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.

• a) very small risks compared to covid

The statistics tell us that children are exceptionally well protected from serious disease or illness, so the risks in fact might be higher from the vaccine as we saw in the published data regarding 12-15 year old boys.

b) one of many issues to be considered, and I'm glad that the CMOs will be doing just that.

There is no confirmation yet that the CMO will be working outside of the JCVI recommendation not to vaccinate children in this age bracket.

I think it would adversely affect my perfectly stable and mentally well children to be vaccinated with something that gave them an enlarged heart or further serious complications in the future, that are not currently known.
I think their mental health might very well be impacted by the uncertainty of not knowing what was travelling around their bodies, and the harm it could do to them. For good mental health one must be at ease, and most/many teens are very ease with covid already. They have already adapted and have learnt to live with this endemic disease already.

Good luck with telling dc the vaccines will be needed every six months for the next eighty to ninety years. Did you mention that?

@Peteycat

"12:31zenthoughtsonlythanks

You are being labelled 'eccentric' now Petey for not wishing to vaccinate your child with a vaccine that in the JCVI's view should not be used currently. How very eccentric of you to care for your own child's health!! grin"

I know. Thank you zen.

Nope, no one is saying that.

As has been repeatedly stated, over and over again, if you don't want your teen to be vaccinated that's a fair enough opinion to have.

Your opinion however, does not mean all teens should be denied the option, if the CMO et al decide it should be offered.

But you don't even have a child in this age bracket right @Peteycat? I'm sure you would have mentioned it at some point?

Best ignored petey attention seeking. It is all rather desperate isn't it.

If vaccines were truly the right thing for our children, I don't think there would be this much uncertainty, and I absolutely think the JCVI would have supported them in full, the very fact they haven't and no one on here actually wants to discuss the contents of their statement, and have resorted to posting weird pictures says it all actually.

We are not wrong on this.

@Peteycat

What's funny Herecomesthesun? Are you a troll?

I have already explained very clearly that I was not calling you eccentric, but was referring to antivaxxers like the one in the picture I provided.

You and zen seem to be either deliberately ignoring that or finding it very hard to understand clear English prose.

Possibly you are picking up on something quite small and irrelevant to derail the conversation? In a somewhat ridiculous way?

And no, I'm not a troll, I have been putting up to date information to help the discussion, and provide a balance to misinformation in some of the other posts.

How would you define trolling? posting the same ideas again and again without justification?

Who is doing that on here?

Petey has a dog, or at least has been to a dog show I think?

oxy

How many times!

Your opinion however, does not mean all teens should be denied the option

It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the JCVI. A panel of world class experts no less.

Why don't we talk about the statement? In particular, why not stick with the facts! Like:

'There is increasingly robust evidence of an association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis'

OR

'acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms"

Why are you avoiding talking about the reasons why JCVI have not recommended this vaccine to children, rather than focusing on the entitlement that your child should have one at all costs?

The assessment by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that the health benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms....

It is not within the JCVI’s remit to consider the wider societal impacts of vaccination, including educational benefits. The government may wish to seek further views on the wider societal and educational impacts from the Chief Medical Officers of the UK 4 nations.

Hope that helps

www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

You see certain posters on here seem to not enjoy talking about the actual facts, and prefer to say their teens are entitled to vaccines that could potentially harm them because they said so.

Having followed the science for 19 months, they have decided the science isn't for them after all.

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

oxy

How many times!

Your opinion however, does not mean all teens should be denied the option

It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the JCVI. A panel of world class experts no less.

Why don't we talk about the statement? In particular, why not stick with the facts! Like:

'There is increasingly robust evidence of an association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis'

OR

'acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms"

Why are you avoiding talking about the reasons why JCVI have not recommended this vaccine to children, rather than focusing on the entitlement that your child should have one at all costs?

What on earth? You keep accusing me of not talking about things that I was never actually asked about in the first place?

As I've said in multiple itereations:

As has been repeatedly stated, over and over again, if you don't want your teen to be vaccinated that's a fair enough opinion to have. Your opinion however, does not mean all teens should be denied the option, if the CMO et al decide it should be offered.

and

The medical benefit to children is marginal. As the JCVI have stated, there are other harms associated with getting coronavirus that aren't specifically medical in terms of being caused by infection, which why they have referred the decision on.

I don't have a child in this age bracket so nothing to do with my "entitlement", HTH

My child already has had a vaccine, approved by the JCVI.

So presumably you are referring to someone else ?

Oh right so they are talking about other posters then?

My child already has had a vaccine, approved by the JCVI So you have a vested interest and are perhaps very biased if that is the case.

If you don't mind I, along with millions of other parents, will be making the best decision for my children by following the JCVI recommendations. As is right for my children as they are very fit and healthy and do not need the vaccine fortunately.

What you decide for your dc, is a matter for you (and them)

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

My child already has had a vaccine, approved by the JCVI So you have a vested interest and are perhaps very biased if that is the case.

If you don't mind I, along with millions of other parents, will be making the best decision for my children by following the JCVI recommendations. As is right for my children as they are very fit and healthy and do not need the vaccine fortunately.

What you decide for your dc, is a matter for you (and them)

How many times?!

As has been repeatedly stated, over and over again, if you don't want your teen to be vaccinated that's a fair enough opinion to have. Your opinion however, does not mean all teens should be denied the option, if the CMO et al decide it should be offered.

You just seem to be having an argument with yourself @zenthoughtsonlythanks, it's been going on for pages and pages

The JCVI did not recommend the vaccine to children, because it isn't safe
That's just not true though. Are we allowed to post actual lies on here now?

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

The JCVI did not recommend the vaccine to children, because it isn't safe.

The idea of wider impacts was from the government to try and ram the vaccines over the line without the JCVI recommendation. The JCVI were looking solely at the health benefits of the child. Which is the only thing that really matters when we are talking about enlarged hearts and permanent heart problems.

No

The MHRA approved the vaccine because it IS safe, and they haven't changed their minds on that. (see the quote above)

The JCVI haven't definitely decided to roll out the vaccine at this point, but they did say that the benefits appeared to outweigh the side effects, marginally - and then handed over the decision to the CMOs regarding educational benefits etc.

No government body has actually said that the vaccine isn't safe. If the JCVI really thought the vaccine was unsafe, they wouldn't be recommending it for vulnerable children. So please could you stop posting that? as it is misleading for people.

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

* a) very small risks compared to covid

The statistics tell us that children are exceptionally well protected from serious disease or illness, so the risks in fact might be higher from the vaccine as we saw in the published data regarding 12-15 year old boys.

b) one of many issues to be considered, and I'm glad that the CMOs will be doing just that.

There is no confirmation yet that the CMO will be working outside of the JCVI recommendation not to vaccinate children in this age bracket.

I think it would adversely affect my perfectly stable and mentally well children to be vaccinated with something that gave them an enlarged heart or further serious complications in the future, that are not currently known.
I think their mental health might very well be impacted by the uncertainty of not knowing what was travelling around their bodies, and the harm it could do to them. For good mental health one must be at ease, and most/many teens are very ease with covid already. They have already adapted and have learnt to live with this endemic disease already.

Good luck with telling dc the vaccines will be needed every six months for the next eighty to ninety years. Did you mention that?

We're just going round in circles aren't we? You don't want your child to be vaccinated, you have said that your school have said children without consent definitely won't be vaccinated so why do you care what I do with my child? I am not trying to change your mind, why are you trying to change mine?

@zenthoughtsonlythanks

My child already has had a vaccine, approved by the JCVI So you have a vested interest and are perhaps very biased if that is the case.

If you don't mind I, along with millions of other parents, will be making the best decision for my children by following the JCVI recommendations. As is right for my children as they are very fit and healthy and do not need the vaccine fortunately.

What you decide for your dc, is a matter for you (and them)

Well, you could argue that I have no vested interest now in vaccines for the other 12-15 year olds, as it won't affect my child directly.

However, I am quite an idealistic person, and I also believe that parents should have the right to decide for their child. Especially parents of CEV children, for example, who may have previously been shielding their child and are now desperately worried about the return to school with no mitgations. And of course, the JCVI thought that the health benefit was if anything in favour of vaccination (despite their decision not to advise roll out immediately)

If you are fixed on not vaccinating your child, despite the evidence of heath, educational, mental health and societal benefits, then that is a matter for you (and them, presumably if they agree with you )

Please read the statement from the JCVI it is linked on here and make your own conclusions about the safety!

'There is increasingly robust evidence of an association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis'

'These events and the limited follow-up time of children and young people with post-vaccination myocarditis, substantial uncertainty remains regarding the health risks associated with these adverse events'

'As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. Such data may not be available for several months'

I am quoting directly from the JCVI statement, which is linked below;

www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021

But overall they said that the medical benefits slightly outweighed the disadvantages.

Thank you I have read the decision, and have already quoted chunks of it to you!

This is not some made up view of mine, the quotes are taken directly from the JCVI which is now freely available to all.

It will be several months before we will the longer term data.

"As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. Such data may not be available for several months"

So of course many parents will, on balance, wish to wait until the data is available at the very least before making a decision.

But overall they said that the medical benefits slightly outweighed the disadvantages

But the JCVI couldn't recommend the vaccine to children until the longer term data is known, most essentially!!

So one might conclude that until we know for sure what the long term side effects are, whether they are likely to be permanent, and the number of fatalities it is best to wait!!

In a nutshell.

That is the JCVI's view (not mine) as I am not a scientist.

Well, not many people can get their children vaccinated now at all, we are awaiting the CMO decision aren't we ?

But overall the JCVI have commented positively on the health benefit of the vaccine (albeit with the proviso you mentioned and the deferral of a decision to the CMO)

The safety decision was made by the MHRA and still stands.