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.

But I really don't see the problem. If parents don't want their children vaccinated, they can refuse. And I am sure it must be really small numbers of children actually defy their parent's decision.
If you don't want your child to be vaccinated, you can explain to them why they shouldn't have it. If that fails and children disagree with you, then they should really have a choice to make a final decision. "Your body your choice" should apply to competent children, not just adults.

But then, after all, most of the children at that age are still under strong influence by their parents, I really don't think there are many cases that children overruling parents choice. It's more likely that children refuse than get vaccinated against parent's wish, imo.

This is a new drug and dare I say this, very very different to the usual vaccines. So, no studies done. No evidence on long term effects. But you think it's OK to give it to children.

@severelysound

I have no idea why you're still promoting the idea of ADE (i.e., vaccination is going to make people more ill, rather than protecting them), when it has been explained countless times why this is not considered an issue. The majority of experts do not think this is a potential problem, hence why they have advised mass rollout of vaccination.

This isn't something that has just happened to slip the minds of the hundreds of virologists and immunologists involved in the roll out.

@ollyollyoxenfree

That is why I have a strong desire to stop this ridiculous potential jabbing of healthy children. The vaccine is of very little benefit to healthy children.

Vaccines, by definition, are given to healthy people. They prevent rather than treat disease.

It still depends on benefit vs risk.

I’m not on either side but just because vaccines are given to healthy people it doesn’t mean risk v benefit is not looked at.

@illyukanas

"And I am sure it must be really small numbers of children actually defy their parent's decision"

Just using the word 'defy' about children speaks volumes of your character.

@Peteycat

This is a new drug and dare I say this, very very different to the usual vaccines. So, no studies done. No evidence on long term effects. But you think it's OK to give it to children.

Oh gosh.

It's not a drug. It's not "very very different" to usual vaccines. There haven't been "no studies done".

There is no plausible mechanism by which a vaccine will cause effects that only emerge in the long term. This is a concern with drugs as generally you take them for a long time frame, which means long term exposure. With a vaccine, the components are degraded very quickly.

I think it's "ok to give to children" because experts who know far more than me have approved it for this age group.

You keep banging on about the long term effects of vaccination, for which there is no biological rationale, and merrily ignoring the potential long term effects of infection, for which there is. In addition to the fact we know viruses have the potential to cause long term complications, there is actual real evidence of coronavirus infection doing this.

I'm not saying it's a reason to offer vaccination to children, but I find this type of logic bizarre.

[quote Peteycat]@Cornettoninja

"It makes no sense to say we shouldn’t give it to healthy children, vaccines work best when given to healthy people full stop. They’re a preventative measure not a treatment"

Nope. It makes no sense to give it to healthy children.[/quote]
Okay…. But you at least realise that all vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent illness/death/transmission. By the logic you’re following we shouldn’t have early years vaccinations. It’s not an argument against giving children a covid vaccine.

You do you, but at least have arguments that aren’t wholly erroneous. Long term effects, side effects - fair enough. But you appear to be arguing against the whole premise of vaccines and bodily autonomy for teenagers both of which have very long, well established precedents in this country.

[quote Peteycat]@illyukanas

"And I am sure it must be really small numbers of children actually defy their parent's decision"

Just using the word 'defy' about children speaks volumes of your character.[/quote]
But why do you keep ignore the very valid point that the numbers are going to be small.

• low numbers of parents who don't want their children vaccination
• of these, low numbers of children who don't agree with their parents decision

-of these, even lower numbers of discordant children/parents who aren't able to reach a decision

It still depends on benefit vs risk. I’m not on either side but just because vaccines are given to healthy people it doesn’t mean risk v benefit is not looked at.

Of course it does @MarshaBradyo, but using the argument "no healthy children should be given the vaccine" on it's own makes no sense as this is not the basis of vaccination programmes

What if the inverse is true, and a parent wants their child to have the vaccine but the child doesn't. Do you think that the will of the parent should override the decision of the child?

@ollyollyoxenfree

It still depends on benefit vs risk. I’m not on either side but just because vaccines are given to healthy people it doesn’t mean risk v benefit is not looked at.

Of course it does @MarshaBradyo, but using the argument "no healthy children should be given the vaccine" on it's own makes no sense as this is not the basis of vaccination programmes

I read it as a proxy for the benefit is marginal for healthy children - in keeping with JCVI decision

So I get what they mean even if it doesn’t stack up literally

@MarshaBradyo 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 caused by infection, which why they have referred the decision on.

@Booknooks

What if the inverse is true, and a parent wants their child to have the vaccine but the child doesn't. Do you think that the will of the parent should override the decision of the child?

Quite, I suspect in this case posters would be aghast (as they should be) at the idea of a child being forced into having the vaccine because they have a different decision to their parents.

@Booknooks

What if the inverse is true, and a parent wants their child to have the vaccine but the child doesn't. Do you think that the will of the parent should override the decision of the child?

No. If a teenager doesn’t want a vaccine a parent shouldn’t be able to over ride their wishes either.

[quote ollyollyoxenfree]@MarshaBradyo 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 caused by infection, which why they have referred the decision on.[/quote]
Yes but when the poster says it they are using same criteria.

Btw do we know when decision is being made?

@ollyollyoxenfree you appear to have missed the point.

I'm not "promoting" it (only in 2021 can you "promote" the idea of a medical phenomenon...)

I was making an argument that when you try to find out all of those things you are telling me in your response, you are overwhelmingly met with the type of answer I gave in my post.

Statements by someone declaring themselves an expert with little data to support what they're saying.

(This works all ways)

I believe you -- I'm sure all of that great data exists. The point was that the PP said they can give their child all of the facts and evidence. My example was the first result in a reputable looking article (which gave ultimately 0 facts or evidence?) And would lead any cynical person to question it?

@Peteycat

English isn't my first language, so I only try to say what I want to say in English to the best of my ability. So I don't know what kind of category using a word "defy" put me into, as a character.

Re the op I haven’t thought about it much as my dc will be in line with how I feel - eldest was in any case

[quote severelysound]@ollyollyoxenfree you appear to have missed the point.

I'm not "promoting" it (only in 2021 can you "promote" the idea of a medical phenomenon...)

I was making an argument that when you try to find out all of those things you are telling me in your response, you are overwhelmingly met with the type of answer I gave in my post.

Statements by someone declaring themselves an expert with little data to support what they're saying.

(This works all ways)

I believe you -- I'm sure all of that great data exists. The point was that the PP said they can give their child all of the facts and evidence. My example was the first result in a reputable looking article (which gave ultimately 0 facts or evidence?) And would lead any cynical person to question it? [/quote]
I mean it's hard to not be a little cynical when ADE is an argument pushed by the anti-vax contingent (HART, Mike Yeadon, AFD etc) which has filtered down to social media and caused a lot of panic.

There's a lot of nonsense and people promoting themselves as experts but surely it goes without saying that if there was a genuine possibility of the vaccines causing ADE, leading to them making people sicker and causing death, rather protecting them, they would not have been rolled out globally.

As others have said, this position on consent is not unique or special to the vaccine - it's the general position for medical treatments in this age bracket

Btw do we know when decision is being made?

No I don't think anything has been announced yet regarding a specific date, just "in the coming days"@MarshaBradyo

I suspect as per usual it will be released on twitter first

leading to them making people sicker and causing death, rather protecting them, they would not have been rolled out globally

I think some people are determined to make science fiction come true (although utopia is excellent I have to admit). It feels like a lot of these crowd worriers have been lifted straight from the plots of various sci-fi fictions.

this position on consent is not unique or special to the vaccine - it's the general position for medical treatments in this age bracket

If this is what you think, you are not competent yourself to make the statement (perhaps you’re not actually medically trained), or are being wilfully ignorant, or just incredibly naive.

12 to 15 year olds are perfectly capable of making this kind of decision for themselves unless they have special needs.

They are having their heads filled with crap, making them watch Newsround every day in school for example.

Lol its called receiving an education