Would you vaccinate your child?

[rolloverrosie]

Have just seen a post (in the daily Mail, sorry) suggesting that all over 12s could be offered a vaccine from September. It made mention of the AZ vaccine trials in children above 6 so I am unsure whether this vaccine is one of the ones planned for use?

This was along side the news that the az vaccine carries a 1 in 126000 chance of death.

Bearing in mind that 14 people under 20 have died of Covid.

How is this a sensible risk/benefit analysis?!

I am in my late 30s and when I did the Covid calculator my risk of dying if I caught Covid (which is obviously not a guaranteed thing) is 1 in 145000 so I am assuming the risk for a 12 year old is thousands of times less than that.

Who would vaccinate their children?

If they’re attending school then they should get it. It will help stop the spread/new variants. Teachers will be safer as well as they are typically much older and so more vulnerable.

@MintyMabel

By they I mean the pharma companies. I read just this morning Pfizer stated they don't know what affect it has on fertility. There is also investigations going on because so many females periods have changed or stopped altogether

This is bollocks.

No it's not, it's all true. Read Pfizer's own small print. They specifically say they don't know how it will affect fertility. And yes, lots of women reporting stopped periods after taking Covid vaccine.

@noisasentence

the risk level is so low for young children as to be virtually non-existent

Tell that to over 1000 recently bereaved Indian couples. And no, these are not necessarily poor and therefore different to your child.

It's as yet unclear as to whether people dying in India have been vaccinated or not.

It's a hard no from me. Highly unethical

I would as we have done all the normal vaccination. But the older child has a lot of anxiety and we struggle with medical appointments at the best of times. So child would not cope with having it done.

No, as you say the risks of COVID are lower than the risk of the vaccine for healthy kids.

The balance of risk may change with new variants, knowledge of long covid, trials etc, so I will re-assess when the choice becomes available.

@Wildswim - @MintyMabel is right, it is bollocks. Pfizer's guidance has been updated.

"Online, some people have pointed to a line in an earlier version of guidance published by the UK government stating it was "unknown" whether the Pfizer vaccine had an impact on fertility. This has since been updated to clarify that animal studies don't indicate any harmful effects on the reproductive system.

Part of the confusion here is down to how scientists describe things compared with how most of us would understand them in our daily lives.

When scientists say there is "no evidence" they mean there hasn't yet been a long-term study on this specific vaccine - but that doesn't mean there are no facts here at all or we're shooting in the dark."

Source: www.bbc.com/news/health-56012529

And @Wildswim ...

"It's as yet unclear as to whether people dying in India have been vaccinated or not."

Not sure on India, but almost 600 babies under the age of 1 have died from Covid in Brazil. I'm not aware anywhere is vaccinating children yet, especially babies.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-babies-dying-covid-b1832652.html

@Wildswim

No way. It's highly unethical and historically unprecedented to vaccinate a child against a disease which poses no risk to them. It's a very troubling development.

Plus the Covid jabs are not traditional vaccines - they are experimental gene therapy. Don't contradict me - this is fact and stated in the literature of the drug companies.

Anyone prepared to vaccinate their child is putting them at risk when they don't need to be.

I'm astounded it's even been mooted.

no it isn't.

rubella is routinely offered to all children, including boys.

For boys, rubella is an extremely mild illness with no consequences or side effects.
In fact for all children that is what rubella is.

Rubella is only an issue for pregnant women.

We vaccinate children from rubella, to keep it out of the population so pregnant women can;t get it.
We vaccinate girls so that if they ever get pregnant as adults, they won't damage their baby.

It is nonsense to say we don't vaccinate children against diseases which pose no risk to them.

No it's not, it's all true. Read Pfizer's own small print. They specifically say they don't know how it will affect fertility. And yes, lots of women reporting stopped periods after taking Covid vaccine.

Utter bollocks. Have your reasons for not getting the vaccine but at least make a little effort to get actual information and not just internet bullshit.

No I wouldn’t until more is known about vaccine effects over the medium/longer term.

@crabette

Fair enough - I didn't know Pfizer had updated their literature. But how do they definitely know it doesn't have an effect on fertility? Surely there just hasn't been enough time to tell.

Let's not forget that Thalidomide was cleared safe for pregnant women. It was soon spotted, within less than a year, that it wasn't - when the same doctors that prescribed it delivered babies with deformities. If there IS a link between the vaccine and infertility (not scaremongering - just being hypothetical) how long until that link will be made?

link to official guidance issued by Pfizer to UK GPs regarding the administration of the vaccine to pregnant, fertile or breastfeeding women.

Since updated.

@Wildswim

No way. It's highly unethical and historically unprecedented to vaccinate a child against a disease which poses no risk to them. It's a very troubling development.

Plus the Covid jabs are not traditional vaccines - they are experimental gene therapy. Don't contradict me - this is fact and stated in the literature of the drug companies.

Anyone prepared to vaccinate their child is putting them at risk when they don't need to be.

I'm astounded it's even been mooted.

We routinely do annual flu jabs on primary school kids to protect their older relatives, so it is very precedented.

Let's not forget that Thalidomide was cleared safe for pregnant women.

Let's not forget that led to an overhaul to the way drugs were tested and approved and there hasn't been a re-occurrence despite the millions of new drugs which have been developed and approved since.

Let's not forget that Thalidomide wasn't a vaccine. and that vaccines don't tend to have long term side effects.

The Rubella and flu jabs are traditional vaccines. What's historically unprecedented is that we would give an experimental gene-based medical therapy, still in its trial stage, to all of our children.

Actually, it's a breach of the Nuremberg Code as they cannot consent. It's not only unethical, it's unlawful.

@Wildswim I had the same concerns as you - watched a really good webinar with fertility and immunology experts, where they were asked specifically about the thalidomide example.

What they're saying is it's obviously really difficult, as ethically, when pregnant women are typically excluded from trials - how do you come up with these answers to properly comfort people? But, the difference now compared to with thalidomide is the quality of prenatal scanning etc, and how much they can tell about babies in the womb. And with a real world data pool of 90,000 pregnant women in the USA vaccinated to date, a proportion of whom have already given birth, plus those who've already been vaccinated in Europe, there are no red flags. This data is all passing through the same analysis and tracking that has picked up the rare AZ clotting issue etc, and there's been no adverse effects shown on either mothers or babies linked to vaccination. In animal studies, the vaccine goes nowhere near the placenta, and the antibodies produced in the mothers blood actually give the baby a bit of Covid protection without the vaccine exposure. Conversely, Covid, particularly in later pregnancy, is linked to early delivery and heightened risks to baby of being treated in intensive care.

In terms of fertility, they're looking at how the vaccine works scientifically, and they don't see any possible scientific reason the vaccine would affect this. They have also done significant testing in animals, and while they asked people not to take the vaccine initially if they were trying to conceive, many did accidentally conceive afterwards, etc etc.

We're not going to have long term studies for a long time, just because of the nature of "long term" and how new this virus is - and we're only going to have them if people do take the vaccine? So it's a risk just now of the unknown long term effects of Covid - as by the same logic we don't know if that might affect fertility or the development of unborn children? - of any unknown (but scientifically highly unlikely with all the evidence we have,) effects of vaccination. It's not an easy answer, but I've realised there is a lot of misinformation online from earlier in the vaccination story which probably doesn't help informed decision making. That's not anyone's fault! Just wanted to pitch in as I've read a bit about this recently and it might help anyone reading x

@Springersrock

Mine are old enough to make up their own minds

My DD1 (19) will have it - mainly due to the talk of vaccine passports. She wants to get back to uni, pubs, clubs, festivals, travelling etc and if the only way to do so is to have the jab, she will but under protest. She’s young, fit and healthy with no underlying conditions.

DD2 (16) it’s up to her, I’m not going to discourage her if that’s what she wants, but I’m not going to encourage her either. Again though, if COVID passports mean she can’t go on holiday, go to college, take part in her hobbies, then she’ll have it under protest.

They’d be better off not having it in protest. The more people that just go along with it, the more likely it is to be required. It’s a pretty poor situation if healthy people are being coerced/bullied into having a vaccine they don’t particularly need or want.

@Pepsimirror

If they’re attending school then they should get it. It will help stop the spread/new variants. Teachers will be safer as well as they are typically much older and so more vulnerable.

The teachers can be vaccinated. That’s why we prioritised vaccinating people who are more likely to have complications - older CEV etc

What sort of protest would that be exactly? One that impacts the protestor and isn't noted by anyone else? Brilliantly effective.

@Wildswim

The Rubella and flu jabs are traditional vaccines. What's historically unprecedented is that we would give an experimental gene-based medical therapy, still in its trial stage, to all of our children.

Actually, it's a breach of the Nuremberg Code as they cannot consent. It's not only unethical, it's unlawful.

I'm sure BJ and co wouldn't allow a trifling matter like the law to stop them...

No. Utterly ridiculous idea.

Yes please, he won’t go abroad without one.
I think they should be able to have the choice to have one, not be unable to have one.

@BettysCardigan

What sort of protest would that be exactly? One that impacts the protestor and isn't noted by anyone else? Brilliantly effective.

No one should take a vaccine in order to get their rights and freedoms back. Isn't that rather creepy and coercive? The more people that protest by refusing to either vaccinate or accept a creepy 'vaccine passport', the better.