Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1343537394060

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18 Seeds2098


    Why are children getting vaccine when they have nearly 0 risk of death. Stupid.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,499 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    They is some risk of death, and some risk of serious illness, but yes those risks are low. They are there nonetheless. More importantly though if not vaccinated they can help perpetuate this virus. They can pass it on to their vulnerable friends or relatives. The longer this virus circulates the higher the risk of new variants, possibly resistant to vaccines. The more who resist vaccination the longer we are in the hold of this virus, and the longer we will face restrictions and possible further lockdowns.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    They can get long covid. What is stupid is to think that the only two possible outcomes from catching the virus would be for it to either kill you or for it to do absolutely nothing



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,081 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    I wouldn't mind as I don't have kids.

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump




    I don't know where you are getting your information from but the risk to them getting "more than a cold" is not zero.


    "Evidence from the first study of long covid in children suggests that more than half of children aged between 6 and 16 years old who contract the virus have at least one symptom lasting more than 120 days, with 42.6 per cent impaired by these symptoms during daily activities. These interim results are based on periodic assessments of 129 children in Italy who were diagnosed with covid-19 between March and November 2020 at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome (medRxiv, doi.org/fv9t).

    The UK Office for National Statistics's latest report estimates that 12.9 per cent of UK children aged 2 to 11, and 14.5 per cent of children aged 12 to 16, still have symptoms five weeks after their first infection. Almost 500,000 UK children have tested positive for covid-19 since March 2020."



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,499 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    It is fully tested, now drop it or do not post in this thread again



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Feel free to post a link of these scientists stating that



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18 Seeds2098


    Apparently I'm not allowed discuss children getting vaccine in a thread about children getting vaccine unless I agree with Admin. Sorry, I have been told to leave so I will.

    Ill find somewhere thats not an echo chamber.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18 Seeds2098


    Thanks for the study by the way, very interesting and Im going to read.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    I'm not a moderator but it appeared you were told to quit the "untested" claim

    I asked about your claim that "many scientists state that a highly vaccinated population just increases the risk of more dangerous variants". You should surely be able to provide a link of same. I haven't seen any. I've heard warning about the opposite - which made sense to me



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18 Seeds2098


    Sorry, am I allowed to frame that as not "fully tested" or "fully approved". Until the FDA approves and full time period for symptoms to arrive passes I remain skeptical.

    Ill try to dig out claims, I heard it on a podcast with scientists who have been silences or fired.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    I can't answer the first part.

    With all the people in the world it would be highly unlikely that you would not be able to find one single dissenting contrarian voice. For a subject such as this, to be a lone dissenting voice, you are guaranteed headlines and notoriety. But you cannot say "many"


    The more virus that is floating around, there more mutations that will happen. The more mutations that happen, the more chance there is that a variant will have an advantage and persist. Vaccines cut that off at the base by stopping the amount floating around to begin with. So I have no idea what "scientist" is proposing the opposite. Or what their "logic" would be



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,499 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    The FDA have no jurisdiction over Ireland. What they have or have not done is irrelevant here



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    There is a vaccines thread and a conspiracy forum if your thoughts go more off piste than that:

    Conspiracy Theories — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'

    Anyone who thinks the vaccines are "risky" clearly don't understand how to evaluate risk in any way at all.\

    The EMA and NIAC approves vaccines for use in Ireland, but typical of the uninformed to start spreading FUD about the FDA.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18 Seeds2098


    I agree, but whats worrying is anyone who does speak out is being silenced. Its happening in forums, twitter, facebook.

    But, its also happening within the scientific community which I find massively worrying. Seems to go against the very purpose of science, to have different views and discuss.

    Because of this we cant really know how many scientists have similar views or how many people have similar concerns. Discussion is locked down.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18 Seeds2098


    Ah, I didnt know that. So Ireland are not waiting any additional approval?



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,499 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Fully approved in the EU, which by definition includes the Republic of Ireland. Also fully approved in the UK, which of course includes NI. All vaccines being used here are fully approved by all relevant authorities



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18 Seeds2098




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Scientists are human as well, what they can't argue with is the data which overwhelmingly (and more than any other medicine) shows that vaccines are safe.

    What you usually get is some scientists trying to ignore or misuse the data (one such lie being that those infected with delta transmit just as much whether vaccinated or not). Sometimes there is an agenda there (make money on other treatment) and sometimes it's just they either don't understand or ignore the data, it's why studies and data get peer reviewed, if you see anyone claiming otherwise, ask them for a peer reviewed study and they'll usually run away shouting about the system or veer onto other craziness.



  • Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fancy that, someone admitting they were misinformed



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    And sometimes the scientists and doctors are talking out of their hole, when they're offering opinions in a field that's not covered by their expertise. Self-certified eye doctor Rand Paul comes to mind.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42 123Dublin456


    I think the government have misled people a bit with the implications that kids are extremely low risk. They are lower but the stats I saw said one in 100 hospitalizations. Personally I would think a tried and tested vaccine is safer than virus that keeps mutating. I think parents should do more research before deciding how low the risk is based on the schools are safe being drilled all year. I saw that in America they have quite a lot of kids in hospital and the fact that people who are vaccinated don't want to live with restrictions for another year means it could be choosing virus or vaccine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42 123Dublin456


    I think people need to remember the risk was also low for people aged 18 to 30 but that didn't mean nobody of that age took the vaccine. Just my opinion but I think the media probably played a part in people not realising that it really isn't as simple as it seems.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭Del Griffith


    And above we have a fine example of a lie from the extreme pro-vaccine side - this is something any parent reading these threads should watch out for, there's misinformation from both sides but the radicals pushing the "stop-the-variants" narrative onto kids don't like to be called out on theirs and will happily shout down any data even from respected neutral sources, if it doesn't match their pre-conceived opinions.

    According to two studies just last week, one from Public Health England and another by the US Centers for Disease Control, there is there is a similar viral load and transmission rates between the vaccinated and un-vaccinated when it comes to Delta.

    CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w

    PHE - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201

    On the optimistic side - These are early indicative studies only, which can still be disproven when more data becomes available. Previous earlier studies have also had different conclusions.

    On the pessimistic side - The two studies are completely independent of each other, and came up with identical conclusions.

    These sources are the same that we have trusted in every single other report they have published so far, even pre-printed and without peer review (although I'm sure it'll be totally different now, if the results don't say what the lads want them to).

    CDC even considered the conclusions serious enough to revise its mask guidance and urge even vaccinated people to wear masks indoors in much of the country.

    I'm not suggesting to not get your kids vaccinated, I probably will get mine vaccinated eventually - but I wouldn't get them vaccinated on the basis of misinformation and unbalanced agendas being shoved down your throat by posters that just shout everything else down.

    The main thing to take in the context of this thread is that it is not some wacky scientist trying to "misuse the data" for the craic, and is definitely not "one such lie being that those infected with delta transmit just as much whether vaccinated or not" - that is pure misinformation being spread by that poster, and ironically a lie itself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,924 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    their vulnerable friends and relatives who are all vaccinated?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,511 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    @Del Griffith wrote:

    According to two studies just last week, one from Public Health England and another by the US Centers for Disease Control, there is there is a similar viral load and transmission rates between the vaccinated and un-vaccinated when it comes to Delta.

    I don't think you've drawn the correct conclusion from those reports. Can you cite the specific paragraphs that support your assertion?

    As I read it, it may be that people who test positive have similar viral loads, but that absolutely does not mean that vaccinated people pose the same transmission risk as the unvaccinated, for several obvious reasons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4 pokemonpokemon


    Where is flu rn?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Bloody hell, I covered exactly this tosh a few posts ago and you go and regurgitate that again, you can probably stop with the "I'm not anti-vax but" commenting. I'm pretty sure that it was pointed out to you that the study only compares viral load of patients who tested positive and the study was only to compare viral load not to draw other conclusions as has been pointed out to you above. This is happening time and again and you accuse others of disinformation, get your sources in order and, more importantly, make sure you understand your sources before accusing others.

    "This is being misunderstood over the past month or so, vaccines don't prevent transmission, but they do reduce the chances of transmission by reducing viral load faster and reducing the time that you are shedding virus, if others are vaccinated, they're also less likely to both catch and then transmit the virus."

    "With delta, the chances of becoming infected is lower when vaccinated, as is the time taken to clear the viral load"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    HSE has said the 12-15 vaccinations will start this weekend. 260K-270K seems to be the total in that group.



Advertisement