Patrick Christys: Do vaccinations pose a needless risk to children?

'Could we not be doing more to convince these adults to take the jab?'

Published Last updated

Jabbing kids. Where do you stand?

Is it perfectly safe and the - obviously- right thing to do, or does it pose a needless risk to children and remove parental control?

Here’s where I’m at.

I don’t like it. And I don’t like it for a few reasons.

Firstly, vaccinating children appears to be more of a political decision than a medical one– the official line is we’re only really jabbing kids to stop disruption to schools, not because it might keep them fit and healthy.

That doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to jab millions of young children.

And then there’s this element to it that I find deeply, deeply worrying:

All children in the age group will be offered a first Pfizer jab as soon as possible, with the programme led by in-school vaccination services.

A second injection will be potentially given once more evidence is gathered.

‘Once more evidence is gathered…’ ?

I don’t like that.

Especially considering that the official number of healthy children with Covid ending up in intensive care is just two in every million.

Apparently the chances of being struck by lightening are about one in a million so we’re not far off that are we? We shouldn’t be playing roulette with children’s lives.

The JCVI, which has 20 members comprising some of the most eminent scientific and medical minds in the country, recommended that 12-15-year-olds should not be given the jab.

They cited a minimal health benefit but also noted the risk of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart that can be fatal, there is no known cure, treatment is erratic at best, it can reoccur and there’s no known way to prevent it from doing so.

It’s important to state that this is an incredibly rare condition.

The JCVI wanted to ‘continue to review safety data’ before it would feel comfortable recommending jabs for kids.

However, what Sajid Javid did was find a way 'round this – he said the JCVI was not qualified to consider the effect not vaccinating children might have on the disruption to their education.

Apparently, only Chris Whitty is placed to consider that – despite the fact that six people on the JCVI actually work in education.

But it’s alright, because at least only kids with parental consent can get jabbed.

Apart from, yet again, that’s a myth. In cases where the child’s view differs from the parent’s, and the child is deemed ‘competent enough’ - how and by who I would like to know - then the child can get jabbed.

So, actually, parental consent just wont exist in practice.

Meanwhile, we have 44.7% of the black community not jabbed, 29% south Asian, 16% white adults and 30.8% of the poorest in society.

Could we not be doing more to convince these adults to take the jab, instead of jabbing children against the advice of the top tier scientific community... all without parental consent would you believe?

Here’s where I’m at – a medical procedure should only be given on medical grounds. And the decision to jab kids isn’t – make no mistake, it’s being done for political reasons.

Sticking a needle in your child’s arm shouldn’t be the solution to the government’s problem with finding a creative way of keeping kids in class during the back end of a pandemic.