UK approves Pfizer jab for use in 12-15-year-olds
Discussion
Yeah whilst it’s a combination of factors the highest weighted by far will be “a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians”.
The others are their to placate the media and others who think that long covid impacts large numbers and in such a way as to require seeking medical support.
The reasons 1/4 of practices haven’t recorded it is due to the low numbers of people seeking medical intervention at their GP for long covid.
The others are their to placate the media and others who think that long covid impacts large numbers and in such a way as to require seeking medical support.
The reasons 1/4 of practices haven’t recorded it is due to the low numbers of people seeking medical intervention at their GP for long covid.
Goose4 said:
Yeah whilst it’s a combination of factors the highest weighted by far will be “a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians”.
The others are their to placate the media and others who think that long covid impacts large numbers and in such a way as to require seeking medical support.
The reasons 1/4 of practices haven’t recorded it is due to the low numbers of people seeking medical intervention at their GP for long covid.
It seems like you know more than any of those producing this report. Even if you’re a GP (no idea if you are but I’ll preempt any attempt at a trump card) that doesn’t make your views gospel. They are your opinions based on your personal experience, not a macro level objective assessment. The others are their to placate the media and others who think that long covid impacts large numbers and in such a way as to require seeking medical support.
The reasons 1/4 of practices haven’t recorded it is due to the low numbers of people seeking medical intervention at their GP for long covid.
echo said:
Yeah whilst it’s a combination of factors the highest weighted by far will be “a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians”.
The others are their to placate the media and others who think that long covid impacts large numbers and in such a way as to require seeking medical support.
The reasons 1/4 of practices haven’t recorded it is due to the low numbers of people seeking medical intervention at their GP for long covid.
Seems like 3 opinions posted as fact, yet also seems lacking in facts.The others are their to placate the media and others who think that long covid impacts large numbers and in such a way as to require seeking medical support.
The reasons 1/4 of practices haven’t recorded it is due to the low numbers of people seeking medical intervention at their GP for long covid.
Regarding your third point specifically, I'd love to know how you think you know that. There is no data, so there must be no cases - amiright?
ElectricSoup said:
Gweeds said:
Because by removing the well of potential hosts, you reduce the chance of mutations/variants which may be vaccine resistant and which could then affect those who could die?
This, and also the latest variants are liable to cause long Covid in younger people. I've got 2 teenagers, they both want the jab, and they'll both have my blessing when it's available to them. The benefits far outweigh any risks.Someone mentioned "medicine by Facebook" up thread - what a great expression. These vaccines are no longer "experimental" as someone put it earlier. In fact, "experimental" isn't a helpful word and is not a proper clinical trial term in any case.
Please could everyone stop pushing dangerous and counterproductive "medicine by Facebook" nonsense. The vaccines are the way out, we are nearing the beginnning of the end of this pandemic, let's keep going and put an end to it. Sadly government policy surrently is acting against the ending of the pandemic in favour of political wins. They've let the Indian variant in, which has some vaccine escape, is far more easily tramsitted and can affect children far worse. It's verging on the criminal, and I hope one day those responsible pay the price. In the meantime our rulers are actually hampering the scientists and medical experts who developed the vaccines by making decisions which have compromised their efficiency.
Ntv said:
Can you please set out the evidence that the Indian variant is more risky to children than other variants?
https://twitter.com/RCPCHtweets/status/14004488740...It isn't. And once again, the RCPCH have to release a statement saying as much, as the media and usual idiots try and hype up the fear!
Add in with the comments from a report earlier in the week or last week where it was noted that almost all of the children who had died from Covid were already very seriously ill, you start to wonder why anyone is at all worried about children when the data is crystal clear, covid is not a danger to them!
And the graph I posted an the other thread, for some perspective!
Slagathore said:
Ntv said:
Can you please set out the evidence that the Indian variant is more risky to children than other variants?
https://twitter.com/RCPCHtweets/status/14004488740...It isn't. And once again, the RCPCH have to release a statement saying as much, as the media and usual idiots try and hype up the fear!
Add in with the comments from a report earlier in the week or last week where it was noted that almost all of the children who had died from Covid were already very seriously ill, you start to wonder why anyone is at all worried about children when the data is crystal clear, covid is not a danger to them!
And the graph I posted an the other thread, for some perspective!
The FDA data supporting the emergency use approval. Not sure how the people who approve these things can sleep at night
https://www.fda.gov/media/148542/download
https://www.fda.gov/media/148542/download
TV8 said:
The FDA data supporting the emergency use approval. Not sure how the people who approve these things can sleep at night
https://www.fda.gov/media/148542/download
There have been six deaths in the USA of under 19s from Covid vaccines. https://www.fda.gov/media/148542/download
They have been 320 deaths of under 19s in the USA 'with' Covid, no from, but with Covid.
There have been 32 deaths of under 19s in the UK 'with' Covid, however, we do know that all 32 of those kids were going to die anyway.
In the USA they had vaccinated 540k under 19s by the time the 6 had died, with over 40m children in the USA that means, if the death rate stays the same, there will be 480 deaths over the first round of vaccines.
Now, if the USA is like the UK and all 320 of those kids were already terminally ill, then why are we risking 480 children's lives to get them jabbed?
Anyone who thinks that risk is worth it, is either stupid, selfish or both.
gizlaroc said:
There have been six deaths in the USA of under 19s from Covid vaccines.
They have been 320 deaths of under 19s in the USA 'with' Covid, no from, but with Covid.
There have been 32 deaths of under 19s in the UK 'with' Covid, however, we do know that all 32 of those kids were going to die anyway.
In the USA they had vaccinated 540k under 19s by the time the 6 had died, with over 40m children in the USA that means, if the death rate stays the same, there will be 480 deaths over the first round of vaccines.
Now, if the USA is like the UK and all 320 of those kids were already terminally ill, then why are we risking 480 children's lives to get them jabbed?
Anyone who thinks that risk is worth it, is either stupid, selfish or both.
Where are you getting these numbers from? You need to be able to back them up. I googled “U.K. Covid deaths children” amd couldn’t find much info, but admittedly didn’t look too hard either. It came up,with thisThey have been 320 deaths of under 19s in the USA 'with' Covid, no from, but with Covid.
There have been 32 deaths of under 19s in the UK 'with' Covid, however, we do know that all 32 of those kids were going to die anyway.
In the USA they had vaccinated 540k under 19s by the time the 6 had died, with over 40m children in the USA that means, if the death rate stays the same, there will be 480 deaths over the first round of vaccines.
Now, if the USA is like the UK and all 320 of those kids were already terminally ill, then why are we risking 480 children's lives to get them jabbed?
Anyone who thinks that risk is worth it, is either stupid, selfish or both.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-ne...
That says 34 deaths 6 no underlying conditions. Unless you’re saying that “ they’ll die anyway”means we all die eventually then it does seem to have claimed a small number of otherwise healthy children.
Can you run your stats again using those numbers, as I got confused over which number was from which country.
A bunch of comments from registered medical professionals. https://www.medscape.com/sites/public/covid-19/vac...
TV8 was talking about the FDA, so I was talking about USA, mainly as they have started jabbing kids already.
A couple of weeks back they were at 6 deaths for 540k jabs.
I said 320 deaths, it was actually 230 deaths approx. by June 3 21...
https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%...
There are 44 million kids, but actually, for VAERS and Covid they class kids as 0-17 years not 0-18 years, so 40 million kids.
So, 6 deaths from the 540k jabbed so far.
40,000,000/540,000=74.
74x6 = 444 deaths if the levels stay the same.
In the UK we have 15m kids below 19 years old. If we were to jab all those and the death rate replicated the US at 6 per 540k, then we would have roughly 166 deaths from the vaccine.
We have had 6 so far you say?
Maybe you're right, my UK figures were up to March at 32, and all being terminal.
There is our answer to should we be jabbing kids surely?
We are over the worst, so surely Covid deaths should be down from 6 per 15,000,000 going forward.
I would imagine it has swept through all the kids already, albeit 90% of the won't have even noticed?
A couple of weeks back they were at 6 deaths for 540k jabs.
I said 320 deaths, it was actually 230 deaths approx. by June 3 21...
https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%...
There are 44 million kids, but actually, for VAERS and Covid they class kids as 0-17 years not 0-18 years, so 40 million kids.
So, 6 deaths from the 540k jabbed so far.
40,000,000/540,000=74.
74x6 = 444 deaths if the levels stay the same.
In the UK we have 15m kids below 19 years old. If we were to jab all those and the death rate replicated the US at 6 per 540k, then we would have roughly 166 deaths from the vaccine.
We have had 6 so far you say?
Maybe you're right, my UK figures were up to March at 32, and all being terminal.
There is our answer to should we be jabbing kids surely?
We are over the worst, so surely Covid deaths should be down from 6 per 15,000,000 going forward.
I would imagine it has swept through all the kids already, albeit 90% of the won't have even noticed?
I have to say Unident from all your ridiculing of the anti-vaxxers (some of who deserve to be mocked) you are very unscientific with your arguments.
1) We need to save lives and avoid mutations by jabbing as many as possible including the kids. Given it's a worldwide virus you'd likely save more lives and help reduce mutations by giving the vaccines to other places who need them more, as they have far less of the major risk groups jabbed.
2) This whole "it's not a test and proven" - it is a test or it would have received full approval. You talk about the issues with long covid, for which we have limited data in how serious it is, but write off the long term possible impacts of vaccines and compare it to vaccines with hundreds of years of data, as if there is nothing inbetween.
3) Partly related, we thought AZ was ok, but experts have stopped it due to the risks we have seen over time. These aren't fruitcakes, but the specialists who are experts on this stuff. I was pissed off they removed AZ here in Norway, but after approximately half a year after role out the data clearly convinces medical experts to say it's too much risk for young people. It took 6 months to see that for something that is a short term impact, so there's no chance we have data for long term ones. Which can be less than waiting for 200 years,
4) Writing off any comments about the companies making big profits as nutters - it might be, but there is a clear benefit for the companies to sell as many vaccines as possible. That's not debatable really. It's a bit like saying oil companies provide energy to people and save lives by creating power for homes, materials to build shelters etc in developing countries, and so given the benefits there is no risk they're in it for making money and might do harmful things as a result. You can do good and bad things at the same time, as well as doing good things to make a ton of cash.
You seem to stick people into extremes and not read what they say - the current scientific data so far seems to indicate the risk of covid AND vaccines is very low for children. Given that, then for a number of people it makes more scientific sense to jab the far greater at risk people elsewhere in the world. Since the same number of people will be jabbed it has a similar impact of reducing the chance of mutations. It also gives more time to get the longer term data of vaccines before giving it to those who have the longest to live and are normally most protected. Or am I also a frothing anti-vaxxer too?
1) We need to save lives and avoid mutations by jabbing as many as possible including the kids. Given it's a worldwide virus you'd likely save more lives and help reduce mutations by giving the vaccines to other places who need them more, as they have far less of the major risk groups jabbed.
2) This whole "it's not a test and proven" - it is a test or it would have received full approval. You talk about the issues with long covid, for which we have limited data in how serious it is, but write off the long term possible impacts of vaccines and compare it to vaccines with hundreds of years of data, as if there is nothing inbetween.
3) Partly related, we thought AZ was ok, but experts have stopped it due to the risks we have seen over time. These aren't fruitcakes, but the specialists who are experts on this stuff. I was pissed off they removed AZ here in Norway, but after approximately half a year after role out the data clearly convinces medical experts to say it's too much risk for young people. It took 6 months to see that for something that is a short term impact, so there's no chance we have data for long term ones. Which can be less than waiting for 200 years,
4) Writing off any comments about the companies making big profits as nutters - it might be, but there is a clear benefit for the companies to sell as many vaccines as possible. That's not debatable really. It's a bit like saying oil companies provide energy to people and save lives by creating power for homes, materials to build shelters etc in developing countries, and so given the benefits there is no risk they're in it for making money and might do harmful things as a result. You can do good and bad things at the same time, as well as doing good things to make a ton of cash.
You seem to stick people into extremes and not read what they say - the current scientific data so far seems to indicate the risk of covid AND vaccines is very low for children. Given that, then for a number of people it makes more scientific sense to jab the far greater at risk people elsewhere in the world. Since the same number of people will be jabbed it has a similar impact of reducing the chance of mutations. It also gives more time to get the longer term data of vaccines before giving it to those who have the longest to live and are normally most protected. Or am I also a frothing anti-vaxxer too?
Edited by NRS on Wednesday 9th June 23:57
Here you go Unident, before you go sticking that experimental gene therapy into you, and remember there is no going back, I would have a watch of this, well worth an hour of your time...
https://youtu.be/U1pEtrEr2_s
The man who invented the mRNA gene therapy and his thoughts on where we are at with it and whether we should be using it on a global scale or on kids.
Watch that and tell me what you think?
https://youtu.be/U1pEtrEr2_s
The man who invented the mRNA gene therapy and his thoughts on where we are at with it and whether we should be using it on a global scale or on kids.
Watch that and tell me what you think?
And an additional point - your comment about if we view it as an acceptable risk that some older people will die due to covid infections from unjabbed people (less than 25% now) jab being compared to Aktion T4... Well, if for example you've not been taking flu jabs every winter through your life you've been doing exactly that same Aktion T4 - you've been a selfish b
d who didn't get jabbed and is partly implicit in 30 000 lives being lost each year on average by not doing your part in saving any life possible.
If this was through lack of knowledge you know now, so given you think people not taking the jab now despite the death rate being very small due to those at risk people being jabbed is on the level of Aktion T4 you'll presumably get the flu jab to do your part in saving those 30k? If not then you're not being very logical.
d who didn't get jabbed and is partly implicit in 30 000 lives being lost each year on average by not doing your part in saving any life possible.If this was through lack of knowledge you know now, so given you think people not taking the jab now despite the death rate being very small due to those at risk people being jabbed is on the level of Aktion T4 you'll presumably get the flu jab to do your part in saving those 30k? If not then you're not being very logical.
Edited by NRS on Thursday 10th June 00:14
unident said:
gizlaroc said:
There have been six deaths in the USA of under 19s from Covid vaccines.
They have been 320 deaths of under 19s in the USA 'with' Covid, no from, but with Covid.
There have been 32 deaths of under 19s in the UK 'with' Covid, however, we do know that all 32 of those kids were going to die anyway.
In the USA they had vaccinated 540k under 19s by the time the 6 had died, with over 40m children in the USA that means, if the death rate stays the same, there will be 480 deaths over the first round of vaccines.
Now, if the USA is like the UK and all 320 of those kids were already terminally ill, then why are we risking 480 children's lives to get them jabbed?
Anyone who thinks that risk is worth it, is either stupid, selfish or both.
Where are you getting these numbers from? You need to be able to back them up. I googled “U.K. Covid deaths children” amd couldn’t find much info, but admittedly didn’t look too hard either. It came up,with thisThey have been 320 deaths of under 19s in the USA 'with' Covid, no from, but with Covid.
There have been 32 deaths of under 19s in the UK 'with' Covid, however, we do know that all 32 of those kids were going to die anyway.
In the USA they had vaccinated 540k under 19s by the time the 6 had died, with over 40m children in the USA that means, if the death rate stays the same, there will be 480 deaths over the first round of vaccines.
Now, if the USA is like the UK and all 320 of those kids were already terminally ill, then why are we risking 480 children's lives to get them jabbed?
Anyone who thinks that risk is worth it, is either stupid, selfish or both.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-ne...
That says 34 deaths 6 no underlying conditions. Unless you’re saying that “ they’ll die anyway”means we all die eventually then it does seem to have claimed a small number of otherwise healthy children.
Can you run your stats again using those numbers, as I got confused over which number was from which country.
Overall, NHS, observationally, bobs & ducks around 2)3rds of totals, but I doubt too many children die in care homes or at home,
NRS said:
And an additional point - your comment about if we view it as an acceptable risk that some older people will die due to covid infections from unjabbed people (less than 25% now) jab being compared to Aktion T4... Well, if for example you've not been taking flu jabs every winter through your life you've been doing exactly that same Aktion T4 - you've been a selfish bd who didn't get jabbed and is partly implicit in 30 000 lives being lost each year on average by not doing your part in saving any life possible.
If this was through lack of knowledge you know now, so given you think people not taking the jab now despite the death rate being very small due to those at risk people being jabbed is on the level of Aktion T4 you'll presumably get the flu jab to do your part in saving those 30k? If not then you're not being very logical.
I must have missed the current and annual flu pandemics. d who didn't get jabbed and is partly implicit in 30 000 lives being lost each year on average by not doing your part in saving any life possible.If this was through lack of knowledge you know now, so given you think people not taking the jab now despite the death rate being very small due to those at risk people being jabbed is on the level of Aktion T4 you'll presumably get the flu jab to do your part in saving those 30k? If not then you're not being very logical.
Edited by NRS on Thursday 10th June 00:14
NRS said:
I have to say Unident from all your ridiculing of the anti-vaxxers (some of who deserve to be mocked) you are very unscientific with your arguments.
1) We need to save lives and avoid mutations by jabbing as many as possible including the kids. Given it's a worldwide virus you'd likely save more lives and help reduce mutations by giving the vaccines to other places who need them more, as they have far less of the major risk groups jabbed.
2) This whole "it's not a test and proven" - it is a test or it would have received full approval. You talk about the issues with long covid, for which we have limited data in how serious it is, but write off the long term possible impacts of vaccines and compare it to vaccines with hundreds of years of data, as if there is nothing inbetween.
3) Partly related, we thought AZ was ok, but experts have stopped it due to the risks we have seen over time. These aren't fruitcakes, but the specialists who are experts on this stuff. I was pissed off they removed AZ here in Norway, but after approximately half a year after role out the data clearly convinces medical experts to say it's too much risk for young people. It took 6 months to see that for something that is a short term impact, so there's no chance we have data for long term ones. Which can be less than waiting for 200 years,
4) Writing off any comments about the companies making big profits as nutters - it might be, but there is a clear benefit for the companies to sell as many vaccines as possible. That's not debatable really. It's a bit like saying oil companies provide energy to people and save lives by creating power for homes, materials to build shelters etc in developing countries, and so given the benefits there is no risk they're in it for making money and might do harmful things as a result. You can do good and bad things at the same time, as well as doing good things to make a ton of cash.
You seem to stick people into extremes and not read what they say - the current scientific data so far seems to indicate the risk of covid AND vaccines is very low for children. Given that, then for a number of people it makes more scientific sense to jab the far greater at risk people elsewhere in the world. Since the same number of people will be jabbed it has a similar impact of reducing the chance of mutations. It also gives more time to get the longer term data of vaccines before giving it to those who have the longest to live and are normally most protected. Or am I also a frothing anti-vaxxer too?
So much irony about me being unscientific. 1) We need to save lives and avoid mutations by jabbing as many as possible including the kids. Given it's a worldwide virus you'd likely save more lives and help reduce mutations by giving the vaccines to other places who need them more, as they have far less of the major risk groups jabbed.
2) This whole "it's not a test and proven" - it is a test or it would have received full approval. You talk about the issues with long covid, for which we have limited data in how serious it is, but write off the long term possible impacts of vaccines and compare it to vaccines with hundreds of years of data, as if there is nothing inbetween.
3) Partly related, we thought AZ was ok, but experts have stopped it due to the risks we have seen over time. These aren't fruitcakes, but the specialists who are experts on this stuff. I was pissed off they removed AZ here in Norway, but after approximately half a year after role out the data clearly convinces medical experts to say it's too much risk for young people. It took 6 months to see that for something that is a short term impact, so there's no chance we have data for long term ones. Which can be less than waiting for 200 years,
4) Writing off any comments about the companies making big profits as nutters - it might be, but there is a clear benefit for the companies to sell as many vaccines as possible. That's not debatable really. It's a bit like saying oil companies provide energy to people and save lives by creating power for homes, materials to build shelters etc in developing countries, and so given the benefits there is no risk they're in it for making money and might do harmful things as a result. You can do good and bad things at the same time, as well as doing good things to make a ton of cash.
You seem to stick people into extremes and not read what they say - the current scientific data so far seems to indicate the risk of covid AND vaccines is very low for children. Given that, then for a number of people it makes more scientific sense to jab the far greater at risk people elsewhere in the world. Since the same number of people will be jabbed it has a similar impact of reducing the chance of mutations. It also gives more time to get the longer term data of vaccines before giving it to those who have the longest to live and are normally most protected. Or am I also a frothing anti-vaxxer too?
Edited by NRS on Wednesday 9th June 23:57
gizlaroc said:
Here you go Unident, before you go sticking that experimental gene therapy into you, and remember there is no going back, I would have a watch of this, well worth an hour of your time...
https://youtu.be/U1pEtrEr2_s
The man who invented the mRNA gene therapy and his thoughts on where we are at with it and whether we should be using it on a global scale or on kids.
Watch that and tell me what you think?
I’ll give it a miss thanks. I’m sore I can find something useful to do with 90minites of my life than listen to something that’s clearly more conspiracy nonsense. https://youtu.be/U1pEtrEr2_s
The man who invented the mRNA gene therapy and his thoughts on where we are at with it and whether we should be using it on a global scale or on kids.
Watch that and tell me what you think?
unident said:
So much irony about me being unscientific.
To be fair to unident the 77th Brigade looks for other qualities in their recruiting. https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divi...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff