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

Yeah the number of miscarriages is surprisingly high (as I only found out when we had our first one). Anywhere between 10 and 20% depending on the mother's age.

The rate of blood clots for someone on birth control pills is between 1/300 and 1/100 per decade (or between 1/156,000 and 1/52,000 per week of taking the pill).

I would encourage people to read the studies and it's conclusions and not just grab some numbers from it and paste them and try and generate worry, the studies explain the numbers in detail.

The rate of life threatening blood clots is far below these numbers again.

You are blatantly not taking into account the fact that 1. Only half the population are women. 2. Less than 20% of women take the pill as a form of contraceptive 3. A percentage of these women will not be using it for longer than 10 years

So when you refer to someone just grabbing numbers, were you referring to yourself?

This is the most bizarre misunderstanding of numbers I've seen on boards for a long time (and there has been some doozys on this forum).

Do you want to take a minute and start again?

This downplays those women who have had stillbirths and miscarriages caused directly by COVID, you are saying you wouldn't take a vaccine if you were pregnant based on some anecdotal evidence from 3 women you work with, if you were working in a vaccine centre, you should know about all the studies that are being carried out or read some of those that I linked to before spreading fear and doubt among others. Again, some of the terms you are using are straight from anti-vax sites, but if you are being ingenuous, do talk to some of the doctors and vaccinators that you are working with, you are trying to post with authority that you worked in the field, do not abuse the trust that may be placed in you because of that.

You missed :

6. Repeatedly peddle half - truths and outright lies to undermine public confidence in vaccines.

7. Post incessant negative comments about the vaccination programme of a country in which you don't even live.

My pleasure.

Oh hi again

In the face of overwhelming evidence, are you still insisting that vaccinating asymptomatic kids will halt transmission?

Tell me more about who's peddling misinformation.

Let me guess, the CDC and NY Times are 'anti-vaxxers'.

Yea that's them. Certain posters here have a more extremist view than the science the CDC work from stands over.

If you look at the history of the thread you'll see all I've ever said if that ultimately its the parents choice and should stay that way.

Also I've no teenage kids so I don't care about 12-15 either way, id probably let them decide themselves. I'm referring mostly to under-12s, the vaccines for which are due in September.

Sorry I didn't realise you needed a recommendation from me.

In case I wasn't clear I'm happy to see vaccines approved and offered to anyone that wants or needs them, of any age, from here to Mars for all I care.

Where it becomes an issue for me is when the choice is removed from the parents of said children through measures such as denial of the right to education. I'm aware this isn't the case yet, but that's where it's going in my opinion and we can see it's already in place in certain school districts in the USA, certain upcoming proposals in the UK, not to mention the situation with hospitality. ie: this isn't a baseless assumption, it's a likely assumption.

We can see from the extremists and radicals in the thread that these sort of ideas will have support under justification such as halting transmission, which is not supported by the data at all as I've gone into in several posts (transmission is reduced by reduction of symptoms, but healthy kids under 12 are asymptomatic, etc). I'm not even mega against it, but do accept it requires some personal consideration given risk/benefit circumstances for the child.

But then of course - when anyone dares suggest this they are labelled "antivax", "far-right" and other such absurdities by head-in-the-sanders that must still believe children are vectors or superspreaders as per the red tops a year ago.

But by all means in September when the approval comes in if you want to vaccinate a 3 year old that is in no danger whatsoever from Covid, be my guest. I'm not one for pushing an agenda on anyone 😉

Maybe I will too but (shock, horror) we'll have to see.

The difference to February is that the virus has become endemic, so it's not a choice of vaccine or small chance of catching the virus, it's vaccine or virus.

I'm not sure if people have picked up or understood that change yet.

Similarly, we'll see lots of parents concerned about getting the vaccine, but most will end up getting their kids vaccinated and the rest will do it after the first few school outbreaks make headline news.

Are you still suggesting the vaccinated will not transmit covid and thus we must force vaccination on asymptomatic children to appease the frightened like yourself?

Remember you just repeated vaccines prevent transmission, ad nauseam over and over in reply to every post?

At the moment, only teenagers are being targeted rather than small children, undoubtedly this will change in time, but remember that small children (especially babies) are those that receive the most vaccines of anyone, it's likely that the COVID vaccines will be incorporated into the childhood vaccination program in future years. People worry about what's new, until it's not new anymore, then they get on with it and don't give it a second thought.

Anyone putting the risks of a vaccine over the risks of COVID is really not paying attention to the data.

No one is talking about forcing vaccination on anyone. Only you, because you're a fearmongering zealot.

I have never said vaccines will prevent 100% of transmission. Just like they cannot prevent 100% of illness and they cannot be 100% free of side effects. That sort of binary absolutism is not compatible with medicine and science. It is the preserve of an angry minority trying to sow fear.

What I know is that vaccines greatly reduce transmission, the same way they greatly reduce illness and death.

You know that too. That's why you have to twist and misrepresent what I say, as well as the facts and the science. You know your position doesn't stand up so you have to invent one that does.

That's why you're an anti vaxxer. You lie to scare people to get them on your side. Having got the vaccine yourself does not change that, it just makes you a hypocrite to boot.

I thought you'd given up?

It really is hard to take you seriously when you are calling me an anti-vaxxer, nevermind that you are clearly a fanatic and a radical and now are calling me a zealot.

That the choice isnt binary between vaccinating a child and being an anti-vaxxer is literally the point I've been making. But you wouldn't get that.

I shouldn't have to bother explaining again that the reasons vaccines slow transmission, is that they greatly reduce symptoms and the length of the illness, neither of which are very applicable when it comes to children. You haven't responded at all to that, because you can't and instead resort to calling me an anti-vaxxer and a liar. Pathetic really but what more can I do, some people decide on a view and then will never consider anything else despite any evidence, discoveries or developments to the contrary.