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?

Ollyollyoxenfree, who told you that the benefits outweigh the potential risk?

According to JVT they were planning to widen the offer to 12-15s soon.

So hardly a conspiracy theory? More like a reasonable medical assessment of the situation.

It has been fully clinically trialled and tested, with further consideration being given to the evidence and data before certifying it for use in younger people (after it was certified for adult-use I mean).

We are trying to ensure that the population as a whole develops enough immunity and protection to allow us all to go back to at least a relatively normal life, with businesses reopening and social outlets becoming a possibility again.

We have given DD all of her regular childhood immunisations, the same as we ourselves received, to protect her from other illnesses that may be generally not too problematic for some but cause serious issues for others - in much the same was as Covid has expressed itself across the population.

@Peteycat

Ollyollyoxenfree, who told you that the benefits outweigh the potential risk?

No-one "told me", it's easy to read the primary evidence used by CHMP and others on why they made this decision.

I don't agree with the JCVI decision based on the points they've argued - and it looks like they will be changing their mind imminently. I've detailed previously on this thread why I am convinced of safety and efficacy in this age group, and why I think it is important children are offered it.

That sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory to me.

Oh give over @bumbleymummy, I see you've been very active on this thread in your continued attempts, but no need to try and discredit other regular posters.

I have a similar aged child, 11 now but will be 12 this coming school year so if it is rolled out to under 16s in early 2022, likely they will be old enough.

I think I'll say yes unless dc1 has strong feelings against. (Unlikely.)

They have been vaccinating over 12s since the start of the year in USA and across Europe, so there is some data coming out for childrens responses to the vaccine. By then, a year on it doesn't seem so experimental.

You are one of the posters who asked me why I think I know better than the experts!!! When you think you know better that's OK though isn't it! Honestly, double standards on here are a joke.

Here is a helpful general summary of risk/benefits for vaccines, from the BBC

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434

"Covid: Vaccine complications dwarfed by virus risks"

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01898-9

"Since the early days of the pandemic, parents have been taking some comfort from the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is much less likely to cause serious illness in children than it is in adults.

But some children do still become very ill, and the spectre of long COVID — a constellation of sometimes debilitating symptoms that can linger for months after even a mild bout of COVID-19 — is enough for many paediatricians to urge vaccination as quickly as possible. “I spent the pandemic taking care of kids in a children’s hospital,” says Adam Ratner, a paediatric infectious-disease specialist at New York University. “We saw not as many as in the adult side, but plenty of children who were quite ill.” "

And the official line from Ireland www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/get-the-vaccine/deciding-on-vaccination-for-12-to-15-year-olds/

"Benefits of getting a COVID-19 vaccine
COVID-19 vaccines should protect your child from getting seriously ill from COVID-19 if they have certain health conditions.

It will also protect healthy 12 to 15 year old children from:

mild to severe COVID-19 illness

multisystem inflammatory syndrome due to COVID-19

the risk of developing ‘long COVID' symptoms, such as tiredness and fatigue

spreading COVID-19 to others

Children who are vaccinated will be less likely to miss school and other activities because of being ill with COVID-19."

Bumbleymummy isn't trying to discredit anyone, she pointing out that she thinks you are speculating. Again.

@ollyollyoxenfree is expressing a reasonable opinion which is well supported by a wide consensus of scientific opinion.

Hope that helps x

@Peteycat

You are one of the posters who asked me why I think I know better than the experts!!! When you think you know better that's OK though isn't it! Honestly, double standards on here are a joke.

Huh??

This was in response to specific (wild) claims you were making about the vaccines and that they shouldn't be used.

I'm not sure who you think I'm claiming I know better than - as I have said, expert bodies disagree with the JCVI, and are offering the vaccine to 12-15 year olds - this has informed my opinion on it.

Protection from a virus or protection from vaccination side effects, ultimately we are all parents trying to interpret information to protect our DCs.

And bear in mind that the MHRA have approved Pfizer and Moderna for 12-15s

[quote herecomesthsun]@ollyollyoxenfree is expressing a reasonable opinion which is well supported by a wide consensus of scientific opinion.

Hope that helps x[/quote]
It looks like, now they have sufficient stocks (if you're being cynical)

You think ^this is well supported by a wide consensus of scientific opinion? This is the part I think sounds like a conspiracy theory. I don’t think the JCVI made their decision based on lack of supply.

what on earth? @bumbleymummy

Again you're just cropping a small proportion of a post and then twisting it. I would respect your arguments more if you didn't feel the need to keep trying to do this. At no point have I suggested there's some huge cover up that's being led by the scientific community

My entire post:

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.

Worth noting Denmark as a case study - by offering vaccination to over 12s they currently have a good control of the coronavirus (with 80% of their total population vaccinated) - and their children are not being adversely affected by things like disruption to education, healthcare and other highly disruptive suppression measures.

They now say:

The Danish government will no longer consider COVID-19 as “a socially critical disease in Denmark,” citing the large number of vaccinations in the Scandinavian country.

“The epidemic is under control. We have record high vaccination rates,” said Health Minister Magnus Heunicke in a statement Friday.

Starting Sept. 10, “We can drop some of the special rules we had to introduce in the fight against COVID-19," he said.

In practice, that will mean partially phasing out vaccination card requirements for some major events, like concerts, and in night clubs. On July 1, Denmark introduced a digital coronavirus passport that had to be shown when required.

“Although we stand in a good spot, we are not out of the epidemic. And the government will not hesitate to act quickly if the pandemic again threatens important functions in our society," he added.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-covid-alberto-fernandez-copenhagen-scandinavian-b1909770.html

@ollyollyoxenfree Again, I’m quoting the part I was referring to in your post. People do just quote the part they are replying to sometimes. You did the same to me above^.

Peteycat is right about the double standards

The posters on here who call everyone who doesn't agree with the " anti vaxxers" and the like, are the worst for being rude, labelling and picking and choosing what and when to follow either scientific or government advice. They can't seem to understand that there are differing opinions and differing worries for everyone. Yet, they are the first to be so so judgemental if you don't agree with them.

One minute they talk about facts and figures, then the next breath if it's not a link thry found, or they posted its totally ridiculed.

agree with them

They use the experts when it suits them.

@Peteycat

They use the experts when it suits them.

Unlike you, who just scatterguns any thread about vaccinating teenagers with spurious claims and misinformation about what the scientific community is saying. At least Bumbley (and we all know, and have known for donkey's years what they think about, among other things, vaccinations in general) links to actual science rather than just making empty blanket statements.

What are these spurious claims you talk of and misinformation? Oh so, because I'm relatively new I'm not allowed to come on here to chat and debate? Oh well sorry but I am.

Yes, I do come on here because I believe its safer to wait for non CEV children. Why does that offend you?

I don't link to science because I like to discuss things in a way so everybody can be included. I have stated before that I appreciate posters who link to science and link helpful articles.

At least Bumbley (and we all know, and have known for donkey's years what they think about, among other things, vaccinations in general)

It’s pretty clear that you don’t, actually. Plenty of assumptions though!

@herecomesthsun

And bear in mind that the MHRA have approved Pfizer and Moderna for 12-15s

Bear in mind AZ was approved for all 18+ once upon a time too, things can change, not saying it will, but it does go to show that what's approved one day can be withdrawn later as more data is collected. I'm not saying this is a certified reason not to have the vaccine but it is worth being aware that recommendations can and do change sometimes