Parental Consent for Vaccine

[naughty40me]

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-12-to-15-year-olds-to-get-final-say-over-covid-jab-if-disagreement-with-parent-occurs-12401914

Not sure if link worked, never done it before.

Sajid Javid saying that parental consent for the vaccine won't be needed if the child decides to take it.

I am livid at this!

I have a 2DC 12 and 14. I really do not want them to have the vaccine.

I am going to have to sit and have a proper discussion with them.
Up to now, when it has been mentioned all my kids say is "but if we don't have the vaccine we won't be able to go to the cinema"...

I'm not anti vax. I've been double jabbed myself being over 40 with long term conditions and in the vulnerable category.

However, as the JCVI says, the benefit to healthy children in this age range is marginal.
I am worried about side effects, both short and long term.

I think vaccines should be a choice.
Those who want their children vaccinated should have that choice.
But those of us who don't should also have a choice.

I don't think my dc are capable of making a fully informed decision. They are children fgs.
They are having their heads filled with crap, making them watch Newsround every day in school for example.

I feel so strongly about this.
I honestly think they will end up making it a condition of school entry.

It's so wrong.

I know not many on here will agree but I for one am not happy about this at all.

[quote bumbleymummy]New (preprint) study showing a higher risk for 12-15 boys - 162.2 per million. Higher than their hospitalisation risk from covid.

“Rates per million following dose 2 among males were 162.2 (ages 12-15) and 94.0 (ages 16-17); among females, rates were 13.0 and 13.4 per million, respectively. For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7-6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100k population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (2.1/100k), such as during January 2021.”

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1[/quote]

That's based on data from VAERS - ie. the US site for people to self-report symptoms and events with no filtering or checking. None. So anything you see there should be taken with with lashings of salt and never cited anywhere.

@Peteycat
Seriously, the comment wasn't even to you, and I have already apologised to the poster I commented to.

I really don't know why you keep on picking on me, first my use of language, but I have already explained that English isn't my first language.

I actually do care about other people's children as a whole, I don't want anyone to get ill. But I don't care about individual children if they get vaxxed or not, because it's none of my business, it's up to the parent or the child. That is all.

Just please leave me alone. I don't care about you, that's for sure.

Ok, sorry, I did quote your comment in the first place. So it's my bad. I had no issue with you at all, like I said, I only care for my dc.

So I am sorry, you are not wrong to respond to me the way you did, I was the one took your general comment personally in the first place.

Ok, no problem. 😊

Everyone is just trying to do their best for their kids and some people are judging others, I’m absolutely not.

Thanks, @SoManyPaws.

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

What does it matter if children become infected naturally olly they are unlikely to become seriously ill. Of course vulnerable children should have a vaccine as swiftly as possible, but I don't know why you would inject a healthy child with a vaccine we know very little about. The vaccine does not have very much data at all published, and could have side effects both immediately and in the long term that are far worse than a mild case of covid!

Surely you can see that some parents perceive the vaccine to be a risk at the moment? Until the rest of the data is published. There are known harms and side effects from this vaccine, and there could be a lot unknown harms that we are not aware of just yet. Of course most parents are careful when it comes to risk to their children. It is only natural to be cautious when it comes to the health of our children.

Every parent should make a choice based on the individual health needs/benefits and risks to their own child. It isn't for the state to decide, or anyone else. We are responsible for our children, and we are best placed to make a decision for them about the vaccine.

I think you've misread my posts.

All I've stated is that,

-Children in this age bracket will only be offered the vaccine if considered the benefits outweigh the risks (including considering non-COVID harms to children).
-It will be an offer - anyone can turn it down.
-Data shows that the majority of parents want their children to be vaccinated. Of the small proportion that don't, generally you would expect children to agree with their parents decision, however if there's discrepancy hopefully it can be resolved with discussion.

Some posters on this thread seem to think that because they don't want their children to be vaccinated, none should be offered it. I don't think your own personal views should mean all children in this age group are denied the option of having the vaccine, if the CMO et al decide it is worth offering.

@AlixandraTheGreat I think the inclusion of ‘troponin’ in the lab findings was to filter results that were medically reported rather than patient self-reports.

It does tie in with the results found in the recent Canadian and Israel studies.

That's based on data from VAERS - ie. the US site for people to self-report symptoms and events with no filtering or checking. None. So anything you see there should be taken with with lashings of salt and never cited anywhere.

Yup.

Which I suspect @bumbleymummy is aware of.

I actually do care about other people's children as a whole, I don't want anyone to get ill. But I don't care about individual children if they get vaxxed or not, because it's none of my business, it's up to the parent or the child. That is all.

Not the person this is directed at, but yes, I broadly agree.

I don't understand the furious debate by non-qualified people on whether it should be offered. Turn it down for your child (and hopefully you should be able to reach a decision with them), if you feel that strongly that you don't want to go ahead with guidance given.

Are they planning (if it goes ahead) to do mass school vaccinations like the flu? Makes me feel ill TBH. Students separated into who is going into the hall for the jab and who isn't. Peer pressure from other kids. So wrong IMHO.

self-report symptoms and events with no filtering or checking. None. So anything you see there should be taken with with lashings of salt

That was pretty much my grumble at the ONS long COVID stats.

I wonder if those have improved in the last few months…

[quote bumbleymummy]@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees perhaps because it’s unusual for a vaccine to be offered to school children more for logistic reasons (reducing disruption - that is actually caused by current isolation/testing policies) rather than health benefits? We don’t usually give vaccines with such a narrow health/risk benefit to our children.[/quote]
My DD and I want her to be vaccinated for her own benefit. I don't think she's had covid yet, certainly no symptoms and actually I know very few people who have had covid (very few cases at her school) so she's not necessarily been exposed to it. And long covid would absolutely disrupt her life in her GCSE years.

But indirectly if fewer kids get covid because they're vaccinated, fewer teachers will be ill and so again, less disruption to education.
And (sorry but less of a priority to me) her being vaccinated might protect kids that can't be vaccinated for whatever reason or their families.

This is what I find odd, the kids of parents who don't want them vaccinated will receive some protection from the vaccinated kids with no risk of side effects. But still the parents don't want other people's kids to be vaccinated. (A bit garbled but hopefully comprehensible.)

This is what I find odd, the kids of parents who don't want them vaccinated will receive some protection from the vaccinated kids with no risk of side effects. But still the parents don't want other people's kids to be vaccinated

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees

Typically someone of this viewpoint is of the mindset their children (and teachers) don't need protecting from COVID.

Similar to the posters crying "I don't reply on the protection of other people getting the vaccine"

@Theonlyoneiknow

Are they planning (if it goes ahead) to do mass school vaccinations like the flu? Makes me feel ill TBH. Students separated into who is going into the hall for the jab and who isn't. Peer pressure from other kids. So wrong IMHO.

Like the nurse poster up thread said, the number of vials needed to be delivered to the school and consent needed prior to ordering them means there won't be much of peer pressure, I'm sure. They can't inject the vaccine they don't have.

Are they planning (if it goes ahead) to do mass school vaccinations like the flu? Makes me feel ill TBH. Students separated into who is going into the hall for the jab and who isn't. Peer pressure from other kids. So wrong IMHO.

For the recent HPV jab and polio etc. boosters DD said that someone just came to the classroom with a list of the kids whose parents had sent back consent forms (which I think had to be emailed back to the NHS health team, not the school - note DH dealt with this so I can't be sure of the detail) and they left whilst the others carried on with their lesson. The kids don't keep notes of who has left the room, they couldn't care less, could have been simply that the parents didn't send the consent form back in time. I think this is an adult MN issue not a child issue.

@DonGray that is exactly right. There is no sitting down with parent and child because the parent isn't in school when the vaccination team go in.

Schools bring down the whole year group, not just the ones where parents have consented and if no consent has been submitted, the vaccination team rings the parent to get consent on the day but if they can't get hold of a parent and the child is adamant they want the vaccine and is deemed gillick competent by the nurse then the nurse will administer the vaccine.

The school vaccines service has a target that is set by the Commissioners and the team have to try everything to hit that target.

Some posters on this thread seem to think that because they don't want their children to be vaccinated, none should be offered it

I don't think that is the view of anyone on this thread, from what I have read, but it is the view of the JCVI that opinion and conclusion carries great weight, as it should.

This is what I find odd, the kids of parents who don't want them vaccinated will receive some protection from the vaccinated kids with no risk of side effects

I definitely think it is okay for parents to be taking the side effects very seriously given the fact we do not know if myocarditis damages the tissue around the heart permanently or what kind of heart conditions a child could be left with, if indeed they were to be one of the unlucky ones in the stats. It should be part of the consideration of any medical decision, the harm that could be caused should be balanced with the benefit to the child. Given some educational disruption is likely anyway, that might not be a big enough reason to vaccinate, in some parents view.

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

Some posters on this thread seem to think that because they don't want their children to be vaccinated, none should be offered it

I don't think that is the view of anyone on this thread, from what I have read, but it is the view of the JCVI that opinion and conclusion carries great weight, as it should.

As I have said, this is not the opinion and conclusion of the JCVI.

They have said on the basis of medical reasons, the benefits are so marginal it does not warrant offering it to this age group. They have also said there are additional factors that they have not considered, that also have the potential to harm children such as isolation and disrupted schooling, which must be considered. This is why they have referred it on the the CMO et al for a final decision.

As I said, if they go ahead it'll be an offer which can be turned down. If your child disagrees with your opinion then hopefully it can be resolved through discussion.

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

This is what I find odd, the kids of parents who don't want them vaccinated will receive some protection from the vaccinated kids with no risk of side effects

I definitely think it is okay for parents to be taking the side effects very seriously given the fact we do not know if myocarditis damages the tissue around the heart permanently or what kind of heart conditions a child could be left with, if indeed they were to be one of the unlucky ones in the stats. It should be part of the consideration of any medical decision, the harm that could be caused should be balanced with the benefit to the child. Given some educational disruption is likely anyway, that might not be a big enough reason to vaccinate, in some parents view.

Yup and I don't think anyone's arguing with that.

It's up to families to decide, hopefully together, what the best option is if it is offered to this age group.

[quote MrsWorriedMother]@DonGray that is exactly right. There is no sitting down with parent and child because the parent isn't in school when the vaccination team go in.

Schools bring down the whole year group, not just the ones where parents have consented and if no consent has been submitted, the vaccination team rings the parent to get consent on the day but if they can't get hold of a parent and the child is adamant they want the vaccine and is deemed gillick competent by the nurse then the nurse will administer the vaccine.

The school vaccines service has a target that is set by the Commissioners and the team have to try everything to hit that target. [/quote]
Well that certainly isn't my DD's experience of the booster jabs given last term and doesn't sound like the plans posted by the immunsisation nurse earlier in the thread. I wonder why your team are doing things differently?

I definitely think it is okay for parents to be taking the side effects very seriously given the fact we do not know if myocarditis damages the tissue around the heart permanently or what kind of heart conditions a child could be left with, if indeed they were to be one of the unlucky ones in the stats. It should be part of the consideration of any medical decision, the harm that could be caused should be balanced with the benefit to the child. Given some educational disruption is likely anyway, that might not be a big enough reason to vaccinate, in some parents view.

I agree. But that's up to those parents. For my child I think all the benefits outweigh the (IMO) small medical risks and I'd like her to have the option of a vaccine.

The JCVI have made the decision NOT to recommend the vaccine to the young age bracket though, they haven't moderated it with giving any kind of option for parents to choose. They have said quite clearly there is still considerable uncertainty about the harm. That was quite categoric and clear to me. It was the JCVI view that no one under the age of eighteen should have the vaccine, they relented to lower the age to sixteen - under considerable pressure I understand.
The compromise was the referral for wider consideration to the CMO - whom have been incredibly slow to respond. I am not entirely sure now what way it is going to go.

However I do have total confidence in the learned decisions from the JCVI. Given the time, research, knowledge, discussion, debate, global data and collective expertise and wisdom on the panel - I think it would be foolish to ignore there recommendation personally.

**their

@ollyollyoxenfree

That's based on data from VAERS - ie. the US site for people to self-report symptoms and events with no filtering or checking. None. So anything you see there should be taken with with lashings of salt and never cited anywhere.

Yup.

Which I suspect @bumbleymummy is aware of.

See my comment right above yours.

I think we should wait to see what the CMOs decide. If they still think that the benefits are marginal they won't recommend it, it won't even be an option for our kids and all this discussion will have been pointless!