Are you letting child have the vaccine?

[GiveMeAUserName123]

I was just wondering if you have a child/ren between the ages of 12-16, that don’t have any medical conditions, or live with family members that are more at risk, will you be letting them have the vaccine?

My eldest will be turning 12 in the winter and I imagine will be given the choice to have it. I don’t think I want her too (I’ve had mine) but obviously it’s her body and her choice which is something that is held in high regard at home, so won’t voice against it, but if she does choose to have it, is she too young to decide something like this, as I’m not sure a child could really understand the full risk/benefit side of things.

How are you feeling about it in general?

@illuyankas

Ok, so what about other vaccine? MMR? What is your thought about it then? Actually it's quite an interesting thing to know, since 90+% of population needed to be vaxxed against measles to keep it at bay.

I’m not against it, if that’s what you’re asking. I do think it was a terrible idea to remove the single vaccine from the NHS 6 months after the Wakefield study came out when there were so many concerned parents. I think far more children would have been vaccinated against measles, which is the most dangerous of the three viruses, if they had kept it available until the controversy had settled down a bit.

Why not start a thread if you want to discuss other vaccines though? This one has been derailed enough. Sorry OP! :)

@bumbleymummy

I really wish that more information would be put out publicly about immunity after infection - particularly for children. They aren’t really making informed decisions if they don’t have all the information.

You're not thinking about the kids here at all, I'm guessing. You're simply attempting to undermine vaccination against infection - right?

@Toesies Nope. I mean exactly what I’ve written.

I don't want to discuss other vaccines. I just want to challenge anyone who undermines the safety of our children because of their own agenda.

I have no problem with people who doesn't want to vaccinate their own children. I have problem with people who actively discourage other people from making right decision for their children by spreading misinformation, especially the ones who do it so subtly so MN cannot ban them. They are more harmful than the ones who shout out all the blatant anti vax stuff, imo.

@illuyankas

I don't want to discuss other vaccines. I just want to challenge anyone who undermines the safety of our children because of their own agenda.

I have no problem with people who doesn't want to vaccinate their own children. I have problem with people who actively discourage other people from making right decision for their children by spreading misinformation, especially the ones who do it so subtly so MN cannot ban them. They are more harmful than the ones who shout out all the blatant anti vax stuff, imo.

I couldn't agree more.

@illuyankas

I don't want to discuss other vaccines. I just want to challenge anyone who undermines the safety of our children because of their own agenda.

I have no problem with people who doesn't want to vaccinate their own children. I have problem with people who actively discourage other people from making right decision for their children by spreading misinformation, especially the ones who do it so subtly so MN cannot ban them. They are more harmful than the ones who shout out all the blatant anti vax stuff, imo.

Yes

@illuyankas

I don't want to discuss other vaccines. I just want to challenge anyone who undermines the safety of our children because of their own agenda.

I have no problem with people who doesn't want to vaccinate their own children. I have problem with people who actively discourage other people from making right decision for their children by spreading misinformation, especially the ones who do it so subtly so MN cannot ban them. They are more harmful than the ones who shout out all the blatant anti vax stuff, imo.

Brilliantly said.

Well you’re directing your ire at the wrong person then. I’m not ‘actively discouraging’ anyone from anything.

Rather than people having some sort of ‘agenda’, perhaps the issue is more that you think that the ‘right decision’ for everyone is to vaccinate their child. Therefore anyone who disagrees with that must be ‘spreading misinformation’ even if they’re linking to official data showing the low risk that the virus actually poses to children?

I think it’s worth stating again that the JCVIs current position is that the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for 12-15 year olds. What do you think their agenda is?

Absolutely not

@bumbleymummy

Well you’re directing your ire at the wrong person then. I’m not ‘actively discouraging’ anyone from anything.

Rather than people having some sort of ‘agenda’, perhaps the issue is more that you think that the ‘right decision’ for everyone is to vaccinate their child. Therefore anyone who disagrees with that must be ‘spreading misinformation’ even if they’re linking to official data showing the low risk that the virus actually poses to children?

I think it’s worth stating again that the JCVIs current position is that the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for 12-15 year olds. What do you think their agenda is?

As I previously posted on this - the fact you don't post overt "anti-vax" content doesn't mean your posts aren't problematic.

You're not an "anti-vaxxer" in the sense you're not shouting about the vaccines being microchips and you do think vaccination of at risk groups should be promoted.

What you do do, is constantly post links and sources cherry picked to downplay the harms of coronavirus, put doubt in people's minds about vaccine efficacy and their necessity, and speculate about side effects and long term harms of vaccines.

While you never post specific "anti-vax" content, despite tenaciously arguing with anyone who disagrees with you, you've never once argued against or questioned the posters who do post anti-vax content on threads you're active on, you're perfectly happy to let that slide and stay silent.

It's carefully treading a fine line that means you can carry on posting, IMO.

@bumbleymummy

Well you’re directing your ire at the wrong person then. I’m not ‘actively discouraging’ anyone from anything.

Rather than people having some sort of ‘agenda’, perhaps the issue is more that you think that the ‘right decision’ for everyone is to vaccinate their child. Therefore anyone who disagrees with that must be ‘spreading misinformation’ even if they’re linking to official data showing the low risk that the virus actually poses to children?

I think it’s worth stating again that the JCVIs current position is that the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for 12-15 year olds. What do you think their agenda is?

England is one of the few larger countries not to as yet recommend Covid vaccines for this age group. Australia did just today; the US already does; many nations in Europe do. Some members of the JCVI have already published dissenting opinions on the subject, and the body may soon change course - if they do, will you?

Mine will be 13 soon and has already stated he wants it when available. There's a really sad thread on reddit with kids who are eligible in other countries who's parents won't let them have it, all trying to figure out a way to get it without them finding out

Therefore anyone who disagrees with that must be ‘spreading misinformation’ even if they’re linking to official data showing the low risk that the virus actually poses to children? I think it’s worth stating again that the JCVIs current position is that the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for 12-15 year olds. What do you think their agenda is?

Literally no one has said this.

The concern comes from when the majority of all other Western countries have appraised the same evidence, and agree that the benefits to children outweigh the potential risks. The JCVI were directly ignoring advice from the CHMP on this. The concern is that is political, not scientific, and it looks they are set to announce it will be offered to 12-15 year olds anyway,

You seem perfectly happy to go against JCVI advice when it suits you - like healthy adults and those over 16 don't need to be vaccinated.

They’re only ‘problematic’ if you don’t want people to know that there are studies showing that infection provides durable immunity and that reinfection is rare. Do you not want people to know that?

And I’ll just direct you to my post on this thread from last night.

“ The vaccine was very much necessary and has reduced the risk of serious illness and death particularly in the most vulnerable groups.”

Yeah, really ‘anti-vaxx’ stuff there.

Well I don't agree with everything. It's quite clear I don't agree with JCVI's current position re vaccinating 12+, isn't it?. I want my dc vaccinated, asap, so their education can go back to somewhat normal. Going back to normal undisrupted education outweighs any miniscule risk the vaccine poses, imo.

@bumbleymummy

They’re only ‘problematic’ if you don’t want people to know that there are studies showing that infection provides durable immunity and that reinfection is rare. Do you not want people to know that?

And I’ll just direct you to my post on this thread from last night.

“ The vaccine was very much necessary and has reduced the risk of serious illness and death particularly in the most vulnerable groups.”

Yeah, really ‘anti-vaxx’ stuff there.

Oh my gosh, read my entire reply.

You cherry pick studies that prove your point, ignoring those that don't. This present data and then deliberate interpret it incorrectly to give a skewed perspective. This is not providing people with unbiased information so that they can make an informed decision.

This is alongside the posts downplaying the harms of coronavirus, putting doubt in people's minds about vaccine efficacy and their necessity, and hinting about side effects and long term harms of vaccines.

@Toesies No, my decision not to vaccinate my children was not based on the JCVIs decision. I do find it interesting that people think the experts have made the ‘wrong’ decision because they don’t agree with it.

@leafyygreens I’m not basing my decisions on the JCVI recommendations so my position is fairly consistent. It seems like you are happy to disagree with their advice though :) ‘Experts’ when they agree with you, ‘fools’ when they don’t?

You keep stating "oh but I've said the vaccine was necessary and helpful for those vulnerable" completely misunderstanding that this is not mutually exclusive with your other posts being problematic.

No credible expert with relevant expertise recommends that the non-vulnerable don't need to be vaccinated, which is a viewpoint you have consistently maintained (and goes against JCVI advice which you keep quoting).

[quote bumbleymummy]@Toesies No, my decision not to vaccinate my children was not based on the JCVIs decision. I do find it interesting that people think the experts have made the ‘wrong’ decision because they don’t agree with it.

@leafyygreens I’m not basing my decisions on the JCVI recommendations so my position is fairly consistent. It seems like you are happy to disagree with their advice though :) ‘Experts’ when they agree with you, ‘fools’ when they don’t? [/quote]
Tell me, where have I said children aged 12-15 should be vaccinated? I've pointed out the discrepancy and possible reasons.

This is just yet another swerve and diversion from your constant spreading of misinformation.

Well, I'm really pleased that my immunosuppressed secondary school student is vaccinated now.

I note that

• MHRA has approved Pfizer and Moderna for 12-15s

• between 66 and 90% of parents are saying they want their children vaccinated in studies

• the papers are reporting that the Government is gearing up to extend the vaccine offer to 12+

If there are people adamant that they don't want their child vaccinated, and would rather take their chances with covid instead, then that option would always remain open.

Good luck, everyone.

That's great news @herecomesthsun

And yes - other people choosing to take up the offer of vaccination does not mean someone against it needs to.

@leafyygreens It’s not ‘cherry-picking’ - it’s posting relevant studies/documents to whatever point I am making. Irt immunity after infection, I post the link to the HIQA document because it’s a good summary of several studies that conclude that immunity after infection is durable for at least 9 months. I am not interpreting it incorrectly, I am literally repeating the conclusion from the study. How is that ‘not providing unbiased information’?

I haven’t downplayed coronavirus. Unless you think that PHE and ons are downplaying it because that’s where I get my info irt risk by age group.

Anything about efficacy has been backed up by studies and earlier in the year I linked to several that showed that the longer period between doses was actually better irt immune response. Perhaps you’re the one who ‘cherry-picks’ posts? You seem to ignore the ones where I’ve said anything positive about the vaccine and latch on to any of the ones where I talk about natural immunity. How strange. Why do you not want people to talk about natural immunity?

@leafyygreens you haven’t been able to quote a single bit of ‘misinformation’ that I am apparently ‘spreading’. I think you need to get over yourself. We are allowed to have different opinions and make different decisions for our families. If you do see me posting misinformation, please do call me out on it.

"They’re only ‘problematic’ if you don’t want people to know that there are studies showing that infection provides durable immunity and that reinfection is rare. Do you not want people to know that?"

No one's hiding any information. If you can find it, anyone can.
If you really want to promote natural immunity in fair way, then you really should link the risk that involves being infected too, as well as advantage of it, so people can make their decision in properly informed way.

[quote bumbleymummy]@leafyygreens It’s not ‘cherry-picking’ - it’s posting relevant studies/documents to whatever point I am making. Irt immunity after infection, I post the link to the HIQA document because it’s a good summary of several studies that conclude that immunity after infection is durable for at least 9 months. I am not interpreting it incorrectly, I am literally repeating the conclusion from the study. How is that ‘not providing unbiased information’?

I haven’t downplayed coronavirus. Unless you think that PHE and ons are downplaying it because that’s where I get my info irt risk by age group.

Anything about efficacy has been backed up by studies and earlier in the year I linked to several that showed that the longer period between doses was actually better irt immune response. Perhaps you’re the one who ‘cherry-picks’ posts? You seem to ignore the ones where I’ve said anything positive about the vaccine and latch on to any of the ones where I talk about natural immunity. How strange. Why do you not want people to talk about natural immunity?[/quote]
You seem to ignore the ones where I’ve said anything positive about the vaccine and latch on to any of the ones where I talk about natural immunity. How strange. Why do you not want people to talk about natural immunity?

Nope, natural immunity is important which I've always maintained. You are the one who starts these monologues, carefully ignoring or not representing any information that demonstrates the importance of vaccination in bolstering immunity. Given that you repost the same studies every couple of days, it's not really necessary for me to repeat - I simply point out the information you are deliberately ignoring,

And as I said, of course posting data from valid sources is a good first step, but given you misinterpret it to give a skewed perspective, it's not really particularly useful to anyone.
/