first need to factor out all those who have not caught Covid (yes that changes but so does the number who have had it and recovered with no detrimental impact). Again it is about creating comparable data sets. But the likelihood is that without a vaccine then all children *will* eventually get covid. Especially if you are trying for herd immunity. -Matt" Is it? Unless you have evidence that is going to happen... I mean in the 20 months what percentage of kids have got it so far? 20 per cent? So what leads you to the belief everyone will get it? Over what period of time? If it takes 5 years... How many jabs will they have had in the interim? Does that the increase the risk factors of the vaccine by 5? If the immunity only lasts for 6? , 9,? 12? , 24? months how will herd immunity ever be achieved? Unless the entire population is infected / injected every(say) 12 / 24 months? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did. Yep all comes back to probability of realising the risk. And let’s be frank here (not a dig specifically at you @_naswingdress) unless you are a parent with children currently aged 12-15 or soon to enter the age range, then you don’t really have the same level of right to an opinion as you are not the ones facing a moral dilemma. If children were as severely impacted by Covid (in as great a number/proportion) as adults then there probably wouldn’t be an argument. They’re not and we have 18mths of data to support that now. As I said earlier, there are some fears on potential impact on fertility. The vaccines are changing some women’s menstrual cycles (seems odd when they are supposed to be dealing with a respiratory illness but I am not a virologist). While you say some babies have been born, that is not conclusive evidence things are fine. We won’t know for some time and the point here is giving the vaccine to children entering puberty. If we don’t really know and the benefits are marginal then why do it? Again though, this all comes down to using comparable data sets and communicating clearly. THAT is how you build trust. If there are risks (there are) then quantify them and then compare/contrast with the Covid risks (using identical methodologies). *BTW - do we know why children aren’t as affected yet? Well I am a parent and my child (not living with me) is of that age. My child though is living with 3 people in the same house, all three vaccinated but high risk. And my child is going to school. Only for this reason, whether it is a low risk or no to be vaccinated. I will have no issue to get vaccinated to protect the other three members of the household who are at risk, even though all 3 are vaccinated. " Well that sounds like a good reason. A basic risk analysis based on personal circumstances. In your shoes many might do the same. Hypothetical question 1 - if everyone in the household was low risk and already double jabbed would you still vaccinate the child? Hypothetical question 2 - if (hopefully this is a big if) we knew the vaccine had a risk of reducing fertility as the child grew into an adult, would you still vaccinate the child? | |||
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) | |||
"SNIP... We cannot assume 100% infection rate. To determine the risk profile of Covid vs Vaccine you first need to factor out all those who have not caught Covid (yes that changes but so does the number who have had it and recovered with no detrimental impact). Again it is about creating comparable data sets. But the likelihood is that without a vaccine then all children *will* eventually get covid. Especially if you are trying for herd immunity. -Matt Is it? Unless you have evidence that is going to happen... I mean in the 20 months what percentage of kids have got it so far? 20 per cent? So what leads you to the belief everyone will get it? Over what period of time? If it takes 5 years... How many jabs will they have had in the interim? Does that the increase the risk factors of the vaccine by 5? If the immunity only lasts for 6? , 9,? 12? , 24? months how will herd immunity ever be achieved? Unless the entire population is infected / injected every(say) 12 / 24 months? " Beat me to it! Hey Matt interesting assertion but can you back that up? The nearest comparable we have to Covid (based on international impact and mortality) is Spanish Flu 1918-1920. An estimated 50m died worldwide (horrific but hopefully worse than Covid). Did every child (or indeed every human) contract Spanish Flu? Clearly the answer is no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did. Yep all comes back to probability of realising the risk. And let’s be frank here (not a dig specifically at you @_naswingdress) unless you are a parent with children currently aged 12-15 or soon to enter the age range, then you don’t really have the same level of right to an opinion as you are not the ones facing a moral dilemma. If children were as severely impacted by Covid (in as great a number/proportion) as adults then there probably wouldn’t be an argument. They’re not and we have 18mths of data to support that now. As I said earlier, there are some fears on potential impact on fertility. The vaccines are changing some women’s menstrual cycles (seems odd when they are supposed to be dealing with a respiratory illness but I am not a virologist). While you say some babies have been born, that is not conclusive evidence things are fine. We won’t know for some time and the point here is giving the vaccine to children entering puberty. If we don’t really know and the benefits are marginal then why do it? Again though, this all comes down to using comparable data sets and communicating clearly. THAT is how you build trust. If there are risks (there are) then quantify them and then compare/contrast with the Covid risks (using identical methodologies). *BTW - do we know why children aren’t as affected yet? " I'm a grandparent with grandkids in the relevant age range, so I think that I qualify as having the right to an opinion on this. My opinion is that I want my grandkids to have the opportunity to be vaccinated if they and their parents choose to. I don't want to force anybodies children to be vaxxed, but they should all have the opportunity if they wish to take it up. As for all the confusing and contradictory messages coming out of government: - I really do not trust this government further than I could throw them. Everything they do revolves around serving themselves, not the people. However they do occasionally make a decision that I agree with - usually only when forced by public pressure. - Most other first world countries are offering vaccines to children in this age range. The USA has been doing it for months now, with no evidence of catastrophic results. There is however much evidence from over there of lots of children who are not vaccinated ending up in hospital with covid (yes, not as many as adults, but still in the thousands across the USA). - I very much fear that the ambiguous statement from the JVCI is due to political interference. From the very start this government has wanted to pursue the so called "herd immunity" policy, aka. let people die if they're going to, it'll save on the pensions spend. Whitty has stepped out of line by having a conscience over the potential for massive harm to everybody when covid is allowed to spread uncontrolled, I have no doubt that the government will in due course crucify him for that. - It is very obvious that their entire policy surrounding schools has been that they are utterly unconcerned how many kids catch it, and that they see it as a useful way to spread covid into as many homes as possible. [School closures - only did it when most schools had already closed themselves down anyway. School re-openings - forced our kids back into state school classrooms without any protective measures in place, allowed private schools for their own kids to be much more careful. Mask mandates - they set rules to prevent teachers from wearing masks! It all adds up to actually wanting covid to spread more!!] So as you see, I am no friend of this current government, and I trust nothing that they say. But the international community consensus is that there is merit in allowing children to be vaccinated, and it is my opinion that this opportunity must be kept open in this country for those that wish to use it. As given half a chance, the government will steal that opportunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did. Yep all comes back to probability of realising the risk. And let’s be frank here (not a dig specifically at you @_naswingdress) unless you are a parent with children currently aged 12-15 or soon to enter the age range, then you don’t really have the same level of right to an opinion as you are not the ones facing a moral dilemma. If children were as severely impacted by Covid (in as great a number/proportion) as adults then there probably wouldn’t be an argument. They’re not and we have 18mths of data to support that now. As I said earlier, there are some fears on potential impact on fertility. The vaccines are changing some women’s menstrual cycles (seems odd when they are supposed to be dealing with a respiratory illness but I am not a virologist). While you say some babies have been born, that is not conclusive evidence things are fine. We won’t know for some time and the point here is giving the vaccine to children entering puberty. If we don’t really know and the benefits are marginal then why do it? Again though, this all comes down to using comparable data sets and communicating clearly. THAT is how you build trust. If there are risks (there are) then quantify them and then compare/contrast with the Covid risks (using identical methodologies). *BTW - do we know why children aren’t as affected yet? I'm a grandparent with grandkids in the relevant age range, so I think that I qualify as having the right to an opinion on this. My opinion is that I want my grandkids to have the opportunity to be vaccinated if they and their parents choose to. I don't want to force anybodies children to be vaxxed, but they should all have the opportunity if they wish to take it up. As for all the confusing and contradictory messages coming out of government: - I really do not trust this government further than I could throw them. Everything they do revolves around serving themselves, not the people. However they do occasionally make a decision that I agree with - usually only when forced by public pressure. - Most other first world countries are offering vaccines to children in this age range. The USA has been doing it for months now, with no evidence of catastrophic results. There is however much evidence from over there of lots of children who are not vaccinated ending up in hospital with covid (yes, not as many as adults, but still in the thousands across the USA). - I very much fear that the ambiguous statement from the JVCI is due to political interference. From the very start this government has wanted to pursue the so called "herd immunity" policy, aka. let people die if they're going to, it'll save on the pensions spend. Whitty has stepped out of line by having a conscience over the potential for massive harm to everybody when covid is allowed to spread uncontrolled, I have no doubt that the government will in due course crucify him for that. - It is very obvious that their entire policy surrounding schools has been that they are utterly unconcerned how many kids catch it, and that they see it as a useful way to spread covid into as many homes as possible. [School closures - only did it when most schools had already closed themselves down anyway. School re-openings - forced our kids back into state school classrooms without any protective measures in place, allowed private schools for their own kids to be much more careful. Mask mandates - they set rules to prevent teachers from wearing masks! It all adds up to actually wanting covid to spread more!!] So as you see, I am no friend of this current government, and I trust nothing that they say. But the international community consensus is that there is merit in allowing children to be vaccinated, and it is my opinion that this opportunity must be kept open in this country for those that wish to use it. As given half a chance, the government will steal that opportunity. " About one in 100,000 children suffer heart inflammation after taking the vaccine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not taken as a dig. I know I care in an abstract sense - and I hope I've made it clear that I'm arguing for accurate information and the right to make a choice, here. (on that basis I would vaccinate my hypothetical child or any child I had responsibility over - but again, I know that's very different to being a parent or guardian) Cool. A civilised discussion (you always are, others not so much). You say: “Covid means that a child is significantly more likely to get myocarditis. I fail to see how exposing a child to higher risk is protecting them.” I think therein lies the issue. Only those children who get Covid are exposed to the risk of potentially getting myocarditis. None of the kids who don’t get Covid (deliberate double negative) are exposed to that risk. We cannot assume 100% infection rate. To determine the risk profile of Covid vs Vaccine you first need to factor out all those who have not caught Covid (yes that changes but so does the number who have had it and recovered with no detrimental impact). Again it is about creating comparable data sets." Why do we not assume a 100% infection rate? How do you propose that we prevent infection, given it seems to be here to stay? Animal reservoirs, international travel, variants, those who aren't vaccinated, those who are vaccinated and get it anyway, waning immunity. What mitigations are in place to prevent children getting it, what would be needed to prevent infection, and are they more detrimental than the vaccination? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Read article in Times today vaccine risk say experts to children About one in 100,000 children suffer heart inflammation after taking the vaccine More of risk then covid" I’ve read that article, you pick one point out of the whole thing. It was a talk with Professor Adam Finn, a member of the JVCI around the vaccine for kids. It’s an interesting article but it is basically saying that they want the paperwork that is going to parents / kids to be clear about the rare extreme risks of the vaccine, rather than what is currently due to be released. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one been bother Ed about kids getting for 18 months why concern now Sent them to school so could bring back to vulnerable parents and grandparents no one worried about the vulnerable " The government wasn't worried and told us not to be worried. I don't trust the government and always thought that not worrying about the kids was a risky strategy. As we learn more, we adapt, surely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It shouldn't be judged on wider picture its based on the individual child. A child should not be vaccinated to help wider society utcwas always based on the risk to child. Therefore no benefit to child " All policies and legislation has to be based on the bigger picture. In this case parents and older children will make their own decisions, whether to have the vaccination or not. It's not and is highly unlikely to ever be mandatory. I would argue that benefiting wider society also benefits the individual. If a child is vaccinated, even if they catch a virus, they are less likely to pass it on to someone more vulnerable. My 95 year old grandmother isn't less important than my 25 year old son. As a parent I always ensured my son had all the vaccinations available. As a young adult, he got the Covid jab as soon as possible and is now double jabbed. He made this decision because it's for the greater good, in his opinion. If he was still a child I know he would have made the same decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Damn just realised I didn’t finish typing reply to @_naswingdress *Long Covid - we nee to know more. Much more. Is this really a thing (not saying it isn’t). Has Covid caused these issues or has it exacerbated a pre-existing condition? From what I have read it appears the range of issues currently being classed as (potentially) long Covid is simply vast! Are they ALL really part of Long Covid? Also how long is Long Covid? Any serious illness takes its toll on the body which takes time to recover. So how many claimed Long Covid cases are “simply” recovering vs those with proper longterm health issues (in some cases potentially for rest of life)? Again this comes down to risk profiles and understanding likelihood of getting Long Covid as opposed to dying. That could be another driving factor for decisions around vaccines. I don't know because no one knows - but even like with like, the risk of myocarditis in Covid in children is much higher than following vaccination (I cited that claim way up in the thread). I personally don't feel inaction is morally neutral - it amounts to accepting the risks (known and unknown) of Covid. I know nobody yet really knows, it was rhetorical. I personally think Parents have every right to demand more, clear and comparable data to enable them to make informed decisions. There are fears on impact on long term fertility. As far as I am aware these fears have not been satisfied. So it is a leap into the unknown for many for something where the risk/benefits profile appears marginal. I don't think the government is likely to answer these fears. Children have been born following Covid vaccination - that much is known. Including some on some of the vaccine trials (not placebo), I believe. I can't answer the questions and even if I could I'm not qualified to (obviously here I'm just talking). A lack of reliable information clearly isn't helping at all. And one way or another, people will suffer for it. You seem to have done a bit of a u turn from thinkin the vaccines are the answer to now questioning them and their safety and what we are being told? What has swayed you? It’s a genuine question You misunderstand. I think that there's a lot of misinformation being shared about the vaccine, and that *not* vaccinating will be harmful to children in general. I'm swayed by the data - the effects of Covid on children, the overwhelming of paediatric hospitals in the US, the higher risk of myocarditis resulting from Covid. I'm questioning the JCVI and the government. Ok thanks for answering. I don’t understand any of it so I need to read more Of course. For me this is an international issue - and we can likely extrapolate from American children or European children to British children. Genetically we're basically identical. The Americans have been considerate enough to have been vaccinating their teenagers since May (per wiki) - I say considerate, because if you're worried about it hurting kids, look at their results. We haven't gone first, so we can learn from their results (obviously that's a few months of data, but it's better than no real world results) Have you got children. I. Would guess no No, I do not. However, myocarditis is much more likely following Covid than vaccination. Including in children. I don't want kids getting myocarditis - which is why I think vaccination is warranted. Covid also has other risk factors. It's not "risks of vaccination" versus "no risk". Yes, I know I have no say - never said I did. Yep all comes back to probability of realising the risk. And let’s be frank here (not a dig specifically at you @_naswingdress) unless you are a parent with children currently aged 12-15 or soon to enter the age range, then you don’t really have the same level of right to an opinion as you are not the ones facing a moral dilemma. If children were as severely impacted by Covid (in as great a number/proportion) as adults then there probably wouldn’t be an argument. They’re not and we have 18mths of data to support that now. As I said earlier, there are some fears on potential impact on fertility. The vaccines are changing some women’s menstrual cycles (seems odd when they are supposed to be dealing with a respiratory illness but I am not a virologist). While you say some babies have been born, that is not conclusive evidence things are fine. We won’t know for some time and the point here is giving the vaccine to children entering puberty. If we don’t really know and the benefits are marginal then why do it? Again though, this all comes down to using comparable data sets and communicating clearly. THAT is how you build trust. If there are risks (there are) then quantify them and then compare/contrast with the Covid risks (using identical methodologies). *BTW - do we know why children aren’t as affected yet? Well I am a parent and my child (not living with me) is of that age. My child though is living with 3 people in the same house, all three vaccinated but high risk. And my child is going to school. Only for this reason, whether it is a low risk or no to be vaccinated. I will have no issue to get vaccinated to protect the other three members of the household who are at risk, even though all 3 are vaccinated. Well that sounds like a good reason. A basic risk analysis based on personal circumstances. In your shoes many might do the same. Hypothetical question 1 - if everyone in the household was low risk and already double jabbed would you still vaccinate the child? Hypothetical question 2 - if (hopefully this is a big if) we knew the vaccine had a risk of reducing fertility as the child grew into an adult, would you still vaccinate the child?" 1. Child is already at risk by simply attending school. And his mother back at workplace. We know about Delta, we know about the breakthrough cases, even if the other vaccinated household members did not have health issues, they are still on the higher amd highest risk age bracket. It is a difficult situation and most probably even with no underlying health conditions in the household having the child vaccinated is the right choice. Otherwise, it is still a gamble. 2. if we knew there is a fertility risk when older due to the vaccine, I believe they would not have allowed the particular vaccine. But suppose there was and the fertility risk was high even if 1% or 2% then no. But if it was like 0.0001% then most probably yes. The issue is even for myself, to get vaccinated to protect myself from covid is not a decision that I took without some thought. It is a case of being between a rock and a hard place. Either decision is not easy but in my case and my circumstances I am not going to wait for full statistics to get released to make a decision. Like swinginadress mentioned I am not just looking at the local situation but the international situation too. Whatever stats are helpful, but I have processed enough info and I can not rely on what if scenarios when I have to make a decision now with the info I have right now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
