Undecided about second dose (for teens)

[aibusux2u]

My two DDs are due their second dose of Pfizer next week, and I am in two minds. It's ultimately their decision, of course, but they will look to me for guidance.

I wasn't sure about getting them jabbed in the first place, but when Omicron came along with all its unknowns on how kids would be affected and our fears of infecting grandparents, we made the decision together to go ahead.

Reasons against getting second dose:

• The second dose carries the most risk of myocarditis etc
• The threat of Omicron is not as great as it seemed
• Grandparents are now triple jabbed and about to get another booster

Reasons for:

• It might help protect against a worse variant in future
• It might make travel difficult if they have not had both doses.

Does anyone have any words of wisdom? Thank you.

But what the vaccines do very well is prevent Covid being a series disease.

They do reduce the risk of infection (and reinfection) and also reduce the risk of long COVID after mild infection.

Those were important factors for me.

Mine are due 2nd dose in April.
They will only have it if they need it to travel in the Easter hols. Otherwise we will wait and see.

I hope she gets better ASAP, when you wrote doctor said there are others like this - you mean after c19 vax?

I just came back from 2 weeks abroad with a big group. At least 14 of us us came back with COVID and the only one to feel ill was unvaccinated

How can you honestly say those things are due to the vaccine?

@emmag1925

How can you honestly say those things are due to the vaccine?

To @wantingtomove123

If they have had one dose why on earth wouldn’t you give them the second. Did you decide after their baby jabs that you wouldn’t bother continuing until they were fully immunised because it might not be necessary? Doesn’t make any sense to me - sorry. In any case they will need be be “fully vaccinated” if they want to travel - in my part of the world that is increasingly defined as three doses, two for kids.

[quote Remmy123]@emmag1925 those symptoms after vaccine have happened to one adult and one child I personally know of.

Not sure it's a coincidence.

Thing is, they will never publish this because it's rare and will put people off![/quote]
@Remmy123

In the very rare cases that people have died or had severe side effects caused by a coronavirus vaccine, it has been widely reported in the media, generally being headline news.

It's silly to say these things aren't published or are being censored.

What reputable journalists don't do is report stories that haven't been verified. Due to the nature of vaccinating billions of people in a short time period, there are going to be a lot of people who die/have serious health issues in the months afterwards. This does not mean they were all caused by vaccination, and it's irreponsible to report them as if they were.

@saltedcaramel1

The poster you tagged has issues with vaccination going back to the beginning of Covid. I'd take anything said with more salt than caramel.

multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/impfung-schadet-jugendlichen

German article. Officially more children have died of covid vaccine than covid. More have been admitted to icu post vaccine than post covid.

@epythymy

https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/impfung-schadet-jugendlichen

German article. Officially more children have died of covid vaccine than covid. More have been admitted to icu post vaccine than post covid.

On and on it goes..

Worldwide the vast majority of countries have elected to offer vaccination to children, based on an analysis of the risks versus benefits by their countries experts. Including Germany.

This is not negated by some random article you've dredged up that doesn't even have the option to be translated into English.

You do not need to take this offer up. But I would take a second to consider why you think you've stumbled across something that all those experts have somehow missed.

Yes, just like countries which elected to give their population's thalidomide and vioxx and Dextro.

That's thalidomide which it was later discovered wasn't harmful after 42 days gestation. So many women had it and their babies were fine

Vioxx who it emerged Merck knew the adverse events and never bothered to tell anyone

And on and on we can go.

@epythymy

Yes, just like countries which elected to give their population's thalidomide and vioxx and Dextro.

That's thalidomide which it was later discovered wasn't harmful after 42 days gestation. So many women had it and their babies were fine

Vioxx who it emerged Merck knew the adverse events and never bothered to tell anyone

And on and on we can go.

Also. It does have the option to be translated into English.

You always have to "dig up" these articles because (was it nature magazine?) as was pointed out recently, many scientists are "reluctant" to study negative aspects of the vaccine programme. Because they lose funding or get witch hunted. The data isn't quite there but it's coming. This is going to be catastrophic. Much like the lockdowns everyone screamed for which are now looking to have been ineffective at best and are widely considered to have been a bad decision.

@epythymy

Yes, just like countries which elected to give their population's thalidomide and vioxx and Dextro.

That's thalidomide which it was later discovered wasn't harmful after 42 days gestation. So many women had it and their babies were fine

Vioxx who it emerged Merck knew the adverse events and never bothered to tell anyone

And on and on we can go.

These are all completely irrelevant points which you're flinging around because you don't have a valid argument @epythymy

No I don't have the option to translate the article so presumable you can answer:
In the article, what data was used? A german sample? Sample size? How were risk ratios calculated comparing outcomes after vaccination/infection? What were the demographics? Covariates controlled for? Have any other independent data sources replicated these findings? Who were the authors who conducted the analysis and have the findings been published?

Vaccination doses have been given to billions of people, millions of them being children. Nowhere has found the associations you are claiming in this article.

Not sure why you're bring pregnant women into it.

@epythymy

You always have to "dig up" these articles because (was it nature magazine?) as was pointed out recently, many scientists are "reluctant" to study negative aspects of the vaccine programme. Because they lose funding or get witch hunted. The data isn't quite there but it's coming. This is going to be catastrophic. Much like the lockdowns everyone screamed for which are now looking to have been ineffective at best and are widely considered to have been a bad decision.

Again, entirely untrue.

There's hundreds of studies aimed at evaluating prevalence of various adverse effects of vaccination in different demographic groups. No idea what article you're quoting but that certainly isn't something Nature have said. Happy to link many examples but it sounds like you've been well and truely taken it.

You do not "lose funding" for conducting ethical, well designed research.

You're right, it was in Science, not Nature.

It's almost like things like this trickle to the fore rather than become immediately obvious within a few months. How many of us would have noticed coronavirus in the past 24 months had we not been actively told about it? And we all agree that was killing people.

I don't understand why you are quoting one person when as I have said there are many many research papers examing prevalence of side effects of COVID and vaccination, hundreds of grants, research groups focussed on this area, millions in terms of funding secured? This can all be easily found with a very basic web search.

You are just crying that black is white @epythymy - however it's clear you've generally been COVID minimising, anti testing, anti mask, anti basically any restriction, alongside exaggerating the risks of vaccination ever since they were annonced, so this is unsuprising.

As I said, don't take up the offer of vaccination if you don't want, don't tkae it up for your child, but it's silly to make this decision based on misinformation.

It's crazy to still be crying out that scientists are scared or unable to research into the causlity/prevalence/mechanism/prognosis of adverse effects associated with vaccination, and that these findings are censored, where the evidence that this research is ongoing exists in spades @epythymy

The current body of evidence is reassuring, hence why vaccination is offered to the general population.

[quote Remmy123]@emmag1925 those symptoms after vaccine have happened to one adult and one child I personally know of.

Not sure it's a coincidence.

Thing is, they will never publish this because it's rare and will put people off![/quote]
It absolutely is published, weekly in fact: www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

@epythymy

Once more with gusto (although I suspect you'll carry on repeating the same claims)

-No, vaccines do not increase your chance of getting coronavirus
-Yes, they reduce the likelihood of infection & reinfection
-We have replicated data demonstrating better outcomes of being vaccinated rather than not being vaccinated.

Not sure why you're mentioning my individual experience as it's irrelevant (which is why I haven't mentioned it), as that isn't how evidence based medicine works.

Don't get vaccinated if you don't want to, it's no ones business but yours, but continuing to spread misinformation about coronavirus & vaccines is unncessary.

[quote saltedcaramel1]@epythymy

Once more with gusto (although I suspect you'll carry on repeating the same claims)

-No, vaccines do not increase your chance of getting coronavirus
-Yes, they reduce the likelihood of infection & reinfection
-We have replicated data demonstrating better outcomes of being vaccinated rather than not being vaccinated.

Not sure why you're mentioning my individual experience as it's irrelevant (which is why I haven't mentioned it), as that isn't how evidence based medicine works.

Don't get vaccinated if you don't want to, it's no ones business but yours, but continuing to spread misinformation about coronavirus & vaccines is unncessary.[/quote]
So why's the infection rate per 100,000 like this?