FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

Disgusted 12 to 16 years old vaccination UPDATE

Jump to newest
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke.

"Parents will need to give their consent before pupils can have the jab – reports

According to The Times, written consent from parents will be needed before their children are given a COVID jab."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What are these teens disgusted with and why only the disgusted being offered the vaccine?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

"Parents will need to give their consent before pupils can have the jab – reports

According to The Times, written consent from parents will be needed before their children are given a COVID jab."

"

In the same way that we have to give consent for a flu vaccination or for a teacher to administer paracetamol (or even hay-fever meds) on a school trip.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ady LickWoman
over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

And? That's quite normal.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Absolutely disgusting! The state should be free to inject chemicals into children in secret lol!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke.


"What are these teens disgusted with and why only the disgusted being offered the vaccine? "

It wasn't my original post - but the other one closed at the 175 limit. Just saw an update to the story, so I posted it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke.

it was from this post . . .

https://www.fabswingers.com/forum/virus/1199338#

again not mine . . . just an update to it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sensationalist headline! Only takes 2 out of 3 being disgusted to make a majority lol.

As others have said, consent is already needed for children to receive jabs etc.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *urplechesterCouple
over a year ago

chester

Thanks for the update op, that’s great news if it’s true Miss pc

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds

Reason was something to with guilk law.

Basically changing rules

As everyone says flu paracetamol parents, asked. Covid weren't going to

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch

Not a surprise as it is the way it is done, just like they needed parents agreement to carry out lft tests at school.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *issusWoman
over a year ago

Belfast


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers."

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nothing has changed. Again.

I can't copy the article but it says legally children are able.to consent.. just javid wants schools to follow the same procedure as other childhood immunization programmes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *an JuniperoCouple
over a year ago

North East


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers."

Hopefully there will also be some form of appeal for the children who don’t want it if their parents are forcing it upon them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago

Bristol

I presume that it was in one of the red tops then ?

They only ever put the sensationalised crap out there and I’m sure that it’s just another non story just to sell papers

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

Hopefully there will also be some form of appeal for the children who don’t want it if their parents are forcing it upon them. "
i suspect it's the same form/test... One that says the child has the capacity to make an informed decision.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I presume that it was in one of the red tops then ?

They only ever put the sensationalised crap out there and I’m sure that it’s just another non story just to sell papers

"
telegraph irrc. But almost all papers are the same now ...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

.


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

Hopefully there will also be some form of appeal for the children who don’t want it if their parents are forcing it upon them. i suspect it's the same form/test... One that says the child has the capacity to make an informed decision.

"

It would probably need to be tested in the family courts (which could take some time seeing how all courts are backed up).

But the underlying rule is "in the best interest of the child". The second example might be harder to argue than the first.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Absolutely disgusting! The state should be free to inject chemicals into children in secret lol!"

Why?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers."

There is already provision for situations like this.

I have worked in schools and I know of at least 2 cases where parents refused to sign the consent form for their child to have the HPV vaccine but the child wanted it and was deemed of sound enough mind and maturity to make their own decision and was administered. I'm not exactly sure what the processes and criteria are as a wasn't directly involved but I do know but it does happen.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say "

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oan of DArcCouple
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it. "

Saved me writing it!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was joking lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it. "

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?"

I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it. "

Not sure having the state choosing what medical procedures a parents children have is a good road to go down. I imagine there will be a few edge cases but by and large kids will have a jab to go on a holiday so having another jab I'm sure wo t challenge too many of them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?

I dont understand how that is relevant to my post."

We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Not sure having the state choosing what medical procedures a parents children have is a good road to go down. I imagine there will be a few edge cases but by and large kids will have a jab to go on a holiday so having another jab I'm sure wo t challenge too many of them."

I dont think you fully understand how it all works a child over the age of 11 can and does have a say in any medical treatment that they received as long as they are deemed capable and informed.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?

I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.

We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant "

You know full well there is no information on long term side effects because the vaccines have only been available for less than a year so why even ask?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oan of DArcCouple
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?"

No we don't, but we do have lots of information on the short term effects of not being vaccinated.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?

I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.

We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant

You know full well there is no information on long term side effects because the vaccines have only been available for less than a year so why even ask?"

You seem to be advocating for vaccinating children so I genuinely thought that you may have know something I didn't. I here to learn.

Another question for you. What happens if a childis vaccinated against the will of their parents and develops and illness?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?

No we don't, but we do have lots of information on the short term effects of not being vaccinated."

I just find it strange that people want there to be an option for children to be able to opt out of having it but seem to be appalled that they might be able to opt in without consent to. If they are deemed mature enough to decide they don't want it then surely they are mature enough to decide they do want it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?

I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.

We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant

You know full well there is no information on long term side effects because the vaccines have only been available for less than a year so why even ask?

You seem to be advocating for vaccinating children so I genuinely thought that you may have know something I didn't. I here to learn.

Another question for you. What happens if a childis vaccinated against the will of their parents and develops and illness?"

Exactly the same as already happens because children can all ready opt into having vaccinations against their parents consent this is not something that is new.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is now irrelevant because the news has just broken that the green light has not been given to give otherwise healthy children under the age of 16 the vaccination.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say

Well then surely that works both ways if a young person decides they do want it and their parent doesn't want them to they should be allowed it.

Do we have any information regarding the long term side effects of these vaccines?

I dont understand how that is relevant to my post.

We're having a conversation about vaccinating children and I'm asking if we have any information regarding the long term side effects. Surely you can see the connection lol? Unless of course, information regarding the long term side effects is irrelevant

You know full well there is no information on long term side effects because the vaccines have only been available for less than a year so why even ask?

You seem to be advocating for vaccinating children so I genuinely thought that you may have know something I didn't. I here to learn.

Another question for you. What happens if a childis vaccinated against the will of their parents and develops and illness?

Exactly the same as already happens because children can all ready opt into having vaccinations against their parents consent this is not something that is new. "

"Ecactly the same" meaning what? I asked because I'm curious and because I don't know what happens at present lol.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Panic over. Children (except further groups of identified at risk groups) aged 12-15 won't be given the vaccine. The risk to benefit ratio has been assessed by JCVI.

BBC News - Not enough benefit to offer all teens Covid jabs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58438669

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"Panic over. Children (except further groups of identified at risk groups) aged 12-15 won't be given the vaccine. The risk to benefit ratio has been assessed by JCVI.

BBC News - Not enough benefit to offer all teens Covid jabs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58438669"

Yep, kind of expected this as it was always going to be marginal.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *unkym34Man
over a year ago

London

Nope vaccine is not being recommended for healthy 12-15 year olds and that’s exactly how it should be

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke.

It is still to be assessed by the 4 chief medical officers, however.

Before a final decision is made.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *unkym34Man
over a year ago

London

Jvci have said they are now not recommending it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke.

[Removed by poster at 03/09/21 17:36:41]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke.

"The four chief medical officers will provide further advice on the vaccination of young people in this age group following the assessment provided by the JCVI on Friday, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said.

The UK's chief medical officers will convene experts and senior leaders in clinical and public health to consider the issue and will then present their advice to ministers on whether a universal programme of vaccinating healthy 12 to 15-year-olds should be taken forward, the department added."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford

I’ve long been sceptical of vaccinating the under 16s based on the numbers. It’s all about balancing the small risk of vaccines against the risk of Covid. Given the very low risk Covid poses to under 16’s I can’t see how any benefit of their mass vaccination can possibly outweigh the potential risks of vaccinations, however low the risk is. The Covid risk may of course change as the virus mutates so I would never say never though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietlykinkymeWoman
over a year ago

kinky land

Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes."

But that's not true that it's one in a million. 1 in 7 children have long covid after contracting the virus.

People seem to think as long as you dont die or end up in hospital coverd isn't a problem but the hundreds of thousands the struggling with long covid tell a different story.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes."

Your point stands but a child under 14 has between 1 and 2 in million chance of death from covid and 1 in 50000 chance of ending up in ICU. I do agree the numbers don't point hugely to vaccinating children certainly under 14s.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Also if it was one in a million children, there are estimated to be 12 million children in the uk under 16 so that would mean only 12 children have gotten sick with covid to the point they need hospital treatment however 5,830 have needed hospital treatment.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

Your point stands but a child under 14 has between 1 and 2 in million chance of death from covid and 1 in 50000 chance of ending up in ICU. I do agree the numbers don't point hugely to vaccinating children certainly under 14s. "

But thats the whole point everyone keeps assuming if you dont die it doesn't mean it's not serious and that isn't the case.

I'm not sure how I feel about children being vaccinated however I believe them and their parents should be given The Choice.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it "

To right

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.


"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it

To right "

Except the chief medical officer is still discussing whether to press ahead with vaccinating the under-15s anyway.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it

To right

Except the chief medical officer is still discussing whether to press ahead with vaccinating the under-15s anyway."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chief-medical-officers-to-consider-vaccinating-people-aged-12-to-15-following-jcvi-advice

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it

To right

Except the chief medical officer is still discussing whether to press ahead with vaccinating the under-15s anyway."

All so they have expanded the list of conditions that would enable a child to be offered the vaccine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *unkym34Man
over a year ago

London


"Also if it was one in a million children, there are estimated to be 12 million children in the uk under 16 so that would mean only 12 children have gotten sick with covid to the point they need hospital treatment however 5,830 have needed hospital treatment. "
5830 healthy children have not needed hospital treatment

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *unkym34Man
over a year ago

London

Honestly let’s put it simply do not risk a child’s life to save some one over 80, that’s the long and short of it sorry

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Also if it was one in a million children, there are estimated to be 12 million children in the uk under 16 so that would mean only 12 children have gotten sick with covid to the point they need hospital treatment however 5,830 have needed hospital treatment. 5830 healthy children have not needed hospital treatment "

Look it up!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Honestly let’s put it simply do not risk a child’s life to save some one over 80, that’s the long and short of it sorry "

Except the majority of people that are currently in hospital or on the 50.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietlykinkymeWoman
over a year ago

kinky land


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

But that's not true that it's one in a million. 1 in 7 children have long covid after contracting the virus.

People seem to think as long as you dont die or end up in hospital coverd isn't a problem but the hundreds of thousands the struggling with long covid tell a different story. "

** I didn't make those numbers up, it's what the data from the U.S shows and they have vaccinated teens.

Check the figures on any major news site. There's no mention of deaths in those particular stats.

Maybe here 1 in 7 children do get 'long covid' but throw us a legitimate source with those stats....

As a parent, I'd look at actual stats and discuss it with the child. Fortunately I don't have a child in this particular age bracket, My daughters are both 16+ and we're vaccinated already.

My son has years yet before he reaches this age bracket.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

But that's not true that it's one in a million. 1 in 7 children have long covid after contracting the virus.

People seem to think as long as you dont die or end up in hospital coverd isn't a problem but the hundreds of thousands the struggling with long covid tell a different story.

** I didn't make those numbers up, it's what the data from the U.S shows and they have vaccinated teens.

Check the figures on any major news site. There's no mention of deaths in those particular stats.

Maybe here 1 in 7 children do get 'long covid' but throw us a legitimate source with those stats....

As a parent, I'd look at actual stats and discuss it with the child. Fortunately I don't have a child in this particular age bracket, My daughters are both 16+ and we're vaccinated already.

My son has years yet before he reaches this age bracket."

OK you're legitimate sources are the NHS, ONS and public health England. The US stats may well be different but they have been vaccinating the under fifteens for about 3 months.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietlykinkymeWoman
over a year ago

kinky land

The jvci are using the stats that are available, which in this case is the stats provided by the U.S.

I didn't realise that 1 in 7 children was actually confirmed and published by the NHS, given how I wasn't aware that long covid had actually been medically confirmed or defined yet either but I'll catch up over the weekend.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *unkym34Man
over a year ago

London


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

But that's not true that it's one in a million. 1 in 7 children have long covid after contracting the virus.

People seem to think as long as you dont die or end up in hospital coverd isn't a problem but the hundreds of thousands the struggling with long covid tell a different story.

** I didn't make those numbers up, it's what the data from the U.S shows and they have vaccinated teens.

Check the figures on any major news site. There's no mention of deaths in those particular stats.

Maybe here 1 in 7 children do get 'long covid' but throw us a legitimate source with those stats....

As a parent, I'd look at actual stats and discuss it with the child. Fortunately I don't have a child in this particular age bracket, My daughters are both 16+ and we're vaccinated already.

My son has years yet before he reaches this age bracket.

OK you're legitimate sources are the NHS, ONS and public health England. The US stats may well be different but they have been vaccinating the under fifteens for about 3 months."
I can say it again don’t risk a child’s life it’s as simple as that

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The jvci are using the stats that are available, which in this case is the stats provided by the U.S.

I didn't realise that 1 in 7 children was actually confirmed and published by the NHS, given how I wasn't aware that long covid had actually been medically confirmed or defined yet either but I'll catch up over the weekend. "

Long covid is almost certainly post viral fatigue syndrome which has definitely been confirmed.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Jvci have said they are now not recommending it

To right

Except the chief medical officer is still discussing whether to press ahead with vaccinating the under-15s anyway."

They might be but not productive right now and revision based on effects individually rather than society based protection, more so for boys

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds

Shock horror goverment to ignore scientific advice

That's, a shock.

If we vaccination kids we will save 2 admissions out of a million to icu.

But kids can myocarditis.

Do they not value a child's future.

Obviously not

Just ignore jcvi

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds

Do not risk a child's life

How moral corrupt is this goverment and country

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds


"Honestly let’s put it simply do not risk a child’s life to save some one over 80, that’s the long and short of it sorry "

Unfortunately I agree

And think most 80 year olds would agree

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds

A child's life is precious not for 2nd car salesman Boris to trade with you.

Time to sack him

By the way how has rabb, and Boris still got a job after the disprectcto all the service people who died Afghanistan for nothing

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do not risk a child's life

How moral corrupt is this goverment and country"

You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes."

I agree

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree"

But those stats aren't true!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!"

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds

Worrying some people think in this country a child's future or life is expandable

What does this country actually stand for anymore

No morals

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds

Expendable

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds


"Do not risk a child's life

How moral corrupt is this goverment and country

You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months."

Doesn't make it right

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds


"Do not risk a child's life

How moral corrupt is this goverment and country

You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months."

By the way we have had a vaccine available for 12 months get your facts right.

Vaccine been available 8 months.

Have you got children

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do not risk a child's life

How moral corrupt is this goverment and country

You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months.

By the way we have had a vaccine available for 12 months get your facts right.

Vaccine been available 8 months.

Have you got children "

Yes the vaccine has been available for 8 months and children have been being vaccinated for about 3 months in other countries and the last question is none of your business and not relivent in any way.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I find it funny that the very people that are against children being offered the vaccine and for them and their parents to have a choice are the same people that stamp their feet and say it's their choice not to have it so I guess they are only are pro choice when it suits them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

"

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch

[Removed by poster at 04/09/21 00:31:00]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine. "

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine. "

Yes it is my choice (and theirs) at the moment it doesn’t warrant him having the vaccine. Even those in that age group with health issues are only being offered one shot due to risks involved with two shots.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out "

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community "

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice. "

Yes so they only recommended for vulnerable 12-15 yr olds...not healthy ones!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice. "

Because all vaccines prior to this were to help yourself and the wider community

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.

Yes so they only recommended for vulnerable 12-15 yr olds...not healthy ones!"

You are wrong because they are also being offered to children who are perfectly healthy but live with a vaunable person so that is not entirely true.

Also 1 in 7 children who get covid where healthy until they developed long covid.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice. "

I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.

Because all vaccines prior to this were to help yourself and the wider community "

No the vaccine rollout is to help yourself and it is hoped that as a result will help the wider community so there is a big difference.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.

I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time "

Exactly but Choice isn't available to parents who would like their children to have it so it's not a choice.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.

I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time

Exactly but Choice isn't available to parents who would like their children to have it so it's not a choice. "

Thats because its unfair to enforce it on a child based simply on the benefit to that child. The science says they are better off without it so please explain who on earth would want to vaccinate a child who has more chance of damage from vaccine than catching covid? and dont come with that Longcovid palava! its not even a recognised condition

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.

I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time

Exactly but Choice isn't available to parents who would like their children to have it so it's not a choice. "

Is that any different to any adult early in the year that wanted it but didn’t have the choice to ?

Each parent does what they think is right for their child / family. If they don’t like it they can lobby their mp to try and get it changed

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.

I had the vaccine as I’m in that older group classed as vulnerable. I’m not going to risk my child who is healthy with a side effect known from the vaccines. We all make our own choices in life based on what we know at the time

Exactly but Choice isn't available to parents who would like their children to have it so it's not a choice.

Is that any different to any adult early in the year that wanted it but didn’t have the choice to ?

Each parent does what they think is right for their child / family. If they don’t like it they can lobby their mp to try and get it changed "

I am relieved I do not have to make that decision mine have all flew the nest, I can sympathise with parents and guardians who are now looking at their children and a pen.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oan of DArcCouple
over a year ago

Glasgow


"

Thats because its unfair to enforce it on a child based simply on the benefit to that child. The science says they are better off without it so please explain who on earth would want to vaccinate a child who has more chance of damage from vaccine than catching covid? and dont come with that Longcovid palava! its not even a recognised condition "

Derek Draper and thousands of others recognise it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ik MMan
over a year ago

Lancashire


"I find it funny that the very people that are against children being offered the vaccine and for them and their parents to have a choice are the same people that stamp their feet and say it's their choice not to have it so I guess they are only are pro choice when it suits them. "

I find it funny that the very people in favour of vaccines for children are the ones who all along have been telling us to trust the science. I guess they only trust the science when it suits them

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Yes it is my choice (and theirs) at the moment it doesn’t warrant him having the vaccine. Even those in that age group with health issues are only being offered one shot due to risks involved with two shots. "

Why only one dose of there's a risk should not have it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds


"Do not risk a child's life

How moral corrupt is this goverment and country

You are aware lots of other countries have been vaccinating the over 12's for months.

By the way we have had a vaccine available for 12 months get your facts right.

Vaccine been available 8 months.

Have you got children

Yes the vaccine has been available for 8 months and children have been being vaccinated for about 3 months in other countries and the last question is none of your business and not relivent in any way. "

Yes it's, relevant if you have children you have insight as parent trying to protect.

If you haven't a child then you don't get it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Damn you guys love to argue.

Even over a non decision.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!

There is no benefit to child being vaccinated.

As jcvi they should not vaccinated fir society.

Morrally wrong to put a child at risk when absolutely no need. To.

I have been double vaccinated my child won't be.

I have duty. To protect my child and vaccine puts them at risk

In your opinion And thats your choice but a parent that thinks it will protect their child should also have The Choice to give them the vaccine.

Not if as the regulators say..the benefits are not for the 12-15 yr olds but to protect the olders. Hence why they do not want to recommend it to be rolled out

Exactly this is about the child not the wider community

I don't know why you are talking about the wider community because the scientists and doctors have been very clear that the risk and benefits have to be decided on the individual and to protect the child. I just find it funny people a pro choice except when they don't that the choice.

Yes so they only recommended for vulnerable 12-15 yr olds...not healthy ones!

You are wrong because they are also being offered to children who are perfectly healthy but live with a vaunable person so that is not entirely true.

Also 1 in 7 children who get covid where healthy until they developed long covid. "

Do we know how many children develop long flu or other post viral fatigue problems? Do we know the severity and duration statistics of those children who get long covid? Without full support of the vaccine committee and a big promotional push then I suspect take up for under 16s is going to be low.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *iss SinWoman
over a year ago

portchester

This is a disgusting and worrying idea. I hope it is never approved as it is not necessary

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietlykinkymeWoman
over a year ago

kinky land


"Chances of a boy getting heart inflammation from the vaccine 60 in a million, 8 in a million for girls. Versus chances of them being seriously ill from covid 1 in a million.

If other adverse reactions to the vaccine are also along those stats I can't see it makes any sense to vaccinate teens. Especially considering how quickly the vaccine protection wanes.

I agree

But those stats aren't true!"

** So st it being broadcast incorrectly on all the major news outlets or the U.S have fabricated those stats?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anesjhCouple
over a year ago

LONDON.


"I find it funny that the very people that are against children being offered the vaccine and for them and their parents to have a choice are the same people that stamp their feet and say it's their choice not to have it so I guess they are only are pro choice when it suits them.

I find it funny that the very people in favour of vaccines for children are the ones who all along have been telling us to trust the science. I guess they only trust the science when it suits them "

Very true.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the reality is just hittig them that they were duped into a vaccine that is of no benefit to under 15s but if 16 then yes.

Like i have been sayibg thse goverened by fear always make the wrong decisions or decisions that the fear mongers want them to make.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose.

The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

OK so guess I'll have to think about this one.

I am 50/50 only a marginal medical benefit according to the experts, so not sure I can recommend that.

Time for a chat with the wife.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *igNick1381Man
over a year ago

BRIDGEND


"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose.

The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway?"

Remember, trust the science

Unless the science doesn't tie in with government policy

In which case fuck the science

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

.


"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose.

The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway?

"

The JVCI didn't really advise against. What they said was that the benefit to the individual was marginal.

However, there is more to consider than the individual and this is where political decisions need to be taken.

What about schools, parents, grandparents, wider society etc.?

It's a tricky one, and the decision was never going to be welcomed by everyone whichever way the Government leapt.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *teveuk77Man
over a year ago

uk


"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose.

The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway?"

JCVI provided a recommendation not to rollout simply because the benefits 'marginally outweighed' the potential harm to that group of children. The government take that advise and then make a decision based on that plus other factors. For example, if rolling out to 12-15 year old reduces transmission and subsequently saves large numbers of people above 16 catching it and being hospitalised or dying then the government will more approve the rollout to protect others.

Once that decision is made, back to JCVI to ask if 2nd dose is beneficial to 12-15 year olds.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eardsandboobsCouple
over a year ago

market rasen

Our young daughter was seriously ill with covid. And until you see your own child in that way you may not realise the harm that can be done. We have taken the decision to get our other 3 vaccinated when it’s available. And they have all agreed after seeing what we all went through.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose.

The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway?

JCVI provided a recommendation not to rollout simply because the benefits 'marginally outweighed' the potential harm to that group of children. The government take that advise and then make a decision based on that plus other factors. For example, if rolling out to 12-15 year old reduces transmission and subsequently saves large numbers of people above 16 catching it and being hospitalised or dying then the government will more approve the rollout to protect others.

Once that decision is made, back to JCVI to ask if 2nd dose is beneficial to 12-15 year olds."

Jcvi have said the benefits directly to 12-15yr olds are marginal - meaning it is just about worth having for them but when you factor in the risks of myocarditis against the chances of contracting covid or having already recovered fron covid then that makes it less worthwhile. If ot was simply covid risk v jab risk then the jab wins

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers."

Hopefully not as parents usually know best, I say 16+ can make there own decisions

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietbloke67Man
over a year ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)

They told us Brexit would stop teenagers.....Ill be writing to The Daily Mail on this.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uietbloke67Man
over a year ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)

They told us Brexit would stop teenagers.....Ill be writing to The Daily Mail on this.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

Something that keeps playing over in my mind though, is should we even take the slightest risk with healthy kids having the jab, to reduce potential risk to other members of the community?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *exy_HornyCouple
over a year ago

Leigh


"Something that keeps playing over in my mind though, is should we even take the slightest risk with healthy kids having the jab, to reduce potential risk to other members of the community?"

Yes, of course we should. Parental consent is also not required according to the BBC. We have told our 15 year old daughter that the choice is hers. We hope she takes it, as it is likely to reduce potential disruption to her GCSE year.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Something that keeps playing over in my mind though, is should we even take the slightest risk with healthy kids having the jab, to reduce potential risk to other members of the community?"

No of course they shouldn’t. Why should they risk their future when they are healthy. Should they want to at a good age then that’s upto them. Until then just like marriage sex and joining the army I think should wait until 16+ to make the choice

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ixey and CopperCouple
over a year ago

exeter

So potentially a load of parents that snort all weekend can tell their kids what they should do

If you have been a good parent you shouldn't have anything to worry about

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *urvy ClarissaWoman
over a year ago

wigan

I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. "

Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So potentially a load of parents that snort all weekend can tell their kids what they should do

If you have been a good parent you shouldn't have anything to worry about "

Sorry talking about drugs is against forum rules

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Something that keeps playing over in my mind though, is should we even take the slightest risk with healthy kids having the jab, to reduce potential risk to other members of the community?"
I'm not sure this is the reason tho.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *teveuk77Man
over a year ago

uk


"They are going ahead and offering 12 to 15 year olds a first dose, and then the asking the JVCI for recommendations on whether they should have a second dose.

The bit that confuses me is the JVCI advised against the first dose so why would they be consulting them about the second days if they don't take on board there advice anyway?

JCVI provided a recommendation not to rollout simply because the benefits 'marginally outweighed' the potential harm to that group of children. The government take that advise and then make a decision based on that plus other factors. For example, if rolling out to 12-15 year old reduces transmission and subsequently saves large numbers of people above 16 catching it and being hospitalised or dying then the government will more approve the rollout to protect others.

Once that decision is made, back to JCVI to ask if 2nd dose is beneficial to 12-15 year olds.

Jcvi have said the benefits directly to 12-15yr olds are marginal - meaning it is just about worth having for them but when you factor in the risks of myocarditis against the chances of contracting covid or having already recovered fron covid then that makes it less worthwhile. If ot was simply covid risk v jab risk then the jab wins

"

Surely JCVI looked at the myocarditis evidence...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ixey and CopperCouple
over a year ago

exeter


"So potentially a load of parents that snort all weekend can tell their kids what they should do

If you have been a good parent you shouldn't have anything to worry about

Sorry talking about drugs is against forum rules "

How do I delete it then?

It was mentioned in a negative way, not condoning it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *luttyLaylaWoman
over a year ago

North West

What are you disgusted with?

If you don’t want your kids to have it, don’t consent. If you want your kids to have it, consent.

If your kids really want it/ don’t want it and your the opposite- speak to them.

Parental consent is no different to literally anything else (except birth control maybe?) under age.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *teveuk77Man
over a year ago

uk


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves "

Of course you do know that the vaccine isn't 100% effective?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *urvy ClarissaWoman
over a year ago

wigan

That may be so but many vulnerable immune suppressed people will have had the vaccine and it may not have worked as effectively.

When you’ve lost people to covid and have felt the effects of it yourself maybe it sways you in a different direction to others.

It’s a decision that every teen will have to make alongside their parents. The key here is that they’re not being forced to have it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *tue555Man
over a year ago

Passed Beyond Reach


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves "

It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence

Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.

If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.

The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves

It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence

Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.

If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.

The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable."

Vaccine won’t stop the sniffles. If a kid goes to class with sniffles vaccine or not everyone has to isolate no?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *igNick1381Man
over a year ago

BRIDGEND


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves

It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence

Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.

If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.

The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable."

The concept being is that only unvaccinated can catch the virus, whereas as it has been confirmed time and time again, you can carry the virus whether you are vaxxed or not

So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)

One of the main positives if the vaccine is that it reduces symptoms. Which is a double edged sword as someone may know have the virus when vaxxed and due to having lesser symptoms may carry on their daily business whilst infected. In children (whom aren't terribly affected by the virus anyway) this is a bigger problem

The government saying kids getting the jab will reduce interruption is them saying 'take this Jan so we, the government, won't interfere and cause said disruptions'

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amish SMan
over a year ago

Eastleigh

Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *tue555Man
over a year ago

Passed Beyond Reach


"

So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)

"

This is what some of the virologists etc are saying. Its not an example it is simply part of the debate

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's. "

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ess King tvTV/TS
over a year ago

KING'S LYNN


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people "

Says an understandably labour voter

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"

So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)

"

No no no no

If you get the vaccine you are much less likely to contract the vaccine and much much much less likely to be hospitalised if you do.

If a kid turns up at school unwell or with covid symptoms then they would be isolated regardless of vaccine status pending a negative test.

Vaccine status is not a determiner in how someone is treated. Symptomatic persons are treated exactly the same regardless of vaccine status

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves

It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence

Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.

If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.

The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable.

The concept being is that only unvaccinated can catch the virus, whereas as it has been confirmed time and time again, you can carry the virus whether you are vaxxed or not

So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)

One of the main positives if the vaccine is that it reduces symptoms. Which is a double edged sword as someone may know have the virus when vaxxed and due to having lesser symptoms may carry on their daily business whilst infected. In children (whom aren't terribly affected by the virus anyway) this is a bigger problem

The government saying kids getting the jab will reduce interruption is them saying 'take this Jan so we, the government, won't interfere and cause said disruptions'"

If you have no symptoms you are likely to have a low viral load and be less able to spread it. Some people can have a high load and have no symptoms but this is rare.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *igNick1381Man
over a year ago

BRIDGEND


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves

It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence

Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.

If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.

The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable.

The concept being is that only unvaccinated can catch the virus, whereas as it has been confirmed time and time again, you can carry the virus whether you are vaxxed or not

So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)

One of the main positives if the vaccine is that it reduces symptoms. Which is a double edged sword as someone may know have the virus when vaxxed and due to having lesser symptoms may carry on their daily business whilst infected. In children (whom aren't terribly affected by the virus anyway) this is a bigger problem

The government saying kids getting the jab will reduce interruption is them saying 'take this Jan so we, the government, won't interfere and cause said disruptions'

If you have no symptoms you are likely to have a low viral load and be less able to spread it. Some people can have a high load and have no symptoms but this is rare."

Cam you cite a source or are you just saying stuff

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. "

And that's fine and a personal / family choice. Just as long as the 14 year olds... Having had a jab to protect whomever else..realise that they can still get it and can still pass it on so still need to maintain distance and mask up and so on. It would be good to see a better idea of how much it protects others against delta variant.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents. "

The last I understood was that vaccinated people could carry the same viral load as unvaccinated, for Delta. If so I'm not convinced that getting children vaccinated will protect those around them?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

Most 14 year olds are not mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into that’s why I think permission is needed from parents. Additionally aren’t those elderly members vaccinated themselves

It is funny though Scottish Parliament (SNP) consider 14 old enough to vote on independence

Consent issue aside, it is a difficult choice they have said there are no real heath benefits vacinating 12 - 16 year olds. The real question is about disruption to schooling.

If a child turns up to school with tbe sniffles then the class etc has to self isolate. But if they are vaccinated then if the said child turns up with sniffles then it is most likely just sniffles.

The consent question is a difficult one as has been said child may want the vaccine if it prevents disruption to their schooling. But parents may not want it - so who looks after the childs best interests. Young girls don't need parental consent for the pill, but is preferable.

The concept being is that only unvaccinated can catch the virus, whereas as it has been confirmed time and time again, you can carry the virus whether you are vaxxed or not

So in your example the child turning up to school with Tue sniffles may or may not have Covid, but if they are vaxxed it is assumed they don't and they will stay in class (potentially inflecting others)

One of the main positives if the vaccine is that it reduces symptoms. Which is a double edged sword as someone may know have the virus when vaxxed and due to having lesser symptoms may carry on their daily business whilst infected. In children (whom aren't terribly affected by the virus anyway) this is a bigger problem

The government saying kids getting the jab will reduce interruption is them saying 'take this Jan so we, the government, won't interfere and cause said disruptions'

If you have no symptoms you are likely to have a low viral load and be less able to spread it. Some people can have a high load and have no symptoms but this is rare.

Cam you cite a source or are you just saying stuff"
from what I've seen there's been evidence for both sides of the claim.

Title of one paper supporting the claim

Delta variant and mRNA Covid-19 vaccines effectiveness: higher odds of vaccine infection breakthroughs

(I know the OU one contradicted so no idea what the answer is!)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *teveuk77Man
over a year ago

uk


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

The last I understood was that vaccinated people could carry the same viral load as unvaccinated, for Delta. If so I'm not convinced that getting children vaccinated will protect those around them?

"

The article that I read suggesting this had one very important word in the title and you have used it too. "COULD"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I honestly don’t see an issue. No one is being forced to have it. My son, at 14, has already decided he’s having to protect his elderly, vulnerable relatives. They’re old enough to make their own decisions following a discussion with parents.

The last I understood was that vaccinated people could carry the same viral load as unvaccinated, for Delta. If so I'm not convinced that getting children vaccinated will protect those around them?

The article that I read suggesting this had one very important word in the title and you have used it too. "COULD""

Actually the article I read said "can".

Maybe the strategy should be to do as we please on the basis that some people "COULD" be immune?!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *urvy ClarissaWoman
over a year ago

wigan

Yes of course I know it’s not 100% effective! I had covid after being vaccinated twice and it still wasn’t a pleasant experience. I do believe it would’ve been much worse (as it was for my teenage son) had I not been vaccinated!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people "

Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some. "

Which vaccine is this there is more than one covid vaccine. Only an idiot would call any vaccine gene therapy because it simply is not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some. "

Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.

The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.

Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.

The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance. "

I think it's very emotive and it's confusing. They say follow the science but who do you believe.? The JCVI who only last week despite being put under pressure, refused to recommend jabs to 12 to 15 as their science assessed there was not enough benefit. Or the 4 chief medical officers who are recommending it because their science says there is..? Thankfully my kids are older but I don't envy parents of kids who feel confused by all of the war cries on their behalf and only want to do what's best for their kids. What's worse is the storm the media love to whip up about it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.

Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.

The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance.

I think it's very emotive and it's confusing. They say follow the science but who do you believe.? The JCVI who only last week despite being put under pressure, refused to recommend jabs to 12 to 15 as their science assessed there was not enough benefit. Or the 4 chief medical officers who are recommending it because their science says there is..? Thankfully my kids are older but I don't envy parents of kids who feel confused by all of the war cries on their behalf and only want to do what's best for their kids. What's worse is the storm the media love to whip up about it. "

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE JCVI SAID

They said the direct benefits to the child exist but are marginal

The government is offering the jab because the wider community and social benefits are huge

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *sv32Man
over a year ago

birmingham

What would you class as anti vax tho because people thats kids are vaccinated but just refusing this one are being put in the same catagory as tree hugging nutters that wont give them any

We arent stupid we would just like to see the long term test data which as they were only made and started distribution a year or so ago that information just simply is not available

Look into what trials medication has to go through before public release it is usually at least 5 years of trials and tests in private with people being paid and monitored

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *sv32Man
over a year ago

birmingham

And all this follow the science

Science is all about questions and questioning and testing things

So why are we classed as tinfoil hat wearers for having questions

Im not fussed who takes it

Its up to the individual

But remember i can take the tinfoil hat off when the evidence arrives can you unjab yourself?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.

Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.

The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance.

I think it's very emotive and it's confusing. They say follow the science but who do you believe.? The JCVI who only last week despite being put under pressure, refused to recommend jabs to 12 to 15 as their science assessed there was not enough benefit. Or the 4 chief medical officers who are recommending it because their science says there is..? Thankfully my kids are older but I don't envy parents of kids who feel confused by all of the war cries on their behalf and only want to do what's best for their kids. What's worse is the storm the media love to whip up about it.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE JCVI SAID

They said the direct benefits to the child exist but are marginal

The government is offering the jab because the wider community and social benefits are huge"

Quore from the jcvi report. Which can be found here...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021

"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"

And went on to say...

"There is considerable uncertainty regarding the impact of vaccination in children and young people on peer-to-peer transmission and transmission in the wider (highly vaccinated) population. Estimates from modelling vary substantially, and the committee is of the view that any impact on transmission may be relatively small, given the lower effectiveness of the vaccine against infection with the Delta variant.

Delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine programme for children and young people is likely to be disruptive to education in the short term, particularly if school premises are used for vaccination and there is potential for a COVID-19 vaccine programme to impact on the efficiency of roll-out of the influenza programme. Adverse reactions to vaccination (such as fevers) may also lead to time away from education for some individuals."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"What would you class as anti vax tho because people thats kids are vaccinated but just refusing this one are being put in the same catagory as tree hugging nutters that wont give them any

We arent stupid we would just like to see the long term test data which as they were only made and started distribution a year or so ago that information just simply is not available

Look into what trials medication has to go through before public release it is usually at least 5 years of trials and tests in private with people being paid and monitored "

All these questions have been answered time and again. The only thing i ever hear is shit about long term data and its insane how ignorant people who keep repeating these questions are. There is NO MECHANISM for the vaccine to have ANY EFFECT on someone years later in a way thelat wouldnt be clear within a couple of months. The vaccine CANNOT HAVE ANY LONG TERM EFFECT THAT DOES NOT START TO TAKE EFFECT PRETTY MUCH STRAIGHT AWAY- AND WE HAVE SEEN THOSE EFFECTS AND THE RISKS OF THEM.

This is all part of the trial data. PAHSE 3 TRIALS ARE COMPLETE!!!

Trials take time normally because of money amd resources and the number of volunteers they need to find. COVID VACCINE RESEARCHERS HAD UNLIMITED MONEY AND RESOURCES AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOKUNTEERS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

GET VAXXED

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *issusWoman
over a year ago

Belfast


"What would you class as anti vax tho because people thats kids are vaccinated but just refusing this one are being put in the same catagory as tree hugging nutters that wont give them any

We arent stupid we would just like to see the long term test data which as they were only made and started distribution a year or so ago that information just simply is not available

Look into what trials medication has to go through before public release it is usually at least 5 years of trials and tests in private with people being paid and monitored

All these questions have been answered time and again. The only thing i ever hear is shit about long term data and its insane how ignorant people who keep repeating these questions are. There is NO MECHANISM for the vaccine to have ANY EFFECT on someone years later in a way thelat wouldnt be clear within a couple of months. The vaccine CANNOT HAVE ANY LONG TERM EFFECT THAT DOES NOT START TO TAKE EFFECT PRETTY MUCH STRAIGHT AWAY- AND WE HAVE SEEN THOSE EFFECTS AND THE RISKS OF THEM.

This is all part of the trial data. PAHSE 3 TRIALS ARE COMPLETE!!!

Trials take time normally because of money amd resources and the number of volunteers they need to find. COVID VACCINE RESEARCHERS HAD UNLIMITED MONEY AND RESOURCES AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOKUNTEERS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

GET VAXXED"

Look at you and your shouty capitals.

A teen is six times more likely to end up in a hospital after receiving a vaccine than catching covid itself.

If you're vaccinated - you've nothing to fear of.

If you're vaccinated- I have two things to fear of:

1. You giving me the bloody thing. Not any more, now that I already had it anyway.

2. Absolutely horrendous mentality that one drug fits all fine and dandy and it is in any way okay to dictate who's children. Not adults. Children! Get it or not.

Kids aren't even allowed to get sunscreen put on them without parental permission, nevermind this vaccine that is designed for adults.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Not just that, this so called vaccine is not the same as previous ones. Hence the reason it’s referred to as gene therapy apparently by some.

Funny. This 'so called vaccine' is firstly helpful to be understood as several vaccines. You know that they are actual vaccines, fully meeting the medical and dictionary criteria as such.

The reason someone might try to refer to 1 as 'gene therapy' , is potentially scaremongering BS, when ignorance has been ruled out. Sock puppets repeating the mantras pulled from puppet masters who earn money from social discontent, are a sad reflection of the human psyche, desperately trying to make sense out of complexity and a troubling context. Clutching at straws that the terrorists dole out for feeble thinking. It's good to be open minded. Thankfully, for matters of a scientific and medical nature, we have an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed research evidence that's been critiqued by those with relevant expertise. Nonetheless, all of this evidence is fully open and available, so that anyone may overcome their ignorance.

I think it's very emotive and it's confusing. They say follow the science but who do you believe.? The JCVI who only last week despite being put under pressure, refused to recommend jabs to 12 to 15 as their science assessed there was not enough benefit. Or the 4 chief medical officers who are recommending it because their science says there is..? Thankfully my kids are older but I don't envy parents of kids who feel confused by all of the war cries on their behalf and only want to do what's best for their kids. What's worse is the storm the media love to whip up about it.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE JCVI SAID

They said the direct benefits to the child exist but are marginal

The government is offering the jab because the wider community and social benefits are huge

Quore from the jcvi report. Which can be found here...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021

"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"

And went on to say...

"There is considerable uncertainty regarding the impact of vaccination in children and young people on peer-to-peer transmission and transmission in the wider (highly vaccinated) population. Estimates from modelling vary substantially, and the committee is of the view that any impact on transmission may be relatively small, given the lower effectiveness of the vaccine against infection with the Delta variant.

Delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine programme for children and young people is likely to be disruptive to education in the short term, particularly if school premises are used for vaccination and there is potential for a COVID-19 vaccine programme to impact on the efficiency of roll-out of the influenza programme. Adverse reactions to vaccination (such as fevers) may also lead to time away from education for some individuals.""

Thanks for digging that out. I'm still on the fence with kids.

I have always said follow the science, but when we start dealing in such small risk numbers both for vaccine and disease it a tricky call to make and do nothing seems the most logical approach.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Thanks for digging that out. I'm still on the fence with kids.

I have always said follow the science, but when we start dealing in such small risk numbers both for vaccine and disease it a tricky call to make and do nothing seems the most logical approach.

"

"it is expected that winter 2021 to 2022 will be the first winter in the UK when seasonal influenza virus (and other respiratory viruses) will co-circulate alongside COVID-19"

"Therefore, those eligible for NHS influenza vaccination in 2021 to 2022 are:

all children aged 2 to 15 (but not 16 years or older) on 31 August 2021

those aged 6 months to under 50 years in clinical risk groups

pregnant women

those aged 50 years and over

those in long-stay residential care homes

carers

close contacts of immunocompromised individuals

frontline health and social care staff employed by:

a registered residential care or nursing home

registered domiciliary care provider

a voluntary managed hospice provider

Direct Payment (personal budgets) and/or Personal Health Budgets, such as Personal Assistants.

All frontline health and social care workers are expected to have influenza vaccination to protect those they care for. A separate communication will follow about staff vaccination"

"live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) should be offered to eligible children aged 2 years and over, unless contraindicated"

I assume that anti-vaccination types won't be having their children vaccinated against flu this year then.....

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-flu-immunisation-programme-plan/national-flu-immunisation-programme-2021-to-2022-letter

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Says an understandably labour voter"

I don’t vote

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"

Thanks for digging that out. I'm still on the fence with kids.

I have always said follow the science, but when we start dealing in such small risk numbers both for vaccine and disease it a tricky call to make and do nothing seems the most logical approach.

"it is expected that winter 2021 to 2022 will be the first winter in the UK when seasonal influenza virus (and other respiratory viruses) will co-circulate alongside COVID-19"

"Therefore, those eligible for NHS influenza vaccination in 2021 to 2022 are:

all children aged 2 to 15 (but not 16 years or older) on 31 August 2021

those aged 6 months to under 50 years in clinical risk groups

pregnant women

those aged 50 years and over

those in long-stay residential care homes

carers

close contacts of immunocompromised individuals

frontline health and social care staff employed by:

a registered residential care or nursing home

registered domiciliary care provider

a voluntary managed hospice provider

Direct Payment (personal budgets) and/or Personal Health Budgets, such as Personal Assistants.

All frontline health and social care workers are expected to have influenza vaccination to protect those they care for. A separate communication will follow about staff vaccination"

"live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) should be offered to eligible children aged 2 years and over, unless contraindicated"

I assume that anti-vaccination types won't be having their children vaccinated against flu this year then.....

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-flu-immunisation-programme-plan/national-flu-immunisation-programme-2021-to-2022-letter

"

Be interesting to see if they attempt flu vax passes while they are at it... Or flu passes for access to places and travel and events. Though we have been flu jabbing folks voluntarily and quite successfully for many years without that need.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago

Bristol


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Says an understandably labour voter

I don’t vote "

You have nothing to complain about then

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *amb_ManMan
over a year ago

Peterborough


"What are these teens disgusted with and why only the disgusted being offered the vaccine? "

Exactly

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes"

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children."

Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pretty sure we just queued up and got vaccinated back in the 70's.

Yeah but the government has understandably lost the trust of the people

Says an understandably labour voter

I don’t vote

You have nothing to complain about then "

How does that add to the conversation your just saying anything

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control "

Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control

Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour."

That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control

Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.

That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence."

Agree with that example but then applying that to decisions on vaccination by a pre-pubescent it falls down IMO. My child is not ready to decide that for herself. She will undoubtedly be swayed by her friendship group at school and a desire to be the same and fit in.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control

Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.

That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence.

Agree with that example but then applying that to decisions on vaccination by a pre-pubescent it falls down IMO. My child is not ready to decide that for herself. She will undoubtedly be swayed by her friendship group at school and a desire to be the same and fit in."

Gillick competency does not apply to children that young. 12+, and rarely as young as 12.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control

Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.

That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence.

Agree with that example but then applying that to decisions on vaccination by a pre-pubescent it falls down IMO. My child is not ready to decide that for herself. She will undoubtedly be swayed by her friendship group at school and a desire to be the same and fit in.

Gillick competency does not apply to children that young. 12+, and rarely as young as 12."

Ah ok thanks didn’t know that - should have googled but hey, I’ve got you

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Case law resulting from nutter parents suing the NHS because their teenage daughter wanted birth control

Like most of these types of laws, they are devised to deal with extreme behaviour but actually ended up impeding the ability for moderate behaviour.

That's the beauty and curse of the British common law. Law can come from cases.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable that a competent teenager begins to make their own medical decisions. It's not like we cage kids until 17 years and 365 days - we gradually give them autonomy and independence.

Agree with that example but then applying that to decisions on vaccination by a pre-pubescent it falls down IMO. My child is not ready to decide that for herself. She will undoubtedly be swayed by her friendship group at school and a desire to be the same and fit in.

Gillick competency does not apply to children that young. 12+, and rarely as young as 12.

Ah ok thanks didn’t know that - should have googled but hey, I’ve got you "

No worries

Two real examples to make a fictitious case for this purpose, how it might apply.

I had hideously heavy periods in my early teens. Life disrupting, irregular, painful. I was offered the pill.

I had friends whose parents thought anyone taking the pill was a filthy sex worker.

Pretend those parents were mine. Imagine a doctor giving me the leaflets (it was the 90s) and seeing if I understood the material. (I was reasonably bright), and, if they thought I understood it, allowing me to decide for myself.

Yes, it also applies to vaccines. But - example in my life where yeah, I probably would have taken the pills (and I suspect at that age I was Gillick competent).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children."

Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right."

Understood but who decides based on what criteria?

Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business.

Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring?

What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right.

Understood but who decides based on what criteria?

Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business.

Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring?

What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision?"

In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right.

Understood but who decides based on what criteria?

Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business.

Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring?

What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision?

In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible)"

And that feels right when you are in an emergency time sensitive situation.

But that is not the case with Covid. The data continues to show us that kids are very low risk. So the time sensitivity is not there so parents should make the decisions. IMO that means up to 16*

*although tangentially the whole 16 vs 18 thing in UK is weird. 16-17 still need parent’s permission to get married. You can drive a car or join the army at 17. Can’t vote until 18. All messed up and needs alignment.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnj21Man
over a year ago

Leeds


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right.

Understood but who decides based on what criteria?

Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business.

Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring?

What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision?

In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible)"

Have you got a job you spend all day on here

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right.

Understood but who decides based on what criteria?

Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business.

Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring?

What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision?

In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible)

And that feels right when you are in an emergency time sensitive situation.

But that is not the case with Covid. The data continues to show us that kids are very low risk. So the time sensitivity is not there so parents should make the decisions. IMO that means up to 16*

*although tangentially the whole 16 vs 18 thing in UK is weird. 16-17 still need parent’s permission to get married. You can drive a car or join the army at 17. Can’t vote until 18. All messed up and needs alignment."

I'm definitely not talking about Covid vaccination. The definitive case is a very small child needing a blood transfusion whose parents refuse for religious reasons.

I'm saying what's possible in medicine in general.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge"

If parents refuse to let their child be vaccinated, the above will be used and the child can be vaccinated *with the childs consent* but against parents wishes

Utterly reprehensible law designed by do-gooders for what on the surface seem like sensible reasons (due to nutter parents) but ultimately undermines the authority of parents over their children.

Possibly some parents are not fit to have authority over their children? Which is why there is such a thing as Gillick competency, child services, laws against abuse etc. Just because they are parents it does not mean that they are always right.

Understood but who decides based on what criteria?

Looking at this from a personal perspective, between the two of us (mum & dad) we have two undergraduate degrees and one masters. Husband runs a successful B2B business with blue chip clients. Wife has successful quite senior career working in FTSE100 business.

Are we competent to make decisions for our offspring?

What if the powers that be do not agree with or like our decision?

In some cases, where the child's life is at risk, an emergency court order can be made to force the issue. (Rare, but possible)

Have you got a job you spend all day on here "

I'm a freelance content creator and I do very well for myself, but thank you for your concern

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By *es Sir xWoman
over a year ago

Birmingham


"Hopefully there will be some form of appeal for the teen if their parents are anti-vaxxers.

I really hope that kids who don't want this one and their parents are forcing them will also have a say "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top