Covid vaccine for a 12 year old boy with no underlying conditions

[happytoday73]

I feel very conflicted about what to do for my son vaccine wise. Where is the best place for more unbiased information to make this choice?

Dont get me wrong..I'm pro vaccine. I'm vaccinated for covid and would love to get a booster... but 2 years too young!

My son has had all his vaccines and thankfully is fit, healthy, sporty....but
I just don't know...on balance it feels his individual risk from covid is very very low, adverse reaction to vaccine again very very low (but significantly higher)... So why bother?

I totally get why only 1 vaccine shot being offered. But again that doesn't give the advantages that come with being fully vaccinated....

@Geamhradh

It was me about the discredited Dingwall. Who left the JCVI in its equivalent of "to spend more time with his family" after it was discovered he'd been liaising with various well-known anti-vax groups and individuals. He's a sociologist not a doctor btw.

@Geamhradh

You said discredited members (plural) so who the others and why are they also discredited?

I genuinely cannot find any decent info about this and, other than a screenshot of a message log where supposedly someone was talking about him favourably, which was posted earlier (and which is really not that different from the stuff the COVID deniers drag up as 'evidence'), I can't find anything particularly about Dingwall, other than the fact that he has seemingly downplayed both the effects of long covid and the effectiveness of lockdowns.

@SinisterBumFacedCat that makes it so much easier choice wise!

I can't find anything particularly about Dingwall

You think a member of the JCVI should be retweeting Us4Them, a bunch of astroturfing antilockdowners masquerading as a ‘grassroots’ parent group who form part of the network that the screenshot suggests he’s involved with?

So he’s talking like them, retweeting them and in private chats it is discussed how he is working with them but you still aren’t sure?

@noblegiraffe

I can't find anything particularly about Dingwall

You think a member of the JCVI should be retweeting Us4Them, a bunch of astroturfing antilockdowners masquerading as a ‘grassroots’ parent group who form part of the network that the screenshot suggests he’s involved with?

So he’s talking like them, retweeting them and in private chats it is discussed how he is working with them but you still aren’t sure?

Sorry, but the screenshot means very little as far as I'm concerned. If it or anything like it could have been properly verified then I imagine a mainstream outlet like the Guardian would have loved to run with this kind of story, but they haven't, so you have to wonder why that is.

So it's a single retweet from us4them (a group I have no time for either) but which points to a yougov poll telling parents to have their say about child vaccination (which I would agree with).

So sorry again, but that's not enough for me yet to move him from the 'less convinced about the benefits of lockdown or effects of long covid' box, which quite a lot of fairly reasonable people could be said to fall into, to the 'loony anti-COVID' or 'let it rip through society, survival of the fittest' boxes. On the other hand, I agree that it's not a good look to be re-tweeting even innocuous tweets from us4them, so it does make you think.

It's all a bit incidental anyway now, because as you already pointed out, he was no longer on the JCVI that made the decision regarding not recommending vaccination for 12 to 17 yr olds and I've yet to see anything about any other member, past or present, of the JCVI, despite a PP saying that multiple members were 'discredited'.

From JCVI:
The available evidence indicates that the individual health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination are small in those aged 12 to 15 years who do not have underlying health conditions which put them at risk of severe COVID-19. The potential risks from vaccination are also small, with reports of post-vaccination myocarditis being very rare, but potentially serious and still in the process of being described. Given the rarity of 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.

Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms (tables 1 to 4) but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. 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 it's a single retweet from us4them (a group I have no time for either)

No, I posted a single retweet, he retweets them all the time. I just nipped to his twitter timeline and took the most recent.

If it or anything like it could have been properly verified then I imagine a mainstream outlet like the Guardian would have loved to run with this kind of story, but they haven't, so you have to wonder why that is.

Legal threats is my guess. Their official response to the story broken on Logically.ai was "HART is a voluntary association of scientists, health care professionals, economists and other academics with a shared belief that the voices of experts with different views to the Government’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic, have not been heard.

We are grateful to Logically reporter Ernie Piper for bringing to our attention that an individual has shared private archives and group chats in which HART members believed they were debating, in confidence, their wide-ranging perspectives and hypotheses on the scientific advice informing the Government’s pandemic policies, as well as informing HART’s strategy.

It is disappointing to discover that the trust we place in our members, that allows free expression in those chats, has been breached. For Logically to compound the matter by extracting statements out of context for seemingly defamatory purposes is a sad reflection of the censorship and harassment experienced by individuals and organisations who question the Government’s narrative and scientific orthodoxy.

HART is not in receipt of any funding following initial public donations which totalled £1,434.99. These funds have supported our website and set-up costs."

I haven’t had chance to read much on the JCVI findings yet, but since they’re saying that there hasn’t been much chance to accrue data on the long term effects of covid vaccination I presume they’re also looking carefully at the data of long term effects of a covid infection in children too.

One of my main concerns is the unseen damage that covid can inflict and as it’s so mild in children/young people they’re rarely followed up by a GP post infection unless needed. I’m not sure how/if any following difficulties would be linked back to a covid infection specifically.

I suppose it will only become apparent over the years if children who have had covid infections are particularly susceptible to a particular condition.

No, I posted a single retweet, he retweets them all the time. I just nipped to his twitter timeline and took the most recent.

OK, well that's definitely worse I agree.

I'm deeply suspicious of us4them but haven't come across HART before so I'll have to look at what they have to say.

I'm also deeply suspicious of the govnts push to vaccinate children as well though, just as I was suspicious of their desperation to keep schools open at the end of last year and I'm fairly sure that none of these organisations has children's actual best interests at the front of their minds.

I hope you continue to keep an open mind too, even if this particular government decision happens to align with what you want (for a change).

even if this particular government decision happens to align with what you want

I don't think I've ever said I want 12+ to be vaccinated, it's not something I've called for. As it is I think it's too late to be particularly effective and has been so badly managed that take-up will be impacted.

@SinisterBumFacedCat

My DS is 11 and has literally started counting down the days until he will be eligible for his vaccine!

That’s actually quite sad. Why is he so worried? Have you not tried to reassure him with the stats showing how low risk he is?

@bumbleymummy

Maybe he doesn't want disruption to his life and missing even more school. Just a thought!

[quote Itsnotover]@bumbleymummy

Maybe he doesn't want disruption to his life and missing even more school. Just a thought! [/quote]
He might already be immune. If not, the vaccine isn’t going to guarantee that he won’t have disrupted schooling anyway.

If you look at posts on mn (for starters) it appears to be children that are bringing Covid home from school to their parents and other family who may be older and more at risk. My cousin's son went to get his GCSE results and took covid home to his whole family.

I don't know why people are more concerned about this vaccine than any other. Vaccines don't stop people getting covid but they do reduce the risk and certainly they slow the spread and limit the chances for new variants to develop. The following quotation is from the WHO;

When a virus is widely circulating in a population and causing many infections, the likelihood of the virus mutating increases. The more opportunities a virus has to spread, the more it replicates – and the more opportunities it has to undergo changes.

@hotasharibo

Does he have the flu nasal spray? The risk of flu in young children is very low and yet we vaccinate and a lot of people don't question it.

Agree with pp your Gp might be a good source of info. Are the NHS producing any guidance online or leaflets? I would think NHS should be fairly unbiased

Please don't down play the risk of flu in children, it is a real danger.

To back this up in the winter of 2019/20 there were 188 flu deaths in the under 16s, roughly half of which were in the under 5s and half 5-16 with again roughly half having underlying health conditions.

By contrast from March 2020 to date there have been 25 Covid deaths in the under 16s, of which 19 had underlying health conditions.

In short flu under 16s are at way more individual risk from flu than they are from Covid.

[quote Itsnotover]@bumbleymummy

Maybe he doesn't want disruption to his life and missing even more school. Just a thought! [/quote]
All of dd's class (and indeed all my 11 classes) were the same. Had enough of disruption and recognise that this is a way that they can contribute to help not only themselves but others. Where I am the day the slots opened for their age group was also the last day of school before the summer. You could book on the health service site, in person in pharmacies or by phone. I was something like 20,000 and something in the queue online and thought I was going to be sitting there for hours!

If they’re already immune they shouldn’t have their classes disrupted.

Interesting article in the Spectator. www.spectator.co.uk/article/will-vaccinating-teenagers-really-prevent-disruption-to-schools-
The chief medical advisors over-ruled the JCVI on the basis of it causing less disruption to children's education. Apparently that works out at 15 minutes saved per pupil over 6 months?! Which is at least the time that would be lost by the child having the vaccine, plus the modelling doesn't take into account prior immunity from those who have previously had Covid - or time off for adverse reactions to the jab.

"14:54Geamhradh

HitchhikersGuide

Follow the JCVI guidance. They are the experts and they did not recommend it.

The JCVI discussed the medical, economic and other factors.
Then the actual decision is made by the CMOs. Who recommended it.

OP- I'd ask your GP."

Economics and 'other factors' should not be used to decide whether to give children a jab that can potentially cause long term consequences.

@Geamhradh

Are you actually serious? With that above comment? It should only be given if the benefits outweigh the risk to individual child. As for 'other factors' what do you mean?

I feel so confused about this. Honestly don’t believe my children need it and think the small risk of the vaccine seems pointless when they are at such a tiny risk from covid infact both had Covid no problems at all. But I know it will be a requirement to travel and travel is such a big part of our life so my thoughts are I’m not letting them any time soon I’m going to wait till there is further data. I don’t think one dose would be sufficient to travel anyway so hopefully by next summer things will look clearer. I don’t want to be rushed!

Just coming back to this thread to see if anyone ‘waiting on data’ has changed their minds? I’m confused that if 2 doses now don’t stop the new variant and my child has had covid, is it still worth it?

just heard a litigation lawyer specialising in suing drugs companies explain why the drugs companies what to jab kids. They are lobbying hard and their influence runs deep.
**This is the important bit.
As we know the drugs companies are immune from prosecution whilst the shots are given under the EUA ( emergency use authorisation )
Apparently this immunity extends to any vaccination once it is recommended for children.
This is how how they continue to sell the product safe in the knowledge that any chronic side effects and deaths can not be the basis of any legal claim for damages. 250,000 hospitalised Americans following the shot countless deaths clothing’s and seizures. Terrifying.
What do people think ?
Seems cynical in the extreme.
First time post
Should I include reference? Link?