UK approves Pfizer jab for use in 12-15-year-olds

[sutoka]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57358446

Why anyone would want a child who has zero percent chance of dying or even getting seriously ill from Covid to be vaccinated. Personally I've chosen not to take a vaccine but that's my choice. This I believe this has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with the pharmaceutical companies wanting everyone to be vaccinated regardless of risk to maximise profit.

[Gweeds]

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?

[Mafffew]

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?

Sounds sensible. Are you sure you're on the right website?

[pavarotti1980]

sutoka said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57358446

Why anyone would want a child who has zero percent chance of dying or even getting seriously ill from Covid to be vaccinated. Personally I've chosen not to take a vaccine but that's my choice. This I believe this has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with the pharmaceutical companies wanting everyone to be vaccinated regardless of risk to maximise profit.

Do you think its right for children to have other vaccines for diseases they are unlikely to die from? MMR, Polio, Influenza to name a few......
At the end of the day the pharmaceutical company is profiting from the immunisation schedule already in place in the UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immunisa...

[Brave Fart]

Well, I am as unsurprised as a very unsurprised thing. It's now over to the JCVI for a recommendation to government, so we'll see.
If the JCVI do recommend vaccinating the 12-18 age group, will it further hold up "Freedom Day"?
"Alas, my friends, we cannot resume normal life until all children aged 12+ are safe from this terrible virus".
And then it'll be 2-11 year olds, then babies, then family pets, then migratory birds.............

[sutoka]

pavarotti1980 said:

sutoka said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57358446

Why anyone would want a child who has zero percent chance of dying or even getting seriously ill from Covid to be vaccinated. Personally I've chosen not to take a vaccine but that's my choice. This I believe this has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with the pharmaceutical companies wanting everyone to be vaccinated regardless of risk to maximise profit.

Do you think its right for children to have other vaccines for diseases they are unlikely to die from? MMR, Polio, Influenza to name a few......
At the end of the day the pharmaceutical company is profiting from the immunisation schedule already in place in the UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immunisa...

MMR, Polio, Influenza vaccine developed over decades, Covid vaccines are still in the experimental stages until at least 2023, the people taking it are guinea pigs with no liability to the companies if someone dies as a result of the vaccine. Sky News quoting a serious health official saying ' benefits outweigh the risks", well try telling that to the hundreds of people who have died in the UK alone from blood clots and strokes for simply doing as the government advised and taking the vaccine.

MMR, Polio, Influenza are also seriously debilitating conditions which impact on children's lives. Unless someone can tell me otherwise but I'm aware of one death of Covid from someone under the age of 15, a 13 year old boy right at the start of the pandemic who it later turned out had a serious underlying condition.

Edited by sutoka on Friday 4th June 12:06

[Gweeds]

Mafffew said:

Sounds sensible. Are you sure you're on the right website?

Possibly not.

I'm not sure why some are still thinking that the vaccine is to protect only the person taking it.

Full disclosure - I'm 51, had COVID last year, a mild case that lasted 7 days or so at home, and I've had 2 AZ vaccines with no ill-effects beyond feeling a bit st after the first for about 15 hours. I'm a wedding photographer and if we do get back to bigger weddings being vaccinated puts me in a safer position.

[Brave Fart]

Gweeds said:

I'm not sure why some are still thinking that the vaccine is to protect only the person taking it.

Full disclosure - I'm 51, had COVID last year, a mild case that lasted 7 days or so at home, and I've had 2 AZ vaccines with no ill-effects beyond feeling a bit st after the first for about 15 hours. I'm a wedding photographer and if we do get back to bigger weddings being vaccinated puts me in a safer position.

Right, so I'm assuming you favour vaccinations (partly) because they reduce transmission? Two things, then:
1) what evidence is there regarding the reduction in covid transmission between schoolchildren following vaccination?
2) given that many parents - what proportion is unknown - will refuse to have their children vaccinated, is there really any point?

[pquinn]

I don't think approval was ever in doubt.

So the argument is that it's right to put children (I assume other people's children) at risk of vaccine side effects not to protect them from a disease that barely affects them (and which it supposedly doesn't stop them catching anyway) but to maybe protect adults from a theoretical risk.

So quantifiable risk to kids to stop theoretical risk to adults.

Sounds a bit selfish to me given the risk profile.

[Gweeds]

Brave Fart said:

Right, so I'm assuming you favour vaccinations (partly) because they reduce transmission? Two things, then:
1) what evidence is there regarding the reduction in covid transmission between schoolchildren following vaccination?
2) given that many parents - what proportion is unknown - will refuse to have their children vaccinated, is there really any point?

To answer 1 - how can we know that specifically? It hasn't yet happened. But we do know that transmission is reduced in older people, so it would seem to make sense. We also know that even 2 jabs doesn't give 100% protection, so again it seems sensible to me to not leave an entire cohort of society unprotected with the potential to them to transmit to those older and more at risk.

To answer 2 - we also know that 100% of the population doesn't need to be vaccinated. If we're aiming at risk mitigation here then surely something is better than nothing?

I'm not in favour of mandatory vaccinations, before anyone accuses me, but I don't buy that all this is to benefit Big Pharma. Speaking selfishly, my industry is in the toilet with another summer with the potential to be wiped out, so anything I can do to stop that happening I will.

[johnboy1975]

Gweeds said:

Mafffew said:

Sounds sensible. Are you sure you're on the right website?

Possibly not.

I'm not sure why some are still thinking that the vaccine is to protect only the person taking it.

Full disclosure - I'm 51, had COVID last year, a mild case that lasted 7 days or so at home, and I've had 2 AZ vaccines with no ill-effects beyond feeling a bit st after the first for about 15 hours. I'm a wedding photographer and if we do get back to bigger weddings being vaccinated puts me in a safer position.

Sad to say, your business will go down the tubes (*) whilst we refuse to open up whilst we jab the kids. Which takes us to September - and the start of respiratory virus season. (And the end of wedding season)

(*) well I hope not, but statistically some businesses will fold if restrictions aren't eased on the 21st

You've got far more to fear from this government than from covid IMO

Presumably you'd be happy to crack on now, and wouldn't refuse to take photos if there were a few kids running around at a shoot this summer? Or indeed if there were a few unvaxxed 18-30's. Or even a 41 year old who had weighed up the risks and the benefits and decided "not at the moment ".

The issue for me is we don't know the long term effects. Much like Pandemrix when it was rolled out for swine flu in 2009.

Gweeds said:

Speaking selfishly, my industry is in the toilet with another summer with the potential to be wiped out, so anything I can do to stop that happening I will.

Sign any petition going that you want 2019 normality now, or by June 21st at the very latest.

The original aim of the lockdown (LD3) was to get the 70+ and vunerable jabbed once. That shifted to the 50+. And then 2 doses. And then everyone bar the kids. And now they are coming for the kids.

Quite apart from the shifting goalposts and the law of ever diminishing returns (I think its 500k vaccinations of young people to save one life?), we've gone from being hopeful of some sort of opening in March, through to serious talk of not fully unlocking on June 21st. And another year wasted

Edited by johnboy1975 on Friday 4th June 12:30

[pavarotti1980]

sutoka said:

MMR, Polio, Influenza vaccine developed over decades, Covid vaccines are still in the experimental stages until at least 2023, the people taking it are guinea pigs with no liability to the companies if someone dies as a result of the vaccine. Sky News quoting a serious health official saying ' benefits outweigh the risks", well try telling that to the hundreds of people who have died in the UK alone from blood clots and strokes for simply doing as the government advised and taking the vaccine.

MMR, Polio, Influenza are also seriously debilitating conditions which impact on children's lives. Unless someone can tell me otherwise but I'm aware of one death of Covid from someone under the age of 15, a 13 year old boy right at the start of the pandemic who it later turned out had a serious underlying condition.

Edited by sutoka on Friday 4th June 12:06

You have fallen for the medicine by facebook hook, line and sinker. People die from blood clots and strokes of all ages anyway and as yet there is no defined link between the vaccine (AZ currently the main focus) and blood clots. Lots of potential links but so far nothing concrete. Given that the Pfizer vaccine is what you have posted about then your assertion of 100s dying from it are completely incorrect. All drugs have adverse events but a relative risk of death @ 1:600,000-1:1,000,000 is a lot smaller than people think.

I think I have posted about 20 times the reason why companies are not liable. Its legislation written in 2012 that they are not held responsible (and neither are the health professionals administering it) due to it being a product without a marketing authorisation which has been implemented due to a pathogen of serious concern (aka COVID).

Have a read of this and you may understand it a little bit more than some kind of conspiracy.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/regu...

[pquinn]

Gweeds said:

I don't buy that all this is to benefit Big Pharma.

I don't think anyone said it was.

But I do think we have a lot of people making decisions or producing opinions based on what they think is best for themselves and ignoring what that does to other people.

Say for example someone being happy about putting a group at risk of being maimed not to reduce that groups risk of illness, but because they're scared they themselves might be indirectly harmed by that group or just because they think it might help them get back to work.

[Gweeds]

johnboy1975 said:

Sad to say, your business will go down the tubes (*) whilst we refuse to open up whilst we jab the kids. Which takes us to September - and the start of respiratory virus season. (And the end of wedding season)

(*) well I hope not, but statistically some businesses will fold if restrictions aren't eased on the 21st

You've got far more to fear from this government than from covid IMO

Presumably you'd be happy to crack on now, and wouldn't refuse to take photos if there were a few kids running around at a shoot this summer? Or indeed if there were a few unvaxxed 18-30's. Or even a 41 year old who had weighed up the risks and the benefits and decided "not at the moment ".

The issue for me is we don't know the long term effects. Much like Pandemrix when it was rolled out for swine flu in 2009.

Luckily the season doesn't end in Sept any more. I shoot from Jan to Dec and I can survive another 2 years anyway. But many won't and venues could be hit. I'm already shooting again, but with the limits in place - 30 people, no evening stuff, masks etc.

My gut feeling is that we won't be shooting weddings as they used to be on 22nd June.

[Mafffew]

Gweeds said:

Mafffew said:

Sounds sensible. Are you sure you're on the right website?

Possibly not.

I'm not sure why some are still thinking that the vaccine is to protect only the person taking it.

Full disclosure - I'm 51, had COVID last year, a mild case that lasted 7 days or so at home, and I've had 2 AZ vaccines with no ill-effects beyond feeling a bit st after the first for about 15 hours. I'm a wedding photographer and if we do get back to bigger weddings being vaccinated puts me in a safer position.

Agreed.

Good luck to you, I imagine it has been a difficult year in your industry.

[Gweeds]

Mafffew said:

Agreed.

Good luck to you, I imagine it has been a difficult year in your industry.

Thank you - it's been 'interesting' for sure!

[TellYaWhatItIs]

pavarotti1980 said:

I think I have posted about 20 times the reason why companies are not liable. Its legislation written in 2012 that they are not held responsible (and neither are the health professionals administering it) due to it being a product without a marketing authorisation which has been implemented due to a pathogen of serious concern (aka COVID).

Do you think this was purely coincidental, accidental or unavoidable that that particular loophole was exploited?

It offers plausible deniability.

[ElectricSoup]

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.

[Brave Fart]

Gweeds said:

To answer 1 - how can we know that specifically? It hasn't yet happened. But we do know that transmission is reduced in older people, so it would seem to make sense. We also know that even 2 jabs doesn't give 100% protection, so again it seems sensible to me to not leave an entire cohort of society unprotected with the potential to them to transmit to those older and more at risk.

To answer 2 - we also know that 100% of the population doesn't need to be vaccinated. If we're aiming at risk mitigation here then surely something is better than nothing?

I'm not in favour of mandatory vaccinations, before anyone accuses me, but I don't buy that all this is to benefit Big Pharma. Speaking selfishly, my industry is in the toilet with another summer with the potential to be wiped out, so anything I can do to stop that happening I will.

Fair points, I think. But you're advocating injecting children with a vaccine from which they will derive no benefit, which won't offer full protection to the very small number of vulnerable adults in society anyway? The marginal benefit would seem to be really, really small.

Ditto with risk mitigation. The amount of benefit society might get from covid vaccines administered to children would seem to be tiny. Would we be better off sending the vaccines to other countries with fewer vaccinated adults?

[monkfish1]

ElectricSoup said:

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.

Says who? Not all the risks are known yet. Nor will be for some time. When enough data has been collected, it will get product approval. Which, lets be clear, it doesnt have.

Until then, your assertion is based on little other than belief.