| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab 22:09 - Aug 3 with 3045 views | ElderGrizzly |
Good news and another step towards us getting out of this
|  | | |  |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:02 - Aug 4 with 540 views | Swansea_Blue |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 10:07 - Aug 4 by Lightworker |
But we have seen that people are still contracting and spreading Covid despite vaccination so your rather extreme example could happen regardless.
Any medical intervention has to be considered on a risk/benefit ratio to the patient in my opinion. I am not comfortable with the idea of using younger Children to protect Adults ( who have already been offered the jab ) unless it is 100% clear that the risk from the treatment them is not greater than the benefit. You may think differently and that is perfectly fine. |
Although a recent study has shown that those with double vaccines are three times less likely to test positive (and therefore less likely to pass it on too). And that's on top of the huge difference it's made to hospitalisation and mortality rates. You'll never get 100% certainty with anything.
It's an absolutely no-brainer to jab up as many as possible, and just so sad that over years of drip-feeding their nonsense anti-vaxxers are able to influence the narrative.
Edit - link to study for those interested https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower- [Post edited 4 Aug 2021 15:02]
|  |
| |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:04 - Aug 4 with 533 views | Keno |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 14:43 - Aug 4 by Lightworker |
You are quite right is is teens we are talking about but my basic point stands.
I'm a bit confused by the reference to Smallpox and Polio to be honest. Smallpox was eradicated many years ago so vaccines are no longer given and children are protected from Polio by a vaccine that has many years of safety data. My Children have had this vaccine and others, not sure what point you are trying to make here, perhaps you could explain further? |
The point is that the those, and other diseases, have been eradicated through extensive vaccination programmes which nowadays we tend to take for granted.
The wider effects of Covid, and I suspect other diseases, can also be limited through extensive vaccination programmes. Yes those are new programmes and there is no reason to believe that is any significant risk in having the vaccine against not having it, especially when you take into account the protection not only afforded to the person vaccinated but also those with whom they come into contact.
Im glad your, and my children, are able to benefit from previous vaccination programmes, I hope my grandchildren and their children will gain a similar benefit from this programme |  |
| |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:07 - Aug 4 with 522 views | Butterbing |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 14:52 - Aug 4 by Lightworker |
I think you might need to re-read my posts. I haven't directly question the JCVI decision, I merely defended a poster who was labelled dim for saying he wasn't sure. It is perfectly reasonable to question the merit of giving a vaccine to a young person for whom the personal benefit is likely to be extremely small and for which the long term safety data doesn't exist. |
I feel your rhetoric is dangerous and irresponsible. You seem to be advocating for younger people to turn down the vaccine for purely selfish reasons. Yes, they have a low chance of dying, there is very slight risk of side-effects and the long-term effects are not known. Whilst I agree it is every person's right to choose I feel you are completely misunderstanding the wider societal impact of vaccination. It is rather selfish to purely think "I'll be ok" and not get vaccinated. The current downturn and the lower rate of hospitalisations is being put down to the success of the vaccination program by scientists. This has resulted in lower cases and deaths amidst the re-opening of society and an economical upturn. We can't keep locking down every few months and if 16/17 year olds getting vaccinated can help with that then good. |  | | |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:13 - Aug 4 with 517 views | Lightworker |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:04 - Aug 4 by Keno |
The point is that the those, and other diseases, have been eradicated through extensive vaccination programmes which nowadays we tend to take for granted.
The wider effects of Covid, and I suspect other diseases, can also be limited through extensive vaccination programmes. Yes those are new programmes and there is no reason to believe that is any significant risk in having the vaccine against not having it, especially when you take into account the protection not only afforded to the person vaccinated but also those with whom they come into contact.
Im glad your, and my children, are able to benefit from previous vaccination programmes, I hope my grandchildren and their children will gain a similar benefit from this programme |
Fair enough, thanks for explaining and I respect your viewpoint. I am slightly more cautious myself due to fact this vaccine is not a traditional childhood vaccine and the only currently on an emergency license. I don't see that the situation is an emergency for children or teens so would personally not give the vaccine to my children until there was longer term safety data. For me as an older adult at higher risk from the disease I took the view that the benefits were worth the potential risk.
I hope you are right in your last sentence, and i'm sure you probably will be. |  | | |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:16 - Aug 4 with 507 views | Digger77 |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:07 - Aug 4 by Butterbing |
I feel your rhetoric is dangerous and irresponsible. You seem to be advocating for younger people to turn down the vaccine for purely selfish reasons. Yes, they have a low chance of dying, there is very slight risk of side-effects and the long-term effects are not known. Whilst I agree it is every person's right to choose I feel you are completely misunderstanding the wider societal impact of vaccination. It is rather selfish to purely think "I'll be ok" and not get vaccinated. The current downturn and the lower rate of hospitalisations is being put down to the success of the vaccination program by scientists. This has resulted in lower cases and deaths amidst the re-opening of society and an economical upturn. We can't keep locking down every few months and if 16/17 year olds getting vaccinated can help with that then good. |
Are you saying it's the duty of children to protect adults now?
A treatment that we don't know the long term effects of, and for an illness that statistically has zero risk to them? |  | | |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:21 - Aug 4 with 494 views | Keno |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:13 - Aug 4 by Lightworker |
Fair enough, thanks for explaining and I respect your viewpoint. I am slightly more cautious myself due to fact this vaccine is not a traditional childhood vaccine and the only currently on an emergency license. I don't see that the situation is an emergency for children or teens so would personally not give the vaccine to my children until there was longer term safety data. For me as an older adult at higher risk from the disease I took the view that the benefits were worth the potential risk.
I hope you are right in your last sentence, and i'm sure you probably will be. |
Its not an easy situation all round and, from a personal experience, I can share your concerns over this.
I think the situation with teenagers is clearer than with younger children and there is a lot of research still needed there,
Hope you and your family stay safe mate. | |
| |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:23 - Aug 4 with 485 views | Lightworker |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:07 - Aug 4 by Butterbing |
I feel your rhetoric is dangerous and irresponsible. You seem to be advocating for younger people to turn down the vaccine for purely selfish reasons. Yes, they have a low chance of dying, there is very slight risk of side-effects and the long-term effects are not known. Whilst I agree it is every person's right to choose I feel you are completely misunderstanding the wider societal impact of vaccination. It is rather selfish to purely think "I'll be ok" and not get vaccinated. The current downturn and the lower rate of hospitalisations is being put down to the success of the vaccination program by scientists. This has resulted in lower cases and deaths amidst the re-opening of society and an economical upturn. We can't keep locking down every few months and if 16/17 year olds getting vaccinated can help with that then good. |
I don't believe anything I have said is dangerous or irresponsible and I resent that implication.
Any new drug or medical treatment has to be about informed consent and has to show that the benefits outweigh the risks to be viable. For most of the adult population this has been demonstrated but the younger we go down the age groups the less benefit there is as the risk from the illness diminishes. It is not the role of young people and Children to act as an extra safety shield for Adults who have already been offered the vaccine themselves and have access to some level of protection. That's rather a selfish expectation itself isn't it?
How far would you go with it then Butterbing? under 10's, under 5s, newborns? | | | |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:25 - Aug 4 with 482 views | Butterbing |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:16 - Aug 4 by Digger77 |
Are you saying it's the duty of children to protect adults now?
A treatment that we don't know the long term effects of, and for an illness that statistically has zero risk to them? |
Yes, that's exactly how I feel. It's the duty of every member of society to take actions for the benefit of the society. It's why I maintain awareness whilst driving a car, it's why I pay my taxes, it's why I recycle, it's why I educate my children on societal issues. We don't live in bubbles. For a society to function we have to look out for each other.
There is no reason to think that this vaccination causes any long-term effects whatsoever. We do, however, know that Covid can cause long-term effects and death in others though. It's a no-brainer for me. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:27 - Aug 4 with 475 views | Butterbing |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:23 - Aug 4 by Lightworker |
I don't believe anything I have said is dangerous or irresponsible and I resent that implication.
Any new drug or medical treatment has to be about informed consent and has to show that the benefits outweigh the risks to be viable. For most of the adult population this has been demonstrated but the younger we go down the age groups the less benefit there is as the risk from the illness diminishes. It is not the role of young people and Children to act as an extra safety shield for Adults who have already been offered the vaccine themselves and have access to some level of protection. That's rather a selfish expectation itself isn't it?
How far would you go with it then Butterbing? under 10's, under 5s, newborns? |
I don't know how far I would go as I am not an expert. However, I would trust that the JCVI would know far more about it than any "research" I could do and trust that they would set the limit correctly. [Post edited 4 Aug 2021 15:28]
| | | |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 16:30 - Aug 5 with 379 views | BlueBadger |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 11:16 - Aug 4 by textbackup |
Incredible how comfortable you are talking down to people, and belittling them for having a differing of opinion to your own |
As opposed to sneering at them for not attending football matches, eh? |  |
| |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 17:28 - Aug 5 with 347 views | LeoMuff |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 15:23 - Aug 4 by Lightworker |
I don't believe anything I have said is dangerous or irresponsible and I resent that implication.
Any new drug or medical treatment has to be about informed consent and has to show that the benefits outweigh the risks to be viable. For most of the adult population this has been demonstrated but the younger we go down the age groups the less benefit there is as the risk from the illness diminishes. It is not the role of young people and Children to act as an extra safety shield for Adults who have already been offered the vaccine themselves and have access to some level of protection. That's rather a selfish expectation itself isn't it?
How far would you go with it then Butterbing? under 10's, under 5s, newborns? |
So I don’t understand this viewpoint, we give a number of immunisations to newborns and under 2s and they are just as rigorously tested as the covid jabs.
Why the concern ? It’s been through the same processes, just quicker as vast resources were thrown at it. |  |
| |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 17:30 - Aug 5 with 346 views | LeoMuff |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 08:36 - Aug 4 by Lightworker |
The vaccines do not stop you getting covid and they don't entirely prevent transmission, only reduce symptoms. This age group get very mild symptoms anyway and have a near zero chance of death in otherwise healthy individuals.
We already have documented ( albeit rare ) cases in the US and Israel of young people developing heart conditions and other side effects after taking the vaccine and we don't have any long term safety data on what is ultimately a brand new technology ( MRNA vaccines ), never used previously in humans.
I myself have had the jab and my Children have had all their childhood vaccinations so I am no ant-vaxxer but equally I would not give any vaccine to my Children where I don't think the risk/benefit ratio is clearly in their favour. I am not sure it's fair to call the poster 'dim' for saying something that is perfectly reasonable based on the evidence. |
They minimise your chances of getting it by 90%… | |
| |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 18:45 - Aug 5 with 319 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| 16 & 17 year olds to be eligible for Covid jab on 09:48 - Aug 4 by Lightworker |
Hello Steve, I didn't think it was contentious information to be honest as it is well documented that deaths among healthy teenagers are very very low.
It is in fact statistically zero for 15-19 year old's and that is including those with underlying health conditions.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=Engl
According to data out of Israel there was around 1 case of Myocarditis per 6000 in the 16 -24 age group after 2 doses of Pfizer. Most of these were mild.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/israel-reports-link-between-rare-cases-h
As I said it is very rare but still needs to be considered and it's quite reasonable to be cautious where children are concerned where risk from the disease is low and where we don't have the long term safety data. Do you disagree with this position? If so why?
As for football and Cheese, I am very much a blue and will be going on Saturday, north stand upper. Can't wait to see how the new look team shapes up in a competitive game. My favourite Cheese is a french one called Comte! |
Not sure if you posted the wrong link in your first study but those are only recent statistics (not overall ones) and do not appear to have anything for different age groups.
Here is the actual data and it is certainly not 0.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
In your second link this quote should be pointed out:
"But most cases were mild and resolved within a few weeks, which is typical for myocarditis. “I can’t imagine it’s going to be anything that would cause medical people to say we shouldn’t vaccinate kids,” says Douglas Diekema, a pediatrician and bioethicist at Seattle Children’s Hospital."
It seems that there are medical experts fairly unanimously saying "we should do this" and a significant number of laymen are going "no, I will listen to some unqualified commentator's concerns instead."
It is reminiscent of the absolutely debunked vaccines cause autism scandal and Brexit's "we have had enough of experts" (simply because they didn't like what the experts were saying ... and warning about the very situations we are now seeing). [Post edited 5 Aug 2021 18:46]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
