Risk of not having vaccinations in children is way over shadowed by the risk of not having one. Do we really want to be in place that has children dying of preventable illness ?
Care to share an authoritative link? How much (least - most estimates of the odds ratio relationship) is that 'over shadowing?
There are risks associated with any and every medical intervention. If you think that the risks of covid vaccine are greater than the risks of covid...[then . . .]
The balance of benefit for younger otherwise healthy children is far less clear cut - and the
JCVI 'non-urgent offer' reflects this.
"Children aged 5 to 11 years who are not in a COVID-19 clinical risk group are at extremely low risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease.
"over 85% (estimate by end Jan 22) of all children aged 5 to 11 will have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (half to Omicron). Natural immunity arising from prior infection will contribute towards protection against future infection and severe disease.
"Vaccination of children aged 5 to 11 who are not in a clinical risk group is anticipated to prevent a small number of hospitalisations and intensive care admissions in this population and would provide short-term protection against non-severe infection (asymptomatic and symptomatic infection that does not require hospital-based care). The
extent of these impacts is highly uncertain. They are closely related to future levels of infection in the population . . .
"The potential benefits from vaccination of children aged 5 to 11 who are not in a clinical risk group will apply mainly to a future wave of infection; the more severe a future wave, the greater the likely benefits from vaccination. Conversely, the less severe a future wave, the smaller the likely benefits from vaccination."
Less severe future wave** | Number needed to vaccinate to prevent 1 hospitalisation due to acute COVID-19 | | 58,000 | |
The risks associated with the vaccine are present but minimal. The risks associated with NOT being vaccinated are orders of magnitude higher.
Absolutely, read across the population as a whole the odds ratio is convincing (we are immensely in debt to the scientists and pharmaceutical companies for discovering, testing and manufacturing at scale the vaccines ), but for young children (U12) not sure they are "an order of magnitude higher" - care to share a quantative authoritative link?
No matter how many boosters you may have if you’re vulnerable enough it will still be ultimately destructive. I just think young fit people have had 3 or 4 for nothing. Why are people allowed to believe in different gods but I can’t believe the vaccines didn’t perform as good as they told us.
No, if someone who is 'vulnerable enough' (your phrase) has their boosters, they are far less likely to suffer serious illness (than if they didn't get vaccinated/boosted). But the younger they are, there's an increasingly lower risk of serious illness in the first place.
Very few 'young people' (in UK) have had 4 doses: it's mainly available to over 50s: why? Because they are more likely to suffer serious illness if infected: boosters maintain that %age protection.
You are, of course, allowed to believe what you like about the benefits (or none) of vaccination, but sharing that belief especially in terms which seem at variance with available knowledge is bound to invite others to explain why your belief is ill-founded or confused.