Infecting children to protect adults - yay or nay?

[PrincessNutNuts]

"There is an argument for allowing the virus to circulate amongst children
which could provide broader immunity to the children and boost immunity in
adults.”

From the JCVI minutes.

What about you?

Are you in favour of a policy of infecting children to protect adults?

Ok with children suffering illness, going to hospital and dying to protect adults?

Yay or nay?

The article don't say anything about immunocompromised people, they talk about older people and people who had asymptomatic illness? And no, I disabled @fanction yeas ago, so I don't get notice.

*function.

I wasn’t talking specifically about that study irt knowing about older/immunocompromised people not having as long lasting immunity. There have been several studies published on it since the start of the year. There are also several studies that show lasting immunity even after mild/asymptomatic infection.

You disabled it but you assumed I hadn’t and therefore should have replied to you sooner? you’re coming across as a bit entitled. I replied to your post. It’s probably somewhere near the top of the board again. I doubt it would take long to find. It was called vaccine after COVID iirc.

@Incognito22333

12-15 year olds will be offered a second vaccine just “later”. It will probably be in about 12 weeks. As vaccination teams are overwhelmed they have to prioritise boosters for the elderly. Lots of kids have already had Covid anyway, they will likely be offered vaccines in due course. Granted we haven’t yet approved like the US but I think even Israel is just debating it now. Even in Israel up take for vaccines 12-15 was I think only just over 55 per cent.

Untrue. It’s now more than 12 weeks since my child’s first dose.

No, I didn't assume anything. It was totally understandable if you have said you haven't seen it. But you said you've read the linked article but haven't replied.

@bumbleymummy

The vaccine is available for children now so they can choose to have it if they want. The point is though, if these restrictions weren’t in place then your children wouldn’t need the vaccine to do any of those things. People could choose to have the vaccine if they want but it wouldn’t be tied into penalties if they did not - just like every routine vaccine that we’re offered.

The vaccine is not available. Half a vaccine is available, which is just farcical. The MHRA confirmed the vaccine was safe ages ago - plenty safe enough to give people aged 12 and up the choice to request a proper vaccination. So, as previously stated, children quite happy to be fully vaccinated are refused the option, whilst people who don’t want the vaccine anyway pretend that choices are not being removed from others, because it suits them to come across as either extremely dim or exceptionally disingenuous - take your pick.

And, no, I won't be trying to find another thread. We are both here, why the need to go to another thread from few days ago?

@winterisaroundthecorner

Warhertisuff, I totally see your point, but what I was asking her was she keeps on claiming majority of UK population has had covid, and natural immunity lasts longer and healthy young people don't need to be vaccinated. Yes, maybe the majority have had covid, and had it really mild, but if they don't gain any immunity, they will keep getting it again and again, and maybe it could be bad some day if the virus keep mutating? Then her claim of natural immunity is better won't work, and the person who gets it can get seriously ill? Problem is we really don't know much about this virus. Protection is better than assuming it will be ok, imo.

If the virus did mutate to the point that someone who previously could cause serious illness to someone who previously had an excellent innate immune response, then presumably such a virus could similarly evade current antibodies and vaccines? It would be a game changer all round.

@puppeteer

How do you get to that conclusion, *@Walkaround* (that "vaccine refusers still have more choice than [...] children"?)

Travel and even daily life is largely on the basis of it being vaccinated for many parts of the world, although for most places, children do get a free pass because most places have not extended the mandate to the very youngest.

But I don't get the point. Kids are not doubly disadvantaged. It's just that they can't currently get the vaccine.

They are not forced to remain in the UK — they could travel to most places, no?

I imagine they'd be able ot get the vaccine in many other countries, and you might even be able to arrange for them to be vaccinated whilst away.

If you get a GP's letter on the basis of a presumed clinical need, I'd be surprised if you can't get them vaccinated in the UK. Just may need a bit of manipulation of the system on your part. (You'll need to cite something like travel to somewhere a bit Covid-sketchy — Africa, or perhaps Russia? Rocking up and asking for a letter for the sake of it won't work.)

@puppeteer - Doubly disadvantaged as they have the same disadvantages as the unvaccinated plus the disadvantage that they want to be properly vaccinated, but this choice is denied them. And saying that you could lie to get the vaccine is really not helpful. As for the idea it is currently possible to flit off to a country that will sell you the vaccine as a vaccine tourist… I don’t believe these suggestions are serious.

@walkaround - so your child has not been offered a 2nd dose YET because they are not ECV or CV themselves and do not live in such a household? What is so difficult to understand that the vaccination rollout is meant to be based on medical need - elderly and CV/CEV take priority including children in that position because the vaccinators are busy! If your child is not immunocomprised(?)
I am happy for my children to have the Covid vaccines, one or two doses, whatever the government recommends. I have followed all government recommendations as regards vaccines for all of them. At Theo moment my own DD just does not actually want the Covid vaccine. I suspect she will come round in due course.
It is now debatable whether 2 doses is fully vaccinated anyway if they are now suggesting boosters may be required. Bit like the Twinrix Hep A and Hep B vaccine. We shall see in the future whether all persons will need 3 doses or certain persons will need annual boosters etc.
In addition, in e.g France people who have had Covid can opt to only have one vaccine and qualify as fully vaccinated. If lots of 12-15 have already had the virus 1 dose might be enough anyway.

Because that’s where you posted originally . You’re being a bit strange but if you don’t want to read the reply that’s fine.

@Walkaround she probably meant 12 weeks from now when the winter boosters have been done. It’s not ‘half a vaccine’, it’s a single dose which is what they felt offered the balance of benefit/risk. I’m sure they will be offered a second dose if it is deemed that the benefits outweigh the risks. And it’s worth remembering that the mhra approved the AZ vaccine for under 30s.

You could say that, as always, the UK has chosen the worst of all worlds option for its schoolchildren - refuse to vaccinate at a sensible time, send out the most confused messaging imaginable about the safety of the vaccine, wonder why people of all ages coming forward for vaccination consequently drops off, then offer something huge numbers of people think is fairly pointless as they have had months of being told how little protection only one vaccine dose provides against the delta variant, and then just fall into radio silence about any decision on second doses. Meanwhile, the group of children deemed to be at “increased risk” and thus entitled to two doses keeps changing quietly, so quietly that people are totally confused when they get letters telling them their child is at increased risk (eg children with autistic spectrum disorders, however mild), because they were not deemed at increased risk at any other point in the pandemic. You would be hard pressed to find a worse way of handling it.

[quote Incognito22333]@walkaround - so your child has not been offered a 2nd dose YET because they are not ECV or CV themselves and do not live in such a household? What is so difficult to understand that the vaccination rollout is meant to be based on medical need - elderly and CV/CEV take priority including children in that position because the vaccinators are busy! If your child is not immunocomprised(?)
I am happy for my children to have the Covid vaccines, one or two doses, whatever the government recommends. I have followed all government recommendations as regards vaccines for all of them. At Theo moment my own DD just does not actually want the Covid vaccine. I suspect she will come round in due course.
It is now debatable whether 2 doses is fully vaccinated anyway if they are now suggesting boosters may be required. Bit like the Twinrix Hep A and Hep B vaccine. We shall see in the future whether all persons will need 3 doses or certain persons will need annual boosters etc.
In addition, in e.g France people who have had Covid can opt to only have one vaccine and qualify as fully vaccinated. If lots of 12-15 have already had the virus 1 dose might be enough anyway.[/quote]
@Incognito22333 - as for weeks they were going on about vaccinations dropping off and the UK’s vaccination programme stalling, despite vaccines being available, I’m not sure why you seem to think the decision making had anything to do with vaccinators being overwhelmed with customers. They had all summer to get kids vaccinated, ready for school. They chose, instead, to faff about and wait for the deluge of school-acquired cases in the Autumn. I refer you back to the opening post if you want to have any suggestions on why on earth they might have chosen deliberately to risk that.

But I asked you the same question again on here, and asked you to reply on here if you ever wanted to reply at all, since you said you may reply on the other thread if you have time or whatever. But you went back to old thread from few days ago to answer? And i'm the strange one?

Well, yes. Because it is in context there. I think it’s a bit strange to make such a big deal about reading a reply on the thread you originally posted on. It’s not really that hard to find a thread. You’re just coming across as a bit bossy and entitled (and a bit silly). Oh well. My reply is there if you decide you want to read it :)

@Warhertisuff

I @ you the other day with latest research about 1/4 people, especially if you are elderly or asymptomatic didn't get any antibody from natural infection, and asked your opinion. You never replied.

Surely most people who were asymptomatic didn't produce antibodies because they didn't need a full-on immune response to defeat the infection - they didn't even have the mildest of symptoms that the common cold can bring!.

Their innate defences, such as t-cells, were sufficient, not because they are somehow immuno-compromised.

It's a bit like implying: "In x% of minor car accidents, airbags weren't activated" means there's a problem with car airbags in x% of minor accidents!!

T cells are part of the adaptive (memory) response, not the innate immune response. Innate cells would be macrophages, or neutrophils. If T cells were activated then you would have (somewhat at least) longstanding immunity, but not necessarily if an innate response were all it took to fight off the virus.

T cells are part of the adaptive (memory) response, not the innate immune response. Innate cells would be macrophages, or neutrophils. If T cells were activated then you would have (somewhat at least) longstanding immunity, but not necessarily if an innate response were all it took to fight off the virus.

Thank you for correcting my epidemiological error!