All 12-15s to be offered single dose of Pfizer, CMOs decide

[bagofconkers]

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines-to-be-offered-to-children-aged-12-to-15-chief-medical-officers-decide-12402855

@dontwantausername
No pre existing conditions at all. He was super healthy, fit, slim, always playing sports, so yeah, it’s been a bit of a shock. Made much much worse by posts like yours honestly, saying it’s “just anxiety”.

He does not have strong immunity, given that his covid infection was in March 2020.

And the vaccine having problems associated with the heart - did you read my post? His heart was damaged by covid to the point where he’s still affected over a year later. Myocarditis after the vaccine tends to last a week at most. Which would you prefer?

@noblegiraffe

Why are they only offering it to those 12-15 why not everyone in high school

Because it's only approved for age 12+.

So now they are waiting for 5-11 to be approved in US and other countries. If it did, would UK approve, I wonder? I have no child at this age range but quite interested how some people in UK react, tbh.

@ollyollyoxenfree I am struggling to find the number of women under 40 who had serious side effects compared to the number of women under 40 who have been vaccinated. All figures I can find show for example 16 per million compared with the number of doses given to all age ranges which doesn't answer the question. Please help if you can I'm obviously shit at looking!

[quote namechangerforthisconfessionn]@ollyollyoxenfree I am struggling to find the number of women under 40 who had serious side effects compared to the number of women under 40 who have been vaccinated. All figures I can find show for example 16 per million compared with the number of doses given to all age ranges which doesn't answer the question. Please help if you can I'm obviously shit at looking![/quote]
I don't understand what you're asking for (or why on a thread about offering to teens!) but the data thread could be a good shout?

Multiple, qualified scientists with access to raw data have calculated that the benefits outweigh the risks for women under 40, if that's what you're asking. If you think you've disproven that by looking at some stats on the internet it's likely you're missing something.

Never understood why parents have been so blase about the long term risks of covid when as time goes by it becomes more apparent that even apparently mild cases can have damage show up later.

Some scientists actually regard the JCVI decision as peverse. The pre-print on risks post vaccine has been prettily heavily criticised and may end up with lower estimates when it's been through peer review. It looked at risks of myocarditis from covid over 4 months but going back to schools with no mitigations, no bubbles means any child that hasnt yet had covid will probably have it soon.

I'm thankful my child is old enough to have both vaccinations and did so at the first opportunity.

@TodayIsGoingToBeAGoodDay

The JVCI didn't recommend when looking at the single benefit to a child's health; they couldn't make the judgement on the wider benefits so the CMOs have. Well that's my understanding

the beeb says if your child is adjudged to be Gillick competent they can override the parents wishes

@ollyollyoxenfree I asked because you implied it was bollocks I knew 2 people very ill and said it was simple finding information on the internet, I made the original comment in reply to another poster who said they thought that the media would report on children's complications (I don't think they will) HTH

Did no one else find the statements bullshit tho?!

I’m not against vaccine dispite my vocal opinion on covid etc

I am double vax myself and believe all adults really should take vaccine since it is shown to benefit all Etc

But right now they haven’t shown it to benefit kids by any significant margin AT ALL

Health benefit - JCVI said it was basically too small to be significant

Disruption - we are told it won’t reduce disruption

Travel - can’t be used as vaccine passport

So what is benefit exactly?

If they’d have come out and said ‘look vaccine is safe, it won’t really do anything for your kids benefits wise but take one for the team and we will get out of this sooner’

That I would have listened to! It’s being honest

But bullshit not backed up by anything seems pointless

It’s like saying ‘yes we will offer it but don’t care if you take it’

Kids aren’t isolating anymore as contacts which is what caused the major disruption

Positive kids will isolate but infections will only drop 1/3 and it’s estimated half kids have had it anyway so real life infections will reduce by 30,000 I think they said

Saving one day per 20 kids - how does that benefit kids when we know 20 kids will likely have more than one day off as consequence of having vaccine?

Loads in my workplace were ill for day or so. Dh was ill for 2 days after vaccine. So how does saving 1 day for 20 kids make it worthwhile?!

How does that swing the risk the other way because to me they didn’t even try prove it

When both the health benefit has been proven to be insignificant and now disruption benefit looks shady - What is the benefit?

I’m not against vaccine in kids either but give us something to believe in at least

I’d happily vaccinate my kids but they’ve given me no reason whatsoever to do it

[quote namechangerforthisconfessionn]@ollyollyoxenfree I asked because you implied it was bollocks I knew 2 people very ill and said it was simple finding information on the internet, I made the original comment in reply to another poster who said they thought that the media would report on children's complications (I don't think they will) HTH[/quote]
Uh no I didn't?

I responded to your post where you said the media would cover up cases of people having complications from the vaccines saying that's it's crap given that verified reports of people being ill or dying are widely publicised.

This thread is baffling.

Its a mix of anti-vax sentiment

and

"Follow the science. No not that science. The other science which I prefer the sound of."

I totally agree with this.
There are people with agenda. There are people who are misinformed, maybe posting in good faith. I could be one of them.

So, when it involves your children, I really hope people would look for evidence themselves. Some of the comment on this thread isn't allowed in other platforms, I would imagine, because it's plain false.

Giving us parents a choice to vaccinate our own children is a good thing. Because we can decide what's good for our own children ourselves as a parent. You can certainly say no if you aren't sure, but there is a choice. And you can wait it until you feel certain. You have a choice, it's definitely a good thing? Nothing like many anti-vaxxers seems to make you think, that vaccinating children is totally wrong?

Think not what your country can do for your children, think what your children can do for their country.

@Notthemessiah

Think not what your country can do for your children, think what your children can do for their country.

gah I get the sentiment but I think this is just adding fuel to fire.

The vaccine is not being recommended for teens because it will benefit wider society (although some may think that's a good enough reason to have it)

It's being recommended because the direct benefits to the teens themselves outweigh the risks.

Olly

Please tell me genuinely what the benefits are

They haven’t named one

@Watapalava

Olly

Please tell me genuinely what the benefits are

They haven’t named one

Come on now @Watapalava

I suggest you watch the press conference (or read the thread)

If you disagree with the outlined benefits that's a whole other debate to be had but it's bizarre to claim they didn't say anything

It's being recommended because the direct benefits to the teens themselves outweigh the risks

There was a time I’d have believed what our politicians said too.

@Notthemessiah

It's being recommended because the direct benefits to the teens themselves outweigh the risks

There was a time I’d have believed what our politicians said too.

It's got nothing to do with politicians. This decision was made by the CMOs (who themselves are civil servants and therefore must be politically neutral) and informed by a wide range of experts, can still be rejected by government.

But it’s not just “the politicians” is it? When the JCVI didn’t recommend overall (despite the benefits outweighing the risks) there were plenty of scientists and doctors who disagreed with their decision and wanted 12-15 years to have the option to be vaccinated. If it was just the politicians I think we’d all be a bit suspicious, but there are an awful lot of scientists and doctors who believe children in that age group should be vaccinated and speak very well about the reasons why.

The JCVI did say that the benefits outweighed the risks

Hooray! Great news for the 90% of parents who were keen for a vaccination for their teen. The BBC infographic up thread is quite clear, what's not to understand?

olly

i did watch conference and i refer to my previous post

The agurment they made was to prevent 30,000 infections equating to 1 day saved per 20 people

We all know from the dozens of threads on here that side affects of the vaccine will cause more than one day per 20 kids. 20 kids sitting out for 15 mins following the vaccine is 5 hours alone! nevermind any fever, chills or tiredness.

So what benefit was there? The health benefit has already been disregarded by JVCI and now the disruption argument falls flat.

I didnt see any other argument at all

Here’s a benefit you’ll be thrilled about @Watapalava

Chris Whitty said in today’s press conference
“Children do still have problems with covid. It is not a benign (harmless) disease even in children. It’s more likely to cause more problems in adults, especially older adults, but there are problems that some children get into (with COVID).”

But those problems are no more than any other illness.

I don't vaccinate for flu or any other respiratory illness. Most kids i know have been asymptomatic or mildy ill for day or so - they've had worse colds.

Plus i don't beleive him given he's told us kids hardly affected the last 12 months! Its purely a play to get parent confidence up and also fill the gap from non vaccinated adults

(He did say 'some' kids which i expect are the CEV kids)

He did say 'some' kids which i expect are the CEV kids

Beware, I think your posts are invisible to some people.

Omg what the hell is wrong with people? Average age of covid death is 82.

82 not 12!!

Thousands of reports - anecdotal, media led and international - which demonstrate that vaccinations don’t stop spread. Even if they inhibit it very slightly, they don’t STOP it.

Virtually zero reports of long covid in children being serious or lasting more than 4 months. Of course I’m very sad and sorry for the rare few children who have been adversely affected but why does this example of “rare” compel people to vaccinate their children against JVCI advice and ignore the ‘rare’ but very serious side effects of the vaccine?

Finally, when do you think this will end if we just carry on blindly following what we’re told? Soon nobody will be able to access places or enjoy social events unless they’ve had the latest booster vaccination. All good for those who want to vaccinate every last human and don’t care about freedom of choice but what exactly does happen to the “choices” of those who would prefer to wait a bit longer to see how things play out? Can’t you appreciate that “choice” is very much not a factor long term if we carry on down this road?