Coronavirus

[monkeyboy]

Children having the vaccine reduces transmission of the virus not just to other children but also adults, many of which would be more vulnerable than the children, eg those with poor immune systems, but more importantly, the more people vaccinated and the less people the virus can infect, the less chance of new variants coming along which may completely evade vaccines.

So you are ok with making children have the vaccine?

Children should have the vaccine to protect others?

Surely if you are vulnerable or at risk or worried about getting covid the you should be vaccinated. Why should that be the responsibility of the children to protect others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Benzin]

Some vulnerable people cannot be vaccinated for various reasons.

That also includes some children.

Are you also against giving children any vaccine or just ones relating to Covid? Because aside from it being a fairly quickly developed one (for obvious reasons) surely the risks of that are just as similar as adults receiving it?

The whole point of a vaccine is to limit the potential damage from it for everyone. That is how you get immunity from diseases. Even if children aren't particularly susceptible from Covid, they can still carry it. So they bring it home, or to grandparents. Or pass it on in the street. Thereby potentially causing deaths or someone to be left on a ventilator for their life.

As has been mentioned, double jabbed people have still caught the virus. Surely then the best method is to get as much of the population vaccinated so we limit the circulation? Otherwise you risk further mutation of the virus and that's how you get ones that are vaccine resistant then you're back to square one.

 

[RoyJess]

And there are also vulnerable people that have been double jab, but because they have a medical condition like Autoimmune Disease, the vaccine efficacy in these people are severely reduced.

As long as Covid remains a threat, getting everyone double jab, includes children (and the rest of the world too) will bring us closer to achieving herd immunity, not just here in the UK, but world wide too

 

[BigT]

Your going to have a lot of trouble convincing parents to let their children have a vaccine that has more chance of giving them a blood clot or heart inflammation than chances of them developing a serious infection with COVID.

As I have said before it’s not an open / shut case or the JVI would already have licensed them for children.

 

[GaryH]

Ok so - as parents - why do we allow our children now to be vaccinated against other viruses and diseases? Why bother?

 

[BigT]

Ok so - as parents - why do we allow our children now to be vaccinated against other viruses and diseases? Why bother?

Because you take a decision on it based on what’s best for them, that’s the role of being a parent.

At the moment I can’t make decision either way because none of the vaccines have been deemed as safe for use on children in this country anyway.

 

[WillPS]

Because you take a decision on it based on what’s best for them, that’s the role of being a parent.

At the moment I can’t make decision either way because none of the vaccines have been deemed as safe for use on children in this country anyway.

I'm not sure anybody is suggesting vaccinating children until the vaccines have been deemed safe?

 

[BigT]

I'm not sure anybody is suggesting vaccinating children until the vaccines have been deemed safe?

No vaccine or even medicine for that matter is 100% safe, they all have side effects.
You still have to take a rounded view as a parent of the risk / reward and I’m sorry but the benefit it brings to others doesn’t even come into consideration, you do what you feel is best for your child.

 

[WillPS]

No vaccine or even medicine for that matter is 100% safe, they all have side effects.
You still have to take a rounded view as a parent of the risk / reward and I’m sorry but the benefit it brings to others doesn’t even come into consideration, you do what you feel is best for your child.

You've shifted the goal post from the 'deemed safe in this country' position in your previous post there, and back in to anti-vac nonsense territory.

It blows my mind that anybody can believe themselves to be a better authority to judge which medicines are/aren't safe/"best for their children" to have over the gigantic mass of scientist hours spent judging and proving exactly that.

The 'wont risk it, will just let others sort the herd immunity out on little Jimmy's behalf' argument is closer to something logical, if completely and utterly selfish.

 

[tayspru]

Paracetamol is more likely to cause blood clots than the Covid jab. Obviously nobody here is arguing children should be vaccinated before that is approved, but as has been mentioned before that approval will come as resources shift and the money is made available to allow the admin side of approval to happen.

To refuse a vaccine *after* it has been approved (without medical advice from your GP / a professional) is selfish and arrogant, especially as vaccines by their design are also to benefit others as well as the person taking it.

It is however your right to be selfish.

 

[Dave]

Not sure why everyone is getting stressed on this one, child vaccination will always be up to a parent to approve unless the child is older and able to demonstrate they can make their own informed decision and make a big push to do so (gillick competence however is a complicated world so not really worth worrying about for most).

As it stands the side effects of the vaccine are low, certainly lower than most over the counter medications. As already mentioned paracetamol has a list of side effects as long as your arm (if you are interested google paracetamol SPC or look it up on the online BNF, every risk listed is something that has been confirmed to have been caused by the drug). Parents still shove calpol into their little dears faces to stop them crying.

We still need the science to back up the risk/ benefit however.

 

[tayspru]

I suppose the crux is parents (of course) know better than their kids - but that doesn’t mean parents also know better than the literal thousand of doctors, researchers and virologists that have devoted the last 18 months to fighting this horrendous virus

 

[Benzin]

Your going to have a lot of trouble convincing parents to let their children have a vaccine that has more chance of giving them a blood clot or heart inflammation than chances of them developing a serious infection with COVID.

As I have said before it’s not an open / shut case or the JVI would already have licensed them for children.

Yet we're happy to get girls on the pill which is proven to have a higher rate of blood clots than one brand of the vaccine.

Plus aforementioned paracetamol. But vaccines are treated differently for... reasons...

 

[Dave]

I suppose the crux is parents (of course) know better than their kids - but that doesn’t mean parents also know better than the literal thousand of doctors, researchers and virologists that have devoted the last 18 months to fighting this horrendous virus

Ultimately we have a right to refuse any treatment and children have their decisions made by their parents.

The law explicitly says that the act of making a bad decision isn’t in itself a reason to say someone can’t make that decision, so long as they have the capability and capacity to do so.

 

[tayspru]

Ultimately we have a right to refuse any treatment and children have their decisions made by their parents.

The law explicitly says that the act of making a bad decision isn’t in itself a reason to say someone can’t make that decision, so long as they have the capability and capacity to do so.

The discussion then I suppose is someone’s right to personal agency (ie refusing treatment) more important than another persons right to live? Someone refusing a vaccine could and does endanger anyone they come into contact who had the choice of vaccination taken away from them due to a medical condition

 

[WillPS]

The discussion then I suppose is someone’s right to personal agency (ie refusing treatment) more important than another persons right to live? Someone refusing a vaccine could and does endanger anyone they come into contact who had the choice of vaccination taken away from them due to a medical condition

The flip side to the coin is that if you remove consent from the equation there would be greater suspicion and possibly even lower take up.

Going down the draconian route doesn't sort the problem out, better just to remind people that they are being stupid/selfish and leave it at that.

 

[tayspru]

The flip side to the coin is that if you remove consent from the equation there would be greater suspicion and possibly even lower take up.

Going down the draconian route doesn't sort the problem out, better just to remind people that they are being stupid/selfish and leave it at that.

Rather they acknowledge their selfishness than peddle lies and untruths to people who may be easily influenced

 

[WillPS]

Rather they acknowledge their selfishness than peddle lies and untruths to people who may be easily influenced

Wishful thinking.

 

[Dave]

The discussion then I suppose is someone’s right to personal agency (ie refusing treatment) more important than another persons right to live? Someone refusing a vaccine could and does endanger anyone they come into contact who had the choice of vaccination taken away from them due to a medical condition

It’s difficult I agree as there are two competing rights, but ultimately it’s a dangerous road to tread to start mandating medical interventions on anyone with capacity to make decisions.

That’s why we should have continued to make masks mandatory in shops and essential services.

 

[BigT]

It’s difficult I agree as there are two competing rights, but ultimately it’s a dangerous road to tread to start mandating medical interventions on anyone with capacity to make decisions.

That’s why we should have continued to make masks mandatory in shops and essential services.

Aren’t those two sentences contradictory? wearing a mask surely is a medical intervention.

better just to remind people that they are being stupid/selfish and leave it at that.

And there it is, the exact mentality why we are now out of the EU, well you are too stupid so just do as your told.

It right to question science, it’s not always correct, there was a time when smoking was considered good for you, and let’s not even mention Thalidomide.
By questioning something the logical thing to then do is to go and find out more information on that thing (and not from Wikipedia), you can then come to a logical decision that you feel is right for you or your child.
I did exactly this for the vaccine myself, I didn’t just rush off to get jabbed (I was well down the order anyway) but did some research, then some more research and came to the conclusion that taking the vaccine was a small risk but the benefits outweighed these so went ahead and booked it as soon as it was my turn.
To question something is not stupid or selfish it’s quite the opposite, to blindly do something that a government or someone in authority tells you to do is stupid.