The big Coronavirus thread

TheBigBean

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

So what actually are the quantified risks that you are using to make the statement that

The risk is higher than the reward. Not by much, but that is very different from other vaccines

.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

So what actually are the quantified risks that you are using to make the statement that

The risk is higher than the reward. Not by much, but that is very different from other vaccines

.

Which bit are you struggling with?

rick_chasey

I was hoping to see what the actual calculated risk was!?

DeVlaeminck

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Or they may see their mates have a really rough few days after having it and think the cure is worse than the illness.

Yes but that's wrong isn't it? Honestly, how many people do you know why big-up the post vaccine "side effects"?

My wife, me, my mum, dad, m.i.l., b.i.l. have all had it and had absolutely no side effects. But then neither have any of us particularly wanted a couple of down days at work.

Quite a few young people who had a really rough few days. I think the side affects are typically worse for younger people.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

I was hoping to see what the actual calculated risk was!?

Low. Something like 60 per million boys got the heart condition in the US. This compares with 8 girls. The point is that the risk to a healthy boy from covid is very low and possibly lower.

First.Aspect

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Or they may see their mates have a really rough few days after having it and think the cure is worse than the illness.

Yes but that's wrong isn't it? Honestly, how many people do you know why big-up the post vaccine "side effects"?

My wife, me, my mum, dad, m.i.l., b.i.l. have all had it and had absolutely no side effects. But then neither have any of us particularly wanted a couple of down days at work.

Quite a few young people who had a really rough few days. I think the side affects are typically worse for younger people.

Define quite a few. It will literally be less than for older people. Perhaps more noise though.

I don't regard a slightly tender shoulder as a side effect, btw.

skyblueamateur

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

I was hoping to see what the actual calculated risk was!?

Low. Something like 60 per million boys got the heart condition in the US. This compares with 8 girls. The point is that the risk to a healthy boy from covid is very low and possibly lower.

It's not. I heard this morning on the news that 12 - 15 year olds are 4 times more likely to get the heart condition from contracting Covid then the vaccine.

I suppose that doesn't factor in the chances of the kid catching Covid in the first place but it is incorrect to say if they caught covid it's less risky then the vaccine.

Obviously both scenario's are very low risk.

rick_chasey

It's quite hard to know the long term risks for obvious reasons.

DeVlaeminck

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Or they may see their mates have a really rough few days after having it and think the cure is worse than the illness.

Yes but that's wrong isn't it? Honestly, how many people do you know why big-up the post vaccine "side effects"?

My wife, me, my mum, dad, m.i.l., b.i.l. have all had it and had absolutely no side effects. But then neither have any of us particularly wanted a couple of down days at work.

Quite a few young people who had a really rough few days. I think the side affects are typically worse for younger people.

Define quite a few. It will literally be less than for older people. Perhaps more noise though.

I don't regard a slightly tender shoulder as a side effect, btw.

I'd say a good third of the ones I know - 18-22 year olds.

TheBigBean

skyblueamateur said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

I was hoping to see what the actual calculated risk was!?

Low. Something like 60 per million boys got the heart condition in the US. This compares with 8 girls. The point is that the risk to a healthy boy from covid is very low and possibly lower.

It's not. I heard this morning on the news that 12 - 15 year olds are 4 times more likely to get the heart condition from contracting Covid then the vaccine.

I suppose that doesn't factor in the chances of the kid catching Covid in the first place but it is incorrect to say if they caught covid it's less risky then the vaccine.

Obviously both scenario's are very low risk.

I can't find the stats now, but the recommendation was to vaccinate at risk children based on existing conditions. Therefore, any comparison has to be made between the risks and benefits to children without those conditions. Futhermore, if the risk is 10 times higher in boys, then that should be incorporated in the analysis.

In any case, the risk and the benefit are low to children which is why the JCVI opposed it. The latest argument is that they may miss education if they catch covid, but this argument isn't used for chickenpox when it would be equally valid. Ultimately, the government wants to do it to reduce infections in society.

TheBigBean

Apologies for using the Guardian as a source

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim.

Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period.

skyblueamateur

TheBigBean said:

skyblueamateur said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

I was hoping to see what the actual calculated risk was!?

Low. Something like 60 per million boys got the heart condition in the US. This compares with 8 girls. The point is that the risk to a healthy boy from covid is very low and possibly lower.

It's not. I heard this morning on the news that 12 - 15 year olds are 4 times more likely to get the heart condition from contracting Covid then the vaccine.

I suppose that doesn't factor in the chances of the kid catching Covid in the first place but it is incorrect to say if they caught covid it's less risky then the vaccine.

Obviously both scenario's are very low risk.

I can't find the stats now, but the recommendation was to vaccinate at risk children based on existing conditions. Therefore, any comparison has to be made between the risks and benefits to children without those conditions. Futhermore, if the risk is 10 times higher in boys, then that should be incorporated in the analysis.

In any case, the risk and the benefit are low to children which is why the JCVI opposed it. The latest argument is that they may miss education if they catch covid, but this argument isn't used for chickenpox when it would be equally valid. Ultimately, the government wants to do it to reduce infections in society.

Fair.

My boys are too young so I have no skin in this game but know that I would seriously think about it and not just crack on either way.

TheBigBean

skyblueamateur said:

TheBigBean said:

skyblueamateur said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

I was hoping to see what the actual calculated risk was!?

Low. Something like 60 per million boys got the heart condition in the US. This compares with 8 girls. The point is that the risk to a healthy boy from covid is very low and possibly lower.

It's not. I heard this morning on the news that 12 - 15 year olds are 4 times more likely to get the heart condition from contracting Covid then the vaccine.

I suppose that doesn't factor in the chances of the kid catching Covid in the first place but it is incorrect to say if they caught covid it's less risky then the vaccine.

Obviously both scenario's are very low risk.

I can't find the stats now, but the recommendation was to vaccinate at risk children based on existing conditions. Therefore, any comparison has to be made between the risks and benefits to children without those conditions. Futhermore, if the risk is 10 times higher in boys, then that should be incorporated in the analysis.

In any case, the risk and the benefit are low to children which is why the JCVI opposed it. The latest argument is that they may miss education if they catch covid, but this argument isn't used for chickenpox when it would be equally valid. Ultimately, the government wants to do it to reduce infections in society.

Fair.

My boys are too young so I have no skin in this game but know that I would seriously think about it and not just crack on either way.

The same for me which is why I wondered what other parents were planning to do.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

Are there any parents of 12 to 15 year olds on here? Will you be encouraging them to get vaccinated?

Yes. Yes. Going to be tricky as terrified of needles.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

'Benefits insufficiently greater than risks' is definitely not the same as 'risks greater than benefits'. They also stated that they didn't consider the wider implications of reduced infections in that cohort and the wider population. I would suggest these are quite big things to leave out.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Or they may see their mates have a really rough few days after having it and think the cure is worse than the illness.

Yes but that's wrong isn't it? Honestly, how many people do you know why big-up the post vaccine "side effects"?

My wife, me, my mum, dad, m.i.l., b.i.l. have all had it and had absolutely no side effects. But then neither have any of us particularly wanted a couple of down days at work.

Quite a few young people who had a really rough few days. I think the side affects are typically worse for younger people.

Define quite a few. It will literally be less than for older people. Perhaps more noise though.

I don't regard a slightly tender shoulder as a side effect, btw.

I'd say a good third of the ones I know - 18-22 year olds.

Do you think it could be all in the mind?

I mentioned on here somebody running a vax centre who was amazed at the numbers of Gen X either running off or passing out.

If getting an injection is a tough mental ordeal for them then surely their mind is likely to amplify any miscellaneous symptons they may have either real or imagined.

pangolin

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Or they may see their mates have a really rough few days after having it and think the cure is worse than the illness.

Yes but that's wrong isn't it? Honestly, how many people do you know why big-up the post vaccine "side effects"?

My wife, me, my mum, dad, m.i.l., b.i.l. have all had it and had absolutely no side effects. But then neither have any of us particularly wanted a couple of down days at work.

Quite a few young people who had a really rough few days. I think the side affects are typically worse for younger people.

Define quite a few. It will literally be less than for older people. Perhaps more noise though.

I don't regard a slightly tender shoulder as a side effect, btw.

I'd say a good third of the ones I know - 18-22 year olds.

Do you think it could be all in the mind?

I mentioned on here somebody running a vax centre who was amazed at the numbers of Gen X either running off or passing out.

If getting an injection is a tough mental ordeal for them then surely their mind is likely to amplify any miscellaneous symptons they may have either real or imagined.

Gen x are aged 40 - 55. I guess you mean gen z, they are something like age 6-24

Dorset_Boy

"four to six times more likely"
With no context that is impossible for people to judge.
If the base risk is say 1 in a million, then 4-6 in a million is still effectively no risk.
If the base risk is 500 in a million then it's a different matter potentially.

DeVlaeminck

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Or they may see their mates have a really rough few days after having it and think the cure is worse than the illness.

Yes but that's wrong isn't it? Honestly, how many people do you know why big-up the post vaccine "side effects"?

My wife, me, my mum, dad, m.i.l., b.i.l. have all had it and had absolutely no side effects. But then neither have any of us particularly wanted a couple of down days at work.

Quite a few young people who had a really rough few days. I think the side affects are typically worse for younger people.

Define quite a few. It will literally be less than for older people. Perhaps more noise though.

I don't regard a slightly tender shoulder as a side effect, btw.

I'd say a good third of the ones I know - 18-22 year olds.

Do you think it could be all in the mind?

I mentioned on here somebody running a vax centre who was amazed at the numbers of Gen X either running off or passing out.

If getting an injection is a tough mental ordeal for them then surely their mind is likely to amplify any miscellaneous symptons they may have either real or imagined.

I don't think so - my youngest daughter was shaking uncontrollably about 7-8 hours after her first - it was quite worrying tbh. I mean you can't rule out some kind of psychosomatic link but she wasn't in the least worried about it beforehand.

I should add I'm not saying kids shouldn't get the jab - just that I wouldn't assume they'll see their mates have zero side affects and that will persuade them it's fine.

All my 3 kids (all over 18) have had it.

surrey_commuter

pangolin said:

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Or they may see their mates have a really rough few days after having it and think the cure is worse than the illness.

Yes but that's wrong isn't it? Honestly, how many people do you know why big-up the post vaccine "side effects"?

My wife, me, my mum, dad, m.i.l., b.i.l. have all had it and had absolutely no side effects. But then neither have any of us particularly wanted a couple of down days at work.

Quite a few young people who had a really rough few days. I think the side affects are typically worse for younger people.

Define quite a few. It will literally be less than for older people. Perhaps more noise though.

I don't regard a slightly tender shoulder as a side effect, btw.

I'd say a good third of the ones I know - 18-22 year olds.

Do you think it could be all in the mind?

I mentioned on here somebody running a vax centre who was amazed at the numbers of Gen X either running off or passing out.

If getting an injection is a tough mental ordeal for them then surely their mind is likely to amplify any miscellaneous symptons they may have either real or imagined.

Gen x are aged 40 - 55. I guess you mean gen z, they are something like age 6-24

TY

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

'Benefits insufficiently greater than risks' is definitely not the same as 'risks greater than benefits'. They also stated that they didn't consider the wider implications of reduced infections in that cohort and the wider population. I would suggest these are quite big things to leave out.

I expanded on this in subsequent posts. Ultimately both are tiny and I was more interested in what parents were planning to do rather than the incessant Cake Stop point scoring.

bobbygloss

My daughter is 12, she was jabbed last week along with the rest of her class. It was organised through the school. They got the Moderna, and will only be getting one. Vaccine risk didn't seem to be a problem to her, and wasn't for us.
This is in Stavanger though.

john80

Parents need to have that honest conversation with their kids and put the reasoning to them. This reasoning is that this jab is about as safe as it introduces risk and the real reason they are doing it is to protect others. Some will care about this and some will not.

TheBigBean

This article has a decent summary

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/14/vaccinate-young-people-aged-12-to-15-covid-children-vaccinated

twotoebenny

My 13 yo has been desperate to get vaxed for some time... so I'm sure he will go ahead and do it, he'll be up to speed but I'll still have an objective conversations with him. I guess you just have to balance up the risks and make the best informed decision you can.

Ncovidius

Having just watched another instalment of the professor(s) Valance and Whitty show, I feel they were trying to ask us to read between the lines with their hypothetical ‘plan B’. Although Boris seemed to not want to go back to the hardest of lockdown measures, I got the feeling he’s not going to have much choice but to impose as many restrictions as he can, and I fully expect another U turn on ditching legislation that allows for it too.

Ncovidius

john80 said:

Parents need to have that honest conversation with their kids and put the reasoning to them. This reasoning is that this jab is about as safe as it introduces risk and the real reason they are doing it is to protect others. Some will care about this and some will not.

I personally think that there won’t be a huge amount of point in vaccinating the youngest age groups, as ( despite the protestations coming from some corners ) the data seems to indicate that the vaccines aren’t fully sanitising, so the youngest groups can still carry the infection, whether jabbed or not. The effect of reducing seriousness of illness ( which are the vaccines biggest achievement) don’t really apply to the youngest groups, as they tend not to get as seriously ill, with the same viral load as ( especially the over 80s and C.E.V. groups ). However I’m all for encouraging the younger groups to get vacced, as it could help reduce any possibility of new variants emerging.

kingstongraham

Ncovidius said:

john80 said:

Parents need to have that honest conversation with their kids and put the reasoning to them. This reasoning is that this jab is about as safe as it introduces risk and the real reason they are doing it is to protect others. Some will care about this and some will not.

I personally think that there won’t be a huge amount of point in vaccinating the youngest age groups, as ( despite the protestations coming from some corners ) the data seems to indicate that the vaccines aren’t fully sanitising, so the youngest groups can still carry the infection, whether jabbed or not. The effect of reducing seriousness of illness ( which are the vaccines biggest achievement) don’t really apply to the youngest groups, as they tend not to get as seriously ill, with the same viral load as ( especially the over 80s and C.E.V. groups ). However I’m all for encouraging the younger groups to get vacced, as it could help reduce any possibility of new variants emerging.

Given what you said above it - is there evidence for this?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

'Benefits insufficiently greater than risks' is definitely not the same as 'risks greater than benefits'. They also stated that they didn't consider the wider implications of reduced infections in that cohort and the wider population. I would suggest these are quite big things to leave out.

I expanded on this in subsequent posts. Ultimately both are tiny and I was more interested in what parents were planning to do rather than the incessant Cake Stop point scoring.

I guess when the direct benefits are quite marginal it's inevitable that this will be reported poorly. I think it's fair to say that it's not going to make much difference to most 12-15 year olds on a direct personal level. I think the wider benefits of not having their whole year group sent home/teachers off sick/other family members ill, plus the reduced spread for the population as a whole, swings the argument very much in favour of vaccination.