Covid vaccinations for children

What's Hot
189101214

Comments

  • FastEddieFastEddie Frets: 325
    edited October 12
    Going back to the OP.
    I think mandatory vaccinations are wrong in this case. Are there any other vaccines you MUST take? Please correct me.
    The only time I've been forced to have a vaccine is as a soldier going into certain parts of the world. 

    Project Veritas in the USA has uncovered a raft of corruption around this. Big pharma knows that natural immunity is so much better. It also strengthens the population's immunity. Sweden had the lightest touch when this first broke and they are performing incredibly well now.

    New Zealand and Australia will suffer hugely as their populations have almost no natural immunity and must rely on vaccines.

    Leave the children alone and allow their own natural immunity to develop.

    I find this all incredibly disturbing and can feel a slow creep of control getting stronger. 
    If I had talent, I'd be talented.
    Persistent and inconsistent guitar player.
    A lefty, hence a fog of permanent frustration

    Not enough guitars, pedals, and cricket bats.
    USA Deluxe Strat - Martyn Booth Special - Electromatic
    FX Plex - Cornell Romany
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • thebreezethebreeze Frets: 2032
    FastEddie said:
    Going back to the OP.
    I think mandatory vaccinations are wrong in this case. Are there any other vaccines you MUST take? Please correct me.
    The only time I've been forced to have a vaccine is as a soldier going into certain parts of the world. 

    Project Veritas in the USA has uncovered a raft of corruption around this. Big pharma knows that natural immunity is so much better. It also strengthens the population's immunity. Sweden had the lightest touch when this first broke and they are performing incredibly well now.

    New Zealand and Australia will suffer hugely as their populations have almost no natural immunity and must rely on vaccines.

    Leave the children alone and allow their own natural immunity to develop.

    I find this all incredibly disturbing and can feel a slow creep of control getting stronger. 
    Spot on.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • thebreezethebreeze Frets: 2032
    edited October 12
    My daughter (14) has just been off school for 10 days with it, two day of symptoms (taste/smell)  neither of us at home caught it, Me and Mrs B are both double vaxxed and young Master Burgo who is 16 and unvaccinated didn't get it either.

    She tested positive with 2 lateral flow tests on the Sunday, then from tues-friday continually tested negative with lateral flow and then 2 inconclusive PCR tests and then a positive PCR, all the while lateral flow came back negative. WTF?
    These tests do seem to be rather inaccurate and fallible at the best of times.  Makes me wonder about the number of cases that get reported all the time and how strategy has been based on these test results all the time.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • ColsCols Frets: 4017
    FastEddie said:
    Going back to the OP.
    I think mandatory vaccinations are wrong in this case. Are there any other vaccines you MUST take? Please correct me.
    The only time I've been forced to have a vaccine is as a soldier going into certain parts of the world. 

    I think you’ve misunderstood.  COVID vaccines for children are not compulsory in the UK, nor are they for adults.  In fact, no vaccination is currently compulsory in the UK, although they are highly recommended for certain diseases.

    In the United States, by way of contrast, all fifty states require immunisations for children in order to attend public school.  Many states grant exemptions for people who have religious objections to immunisations, and some states allow  parents to cite personal, conscientious, philosophical, or other objections.  

    The question the OP was posing is whether the risk to child physical health posed by COVID - low compared to older age groups - justifies a child vaccination programme.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • thebreezethebreeze Frets: 2032
    Cols said:
    FastEddie said:
    Going back to the OP.
    I think mandatory vaccinations are wrong in this case. Are there any other vaccines you MUST take? Please correct me.
    The only time I've been forced to have a vaccine is as a soldier going into certain parts of the world. 

    I think you’ve misunderstood.  COVID vaccines for children are not compulsory in the UK, nor are they for adults.  In fact, no vaccination is currently compulsory in the UK, although they are highly recommended for certain diseases.

    In the United States, by way of contrast, all fifty states require immunisations for children in order to attend public school.  Many states grant exemptions for people who have religious objections to immunisations, and some states allow  parents to cite personal, conscientious, philosophical, or other objections.  

    The question the OP was posing is whether the risk to child physical health posed by COVID - low compared to older age groups - justifies a child vaccination programme.
    That's true, but it begins to feel mandatory when you've got ministers pitting 12 year olds against their parents by recommending they invoke the Gillick principle, you have vaccines moving into the school/educational space rather being administered in a clinical setting or even a neutral space, the prospect or reality of passports making a child's (and adult's) options ever diminished and the government, their advisers and the media putting the fear of god into them at any given opportunity when this virus has never been an issue for the young and healthy.  I think FastEddie is referencing this by saying "the slow creep of control is getting stronger".
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5247
    They also feel mandatory when Javid and Zahawi are threatening children that they’ll lose access to in person education unless they’re jabbed. 
    I’m sure @Cols will say this is all reasonable and fair, but I find it sinister.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 8reaction image Wisdom
  • Bungle1Bungle1 Frets: 91


    So what exactly is their agenda as you see it? 
    I believe that the 'agenda' is to get everyone onto vaccine passports which then require regular mRNA 'top ups' in order to maintain validity. There is a huge amount of money to be made from doing this.

    I will gladly be wrong on that, you can LOL my posts until the end of time and I will wear a dunce's tin foil hat in public - I will be happy to be proven wrong. This winter will tell. 
    I agree with you. I see the UK government also cancelled their arrangements with the vaccine manufacturer Valneva a few weeks ago. I feel like this is relevant to your point here.

    The Valneva vaccine candidate contains whole inactive sars-cov2 virus so is likely to create a far more robust level of immunity than the gen1 vaccines and are unlikely to require regular boosters as your body acquires immunity based on 'seeing' the whole virus, not just the spike. Valneva claims that variants shouldn't be as much of an issue based on this approach as your body recognises the virus on a more holistic basis.

    In addition to those benefits, it is based on pre-existing vaccine tech, unlike the gen1 vaccines. As a result, it would appeal more to those who have been hesitant up to now including parents making decisions for their kids and the deal was for it to be produced in the UK so a great PR / jobs win too. IMO it would be a slam dunk to add this to the UK toolkit and would probably get us closer to 100% coverage from where we are currently than any other action. So why don't the UK executive want it anymore? Why would they invest money in coercive tactics like passports, with no evidence of efficacy, and behavioural science 'nudges' instead of something like this which is an open goal IMO?

    Unfortunately I think the answer is that their intended and publicly declared goals are not the same. Having robust and future-proof 'one and done' immunity (same applies to not recognising natural immunity) isn't exactly desirable if you want to bring in passports, which will work on the basis of scaring people into boosting periodically in order to maintain their access to society (already seeing this happen in Israel and Lithuania etc). Like you I hope I'm wrong.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • ColsCols Frets: 4017
    Bungle1 said:

    I see the UK government also cancelled their arrangements with the vaccine manufacturer Valneva a few weeks ago. I feel like this is relevant to your point here. 

    The Valneva vaccine candidate contains whole inactive sars-cov2 virus so is likely to create a far more robust level of immunity than the gen1 vaccines and are unlikely to require regular boosters as your body acquires immunity based on 'seeing' the whole virus, not just the spike. Valneva claims that variants shouldn't be as much of an issue based on this approach as your body recognises the virus on a more holistic basis.

    In addition to those benefits, it is based on pre-existing vaccine tech, unlike the gen1 vaccines. As a result, it would appeal more to those who have been hesitant up to now.
    That’s not correct.

    Compared to other vectors, vaccines utilising whole inactivated virus are inefficient and not very effective.  The chemical treatment which inactivates the virus also makes it much less recognisable to the immune system.  This means you have to use a high dose to get a reasonable immune response, increasing the amount of vaccine you need to manufacture.  Additionally, the immune response is quite narrow.

    The only advantage a whole inactivated virus vaccine has over the other vectors is, as you’ve noted, psychological; those people who are generally happy to be vaccinated but mistrustful of modern biotechnology might feel reassured.   

    In the case of the Valneva vaccine, the contract was cancelled when it became clear that it was unlikely to gain regulatory approval from the MHRA, who assess the safety and efficacy of of medicines.  There’s no point giving someone a vaccine which is unsafe or ineffective just because they feel more comfortable about it being “traditional”.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • peanutspeanuts Frets: 112
    chris78 said:
    .. but I find it sinister.
    You're very far from alone
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 8109
    Cols said:
    Bungle1 said:

    I see the UK government also cancelled their arrangements with the vaccine manufacturer Valneva a few weeks ago. I feel like this is relevant to your point here. 

    The Valneva vaccine candidate contains whole inactive sars-cov2 virus so is likely to create a far more robust level of immunity than the gen1 vaccines and are unlikely to require regular boosters as your body acquires immunity based on 'seeing' the whole virus, not just the spike. Valneva claims that variants shouldn't be as much of an issue based on this approach as your body recognises the virus on a more holistic basis.

    In addition to those benefits, it is based on pre-existing vaccine tech, unlike the gen1 vaccines. As a result, it would appeal more to those who have been hesitant up to now.
    That’s not correct.

    Compared to other vectors, vaccines utilising whole inactivated virus are inefficient and not very effective.  The chemical treatment which inactivates the virus also makes it much less recognisable to the immune system.  This means you have to use a high dose to get a reasonable immune response, increasing the amount of vaccine you need to manufacture.  Additionally, the immune response is quite narrow.

    The only advantage a whole inactivated virus vaccine has over the other vectors is, as you’ve noted, psychological; those people who are generally happy to be vaccinated but mistrustful of modern biotechnology might feel reassured.   

    In the case of the Valneva vaccine, the contract was cancelled when it became clear that it was unlikely to gain regulatory approval from the MHRA, who assess the safety and efficacy of of medicines.  There’s no point giving someone a vaccine which is unsafe or ineffective just because they feel more comfortable about it being “traditional”.

    This article seems to disagree with your assessment of the situation:


    The Guardian is not known to be a source of antivax idiocy.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • peanutspeanuts Frets: 112
    edited October 18
    peanuts said:
    peanuts said:


    Given the fucking mess that was the winter 2020-21 in terms of government policy, it's actually quite refreshing to have the notion of a plan B. 

    The Coronavirus Act runs until the end of March 2022. You know the result of the last vote and how the government turned. Now I would agree with the notion that they backtracked rather than risking losing a vote. So the plan B approach would have to be added into the Coronavirus Act via the statutory instrument route. 

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/

    An attempt to tack this on via SI into the CA would cause the CRG to tell BJ to FO PDQ. With the current unrest within the party about a Conservative PM increasing taxes and stuffing on legislation they disapprove of, there would be some decided showdowns going on within Parliament and I dare say there would be enough people interested in possibly shoving the PM down a touch. The recent conference was not the Boris show at all. He is not a leader who is protected from harm nor defended by many in his party.  

    Now you talk of 'the agenda'. If the agenda from government was to get everyone vaccinated, then they'd simply have shunted this stuff onto the CA and be damned with the naysayers who might vote against. They didn't. A greater vaccination programme means more expenditure, something government doesn't want to do. 

    So what exactly is their agenda as you see it? 
    "agenda" is reference to Pfizer . .

    . . but I admire your continuing faith in parliamentary democracy as it stands today in UK . . sort of . . at least it's quite remarkably impressive . . I think 
     . . however this sort of thing : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/15/prime-minister-invites-worlds-top-business-leaders-downing-street/  ,  https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-johnson-invites-bill-gates-jpmorgans-dimon-others-dinner-the-telegraph-2021-10-15/  tends to cast above in a very different light 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • steven70steven70 Frets: 954
    edited October 18
    peanuts said:
    peanuts said:
    peanuts said:


    Given the fucking mess that was the winter 2020-21 in terms of government policy, it's actually quite refreshing to have the notion of a plan B. 

    The Coronavirus Act runs until the end of March 2022. You know the result of the last vote and how the government turned. Now I would agree with the notion that they backtracked rather than risking losing a vote. So the plan B approach would have to be added into the Coronavirus Act via the statutory instrument route. 

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/

    An attempt to tack this on via SI into the CA would cause the CRG to tell BJ to FO PDQ. With the current unrest within the party about a Conservative PM increasing taxes and stuffing on legislation they disapprove of, there would be some decided showdowns going on within Parliament and I dare say there would be enough people interested in possibly shoving the PM down a touch. The recent conference was not the Boris show at all. He is not a leader who is protected from harm nor defended by many in his party.  

    Now you talk of 'the agenda'. If the agenda from government was to get everyone vaccinated, then they'd simply have shunted this stuff onto the CA and be damned with the naysayers who might vote against. They didn't. A greater vaccination programme means more expenditure, something government doesn't want to do. 

    So what exactly is their agenda as you see it? 
    "agenda" is reference to Pfizer . .

    . . but I admire your continuing faith in parliamentary democracy as it stands today in UK . . sort of . . at least it's quite remarkably impressive . . I think 
     . . however this sort of thing : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/15/prime-minister-invites-worlds-top-business-leaders-downing-street/  ,  https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-johnson-invites-bill-gates-jpmorgans-dimon-others-dinner-the-telegraph-2021-10-15/  tends to cast above in a very different light 
    Just because some of the wealthiest people on the planet (who happen to be major stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry) are having dinner with the PM, it doesn't mean that they will be influencing government policy in any way.

     They're probably just hanging out - imagine they'll mostly be talking about football (soccer to the US contingent) and other stuff.

    And even if they were, we voted for these guys, right? So I don't see the issue.
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • BellycasterBellycaster Frets: 4985
    steven70 said:
    peanuts said:
    peanuts said:
    peanuts said:


    Given the fucking mess that was the winter 2020-21 in terms of government policy, it's actually quite refreshing to have the notion of a plan B. 

    The Coronavirus Act runs until the end of March 2022. You know the result of the last vote and how the government turned. Now I would agree with the notion that they backtracked rather than risking losing a vote. So the plan B approach would have to be added into the Coronavirus Act via the statutory instrument route. 

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/

    An attempt to tack this on via SI into the CA would cause the CRG to tell BJ to FO PDQ. With the current unrest within the party about a Conservative PM increasing taxes and stuffing on legislation they disapprove of, there would be some decided showdowns going on within Parliament and I dare say there would be enough people interested in possibly shoving the PM down a touch. The recent conference was not the Boris show at all. He is not a leader who is protected from harm nor defended by many in his party.  

    Now you talk of 'the agenda'. If the agenda from government was to get everyone vaccinated, then they'd simply have shunted this stuff onto the CA and be damned with the naysayers who might vote against. They didn't. A greater vaccination programme means more expenditure, something government doesn't want to do. 

    So what exactly is their agenda as you see it? 
    "agenda" is reference to Pfizer . .

    . . but I admire your continuing faith in parliamentary democracy as it stands today in UK . . sort of . . at least it's quite remarkably impressive . . I think 
     . . however this sort of thing : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/15/prime-minister-invites-worlds-top-business-leaders-downing-street/  ,  https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-johnson-invites-bill-gates-jpmorgans-dimon-others-dinner-the-telegraph-2021-10-15/  tends to cast above in a very different light 
    Just because some of the wealthiest people on the planet (who happen to be major stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry) are having dinner with the PM, it doesn't mean that they will be influencing government policy in any way.

     They're probably just hanging out - imagine they'll mostly be talking about football (soccer to the US contingent) and other stuff.
    I'm well clued up on this shit now. You know those online 30 min training courses you have to do at work? Well, this week we had to do the "What Consitutes Bribery" Course.

    The rules are more Stringent when it comes to Bribing a Foreign Official. I wholeheartedly trust our P.M to be fully aware of this, no way would he risk being sent to bed by Carrie without his Milky Tea and Biscuits. No Sireeeee, No Sir.

     =) 
    Is this a vision of normality I see before my eyes?
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ColsCols Frets: 4017
    crunchman said:
    Cols said:
    Bungle1 said:

    I see the UK government also cancelled their arrangements with the vaccine manufacturer Valneva a few weeks ago. I feel like this is relevant to your point here. 

    The Valneva vaccine candidate contains whole inactive sars-cov2 virus so is likely to create a far more robust level of immunity than the gen1 vaccines and are unlikely to require regular boosters as your body acquires immunity based on 'seeing' the whole virus, not just the spike. Valneva claims that variants shouldn't be as much of an issue based on this approach as your body recognises the virus on a more holistic basis.

    In addition to those benefits, it is based on pre-existing vaccine tech, unlike the gen1 vaccines. As a result, it would appeal more to those who have been hesitant up to now.
    That’s not correct.

    Compared to other vectors, vaccines utilising whole inactivated virus are inefficient and not very effective.  The chemical treatment which inactivates the virus also makes it much less recognisable to the immune system.  This means you have to use a high dose to get a reasonable immune response, increasing the amount of vaccine you need to manufacture.  Additionally, the immune response is quite narrow.

    The only advantage a whole inactivated virus vaccine has over the other vectors is, as you’ve noted, psychological; those people who are generally happy to be vaccinated but mistrustful of modern biotechnology might feel reassured.   

    In the case of the Valneva vaccine, the contract was cancelled when it became clear that it was unlikely to gain regulatory approval from the MHRA, who assess the safety and efficacy of of medicines.  There’s no point giving someone a vaccine which is unsafe or ineffective just because they feel more comfortable about it being “traditional”.

    This article seems to disagree with your assessment of the situation:


    The Guardian is not known to be a source of antivax idiocy.

    Not my assessment.  That would be the the Right Honourable Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

     ..what I can tell her is that it was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK," Javid said in response to a question from a Scottish lawmaker.”

    Evidently Valneva’s press release shows a different story.  Now, they can hardly be regarded as an impartial observer in all of this; it’s very much in their interests to paint a rosy and reassuring picture for investors, particularly as their share prices have plummeted lately.

    On the other hand, Javid’s a politician - and a Tory one at that.  Lying through this teeth is as natural to him as breathing.  So who to believe?

    What’s not clear (at least not without ensuring my tinfoil hat is snugly in place) is what Javid might have to gain by pulling the rug from under Valneva, particularly if he could be easily disproven.  So without an obvious motive, the likelihood is that the MHRA have seen something troubling in the preliminary data and flagged it, and Javid’s responded by limiting the government’s exposure.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • peanutspeanuts Frets: 112
    edited October 19
    steven70 said:
    peanuts said:
    peanuts said:
    peanuts said:


    Given the fucking mess that was the winter 2020-21 in terms of government policy, it's actually quite refreshing to have the notion of a plan B. 

    The Coronavirus Act runs until the end of March 2022. You know the result of the last vote and how the government turned. Now I would agree with the notion that they backtracked rather than risking losing a vote. So the plan B approach would have to be added into the Coronavirus Act via the statutory instrument route. 

    https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/

    An attempt to tack this on via SI into the CA would cause the CRG to tell BJ to FO PDQ. With the current unrest within the party about a Conservative PM increasing taxes and stuffing on legislation they disapprove of, there would be some decided showdowns going on within Parliament and I dare say there would be enough people interested in possibly shoving the PM down a touch. The recent conference was not the Boris show at all. He is not a leader who is protected from harm nor defended by many in his party.  

    Now you talk of 'the agenda'. If the agenda from government was to get everyone vaccinated, then they'd simply have shunted this stuff onto the CA and be damned with the naysayers who might vote against. They didn't. A greater vaccination programme means more expenditure, something government doesn't want to do. 

    So what exactly is their agenda as you see it? 
    "agenda" is reference to Pfizer . .

    . . but I admire your continuing faith in parliamentary democracy as it stands today in UK . . sort of . . at least it's quite remarkably impressive . . I think 
     . . however this sort of thing : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/15/prime-minister-invites-worlds-top-business-leaders-downing-street/  ,  https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-johnson-invites-bill-gates-jpmorgans-dimon-others-dinner-the-telegraph-2021-10-15/  tends to cast above in a very different light 
    Just because some of the wealthiest people on the planet (who happen to be major stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry) are having dinner with the PM, it doesn't mean that they will be influencing government policy in any way.

     They're probably just hanging out - imagine they'll mostly be talking about football (soccer to the US contingent) and other stuff.

    And even if they were, we voted for these guys, right? So I don't see the issue.
    stole the words right out . . nothing to see here, and absolutely nothing to do with this : https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9342/    whatsoever . . 'correlation does not imply causation' . . ever . . move along, move along, get off the streets . . Run 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • menamestommenamestom Frets: 3704

    Apparently the take up rate in a school my missus went in today was 20%.  Hardly worth bothering.
    There was a guy riding round on bike outside shouting at kids coming into school and abusing the NHS staff, that didn’t help.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ColsCols Frets: 4017
    The rollout in schools has been slow; they had planned to do our school before half term, but it’s now pushed back to mid-November.  My 15 year old instead went off to the nearest vaccination centre today to get his first shot.
    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GreatapeGreatape Frets: 1026
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TheBigDipperTheBigDipper Frets: 2760
    thebreeze said:
    Cols said:
    The party line seems to be that it’s in order to prevent the educational disruption which would be caused by widespread transmission in schools.  


    This is just bollocks though.  Kids get over it within a few days if they do happen to catch it, it’s no different, probably less impactful, than flu but there’s no shutting of schools for that.  It can’t be to protect the teachers (or anyone else) as they’re all double vaccinated.  Unless the vaccinations are completely useless but then that would be another good reason for not vaccinating all children with vaccinations which are completely useless - let alone not properly tested.
    Let me help. 

    The vaccines are not useless. Teachers who are 2xVaxed can and do get sick from Covid - the vaccine hopefully reduces its impact on their health, but they're ill and off work - either to isolate or to isolate and recover. People with Covid are infectious for much longer than flu before symptoms start to be felt. So kids with Covid will be infecting others for longer and have a greater impact than flu. 

    Should we vax kids? I don't know. I'm not a doctor. 

    You're welcome. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • MajorscaleMajorscale Frets: 1219
    First time for me in this section of the forum. I am double jabbed and definitely not an anti-vaxxer, however I'm really struggling to find a good reason why I should vaccinate my 12 year old son. If anyone has some stats or research results they can point me to  so that I can make a more informed decision then please do!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.