Would you be happy for your children to receive covid-19 vaccine

c montgomery

Won't be vaccinating my young kids.

Time to take the UK approach and stop governing with fear.

mcmoustache

It will be very unfortunate if we find out that covid has long term implications for those who catch it.

17larsson

My kids aren't at risk of dieing from covid so they won't be getting the vaccine. It's as simple as that

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118208554#Comment_118208554

Why is there this persistent belief that once you hit 12 you are a different species?

Well the virus seems to think so. Well obviously it doesn't, but this virus is remarkably specific in the demographic it causes the most problems for and it isn't children, or even young adults. This has been one of the thank fcuk positives of this pox from the land of placcy tat. As for vaccines being safer in children; these vaccines are new, the majority of the current ones are based on an entirely new mRNA technology in human medicine and nobody can claim any longterm pros or cons for safety with data that is less than 18 months old. This goes double for kids. If you're over 50, or are already health compromised the risk/return calculation is pretty clear. The vaccine is the much better bet than catching the pox itself. With kids whose risk is beyond miniscule and the vaccines are leaky and lower transmission, that risk/return equation is quite different.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118223261#Comment_118223261

That's an emotional response. 100% understandable and bloody tragic for those kids and their families, but we cannot work the problem of the bigger picture by looking at outliers and running off emotionals on the back of them. You note 700 children who've died in the US from this bastard pox. Again bloody awful, but the population of the US that's under 18 numbers 73 million. Going by those figures the risk to American kids under 18 of dying from Covid 19 is 0.0008% That's an absolutely tiny number as far as risk goes and we have to operate by those risk factors.

copeyhagen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118223251#Comment_118223251

you're doing the same, 1% off the population has died..including pre vaccines, and youre still calling it deadly... lol

namloc1980

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224092#Comment_118224092

1% of the population died of Covid??

funkyzeit100

I'd be delighted, being honest.

Truth be told, I've been nipping up and down to the testing center to get that zing of fresh cotton bud being scraped against the brain, nothing like it.

And when I'm feeling truly frisky I'll get another vaccine jab too, that cool prick sensation as you flex your shoulder right in the nurses face. Oh, and then the wait, the anticipation of whether you're going to be sick for days or fine, the roulette wheel of prescribed health.

I've found the best buzz is a combination of a Pfizer, followed up same day with a moderna, then a naughty little sinovac on the sly. Good heavens.

Who in their right mind would want children missing out on this action?

Still Clueless

The young fella had Covid 19 already, so I'm hoping he's had a kick start to his immunity against it.

I want to do the best thing for him, but I'm not convinced about the vaccine for kids due to the unknown side affects in the long term. I was delighted to get mine but I don't feel the same level of surety for him.

Happy enough for him to wear a mask as he's been wearing one anyway.

mcmoustache

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224162#Comment_118224162

It's a good thing that the 10-year studies on the long term effects of covid have shown that it's completely harmless. Otherwise, I'd be wondering why people choose the disease over the vaccine for their kids.

funkyzeit100

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224211#Comment_118224211

Sure the 20 year ones are even better.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224211#Comment_118224211

I believe the disease is still in phase 3 trials thus isn't allowed to replicate yet.

ProfessorPlum

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224211#Comment_118224211

Don't be an asshole - they didn't say they 'chose COVID' over a vaccine - just that their kid had it already, so it's a very reasonable stance to take. The child already very likely has substantial protection, and given the risks of myocarditis/ pericarditis from vaccine, and also the relative short term protection due waning, it's a completely understandable choice.

Still Clueless

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224211#Comment_118224211

Yeah because I chose to let my kid get covid by letting him go to a 21st century version of a pox party?

The choice I had was to home school or let him go to school with his friends. No choice there because I can't work and home school. Had I known there was an outbreak in his classroom I would have chosen to take him out of school, but I didn't have that choice because contact tracing in an educational setting was discontinued. Principals were not allowed to share this crucial information.

Given your logic should I sue the government in 10 years time when the studies show the long term effects and they have needlessly subjected my child and thousands of others to these effects by denying us basic information?

And the same government that has denied this information, is the people I am to trust when they say it's a safe vaccine for kids?

I will wait on the data on that to come in and hope he has some natural immunity in the meantime.

hometruths

All good and well folks on here discussing pros and cons etc, but has anyone seen heard any of the official/expert advice on why it’s a good idea to vaccinate kids?

Ive haven’t seen or heard anything other than that they intend to start in the new year.

As a parent of a five year old I’d expect a whole lot of information on why the government think it’s a good idea, hopefully it will be forthcoming.

Hego Damask

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224092#Comment_118224092

0.1% ...

It's all about trust really isn't it?

People throw up charts and graphs and studies and articles but no matter how long you parse and peruse and analyse them at the end of the day even the most concentrated scholar has to trust that the data is accurate and the studies are published without any bias or spin or vested interest involved.

Your child trusts you implicitly and without question.

So, when it comes to injecting your child with this vaccine, do you trust Pharma companies, like Phizer, implicitly and without question?

Are you 100% certain they are driven by a desire to do good rather than generating profits for their shareholders?

aziz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224429#Comment_118224429

This man speaks the truth

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118223188#Comment_118223188

😄😄😄

You're either trolling, or you're the most hysterical/terrified person I've seen on here.

Focus your energy on something more productive than Covid.

Lumen

@[Deleted User] wrote

do you trust Pharma companies, like Phizer, implicitly and without question?

No.

Are you 100% certain they are driven by a desire to do good rather than generating profits for their shareholders?

I'm 100% certain that they are profit driven. The clue is in the word "company".

These issues have zero bearing on my decision to take a vaccine or allow/seek my children to be vaccinated.

What you are proposing is a conspiracy, because the profit motive is not sufficient to pervert the data, considering the way that pharma trials are conducted.

That conspiracy would need to be repeated across the two competing pharma companies developing the approved mRNA vaccines and all the smaller companies they engage in research and clinical trials, all of which would need to systematically engage in the conspiracy and squash whistleblowing.

There are a few things I trust in. One of them is the belief that, as Benjamin Franklin wrote,

Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

I have worked in companies large and small and government organisations large and small, and even for a very short time on a project for a large pharma company.

And what I believe having aggregated this experience is that companies and governments are composed of people, and people are smart, stupid, trustworthy, honourable, compliant, rebellious, selfish and selfless. But if you are attempting to propagate and sustain a large lie across boundaries of companies, governments and countries, you will only manage to do it for a very short time before the whole thing unravels.

That's what I trust in, essentially. The futility of conspiracy. There only way to sustain conspiracy is to constantly mutate it, dodging attacks, pivoting, adapting and reforming the lie. And sure enough, that's how conspiracies work in the real world. Not propagated by big companies and multiple governments, but by arseholes on social media indulging their contrarian compulsions for the dopamine hit.

So adding to to the debate with genuine questions and considered concerns is great, but a bunch of question marks and some secondary-school-debate level handwaving about big mean pharma adds nothing but FUD.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224711#Comment_118224711

What you are proposing is a conspiracy

That's a ridiculously poor interpretation of what I said.

Shelfie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224211#Comment_118224211

The vaccine doesn't actually stop kids getting Covid though that's the thing.

The vaccine prevents serious illness and death in adults, especially the elderly, but kids don't get the benefit of this because they don't get very sick with it.

Lumen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224719#Comment_118224719

OK then, for the sake of argument let me step back from the conspiracy angle.

You would therefore, I think, be claiming systematic unconscious bias in data collection and/or interpretation.

Please describe in detail where and how this is likely to have happened, based on your understanding of how vaccine trials and post-approval monitoring are designed and conducted.

Shelfie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224429#Comment_118224429

So true. The largest payout for both criminal and civil fraud in the US was payed out by Pfizer in the noughties. It was billions.

The drug was Neurontin and they were found guilty of off label promotion.

Big Pharma can't be trusted ( see also Purdue pharma and oxycotin)

They've shown us their true colours.

Shelfie

lee_baby_simms

I have a feeling we’ll be hearing in the next few days that “the Nu variant appears to affect children more than previous variants.”

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224739#Comment_118224739

You don't seem to understand the post at all.

I'm talking about the very basic concept of trust.

If I don't trust you I don't need to provide you with data and graphs and slide shows to prove why I don't trust you.

I just don't trust you.

Marty Bird

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224141#Comment_118224141

😂Brilliant

Lumen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224807#Comment_118224807

Who do you trust to develop a vaccine?

wildeside

Parents should be allowed to make their own choice either way and not be shamed for choosing not to give their kids the vaccine yet. If some parents want to go ahead and go it and others sit out and wait for a while till more data comes in then nobody should have a problem with that.

From FDA hearing below (just one example of doubt expressed by voting member, there are other for any parent that cares to look and I'm not trying to spread FUD)

Link : https://youtu.be/laaL0_xKmmA?t=28259 (7:50:58)

(Hospitalisation rate from COVID disease : 10 per million, hospitalisation rate from myocarditis [in older age group for which data is available] 100-150 per million. If similar rates were in the 5-11 cohort then the risks outweigh the benefits by 10x)

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118224711#Comment_118224711

What you are proposing is a conspiracy, because the profit motive is not sufficient to pervert the data, considering the way that pharma trials are conducted.

Actually the way pharma trials are conducted can be the problem. As an editorial in The Lancet that caused a few waves in the biz five years ago noted:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

Peer review? Yeah that has a fair number of issues too.

It happened because peer review, the formal process of reviewing scientific work before it is accepted for publication, is not designed to detect anomalous data. It makes no difference if the anomalies are due to inaccuracies, miscalculations, or outright fraud. This is not what peer review is for. While it is the internationally recognised badge of “settled science”, its value is far more complicated.At its best, peer review is a slow and careful evaluation of new research by appropriate experts. It involves multiple rounds of revision that removes errors, strengthens analyses, and noticeably improves manuscripts.At its worst, it is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process which confers no real value, enforces orthodoxy, and overlooks both obvious analytical problems and outright fraud entirely.

Then we have an ever hungry media, public and political class looking for the Next Big Answer, especially in a time of uncertainty and crisis like we're living through at the moment. We currently have an example of the small sample size and bad reference and reporting effect gaining wider ground. to whit the efficacy drop off of the J&J vaccine. The Irish media, NIAC and Varadkar are "profoundly concerned" about this drop off because of "numerous studies". Slight problem: It's the one study that's being quoted and requoted and only partially. A study of just over one hundred American veterans, measured over four months, men with an average age of 61, over half of whom are obese, a third diabetic and over half have required at least one hospitalisation in the past year for non covid conditions. If one actually wanted to try to build a small sample size that was unrepresentative of the general population it would be hard enough to better this study. A limitation the study's authors acknowledge. Other studies over longer periods of time with over half a million test subjects that showed less dramatic drop offs in efficacy and showed some markers actually increased over time have been essentially rubbed out because the trend of boosters is "in", in the face of numbers going up. Does this mean boosters, particularly for the vulnerable are not of value? Of course not, but as things stand the actual hard science is limited to say the least.

On the mRNA long term safety front: So many are cock sure that there's nothing to see there and maybe there isn't or maybe there is, but the inescapable cold hard reality is that it is scientifically impossible to claim anything in the long term, good or ill with only 18 months of data. Anyone who claims "perfectly safe" or "dangerous as fcuk" in the long term is a damned fool on this point. The only logical position is one of caution in either direction until the data is actually in.

No conspiracies are required for the vast majority of cases. Like you I don't believe in conspiracies, at least not the thicko Kens and Karens on Arsebook with an attack of the emotionals discovering them anyway. Most actual so called "conspiracies" are in plain sight. Shelfie above referenced the opioid "conspiracy" in the US. The world and its dog spotted that in short order, but other factors were in play.

That conspiracy would need to be repeated across the two competing pharma companies developing the approved mRNA vaccines and all the smaller companies they engage in research and clinical trials, all of which would need to systematically engage in the conspiracy and squash whistleblowing.

Which is almost exactly what happened with the above opioid crisis in the US. They did "constantly mutate it, dodging attacks, pivoting, adapting and reforming the lie". Competing companies bent, even completely falsified research and safety trials over many years, lobbied the FDA and got them to tweak labels and recommendations to the company's script and benefit, paid off doctors, researchers, lawmakers, periodicals and politicians, created millions of addicts and caused the deaths of a couple of hundred thousand Americans and the majority of the owners of these companies got away scot free with their personal fortunes. That was in plain sight too for over a decade. Indeed what's interesting is that very few of the usual tinfoil hatted types pointed to it.