Guilt Free Railing 12

[WouldBeGood]

The railing goes on

@ElephantOfRisk

My DS is older but had to take himself to hospital with heart issues after the vaccination so if I had younger DC who are low risk of getting covid issues, i'd not be vaccinating them.

In other news, DS1 is getting 2 hours face to face every 2nd week for the first term of Uni this year, so around 10 hours in total for the term.

That's really not very much! In fact, that's crap. What a letdown. I know the unis are only following what has been recommended, within what they are able to physically do. But it seems such a lottery as to which unis/ departments are offering what in terms of face to face. And presumably there won't be any comeback - as its not as if the current students have any say, and the unis and government will just use the "keeping staff and students safe" guff. So frustrating for them.

@ssd

I dont think the jags for 12-15 yr olds will make a difference in schools problems. I'd for get that idea. Unless the nhs is properly funded it will be another winter of more of the same. Kids ,to me, are getting jagged as our nhs has been so badly run, nit much more. Personally i wouldn't be getting my 2 done. When they were wee, it was andrew Wakefield and the mmr panic causing autism. And it was a big decision, but i remember there was proof that getting the mmr was still in their favour. This isn't as clear. In fact for boys its more harming possibly than covid. Id leave it if it was me and if that meant no tenerife for a whilei couldn't care less.

With the MMR, Wakefield was paid by the producers of separate vaccines to create the false report linking the combined vaccine to autism.

I so think it would be a tought decision but ultimately I would be happy with mine having it. Originally, pregnant women and those breastfeeding were advised against it. Then they were advised to get it ( I'm bf myself and got it). Plenty of countries around the world have put it in place for that age group so there will be more data soon and I think its likely they'll change their recommendation in the future for this section of society also.

Great article by Brian Monteith about the NHS in today's Scotsman. Well actually, it's not great, it's terrible what he has to say but well worth a read.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scotlands-nhs-has-never-been-the-snps-priority-brian-monteith-3380255

And if the SG start threatening vaccine passports or any differential treatment in schools depending on vaccine status, I'm going to tell on them to Chris Whitty.

That's really not very much! In fact, that's crap. What a letdown. I know the unis are only following what has been recommended, within what they are able to physically do. But it seems such a lottery as to which unis/ departments are offering what in terms of face to face. And presumably there won't be any comeback - as its not as if the current students have any say, and the unis and government will just use the "keeping staff and students safe" guff. So frustrating for them.

A friends DS is getting 5 hours a week F2F so it's really not very consistent. I'd have expected 2 hours a week rather than a fortnight as a minimum to be honest.

That's possible, that the recommendation changes over time. I think it's a bit different to giving the vaccine in pregnancy, though. In that case, they recognised that there would be a definite benefit to the mother, but didn't have enough data on how it transferred over the placenta/ breastmilk to the baby. Once they had that data, and found it safe for the baby, they changed the recommendation.

In this case though, the data they have has shown some risks to the patient themselves, though also protection from the very small risk of serious covid. So they remain a bit on the fence. More data could show that actually the risk of side effects is smaller than in their initial studies, which could change their recommendation, or that the protection from covid is more beneficial than first thought (if there are long term effects or similar that the vaccine protects against, possibly - although that's not the actual aim of the vaccine, obviously). But as I understand, the reason for hesitation here is a bit different to the reason for hesitation of administering the vaccine in pregnancy.

(soz - that was in reply to starry!)

I keep meaning to say explosivefarts - your username is making me giggle like a child every time I see it...

The offer is for one dose only for the teenagers. Most adverse effects happen after the second dose.

But to medicate children for social reasons against an illness that doesn’t harm them for social reasons and parental paranoia doesn’t seem right to me.

@ResilienceWanker

I keep meaning to say explosivefarts - your username is making me giggle like a child every time I see it...

You wouldn’t think i was a 30 year old woman

@starryeyesuprise yes pregnant and BF women were advised against it originally in the UK as we have very strict conditions on trials and cannot be recommended but all animal trials showed no effects. Its the same for many medications (although the BF drug network is a fantastic source if you ever need to check a drug and BF)
Advice then changed once real world data (mainly from the states) showed it wasn't a issue.

Hopefully real world data from other countries will lower the risk but it can also go the other way as the advice for under 40s with AZ changed as more data showed an increase risk of clot for this age group.

Its disgusting what they are calling Chris Whitty on twitter! I think it's a families choice but I am worried about the SG rhetoric on this especially as Devi previously has come out with no risk to children to have it etc etc when in fact that's not the case they are a risk all be it low from a serious side effect. I am also concerned about child's right to overrule parental consent if considered old enough.....

From the BBC article on the vaccine decision.

"The CMOs concluded this tipped the balance, given the virus was going to keep spreading during winter.

They said this would continue to cause disruption to face-to-face education, given the policy in all parts of the UK of asking people who test positive to isolate for 10 days.

Earlier, Prof Chris Whitty, the lead CMO for the UK, said it was a "difficult decision" and should not be seen as a "silver bullet"."

So to summarise, no-one is seriously arguing that there is a health basis for vaccinating healthy 12-15 year olds as they are generally not seriously ill anyway (vulnerable 12-15s obviously different, and already offered to vaccine). Recent studies have warned that the risks of the vaccine are around 6 times higher for boys in this age group than getting COVID. On top of this it's estimated that a majority of this age group has had COVID anyway (most with no issues at all, may not have even noticed), and will therefore have some natural immunity anyway, making the marginal benefits of vaccination even less clear.

We know that the vaccine will not prevent COVID entirely, and there is no suggestion that children given the vaccine will be exempt from isolations etc. Additionally, Chris Whitty appears to be heading off any expectation that this will have a significant impact on spread. And yet, this is still the official recommendation, on the basis that COVID spread will cause disruption to education because the policy in all parts of the UK is to ask people who test positive to isolate for 10 days. Maybe instead of subjecting young people to risks that are not for their medical benefit (a fact conceded by all parties), we could stop using them as human shields and change the policy instead? Perhaps if we stopped routine asymptomatic testing, and only asked people who are ill to isolate for the duration of their illness instead of an arbitrary 10 days, the disruption to education could be kept to a minimum without all this. If indeed most teenagers have already had COVID, the chances of them being seriously ill with it again are really vanishingly small. Perhaps it's time to put children first.

A child has always had the right to make a decision regarding medical consent if deemed competent. The term Gillick competence is used, however it is only if child is deemed competent and acknowledges that not all 14 year olds have the same level of understanding.

I'm not sure where I stand with vaccinating 12-15 year olds, thankfully I don't need to consider it or support my child to make their own decision.

I've heard some parents happy to get their kids vaccinated, not for educational reasons but because they think it will make travel easier.
But now they've realised other countries will not consider them fully vaccinated as they're only getting one dose!

I just really worry that something bad will happen to ds from getting a vaccine he does not need medically. With risks greater than from the illness it’s purporting to protect against.

And with the JCVI not recommending it.

Such a worry!

Thankfully I'm getting the impression that it will genuinely be a free choice as to whether younger teenagers should get it and in most cases parental consent will be required (by which I mean free from coercion, of course everyone has the right to refuse any medical intervention already). I presume this is in recognition of the fact that it isn't being recommended on health grounds for the child, and that there are clearly defined risks to children in getting it. [Caveat - this might only apply in England. In Scotland our advisors have been stating it is 'risk free' despite all evidence, and our government is more authoritarian]

Mine are too young, but I have to confess if I had children, especially boys, in that age group, I would not be consenting to something that is more likely to harm them than the disease it protects against, just for the 'good of society' (when it probably won't make much difference anyway).

@WouldBeGood

I just really worry that something bad will happen to ds from getting a vaccine he does not need medically. With risks greater than from the illness it’s purporting to protect against.

And with the JCVI not recommending it.

Such a worry!

My thoughts exactly. DS seems quite keen on getting it but he's 13 and thinks he's invincible.

And the fact that many many side effects affecting menstruation - why would you mess with a young teenager girl just reaching puberty. Not nearly enough research in this area.

So genuinely, why do they want 12-15 ye old getting the vaccine if it does them more harm than good?

@ssd to be fair, they seem to be offering it as a choice rather than trying to coerce children (at this stage anyway) because it's such a marginal thing. They're saying it's to prevent disruption to education because positive cases are still expected to isolate for 10 days, which is disruptive to children who have to be out of school. You could argue though, that this is a policy choice in itself, and disruption could just as easily be minimised by dropping this requirement or diluting it to 'until symptoms disappear' as actively viraemic people are most likely to spread. Most children have already had COVID, so even if they caught it again they are unlikely to be off for a long period of time this way (and may not even have symptoms at all). Other people (like teaching unions) have their own agendas in wanting children vaccinated I suppose.

@ssd

So genuinely, why do they want 12-15 ye old getting the vaccine if it does them more harm than good?

My understanding is that at an individual level it does about the same harm as good (no evidence it does more harm or the JCVI would have said no fucking way...!). Obviously not for every child, but overall, when the moderate or serious harms for few from side effects are weighed against the small benefit in protecting against serious illness for many (only small, because very few otherwise healthy children would have anything other than really mild disease, even without the vaccine).

But once you add to that the small to moderate society benefit of having more of the population vaccinated (fewer cases circulating, less disruption from actual illness or from mandated isolation, especially in schools...), it has tipped the balance over. The governments are more concerned about this overall benefit, whereas families are understandably more concerned about the individual risk vs benefit. That's my understanding, anyway.

I know its a choice, i know its not law or anything. But surely without it actually helping the kids, why would they offer it? I think i read in california its mandatory over 12s must be vaccinated. Seems a bit severe. If they are recommending it here, is there a good clear cut reason why?

Sorry wrote my post before seeing the last answer.

My view is that it’s a political decision and has nothing to do with the welfare of children. It’s to pander to the disproportionate concern of the anxious about the effects of Covid.

We should be vaccinating people actually at risk in poor countries instead