"The MHRA and JCVI do have access to data, and they have determined age groups where the benefits of vaccination outweigh risks."
Note that this is true (thobut for under 16s) these two bodies fulfill different functions. JCVI said the benefits of vaccination did not outweigh the risks. Their current statement is
here. Back in the autumn they recognised there were other benefits which might tip the balance against the (minimal) medical risks and it was passed to the 4 home nations CMOs to decide. Continuity of already adversely affected education was one key benefit, and the decision was taken to extend vaccination to that cohort. I guess the same argument can be mobilised for the under 12s.
"My work friend can’t breathe because the 3 jabs haven’t worked. Next you’ll tell me if it wasn’t for the 3 jabs he’d be dead now."
Your QC work friend is unhappily suffering because they caught COVID-19; not "because the 3 jabs haven't worked".
Noone is saying "he'd be dead now if it wasn't for the 3 jabs." This is your strawman, well stuffed.
Vaccination in its various make, dose number, combination and variant encountered offers protection against infection to a percentage: say 70% (with a CI of +- 10%). It has protected twice as many as it has not. The Omicron variant is able to infect a higher percentage of vaccinated/boosted than Delta could
ceteris paribus. Against serious illness the protection offered by 3 jabs is way higher (say 90+%). How about these for some simple real world figures:
Case peaked at 192k per day. From ONS data the number of infections is reasonably estimated at twice the cases reported - so say 400k (keeping figures simple). 80% are at least doubly vaccinated.
Admissions peaked at 2277 per day on 1 Jan. I'd use that as a proxy for serious illness (and ignore the with/for argument).
[All figures from
Coronavirus.data.gov.uk and 7 day averages, case by specimen date.]
You do the maths.
Hope your co-worker makes it through.