An interesting one isn't it?
Evidently will reduce the spread in the UK if we do it. But that will be to the detriment of other countries which in turn causes a) lots of dead people and b) a risk of further variants developing - one may be resistant to the virus. Then, you have the relative shortage of evidence re safety in kids...
My eldest will get it if it's offered but there's a big decision for politicians and scientists over the next few days.
(06-17-2021, 07:10 AM)DJPunkRoc Wrote: [ -> ]An interesting one isn't it?
Evidently will reduce the spread in the UK if we do it. But that will be to the detriment of other countries which in turn causes a) lots of dead people and b) a risk of further variants developing - one may be resistant to the virus. Then, you have the relative shortage of evidence re safety in kids...
My eldest will get it if it's offered but there's a big decision for politicians and scientists over the next few days.
It should be given first and foremost to children who are vulnerable to the disease and when I say vulnerable I mean at risk of death or serious harm. They have been forgotten by seemingly everyone but the charities, carers and families that look after them. After that there is a discussion to be had.
(06-17-2021, 07:15 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-17-2021, 07:10 AM)DJPunkRoc Wrote: [ -> ]An interesting one isn't it?
Evidently will reduce the spread in the UK if we do it. But that will be to the detriment of other countries which in turn causes a) lots of dead people and b) a risk of further variants developing - one may be resistant to the virus. Then, you have the relative shortage of evidence re safety in kids...
My eldest will get it if it's offered but there's a big decision for politicians and scientists over the next few days.
It should be given first and foremost to children who are vulnerable to the disease and when I say vulnerable I mean at risk of death or serious harm. They have been forgotten by seemingly everyone but the charities, carers and families that look after them. After that there is a discussion to be had.
I thought the vulnerable were first to receive the jab (irrespective of age). I may be wrong though.
(06-17-2021, 07:25 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: [ -> ] (06-17-2021, 07:15 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-17-2021, 07:10 AM)DJPunkRoc Wrote: [ -> ]An interesting one isn't it?
Evidently will reduce the spread in the UK if we do it. But that will be to the detriment of other countries which in turn causes a) lots of dead people and b) a risk of further variants developing - one may be resistant to the virus. Then, you have the relative shortage of evidence re safety in kids...
My eldest will get it if it's offered but there's a big decision for politicians and scientists over the next few days.
It should be given first and foremost to children who are vulnerable to the disease and when I say vulnerable I mean at risk of death or serious harm. They have been forgotten by seemingly everyone but the charities, carers and families that look after them. After that there is a discussion to be had.
I thought the vulnerable were first to receive the jab (irrespective of age). I may be wrong though.
Nah, very few kids have had it and those that have, shouldn't have (per policy) but if you've got a good relationship with your doc they might call in a favour.
(06-17-2021, 07:25 AM)Fulham Fallout Wrote: [ -> ] (06-17-2021, 07:15 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-17-2021, 07:10 AM)DJPunkRoc Wrote: [ -> ]An interesting one isn't it?
Evidently will reduce the spread in the UK if we do it. But that will be to the detriment of other countries which in turn causes a) lots of dead people and b) a risk of further variants developing - one may be resistant to the virus. Then, you have the relative shortage of evidence re safety in kids...
My eldest will get it if it's offered but there's a big decision for politicians and scientists over the next few days.
It should be given first and foremost to children who are vulnerable to the disease and when I say vulnerable I mean at risk of death or serious harm. They have been forgotten by seemingly everyone but the charities, carers and families that look after them. After that there is a discussion to be had.
I thought the vulnerable were first to receive the jab (irrespective of age). I may be wrong though.
You are completely wrong through no fault of your own because this myth has been peddled endlessly by the government and media. Only children over 12 at the discretion of a specialist could / can even be considered for the vaccine. Those who are disabled or have illnesses that are deemed serious enough to be on the shielded list and under 12 have had no assurances that they will have the vaccine despite Whitty at the last briefing saying they were at serious risk. Hundreds possibly thousands of families are in the same position as they were at the first lock down, which is a disgrace.
Dr John Campbell runs an excellent youtube channel that is very inciteful on Covid
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF9IOB2...IBupFtBDxg
He said yesterday that it is a real dilemma for him. He said (I paraphrase) he would only give treatment to a patient if it benefited them, and to vaccinate purely to give others herd immunity would cause him a problem. That said, if there was a high chance of Long Covid in children, then this may be an argument for doing so.
(06-17-2021, 11:34 AM)Cornflake Wrote: [ -> ] (06-17-2021, 07:10 AM)DJPunkRoc Wrote: [ -> ]An interesting one isn't it?
Evidently will reduce the spread in the UK if we do it. But that will be to the detriment of other countries which in turn causes a) lots of dead people and b) a risk of further variants developing - one may be resistant to the virus. Then, you have the relative shortage of evidence re safety in kids...
My eldest will get it if it's offered but there's a big decision for politicians and scientists over the next few days.
It's called a vasectomy
Done that, albeit two kids too late!