To ask whether you would have and give your DC the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available?

[Juniorpromdressqueen]

Apologies if this has been asked before.

I’m very pro-vax, but the thought of such a new vaccine makes me feel a bit nervous. Then again, so does the thought of coronavirus.

I was reading an article in The Atlantic about the vaccine today, and it said 21% of Americans say they won’t have the vaccine and another 30% are undecided, and it made me think about it, because my initial reaction was, “idiots!!” and then I realised that made me hypocritical, as I am nervous myself.

What would you do, if you and your family could have the vaccine at Boots tomorrow?

Why would so many give to their children who are in the lowest risk (and carrier) group?

Because you have no way of knowing if your child will be seriously/fatally ill or a carrier? It will certainly happen to somebody's child, why assume it won't be yours? It's unlikely but will definitely happen to someone. Or you don't fancy the lung scarring that can happen with mild cases?

Hang on

Hypothetically there is a vaccine.

The vulnerable teacher or TA expects the child to have it on their behalf?

Yes.

Why?

Why should a young child have a vaccine for an adult?

People die of chicken pox- the vaccination isnt standard amongst children.

Why should a young child have a vaccine for an adult?

so that the child's life can also go back to normal. If people want children to go back to school and activities, mask wearing to stop, shops to be open normally, travel to be possible, visits to relatives with the worry and guilt of possibly having infected them - then there needs to be herd immunity, which will only happen if enough people take up the vaccine. Just because children don't necessarily get acutely or immediately ill from the virus, it doesn't mean they are not affected in a ton of other ways. (Not even mentioning the long term effects they might get from mild cases, or the occasional more acute cases that develop in children).

It won't be an untested vaccine. It will be as well tested as others, just on a faster timescale because of the money and resources thrown at it. Yes, there could be some side effects, as with all vaccines. Taking longer to develop this one isn't going to show them up any better, because the normal timescale for development is mostly waiting for funding and resources and approval and personnel.

I think it shows how little people know about the realities of how science and research often get done, how much time is spent writing grants, begging for support, sharing equipment, carving out lab space in a crowded building, finding time for research amidst all the admin, etc. If science and research had more funding, more things could happen faster more often. It's low on the priority of many people, though, partly because there is a general distrust for science/experts these days.

That still misses the point grumbly

The ones who need to be vaccinated are those at risk from the disease.

I am pregnant. I had the whooping cough vaccine to protect me and the baby from the illness. I do not have the right to demand every young child I might come into contact with has the vaccine so I don’t have to. That makes no sense at all.

If there was an approved vaccine all of our household would have it ASAP. We want to see family members again. My grandfather has cancer on top of respiratory illnesses and we haven't seen him since January due to concerns of making him ill. I would never forgive myself if i hadn't done everything I could to keep him as safe as I can and give him the time with his great grandchildren he desperately craves, video calls just aren't the same.

I doubt it will be a demand.

It's just realistic. If children are going to have a normal life, there needs to be herd immunity.

Many older people may not respond well enough to the vaccine to make it useful. I'm sure they'll have it if possible. But it could be that it doesn't work that well, as is typical in older or vulnerable populations.

If there isn't sufficient herd immunity, life won't be going back to normal for anyone, including children. People might be happy with that, rather than giving children vaccines; others are anxious for more normality to resume, as they think that is better overall for their children. The point is that it is more than just a risk of whether children will get the virus or not - the effects of the virus are much more wide-reaching than that. People also don't tend to have very good rationale for what they think might be the problem with the vaccine and what testing would reassure them, other than that it should be 'longer'. It doesn't seem to have been formed by particularly thorough research.

A young child should have a vaccination “for” an adult because otherwise that adult won’t be available to care for them or educate them. If I were in the shielding group and the vaccine was only 80% then my DC would either be second in line for the vaccine (after me) or they wouldn’t be leaving the house for the next few years.

When it comes to schools there may be two choices: keep schools running at 50% capacity, exclude children with health vulnerabilities and assign all staff who aren’t healthy slim young white women to home learning support duties, or mandate mass vaccination of children.

Nope, nobody here would be getting it. Way too rushed and the virus isnt really dangerous for kids anyways.

That’s fine if the vaccine is flawless blackbird, but if it was only 80%? 70%? then would you go back to work in a nursery?

I think it shows how little people know about the realities of how science and research often get done I’d agree if I hadn’t just read up on the SARS vaccine

@PassingByAndThoughtIdDropIn

A young child should have a vaccination “for” an adult because otherwise that adult won’t be available to care for them or educate them. If I were in the shielding group and the vaccine was only 80% then my DC would either be second in line for the vaccine (after me) or they wouldn’t be leaving the house for the next few years.

When it comes to schools there may be two choices: keep schools running at 50% capacity, exclude children with health vulnerabilities and assign all staff who aren’t healthy slim young white women to home learning support duties, or mandate mass vaccination of children.

But surely that adult would have the vaccination for themselves - they don't need a child or even another adult to have it 'for' them. If it works their vaccination would stop them getting it just like any other vaccine.

Depends. I might wait a few months given that we're all pretty low risk.

I still don’t have the right to insist small children have an invasive procedure for my wellbeing.

But surely that adult would have the vaccination for themselves - they don't need a child or even another adult to have it 'for' them. If it works their vaccination would stop them getting it just like any other vaccine.

No, that's what people are saying - it doesn't necessarily work as well in older people or those with less good immune systems who are vulnerable to the vaccine. The vaccine itself might not work as well in them for the same reasons that make them more vulnerable in the first place. they may not produce as many antibodies, etc.

They will certainly be first in line to be given the vaccine, sure. But the vaccine isn't going to be a 100% thing, most likely - have it and you're guaranteed protected. It'll be somewhere in between; it may give some protection from getting it, it might mean the symptoms aren't as bad, it might mean someone has it mildly enough that they don't pass it on for as long, that's still unclear. But it would be reasonable to expect it'll work fairly well, for a proportion of the population, and not necessarily as well in some of them.

So if there is more herd immunity, the more likely it is that other things like schools and travel and shops and so on will gradually get back to something closer to normality. If people generally don't want to have the vaccine, that probably won't happen. It likely won't be the case that you can just give it to those who are vulnerable, and there you go, job done.

I think it's very very unlikely that anyone will insist or demand small children have it. It will still be a choice. But people need to know what the choices are more clearly - it isn't just a matter of 'well I won't suffer badly from the virus itself, so I have no need for it', because there are much wider ranging effect on all aspects of society, that everyone - including small children - will suffer from.

I'd be happier about having the vaccine if the government could show that they could be trusted. I can just imagine Boris saying "Loook!!!!!! I've found the cure for Covid!!!!" while neglecting to mention it being rushed, not tested fully but guaranteed to work because his cronies say it is, etc. It would be just like him to present a vaccine as a cure.

And if there's any hint of mandating a vaccine...

Yes and yes

No, not until full trials and NICE guidelines have been met.

Absolutely yes.
Grumblyberries speaks a lot of sense.

And if there's any hint of mandating a vaccine...

Well Johnson has already been on record this last week as saying that he thinks anti-vaxxers are "nuts" and that he wants "everyone" to get the flu vaccine this winter in order to relieve pressure on the NHS. It reads a bit like they're testing public reactions.

Matt Hancock has also said previously, in September 2019, that he was seeking advice on the legality of compulsory vaccines for school children. Downing Street distanced themselves from the comments saying that they have not yet arrived at that situation (note the "yet") but are introducing measures to encourage vaccine uptake. I'm guessing the pandemic may lead them to review their stance on infectious diseases as a whole.

I'm not sure I would in terms of it doesn't seem terribly necessary for my kids as they're highly unlikely to be very ill with it, so unless they specifically wanted to give it to kids to protect teachers, I'd see them as the lowest priority for it. The person who should get it first in my family is my husband - not that he's at particular risk, but he's the highest risk person in our household.

What they are attempting to do is not a very novel sort of formulation of vaccine as I understand it, so I'm not especially worried about side effects.

I did read a fascinating piece about vaccines on speeded up timetables - they talked to those who'd developed one for the original SARS. In the final outcome, where 100s of thousands, maybe more, were injected with it, I think around 1800 people developed a chronic illness from it (not narcolepsy, but something like it I think?) and the researchers said sometimes with things like this you will not be able to test on enough people to be able to spot these things, but given the impact of COVID-19 the fact is it is worth it if a small proportion of subjects develop problems because the human and economic cost of it continuing is so high.

Precisely, which is why caution is advisable.

In essence, if you or a member of your family have an adverse reaction to a vaccine, that’s collateral damage from the governments standpoint but utterly devastating and life-changing from yours.

You don’t have the right to insist children are given the vaccine blackbird, but you do have the right not to be forced to work with 31 people (of whom 30 are unvaccinated) squished into a classroom with no masks or social distancing. So that may be the choice in practice - part time schooling or vaccination.