I have to say that I'm probably not a million miles from where Watapalava is in thinking, if I had a child in this particular age group. If I'm honest would really struggle with saying yes.
I will qualify that a little:
The kids who benefit most from the vaccine will be kids in lower income homes. Their educational prospects are lower and they are less likely to have support at home. Their health as an adult is also likely to be poorer than kids from better off households. They are more likely to catch covid too, because their parents are more likely to be working in front line jobs and are less able to work from home. So they are more likely to end up off school with covid and for their education to be affected negatively. And long term thats more likely to have a greater impact on their long term health into adulthood.
If you are a kid from a well office background, with educated parents able to help you with school work (including a catch up tutor if needed), who are less likely to catch covid because your parents remain working from home and your health in adult is likely to be comparitively significantly above average, then the benefits that the CMOs highlight are not as significant - but the risk of the vaccine itself remains the same as it would be for children of poorer backgrounds.
Put simply the benefit/risk profiles differ.
Yes, there is a small risk of a serious case of covid still - but this is still low in children anyway.
Ironically, what we will probably see is that its the better off middle class families who most want to be vaccinated - as patterns with adults show. And families who would actually get most benefits from the vaccine are much more likely to be hestitant due to lack of trust in authority.
That said, we don't know what the next variant around the corner is - and its likely that those unvaccinated are particularly vulnerable if a more virulent one was to come along in the next few months or so, because they will have no immunity at all. We don't know if a variant may yet come along and have a partiularly significant impact on children. By the time we started to see a change in pattern it would already be too late for some.
So I must admit, I'm relieved that DS is too young for this. It takes the decision out of my hands.
But I can well see huge arguments breaking out about this - some of them fully reasonable and understanding the risks/benefits -and others 'less rational'.
Part of the problem here is precisely because of how finely balanced it is. And for that reason I do think it should be left to choice (and that should NOT include a 2nd dose as some on this thread want as the evidence doesn't stack up for it). The trouble is its going to be a massive point of conflict for lots of people now who can not comprehend that refusing the vaccine isn't reckless/selfish and conversely having the vaccine isn't likely to make you spontaineously combust and die.
The level headed arguement will be drowned out by the two extremes screaming at each other about how the other doesn't care about children. Which is utter bullshit, because the reason they are both screaming is precisely because they do care about their kids.
People on both sides need to take a bit step back and look at the numbers and have a logical rather than emotional one.
The JVCI says there is a slim benefit but it wasn't enough for them to recommend it on the criteria they look at. The CMOs say there is a slim benefit on the additional criteria they looked at which was enough for them to recommend it. And the benefit isn't equally spread for all children to further complicate the pot. Its knife edge. Really knife edge.
That makes it very difficult to decide what you think is the best thing is - even if you are cool headed and rational about this and trust the scientists and their recommendations and fully understand the data properly.