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

I don't see why we shouldn't achieve or even exceed Canada's uptake of 73% in 12-17 ages, given that (I think) we've exceeded their take up in other age groups, which would add around 4% to our total population coverage, taking us to around 75% overall with the steady trickle from other age groups, perhaps by early October.

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-coverage/#a5

@JEC wrote

Couldn't agree more.

Raind already posted the link but I'll just spell out what's in there for those who worry about myocarditis as it seems to be the main concern about the vaccine.

With the vaccine, there's a risk that children could develop myocarditis. With covid, there is six times the risk of developing myocarditis as well as god knows what else.

I did some research recently and discovered that 6 is a lot bigger than one. I personally would prefer the option that comes with the least risk of myocarditis and that turns out to be the vaccine, remember 6 is bigger than 1, so big in fact that when you count with your fingers, it's on a completely different hand. If the vaccine were a game of Russian Roulette with a six-shooter and one bullet, covid would be like the same game with six bullets, one in each chamber, which if I'm honest would take a lot of the fun out of it.

So if I had to choose between something with X risk of bad thing and 6X risk of bad thing, I would go with the first option myself.

Would you agree it is 'Conditional' because there is 'less complete data than normally required' as per the EMA's own website?

The benefits may outweigh the risk in adults however this is much less clear cut in children. The assumption that most adverse effects are evident within 2 months of vaccinaton is based on existing vaccine technology however as Mrna vaccine technology has not been used in previous vaccines it is not clear that this assumption still applies.

I think herd immunity won't happen with this new strain, the vaccines will reduce transmission and then the majority unvaccinated group will be children. The measures should be gone soon because they were done to protect the vulnerable. I really think children should have some say in their own health and it shouldn't only be up to the parents but that's just my view. People keep mentioning low risk but I think if it did spread among all children then it could be different to what people expect because currently it's only been some. Who knows, I know I would personally want the vaccine. A lot of these side effects are difficult to even pin on the vaccine as tbe populations getting it are so huge.

I imagine your pretty on the ball with the future state there.

We will even get to the point its voluntary shots if you want them (might even get a flu/covid jab in 1).

Like in every profession, you find people who are excellent at their job as well as people who are terrible at their job amongst scientists and medical professionals. They are also just as susceptible to mental illness as people in any other profession.

There are several common sense ways to evaluate scientists. What is their area of expertise? If an eye/foot/heart doctor who is not a scientist claims to know better than a virologist, that's a data point to evaluate. How much has a scientist published? How recently? How many times have his publications been cited?

Scientists on top of their field publish a lot, get cited a lot, and have extensive credentials. An example of what credentials of a truly outstanding scientist look like can be found here.

Publishing scientific papers is crucial for scientists - keeping findings secret would be equivalent to career suicide.

Medical doctors, more often than not, are not scientists. Although they are often perfectly capable of understanding and communicating relevant science. Again, the field of expertise is a crucial indicator to evaluate what they have to say.

The key characteristic of scientific work is that it is measurable, verifiable and reproducible - the opposite of an 'opinion', which is subjective and personal, and does not need to be reproducible or factually correct to be valid.

I think the word scientist is the worst word ever to be allowed in the public domain during times like these.

I am by education and active profession a scientist and could spout my opinion on vaccines backed up by nice looking letters beside my name - alas I know no more than the daily person (I will say my company provides me with accurate info when it exists at least I suppose as they have a section involved in vaccine production).

Unless your actively working in vaccine development, trials, production - odds are your far from the best source of anything specific. Even every tom dick and harry we get on the news - university professors (better known as failed pharma employees half the time) telling us nothing but generic nonsense and half statements.

Anyway pointless rant over - Time to make a point.

Would it not be wise to follow WHO advice and start to battle covid worldwide before children get vaccinated. This way we will have a lot more data to ensure things are safe for anyone who has concerns, even without kids we will hit the technical 70% herd figure, more international vaccination = less chance of variants. Just a thought...