The Zero Covid absolutists at Independent SAGE have, in typical style, denounced the medical and scientific experts on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation of proposing to use children as “human shields” because it wouldn’t rubber stamp the Government’s decision to vaccinate healthy 12-15 year-olds. Surely, it is the Government that wants to use younger teenagers as “human shields” by insisting on extending the vaccine roll out to them even though the health risks clearly outweigh the health benefits? MailOnline has more.
Members of Independent Sage, a vocal group of experts who have clung on to the idea of eliminating Covid, accused the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation of using youngsters as “human shields” to protect adults.
Newly-published minutes from JCVI meetings show that the group first looked at whether letting 12 to 15-year-olds get Covid naturally was better than vaccinating them in spring, months before the rollout was expanded to teens.
Echoing the view of many independent experts, the JCVI accepted allowing the virus to circulate naturally could give youngsters strong immunity and also protect adults — without the risk of side effects from vaccines.
The panel emphasised Covid posed such a tiny threat to children and raised concerns about a heart inflammation condition associated with the jabs in young people.
“Children rarely develop severe disease or die of Covid; even children with underlying comorbidities have a very low risk,’ the JCVI said in its 32nd meeting on May 13.
“There are limited data on Covid vaccine use in children; there is a need to consider the mild transient illness of Covid versus potential rare adverse events associated with vaccination.
“There is an argument for allowing the virus to circulate amongst children which could provide broader immunity to the children and boost immunity in adults.”
The group also considered that children might be better off catching Covid at a young age, when they are at low risk, so that they are less vulnerable in adulthood, as is the case with chicken pox and other viral infections.
Dr Kit Yates, a mathematical biologist at the University of Bath and Independent Sage member, quoted excerpts from a number of JCVI minutes in a lengthy Twitter thread, writing: ‘Anti-vax or JCVI?’
His colleague Professor Alice Roberts, a public health expert at the University of Birmingham, said the views expressed at the meetings were “just appalling”. Other Independent Sage members described them as “upsetting”.
Worth reading in full.
If members of the JCVI can be accused of being “anti-vaxxers”, the phrase has clearly lost any connection with its original meaning and now means “anyone who raises the slightest concern about the Covid vaccines, regardless of their medical or scientific expertise”.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.