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?

Yes, I think it is a good thing that CV children have been offered the vaccine. Clearly the benefits significantly outweighed the risks for that group.

@Peteycat

Enough4me, I just get upset with posters when they say that children Must be vaccinated. I don't want children growing up with vaccine passports etc, but equally I don't want CEV children dying or becoming really unwell. I want balance and choice.

Who is saying that though @Peteycat?

I've only seen posters who want this option offered to children aged 12-15, presumably so their own children/niblings/loved ones can have it. There haven't been any suggestions that all children must be vaccinated.

I want balance and choice.

Yes - surely @Peteycat this would involve children having the option, so it can be a choice?

Leafy greens you are naive if you choose not to read what some posters on threads say. Posters do say or suggest that.

Depends on the child doesn't it?

@Peteycat

Depends on the child doesn't it?

What do you mean? If the vaccine is not offered, it cannot be a choice?

Leafy greens, yes choice for parents.

@Peteycat

Leafy greens, yes choice for parents.

Ok great, so you think all 12-15 year olds should be offered the vaccine?

Are you seriously battering the minutiae out of this? I was saying that parents should have the choice. Do you honestly think most 12 year olds are capable of making that decision?? There is a reason why they are called children until they are 16.

Adults need to make the informed choice in discussion with DC. I would always support them not having a vaccination or medicine if they did not want it, but to have it they would need me to consent and, at the moment, I would not.

Peteycat

Leafy greens, yes choice for parents.

Ok great, so you think all 12-15 year olds should be offered the vaccine?

I think you should step away from your device for a few hours. My above post clarifies your query already.

@Peteycat

Are you seriously battering the minutiae out of this? I was saying that parents should have the choice. Do you honestly think most 12 year olds are capable of making that decision?? There is a reason why they are called children until they are 16.

I'm confused because your posts don't make sense? I totally agree that all children should have the option, as you said, which they can only have if it's actually something that's being offered.

Parents can't have that choice either, if the vaccine isn't offered to this age group.

I am in the US. My 13 yo had her two vaccinations back in May. She will certainly be receiving the booster shot as soon as it is available. My job as a parent is to protect my child from disease in any way I possibly can.

@bumbleymummy

Yes, I think it is a good thing that CV children have been offered the vaccine. Clearly the benefits significantly outweighed the risks for that group.

CV children haven't been offered. CEV children with very limited category atm. Unless I missed the info.

Enough4me, I totally agree. Have a chat of course, discuss it but it boils down to parental or guardian consent.

DD (15) did not express a preference when asked. But was quite happy when we said it would be a good idea and has had her 1st jab where HER explicit consent (in addition to previously given parental consent) was required and given.

DH and I are both double jabbed. DD does a lot of sport and while it's outdoors, it involves travel to other teams around the province and country (she's on a school, club and provincial team) with potential for international travel in early spring. So for her sake and preventing her missing training, matches and other opportunities, we said it was a good idea in particular - quite apart from it generally being a good idea.

Most of the girls on her teams have also had it, and many of those in school that she's in contact with have also (they go back on Monday so the SM chats have increased this week again).

There were plenty of teens queuing the day DD had hers, and the non-appointment clinics at weekends have been very busy in the past few weeks since they opened to 12-16 yo's.

Leafy greens you have totally confused me.

This is some information about Gillick competence.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/gillick-competence-fraser-guidelines

Biddy pop, why do you say its generally a good idea?

Herecomesthesun thanks but most people already know about this? Not sure what you are trying to say?

why do you say its generally a good idea?

The benefits outweigh the potential risks in this age group, for me it's as simple as that.

This is a decision that has been made by the majority of Europe and the US using all available evidence, and England's decision against it was an anomaly. It looks like, now they have sufficient stocks (if you're being cynical), the JCVI will announce the go ahead.

Actually I don’t think all CEV children are being offered it either. Here are the groups:

12-15 year olds who are increased risk of serious COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation in the following groups:
Those with severe neuro-disabilities
Those with immunosuppression
Those with Down Syndrome
Those with profound and multiple learning disabilities, severe learning disabilities, or on GP the learning disability register
12-17 year olds who are household contacts of people of any age who are immunosuppressed
Those turning 18 in the next three months

www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-vaccination-children-young-people

Gillick competence pertains to consent in under 16s.

Gillick competency is used to help assess whether a child has the maturity to make their own decisions and to understand the implications of those decisions.

A HCP should always encourage a child to tell their parents or carers about the decisions they are making. If they don't want to do this, the HCP should explore why and, if appropriate, discuss ways to could help them inform their parents or carers. For example, the HCP could talk to the young person's parents or carers on their behalf.

If the young person still wants to go ahead without their parents' or carers' knowledge or consent, then the Gillick and Fraser guidelines are relevant. The linked information looks at how this can be applied in practice.

Herecomesthesun, yes as I've already mentioned we are all aware of this.

@ollyollyoxenfree

why do you say its generally a good idea?

The benefits outweigh the potential risks in this age group, for me it's as simple as that.

This is a decision that has been made by the majority of Europe and the US using all available evidence, and England's decision against it was an anomaly. It looks like, now they have sufficient stocks (if you're being cynical), the JCVI will announce the go ahead.

That sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory to me.

According to the JCVI, the benefits for children aged 12-15 in the U.K. do not outweigh the risks.

Other countries had different approaches to the vaccine rollout wrt age/at risk groups so I’m not sure a direct comparison is appropriate tbh.