Children aged 12-15 to be offered covid jab at schools in England

By properly tested I mean over a long period to see what all the side affects are, you can't do that with less than a year of testing and some serious ones have already emerged albeit not affecting very many people.

So how long should drug trials last before you accept the results?
Is it simply the length of time from formulation to approval that concerns you, or is it the specific length of time that the clinical trials last?
Pretty much every medication has serious side effects in a few cases, even the ones that have undergone 'Luben Approved' testing.

Personally I won't even consider it for at least 10-20 years until I can see how it affects others over the long term.

Like with the blood clots/hearts inflammation, there may be people now who are fine but this will become an issue when they are older due to the vaccine.

Seems like a rather lazy cop out... the supposed safety concerns you have here i rather doubt you apply to much else in life despite the risks associated with it or the lack of study on it..

you cant fight nature.

All children aged 12 to 15 in England will be offered one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid jab, Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi has said.

Check out the full story.

If you're a student aged 12-15, how do you feel about being offered a covid jab?

It's not just the vaccine but the way the government/media is behaving that is rather off-putting, censoring criticism and using coercion to push uptake.

wholly agree. This vaccine is only phase 2 testing and only for emergency use but we are not longer in an emergency, these variants are getting weaker because it adjusts to be more transmissible and less harmful for humans, thats how a virus lives. This isnt like Ebola with a %55 chance of death, this is just but a simple flu virus that can give you chest infections, colds or tiredness etc. We've all had to live with viruses like these. If it was the 1930's - 1970's then yes I would be worried but we have clean water, central heating and medicines, we can easily manage flu viruses providing we look after ourselves and not letting big government get involved. The government is not responsible for your health nor should interfere with it. Im not having this vaccine until at least 2024 when as much long-term data has been collected and I have spoken to my GP. Its when I feel as it is safe to do so. I dont want government offering me freebies or blackmailing me, threatening to shun people out of society because they wont take the needle. If they bring out these virus passports then I wont spend my money at said businesses, not that any business would do that unless they want to damage their profits, so be it. We was born into freedom, we was not given it, it was fought for, and fought hard by our great grandparents. If this is how we are going to live then WWI/II was for nothing. Freedom was just some illusion to be shattered. The media arent certainly not helping because they are but hired reporters, to push for agendas. One caller on BBC radio wanted to talk about the side affects to the vaccine and he was promptly switched off and he was directed to another caller that he was going 'off subject' and had to be shut down.

We may as well live in a communist country where its not allowed to talk bad about something, that everything is 'fine' just like in Chernobyle where everything was 'fine' and everyone needs to keep smiling when in actual act they were breathing in death and for decades to come, it was only when it was too late that alarm bells were ringing. The same will happen here

While I have no objection to 18+ choosing to be vaccinated the statistical risk of death is sub 1% (assuming no health conditions) below the age of about 50.

Essentially there is little material benefit beyond a small reduction in cases among a group which is not statistically vulnerable, especially since government is discussing overriding parents wishes to pander to the irrational fear of young students.

So I am mildly opposed.

More Covidiot lies. Why are you doing this?

Are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or just stupid? Serious question.

You know I'm starting to get real sick of this new trend where people just label anything they disagree with "misinformation". Whether you like it or not, some of us have real concerns about this vaccine and we're probably not going to get the jab unless those concerns are properly addressed. If you attack and ridicule us for raising our concerns, then what do you think is going to happen? We're just going to be more sceptical because if our concerns are as unfounded as you say, why not just answer them?

I'm not sure you actually understand what misinformation is, so I'll try explaining it for you. It's comes down to a persons intent. If someone has a genuine concern about the safety of the vaccine, but that concern isn't supported by medical data and we reassure them and explain why they don't need to worry, that doesn't mean they were spreading misinformation. Their concern turned out to be unfounded, but at the time they were genuinely worried about the safety of a medical procedure and they were absolutely correct to raise that concern. Misinformation is when you deliberately spread lies. Chris Whitty stood there and said we could have 4000 deaths a day, knowing fine well the most recent data did not support that at all. Isn't that misinformation? What do you have to say about the Chief Medical Adviser misleading (at best) and worst telling a bald faced lie to the general public in the middle of a pandemic?

Source for the 4000 deaths a day
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13343802/covid-daily-deaths-lower-government-predications/

At the start of November, the predications were branded “Noddy Land figures” and "clearly ropey" by experts who said the modelling that provided the figure was outdated.

Whether you like it or not, some of us have real concerns about this vaccine and we're probably not going to get the jab unless those concerns are properly addressed

I'm not sure you actually understand what misinformation is, so I'll try explaining it for you. It's comes down to a persons intent. If someone has a genuine concern about the safety of the vaccine, but that concern isn't supported by medical data and we reassure them and explain why they don't need to worry, that doesn't mean they were spreading misinformation. Their concern turned out to be unfounded, but at the time they were genuinely worried about the safety of a medical procedure and they were absolutely correct to raise that concern. Misinformation is when you deliberately spread lies. Chris Whitty stood there and said we could have 4000 deaths a day, knowing fine well the most recent data did not support that at all. Isn't that misinformation? What do you have to say about the Chief Medical Adviser misleading (at best) and worst telling a bald faced lie to the general public in the middle of a pandemic?

With all due respect you yourself have just spread misinformation, by yourt own admission no less. Someone giving their medical opinion, especially the highlighted bit, is not 'misinformation' it is an estimate based on the evidence they had at the time.. Not an intent to deceive.

No I haven't. Chris Whitty told the public that we could have 4000 deaths a day. At the time he said that, the data did NOT support that assertion, and Whitty knew that the data did not support that assertion. Doesn't that mean he was spreading misinformation? He was not giving a genuine estimate based on the data, he was intentionally exaggerating the amount of deaths, presumably to scare us into another lockdown. It was clearly a calculated move.

That is why I'm not trusting them. He still won't apologize for misleading the public nearly a year later. Why should I trust him when he tells me the vaccine is safe? I'm pretty sure it is safe, but when you've been lied to once, you tend to lose faith.

You know I'm starting to get real sick of this new trend where people just label anything they disagree with "misinformation".

No I haven't. Chris Whitty told the public that we could have 4000 deaths a day. At the time he said that, the data did NOT support that assertion, and Whitty knew that the data did not support that assertion. Doesn't that mean he was spreading misinformation? He was not giving a genuine estimate based on the data, he was intentionally exaggerating the amount of deaths, presumably to scare us into another lockdown. It was clearly a calculated move.

That is why I'm not trusting them. He still won't apologize for misleading the public nearly a year later. Why should I trust him when he tells me the vaccine is safe? I'm pretty sure it is safe, but when you've been lied to once, you tend to lose faith.

Claiming that there could be 4000 deaths per day, as a worst case scenario, is not "an assertion", it is an "estimated prediction, given the worst possible combination of events" if nothing was done. Even with the measures put in place, we still reached nearly 2000 deaths a day!

FFS why do people keep saying this? It was not an estimated prediction. The numbers being used were out of date, and the most recent data did not support the 4000 deaths a day figure. Everyone keeps using the flawed analogy of a weather forecaster accidentally getting predictions wrong. But what happened here is more like a weather forecaster having data that suggests it's going to rain, then turning round and telling us that the data actually says it's going to be sunny. 4000 deaths a day was not a genuine prediction based on data, it was completely rubbish Noddy Land figures intended to scare the public into complying with a second lockdown.

The Chief Medical Adviser shouldn't be spreading misinformation during a pandemic.