Government advisers are surprised by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s (JCVI) decision to recommend against vaccinating 12-15 year-olds against Covid and are encouraging ministers to move ahead with their plans anyway. MailOnline has the story.
The independent panel of experts [JCVI], which is made up of professors and doctors who routinely advise the Government on vaccination strategies, cited the fact that the Covid virus presents a very low risk to younger teenagers.
But Professor Chris Whitty and the UK.’.s three other Chief Medical Officers are now reviewing the wider benefits of vaccinating the age group, such as minimising school absences, and are expected to present their findings within days.
Professor Peter Openshaw, of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) which advises the Government, told BBC Breakfast he was “a little surprised” at the JCVI’s decision to not back the rollout among children.
“We do know the virus is circulating very widely amongst this age group, and that if we’re going to be able to get the rates down and also prevent further surges of infection perhaps later in the winter, then this is the group that needs to become immune,” he said.
“And the best way to become immune is through vaccination, and there’s never been as much information as this in the past.
“To think there hasn’t been enough research is completely wrong.”
He added: “To my mind, the public health benefit is very, very important, and we have to take the wider view that unless we do get infection rates down amongst this particular part of the population, it will be very, very hard to prevent further large recurrences (of Covid).
“I would say that teenagers are often amongst the most altruistic and the most generous people in society.
“They often think very deeply about these moral and ethical issues and they want to protect others as well.
“So I would think that a lot of teenagers, actually, if they see the evidence in the round, would prefer to be vaccinated.”
Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi said Sunday that if the Chief Medical Officers recommend vaccination among youngsters aged 12 to 15 then it is “absolutely” the right thing to do, but he said he does not want to “pre-determine” that.
The Government is awaiting their advice before making a final decision but ministers and Health Secretary Sajid Javid are reportedly keen to authorise a wider roll-out.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This government is a disgrace. Whitty and his team of incompetents have directed the imbecilic incompetent Tories in the wrong direction for too long, and Johnson hasn’t got the intelligence or guts to replace them with people with proper clinical knowledge and experience. The situation whereby false data and propaganda are being used to persuade children and their parents to accept a vaccine with no knowledge of potential long term damage and known serious side effects which may be more frequent than any serious effects of Covid-19 in children is reprehensible. This is made even more stupidly dangerous to children’s health when Johnson and his team of buffoons ignore the advice of the very body with the experience knowledge and qualifications to tell them not to do it, and they ignore it. It would be far better to allow children to mix in society with the minimal risk to their health and gain natural immunity, not only to Covid-19 but to the many other viruses and bacteria they would encounter in normal life. We are creating a generation of young people with an immunity deficit by the crazy lockdowns and quarantines, which will make them more susceptible to all kinds… Read more »
A society that kills its children is sliding down the road to perdition very quickly.
Er! Are the government not bound by law/regulation to ACCEPT the JCVI’s recommendation? I see the relevant section of the legislation has disappeared from the govt web site though.
Since when have we ever decided upon mass vaccination of children on anything other than their HEALTH benefit?
Since when has political rhetoric (as that’s all it is) overturned their health benefit?
The govt & SAGE etc. have dug themselves into such a deep hole, they cannot now climb out. It’s now just face-saving, nothing more. The population be damned!
Didn’t some government mouthpiece say something like ‘we follow where the science takes us’?
Just when you think they can’t get any more ignorant our experts excel in going even lower.
Of course Whitty et al have a lot of vaccines to sell for their masters so they will “recommend” jabbing anything that breathes.
This is a premeditated crime based on a hoax virus…
Infanticide, nothing less.
Which Minister, or SAGE adviser I wonder will take responsibility for the first childs death
They won’t admit the child died from the vax though. Too many of the media are bought and paid for, and they won’t report it.
And next it’ll be the under 12s.
The “jabs” are very poor at preventing infection and transmission. Natural immunity from getting and recovering from the virus, as 99.9% of children will, is vastly superior.
Openshaw must know that – so he is deliberately encouraging the use of children in a mass medical experiment for the “benefit” of others. He is thus no better than Josef Mengele.
“And the best way to become immune is through vaccination” is a blatant lie. None of the vaccines give even the slightest hint of immunity as Sajid Javid knows very well indeed. If the advisers are thinking like this and telling such obvious lies in public I dread to think what they are telling Ministers in private.
‘The best way to become immune’ ..But it doesn’t make you immune. So that’s bollocks for a start. And then going on about teenagers being altruistic, just trying to make it seem that those who don’t subject themselves to this are somehow selfish.
This is just evil.
Gosh! You mean there’s differing “science”? Whoever would have thought that?
This guy Openshaw is lying through his teeth!
WAYNE ROOT: The Government and CDC Are Lying About Covid Vaccine and Ivermectin. The Question is Why?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/wayne-root-government-cdc-lying-covid-vaccine-ivermectin-question/?utm_source=Gab&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
There are no words to describe the moral depravity of the current government.
The last five PMs have progressively destroyed everything they have touched: I am so glad I am not amongst the younger tranche of serf-bots being trained up to do their master’s bidding for the rest of their, doubtless increasingly miserable, lives.
Lies, lies and more lies.
Here’s a suggestion for minimising school absences: keep the schools open and don’t let the teaching unions force children to stay at home and miss out on their education. We could see what effect that has.
…….and stop testing!
“And the best way to become immune is through vaccination, and there’s never been as much information as this in the past.”
WTF?
So these guys are advising the country and they can’t see what is happening in Israel and everywhere these death jabs are going?
These guys are immune to science and analysing data.
My letter to the school today
Dear Xxx
I hope you both have had a restful holiday.
We all had covid this July and recovered without issue (Xxx resisted the virus in keeping with healthy boys of his age). But otherwise, we have managed to get some good times with our boys home.
In light of the imminent return of xxxx to school, I wanted to make it clear before the term begins that we will continue to reject the asymptomatic testing regime for Xxxx. This includes any entry tests or tests to return to campus. We will not consent to further testing. He has spent most of these past two weeks at home with us healthy as can be.
Should he exhibit any symptoms of concern to you, then please inform us and we can deal with things as necessary.
If this is a problem do let us know before the… Read more »
Yeah, I was going to say that everyone knows that these vaccines do not give immunity – they only lessen severe disease. So he is deliberately giving out misinformation, not to mention, moralizing the vaccines. It is so disgusting.
I simply do not and have never given consent for any testing of the kid (ie said NO on the consent form). I don’t need to give a reason or explain anything. And this goes to the heart of it – without testing, the only kids with a virus are those at home actually sick (like all other years of our lives). Of course my action will apply to this vaccine. I have also spent the last 18 months informing my kid about the truth as it has unfolded. She will become an adult and the only hope we have of overthrowing the globalist technocratic shitheads who have infiltrated and merged the entire corporate govt complex.
Excellent!
Anyone concerned about their legal rights should schools try to ‘vaccinated’ their children, please see this Unity News Network interview with Anna de Buisseret: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ku3Abhtq10Dy/.
The (albeit condescending) reference to teenager altruism is the tell, of course: teenagers should be made to take the risk in order to protect us adults.
ok. So now you’ve (accidentally) revealed your real reason: explain how a leaky vaccine in a teenager protects a leakily-vaccinated adult.
im listening…
Except there are a lot of sensible adults that aren’t asking teenagers to risk their lives to protect them. Only vaccine fanatics/victims of government propaganda think that kids need to be jabbed so that the rest of us are safe.
agreed. my point is just that the argument against is both ethical and practical.
So they’re not even pretending to follow the science now?
Meanwhile, some muppet of a football manager who got “Covid” is recruited into a campaign to encourage (coerce?) healthy young sportsmen into having a “vaccine” they don’t need – and never mind about the Irish footballer who died after taking a “vaccine”.
Any news on the under-19 player who collapsed last Thursday evening in the FA Youth Cup tie between West Bridgford and Boston United and failed to respond to the defibrillator three times? All quiet on that front.
The BBC reports he died. See my posts on the new news round-up. Things seem to be getting clearer…
I’m sitting here in a soft play venue with my own two kids. They are rolling all around the other 50 or so in the place.
Openshaw should take a trip to these places and tell me where these body bags are.
He comes for my kids, he better have something more than the bullshite he’s peddling in that article.
Amen.
‘Follow the Science’ they said. Over 18 months of Non-Science – I can only presume they are now getting desperate. It looks like they’re winning. They’re not. Every lie they tell is another nail in their collective coffins. Updated information, resources and useful links: https://www.LCAHub.org/
Has anyone got a simple article I can send normies to stop them getting their kids vaxxed?
Not some off guardian think piece or something…something very basic and clear?
Apart from the JCVI saying its not of any personal benefit to them, the idea of them being suoerspreaders is also a complete lie.
https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/7/618.info
Also Long Covid lies:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.22.21259273v1
No risk to kids
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-children-risk-of-covid-19-death-or-serious-illness-remain-extremely-low-new-studies-find-11625785260
US data is over counted, JCVI following the science.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-11626706868
Myocarditis in Children with Pfzier
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2783052
What’s the rationale for vaccinating children for COVID-19? Where’s the data, the science that would support this move? We see none, and we think it’s dangerous.
https://pastebin.com/avGHcwus
Also visit the Hart Group and Doctors for Covid Ethics websites for further info.
Just ask them to show THEIR data too. The burden always seems to be on us to do the leg work.
Depends on what you think might swing them? I find a whole list of facts sometimes looks a bit overwhelming and starts to look a bit “anti-vaxxy” which actually turns people off. It’s just too much of a rabbit hole that their minds aren’t ready for yet as the cognitive dissonance is too great.
Personally I think that the myocarditis issue is enough in itself. Heart muscle is incapable of repairing itself. End of. I don’t care if they say that it resolves itself. Yes the pain and fatigue may go away but the lifetime damage is done.
Latest research using the New Normal Medical methodology has revealed important details about serious disease in the past. This figure is probably well known to many people.
http://hosted.lib.uiowa.edu/histmed/plague/image-gallery/image11.jpeg
It turns out he was actually an early advocate of New Normal Medicine. He was actually wearing the mask to protect others from the disease he thought he was carrying even though he was asymptomatic. He was driven mad by the persistent refusal of others to follow suit.
Peter Openshaw – there’s a tumbril with your name on it, you lying bastard.
One last taxpayer funded ride..
If you have to have something that might kill you to help others how far away are we from ‘it’s only one kindey, you have two and the greater good only needs one of them’.
Scary times.
Some people do have kidney transplants from living donors, also partial liver transplants are possible from living donors (the liver can regenerate).
Those people who have, up to now, been living donors have VOLUNTEERED to donate their organ, or part of an organ, to help someone who is ill. Do you not get that what Paul B is saying is that next time the state decides to MANDATE medical treatment for one of its citizens [because mandating jabs is working so well that even kids are to be jabbed] it could be an organ transplant it is mandating from someone who is not a willing donor – the whole the state now owns your body argument???
As this is about vaccines it is as good a place as any to apologise for a couple of errors I have made in previous discussion. I did some more research and realise I was wrong on two counts:
Got that off my chest!
“They did test for infection but that is not the same thing).”
How did they test for infection? Pray tell?
For Pfizer it was a combination of symptoms, PCR Test and test for seropositivity. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101544
I can’t be bothered to look up the others.
I thought this was common knowledge but appreciate the admission.
This is the entire argument against vaccine passports and any type of vaccine mandates.
If that is the entire argument it is rather weak. The fact they did not test for transmission in the trials does not mean the vaccines do not in fact reduce transmission. If they reduce infection, then there is a good chance they reduce transmission.
From the CDC briefing on July 27th
A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others.
“less likely” is not robust enough to warrant such an instrusion on civil liberties.
I guess that depends on a) how much less likely b) your values
Not necessarily. Infection still occurs in the nose and throat. The vaccines produce antibodies which protect the lungs. Transmission will mainly be from exhalation, i.e. upper respiratory tract.
Agreed – not necessarily – just likely.
Also not likely: Vaccination can never prevent infection because it’s not some kind of scientific super handsanitizer. It’s supposed to preprare the immune system for eliminating a certain kind of pathogen without prior contact with it.
In absence of infection, vaccines have no beneficial effects. These are supposed to manifest themselves after an infection has occurred.
I guess it depends on what you mean by infection. If
A) vaccines can reduce your chances of being symptomatic (and there seems to be a lot of evidence the current batch do that – although with decreasing efficacy)
B) symptomatic people are more likely to transmit than asymptomatic – which I think most people on this forum would accept
If follows that vaccines reduce your chances of transmission. Right?
I guess I’m meaning infection with infection: Something a test for Sars-CoV2 can detect. I’m also pretty certain that that most people on this forum would not accept that healthy people are a dangerous health risk to other healthy people. In fact, I’m also pretty convinced that demonstrably sick people are not a dangerous health risk to other people. Coughs and sneezes spread diseases already didn’t impress me much before the preferred remedy for that was turn countries into prison camps. Mostly because it ain’t gonna help.
I guess I’m meaning infection with infection: Something a test for Sars-CoV2 can detect
Ok. In that case I will use the term “symptomatic infection” to refer to someone who not only tests positive but has symptoms.
I’m also pretty certain that that most people on this forum would not accept that healthy people are a dangerous health risk to other healthy people.
Sure – but we are not talking about healthy people – we are talking about people with symptomatic Covid.
I’m also pretty convinced that demonstrably sick people are not a dangerous health risk to other people.
Do you mean just for Covid or in general?
If in general, it is clearly false. If you have smallpox or ebola then you are a very serious health risk to others.
If just Covid, is that because you don’t think sick people pass the disease on to others or because you don’t think Covid is a serious health risk?
If you don’t think sick people pass the disease on to others then how do other people get it?
If you simply don’t think Covid is a dangerous disease then I disagree but it doesn’t change the point that vaccines limit… Read more »
‘indicates = suggests’ and ‘less likely = possibly’. Is that research from the University of Maybe?
“indicates” is a pretty good synonym for “suggests”. So what?
I don’t get the equation of “less likely” and “possibly”. If you replace “less likely” with “possibly” you get nonsense: are possibly than unvaccinated persons .
The whole Gert Van Den Bosche nightmare scenario is predicated on the fact that we are vaccinating with non sterilising medicines when prevelance is still high.
Can you explain that in more detail (or better give a link)
It’s OK. It was easy to find the scenario and at least one response:
https://37b32f5a-6ed9-4d6d-b3e1-5ec648ad9ed9.filesusr.com/ugd/28d8fe_266039aeb27a4465988c37adec9cd1dc.pdf
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche
Have you read the response?
Skimmed it – yes. But really haven’t studied either the paper or the response. That’s for tomorrow.
I read it but found the argument very hard to follow. This is what I think he is arguing (but I am very open to being corrected):
Using vaccines during a pandemic will simultaneously:
Suppress our innate immune system
Evolve a variant that
escapes all vaccines (current and future)
escapes our adaptive immune system
is far more deadly than current strains of Covid
Thus creating a global disaster.
But I can’t see any evidence in his paper for any of these propositions.
I found this response which is easier to understand than the first one I linked to.
To quote:
I’ll be blunt: there is very little within this letter that is even close to being correct, and there is almost no evidence presented to support any of its claims. I’ll now go through it point-by-point to explain where it’s wrong.
McGill – funded by…. wait for it…
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
https://www.mcgill.ca/research/research/funding/international
So what? Surely what matters is whether it is correct?
He’s a pro-jab propagandist. Best just to ignore him.
https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/darkhorse-podcast-with-geert-vanden:b
This interview is the best one.
Thanks for the link but the interview appears to be nearly two hours long which is more time than I am prepared to invest based on the quality of his writing.
War it is.