The Young And The Hesitant


Chief Medical Officer Dr Tony Holohan

Last night/this morning.

Chielf Medical Officer at the Department of Health, Dr Tony Holohan said:

“Over the course of the last seven days, 32 people with Covid-19 were admitted to critical care facilities and today, there are a total of 60 people with Covid-19 receiving critical care.

“The median age of those in ICU is 55 – this means that 50% of the patients currently in ICU with Covid-19 are aged less than 55 years.”

Dr Holohan added:

“While our vaccination programme continues to offer great hope, at this point in time, only 53% of 16 to 29 year-olds are fully vaccinated. This age group continues to account for the highest incidence of Covid-19 in our population.”

Half of Covid ICU patients under 55, says Holohan (RTÉ)



Vaccination of the young (Irish Medical Times)


Sponsored Link

117 thoughts on “The Young And The Hesitant

  1. Cormac

    The risk of death is a spurious statistic to use. The risk is of other problems to the individual and society. Classic nonsense trying to use his position to pass off a poor argument and get the reader to accept a lack of actual analysis.

    1. Ronan


      Compares the risk of Bell’s Palsy (goes away by itself) with the risk of death otherwise. There are plenty of long term covid effects to consider.

      But either way, equating vaccines with personal risk is the root of the falsehoods. People are getting vaccinated in the main to help protect those most at risk, not themselves.

      What I really don’t get though is, how can you simultaneously:
      1. Be so passionate about the health of others that you are trying to create doubt in the minds of those who elect to take a vaccine, so that they presumably don’t take it.
      2. Be so dispassionate about the health of others that you don’t want people to take vaccines that will slow the progression of Covid through communities.

      I mean, you’re free to to not participate and focus on your own health. Why is the participation of others who say “I don’t care if the vaccine’s risk of temporary side effects is higher than the covid risk for me personally” bothering you so much?

    2. SOQ

      The risk of other CoVid-19 problems in the teen and children group is also low surely?

      The problem here is that if you neighbour’s cat tested positive then you are a Covid case but if you drop 16 minutes after a jab, it is a mere coincidence and will take a very long time to prove otherwise.

      Given that vaccinated people can have just as high a viral count as non, there is no real communitarian argument and besides, granny is already jabbed and back scrambling on her motor cycle or sky driving or whatever she was up to beforehand.

      1. andrew

        “The risk of other CoVid-19 problems in the teen and children group is also low surely?”

        With respect, SOQ, your comments are mind-achingly painful to read. Can you explain this to me:

        On the one hand, you’re alarmed about “maybe/could be/possible/who knows?” side effects of the vaccine at some unknown time in the future – even though all the scientific evidence from multiple independent sources indicates this fear is not in any way substantiated. But yet you dismiss the risk of Covid 19 problems that may arise in the future – even though we know with absolute certainty that viruses very often cause problems years later. How does that makes sense?

          1. andrew

            You want me to provide you with a link to prove that something-that-does-not-exist truly does not exist?

          2. Man On Fire

            More gaslighting.

            A non Pfizer/reuters link to the lack of long term side effects to the mrna vaccines, for which you are claiming.

          3. andrew

            Okay, Man on Fire, I know I’m wasting my time but I’ll do it again:

            The suggestion that we don’t yet know the long-term consequences of COVID-19 vaccines is wrong. Whenever vaccines have caused long-term consequences in the past, these have emerged within a month of the first vaccine does. This is how vaccines work. If you can’t grasp that, you simply don’t understand how vaccines work. And, as it happens, lots of regular GPs don’t understand how vaccines work – they should but they don’t. And for the most part they can get away with not knowing because they don’t technically need to know.

            Of much more concern are thew long-term complications of the virus itself. We don’t know what these are because COVID-19 has only been around for two years. When you catch a virus, the virus uses your cells to create new virus particles. During the infection, this happens in loads of cells all over your body. Often that leaves some of the virus’s genetic material in your genes. (Did you know that around 6 percent of your DNA is comprised of junk DNA from viruses that you or your ancestors caught?).

            There are endless later onset complications from viral infections that we encounter.

            For example, measles – suacute sclerosing penencephalitis, which can be fatal; Hep B or C – cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer; EBV – loads of lymphoma and cancers…

            I could go on and on.


            The vaccine is NOT a long-term danger to your children, but COVID19 may very well be.

          4. andrew


            Well, I do not have children, but if I did then yes absolutely – 100% I would have them vaccinated.

            And with the greatest of respect, I think every parent has a responsibility to inform themselves and do what’s right for their child – and that is vaccination.

          5. Micko


            Man on internet with no stake in the game recommends course of action that he believes can only benefit himself and also has absolutely no negative impact on himself.

            Good to know.

          6. andrew


            “course of action that he believes can only benefit himself”

            Good grief. I can’t engage with this. If you don’t have an intelligent response, it’s OK to say nothing. Preferable, in fact.

          7. andrew

            @Man On Fire

            You regularly (not just today) accuse me of “gaslighting”

            I’ve really no idea what you mean by that or in what way you think I’m doing that.,

          8. Man On Fire

            Blurting out unsubstantiated rubbish andrew. Attempting to pass off Pfizer prs as evidence of something.

            You know well what gaslighting is.

          9. andrew

            @Man On Fire

            Point out one thing I have said above that is untrue and explain how and why. I realise your mode is more peripheral sniping without actually proferring any actual challenge but perhaps this once you might have something to offer and debate?

          10. Man On Fire

            andrew, it’s not my fault you can’t substantiate your claims.

            Here’s a tip, if you can’t properly support your argument, don’t make it in the first place.

          11. andrew


            No, I do not think that “Everyone is dumber than [me]”. I meet someone every 20 minutes who is demonstrably superior in terms of intelligence and learning to me. And I enjoy it. But in fairness I think your lack of critical faculties are quite well established at this point. So not all that controversial to say that, yes, you are dumber than me.

          12. goldenbrown


            I’m not here to bicker

            may I ask you a dead straight question?

            if you had a normally healthy child and your trusted family GP said “no” would you ignore that advice and instead heed the messaging from the HSE?

          13. andrew


            Despite how it might appear, I am not here to bicker either.

            If my GP gave me that advice, I would find myself another GP. I’m guessing that GP is – and I genuinely do not mean this to be rude etc – of advanced years.

            I don’t take my view from the HSE or the NHS or the CDC or any other agency or organization. I consider the entirety of the information from reputable sources and form my opinion on that basis. And I am actually professionally qualified to do so.

          14. goldenbrown

            thanks andrew

            ok so given 95% of us out there aren’t personally qualified to answer questions like this

            what does this say about the state of play with family GP’s? do we trust in them or don’t we? in my own case circa 30 years, 3 generations deep, has made numerous “saves” in the past including a couple of serious ones
            someone I know to be very well known and highly respected in the medical community in a busy practice…he ain’t doddery

            I have to have a root of trust somewhere in all of this
            and if it’s him v’s HSE or any other construct of Government I’ll choose him every time

            my kid is happy, he’s healthy (as sure as I can be) may even already had C19 and I’m leaving him alone

          15. andrew

            @Man On Fire

            So not able to point out one thing I have said above that is untrue and explain how and why – just more sniping without being able to actually say anything.

            Would you not like to have a try? Like actually express an opinion and back it up with an argument?

            Like actual grown-up debate… go on, try.

          16. Slave to the Rhythm

            @ andrew

            he couldn’t do that, even if he did try

            however, he says he has two degrees you know!

            been shut down here loads of times after he inevitably gets too personal.

            don’t waste your time friend.

          17. andrew

            @Slave to the Rhythm

            To be honest, SttR, I’m not really doing this for his benefit. So I dont consider it wasting my time. I put comments up here to counter the lies and misinformation that the likes of ManOnFire, SOK and Micko spew on an hourly basis. I do it on the off-chance that there is a mother or a father who is anxious about vaccinating their child (which is completely understandable) and reads their rubbish and feels even more anxious and uncertain. I just want those people to know that this trio are telling lies. I’m sure half the people on here think I’m a tedious drone but whatever. It might help someone.

          18. Micko

            “ yes, you are dumber than me.”

            Well clearly that can’t be true.

            I mean, you’re a young 30 something year old that took an brand new medicine you didn’t need, just to prove how right on you are.

            Well done. You smart…

            Now back to your own land Sasanach.


          19. Micko

            “ this trio are telling lies.”

            Woh woh woh there Andrew.

            Opinions dude. Opinions. We have differing opinions. Not lies.

            Besides, the only thing we disagree about is injecting children with the new Covid vaccines. I’m all for injecting the vulnerable.

            You’re mad for sticking kids and I think we should be cautious. That’s all

            You seem to think that myself and the others are some elite cabal of “misinformation mongers” and you have a personal crusade like a myopic mythbuster to sort us out and protect all the other dumb people who might be taken in by our evil lies.

            I thought you were smarter than that chief. :p

          20. Man On Fire

            Wear it like a badge of honour Micko.

            And still no links to back up his nonsense.

            At this stage Im just throwing my head back with laughter.

            Total. Busted. Flush.

          21. K. Cavan

            Andrew, mRNA injections have nothing in common with any previous vaccines, which were Innoculations, comparing them is utterly ridiculous.
            We do not know if this new drug therapy will work, is safe or even if it will afford any immunity but we know it will not prevent infection or transmission.
            it’s inventor, Dr Robert Malone says under-18’s should not take it.
            In Ireland, only 2 people under the age of 25 have been listed as dying from Covid, it looks like there is no Pandemic in young people (therefore, by definition, no Pandemic). There is no serious, unfrivolous reason why young people should volunteer to be lab rats for Big Pharma & anyone urging them to do so is engaging in inexcusably reckless behaviour & endangerment.

        1. SOQ

          @ Andrew- there is no long term safety data on these injections- there couldn’t possibly be, so why wouldn’t young people be hesitant?

          There is a big difference between jabbing a 72 year old and a 12 year old because long term is way more important to the latter, especially as their risk of developing CoVid-19 is so low in the first place.

          1. andrew


            You and I discussed this at length before. Odd that we appear to be embarking on it again but okay – I’ll be repeating myself, but more for the benefit of others.


            There is no “usual testing schedule”. The time you need to wait to generate confidence in safety varies substantially with the ‘type’ of new therapy in question. Small molecules are different to biologics are different to vaccines are different to whatever.

            While trials are divided into multiple endpoints that finish over the course of a few years – and the estimated study completion date of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is Feb 2023 – the safety endpoints are already completed..

          2. Man On Fire

            That’s not the answer andrew . That’s you feigning to answer and than gaslighting.

            Busted flush.

          3. andrew

            @Mian On Fire

            So what’s the answer then?

            An actual number now, not bluster or insults. Just a number…

            So what is it?

          4. andrew


            Why are you giving me your search results?

            You said there has not been enough time to be assured of safety with respect to COVID-19 vaccines… correct? So how much time do you believe is needed? And why?

            Two simple questions.

            If you actually know what you’re talking about, you’ll be able to answer these two simple questions with two simple answers.

            I suspect, though, that you’ll ignore this and simply pop up again making the same dishonest uninformed claims on another thread in a few days.

            So let’s see… can you answer: How much time? And why?

          5. SOQ

            I usually give search results these days because otherwise some clown will come along bitching at the selected site, while conveniently ignoring the issue.

            5 – 10 years appears to be the average time and while some of that may have been speeded up by teams working together, somethings, like safety monitoring, take time.

            Combine that with the fact that these injections are experimental and it is perfectly understandable why people would not want their children injected with it- AT THIS POINT.

            That doesn’t make them conspiracy whatevers nor anti vax- just cautious and sensible parents.

          6. andrew


            5-10 years based on what? Because that’s what some other treatments took? Can you not see how weak your reasoning is?

            Again, we have already been through this – but I am doing it again.

            Allow me to frame your argument as: 1) All vaccines need long term safety data (of unspecified time). 2) COVID vaccines do not have long term safety data (of unspecified time). 3) Therefore, COVID vaccines are not safe.

            As I said above, the time you need to prove the safey of something varies and depends on the ‘type’ of new therapy you’re looking at.

            Drugs that are administered for chronic conditions accumulate safety data as time goes on. Carcinogenicity/teratogenicity/genotoxicity studies accompany development to de-risk. Toxicologists can wreck your fave project but are like goalkeepers stopping you conceding.

            This is paramount for molecules that can have diverse off-target activities with negative outcomes. MANY drugs with favourable drug-like properties will fail, as the the future of a company can depend on not screwing up – and more importantly, patients may suffer.

            These points above are for drugs administered over many years, perhaps daily, twice daily, weekly, monthly and so on. This is *very* different for a vaccine. It’s a one-and-done kind of intervention/regimen, split over one or more doses (potentially with boosters to follow).
            What is a good amount of time to be sure that a vaccine won’t result in something nasty? There are only two major areas to look at: 1) Components of the vaccine itself that can cause long term effects? 2) Consequences of immunisation, that can result in long term effects?

            What’s in an mRNA vaccine? Lipids & polyethylene glycol (widely used laxative and excipient). The rest are substances that can be found in milk products, soft drinks, fruits, or that disgusting stuff you use to make vodka jelly .… and of course some mRNA.

            We know these substances and their properties. We obliviously ingest them daily. PEG can be a problem, and anyone with history of allergy is informed pre-jab. This is also why you sit 15 minutes after vaccination, incidentally. They’re looking for anaphylaxis armed with EpiPens.

            So.. we are left with the immunisation. To understand where the risks lie, you need to understand what’s happening in your body. For the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, primary safety endpoints for serious adverse events conclude after 6 months. Why?

            The immune response elicited by COVID vaccines varies between products. In all cases, T cells are primed and move out of the lymph nodes looking for a fight. Antibody titers elevate. This begins around a week after, and continues for a number of months.

            This is where risk of vaccine-related severe adverse events is highest (like Guillan-Barré, ITP, VITT, myocarditis). These are identified and documented, and we have observed this system in operation. With vaccines, this will happen in the first weeks/months after the jab.

            Then the immune response settles, effector cells decrease in frequency, memory cells are established, humoral immunity plateaus before its slow decline. The risk of immunisation-related severe complications doesn’t further increase after this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

            Finally, a word on antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This would be hypothesised to occur when non-neutralizing Abs (or low titers) bind to the spike without clearing infection, allowing uptake of active virions into macrophages, where they further replicate.
            Many variants are sub optimally neutralised by post-vaccine sera (beta, delta etc). Many virology labs demonstrated this. Nonetheless, we’re not seeing more severe disease as a consequence of our vaccine rollouts. I wouldn’t hold your breath that it will happen, either.

          7. andrew

            @LittleBoy On Fire

            Once again, instead of the childish little-boy sniping, can you refute or challenge one single thing I have said above? Every word of it correct and true, but have a go.

          8. Man On Fire

            So now you’re dealing in petulant insults, after whinging about the very same thing up above.

            And once again, your opinion is of no interest to me, if you have an opinion based on independent evidence supported with a link, I’m all ears, but you don’t.

            Back up your opinion and we can discuss otherwise don’t bother.

          9. andrew

            @LittleBoy On Fire

            My comments are not opinions. All facts. Once again, can you challenge or refute one single thing I have said?

            Or will you again just attempt to deflect?

            I don’t think you’re able to engage and challenge – and I suspect your next comment will show you up. So let’s have it… where am I wrong?

          10. K. Cavan

            andrew, that bit after the bit about there not being any “usual testing schedule” was genuinely inspiring.
            I especially like the way you ended your makey-uppy sciencey bit with “whatever”.

  2. goldenbrown

    my own question as to whether to bring my 12 year old fella to get vaccinated has been clearly answered in full by my GP recently, yep I sought clarification from an experienced man who has managed my family’s medical matters for the last 30+ years instead of just thinking about it

    and it really 100% honestly doesn’t give me any satisfaction or feeling vindicated, more so a bewilderment

    I’d wonder how many GP’s out there are like mine and that IT letters writer…giving reasoned advice and seemingly standing apart from the likes of Papa Reid’s FOMO marketing campaign

    anybody wondering where hesitancy is coming from? one factor at least is dishonesty on the part of the relevant authorities imho

    1. Slave to the Rhythm

      I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
      Take a bow for the new revolution
      Smile and grin at the change all around
      Pick up my guitar and play
      Just like yesterday
      Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
      We don’t get fooled again

  3. Kim Cardassian

    A quick look at Dr. William Ralph‘a Twitter feed gives a telling insight. He’s one of those “BUT DE NUREMBURG CODE” types

    1. chris

      Right, and you’d like to see the Nuremberg Code repealed I guess, one of ‘those’ eh? Sinister.

  4. Cian

    Jeez. Another doctor spreading misinformation.

    He is factually incorrect. The original Pfiser Phase 3 trial had 41,135 participants and the Moderna has “over 30,000” participants [half would get the vaccine and half a placebo]. This is a lot more than the 2,000 he claims.

    He is also comparing one aspect of getting Covid (death) against various adverse events from the vaccine. Covid has other adverse effects apart from death.

    0/10 would not attend this doctor’s practice.

    1. SOQ

      Covid has other adverse effects apart from death which in the main do not affect young either- he is correct.

    2. Man On Fire

      I think he mentioned young people as in children. Have you a link to phase 3 Pfizer trials on children with the numbers you’re mentioning?

      1. goldenbrown

        you won’t get an answer to this question of vaccinating healthy children

        because certain people on here have agendas and the scenario has narrowed to being almost completely polarised; in the case of those advocating for vaccination it simply undermines the campaign to discuss it

        the amazing thing to me is that it appears to be one of the few straightforward matters in the whole affair, but anyway I will continue to go with my GP

        1. george

          “Vaccinating healthy children” – that’s how vaccines work. If someone is already sick a vaccine doesn’t do anything.

          1. Cian

            But it is how it works.

            We have routinely vaccinate babies against rubella (MMR) since 1988.

            But rubella isn’t at all dangerous. There is little or no risk to a person who has rubella.

            Do you want to know why we vaccinate healthy children for something (rubella) they have little or no risk from? hmmm?

          2. Cian

            Rubella is not a risk for children.

            In children, rubella is usually mild, with few noticeable symptoms. For children who do have symptoms, a red rash is typically the first sign. The rash generally first appears on the face and then spreads to the rest of the body, and lasts about three days. Other symptoms that may occur 1 to 5 days before the rash appears include:

            – a low-grade fever
            – headache
            – mild pink eye (redness or swelling of the white of the eye)
            – general discomfort
            – swollen and enlarged lymph nodes
            – cough
            – runny nose

            Most adults who get rubella usually have a mild illness, with low-grade fever, sore throat, and a rash that starts on the face and spreads to the rest of the body.

            Some adults may also have a headache, pink eye, and general discomfort before the rash appears.

            About 25 to 50% of people infected with rubella will not experience any symptoms.


          3. Kim Cardassian

            Ah but Cian. You left out the bit where rubella is very serious for pregnant women and the unborn. What compounds the concern is, as you’ve pointed out, that rubella often shows up mild in less risky age groups. If rubella was prevalent in society imagine what that would mean for the risk groups….

            Thankfully rubella is eradicated in many countries, thanks to vaccines.

            Fancy that.

          4. goldenbrown


            per andrew above

            I’m not here to bicker, can I ask you a dead straight question?

            If you had a child and your family GP said “no” would you ignore that advice and instead heed the messaging from the HSE?

          5. Cian

            @Kim Cardassian
            Exactly; we vaccinate babies to protect pregnant women.

            which is the opposite of SOQ’s
            Vaccinating healthy children for something they have little or no risk of, is NOT how it works.

            PS I believe the rubella vaccine is a good thing.

          6. Kim Cardassian

            Ehhh but we vaccinate healthy children against with the rubella vaccine.. you’re for that. Soooooooo?

            I don’t think you understand what you’re saying! lol

          7. Cian

            If you had a child and your family GP said “no” would you ignore that advice and instead heed the messaging from the HSE?

            I do; and will be asking my GP (whom I trust). She also has kids of a similar ages to mine. If she were to say no I would be in a difficult place. To be honest I don’t know what I would do; it would depend on her reasoning.

      2. GiggidyGoo

        Man On Fire’s question. “Have you a link to phase 3 Pfizer trials on children with the numbers you’re mentioning? “You dodged that one Cian.

    3. Paul Davis

      “0/10 would not attend this doctor’s practice.”

      So in other words you are 100% going to this doctor?

        1. Man On Fire

          Have you a link to the phase 3 trial involving children with the numbers you’re mentioning Cian?

  5. Paul Scally

    The Covid vaccine does not stop you catching covid, nor does it stop you transmitting covid, it only reduces your symptoms. Also those who have taken the vaccine will need to get booster shots to cope with new variants such as delta and presumably further booster shots for any future variants. As these vaccines are new, there is no long term data for possible side effects 2, to 3 years down the line. Should any long term side effects start to show up in 2 or 3 years, we will have a huge medical crisis on our hands that could dwarf the pandemic itself.

    1. Kim Cardassian

      In the history of vaccines it’s been extremely rare for a so called “long term” side effects to emerge. Vast majority of side effects emerge in the first 2 months.

      1. alickdouglas

        Agree that the majority do manifest within 2 months.

        That said, it’s not an argument to support roll out in <18 years. Furthermore, I've yet to see any data that suggests that enough under 18s are quantifiably at risk of impactful illness due to SARS-CoV-2 to support mass vaccination of that age group. I don't support the notion that medical interventions should be done to one population to protect another.

        1. SOQ

          Just wondering alick- can you think of any other instance before where medical interventions were performed on one demographic in order to protect another?

          1. alickdouglas

            Very few: Cocooning for pertussis: vaccinate parents and grandparents to prevent pertussis in newborns before they reach the age of first vaccination. That however is targeted vaccine offered to specific members of society with a pretty awful take up rate. Varicella vaccine has sometimes been proposed to protect immunosuppressed people in the general population, but I don’t recall any health authorities coming on board. You could argue that global eradication initiatives do it: polio, guinea worm, perhaps rubella (i.e. vaccinate all to protect pregnant women). Polio is supported by a WHA assembly, so that’s a special case: and anyway polio vaccines don’t block transmission, rather like COVID19 ones. HPV vaccination of men is an interesting case where in theory you vaccinate men to prevent them passing the virus to women, but the on-label indication is prevention of cancer in men if memory serves. Short answer short, it’s not common at all.

        2. goldenbrown

          this is how my own GP put it to me more or less

          I’d suspect there is a divergence here…
          – HSE are driving a DIRECT marketing campaign and service
          – GP’s (some/many/unknown) are being GP’s to those who seek the advice

          anyway I’m taking his advice at this time

        3. Cian

          Are you against the rubella vaccine?
          It is a medical interventions done to one population to protect another.

          1. alickdouglas

            No I’m not against the rubella vaccine but I don’t agree that at its center it’s an intervention done to one population to protect another. The most recognised impact of rubella is on the foetus, where the impact is catastrophic. Without wishing to enter into a debate about when life begins, foetuses are not a population.
            There are other points to consider. The current use of rubella vaccine has its roots in large, long term studies starting in the 1960s. I’m unaware of any major safety concerns that would justify re-considering the current use of the vaccine. Furthermore, the vaccine anyway is effectively only available as a bundle with measles (and usually mumps vaccine in the west). And in case you are wondering, I have major misgivings about the polio eradication initiative, but for practical purposes it has gone on so long that it would be insane not to complete it. And I wasn’t in an position to argue against it in 1988.

          2. Cian

            The only reason that children are given the rubella vaccination is to protect pregnant women (and indirectly their unborn children from stillbirth/blindness).

            This is the definition of one population are getting a medical intervention to protect another.

            The mothers are definitely “another population”, and while you might argue if the foetuses are “a population” once they are born (70% blind) they certainly are!

            The fact it is bundled in the MMR is moot, it could be unbundled.

          3. alickdouglas

            Sorry Cian, that’s a gross oversimpification. The way to prevent rubella in the foetus is to vaccinate the mother, ideally close to child-bearing age. Rubella is used in infancy because it partners well with measles and it was previously thought that herd immunity was achievable (it is theoretically, but probably not practically). The thrust of the MR campaign is driven by WHO’s 2011 measles strategy: rubella is piggy-backed onto the strategy both because the vaccines are bundled by the manufacturer and because epi systems tend to catch both measles and rubella. (Mumps is there in richer countries because it’s convenient). Furthermore, there’s unfortunately a decent set of evidence that where infant vaccination rates are lower than about 50% it causes an increased risk to pregnant women (one paper, there are others, here: There’s plenty written on the topic, particularly by Stanley Plotkin.
            I can tell you from personal painful experience that unbundling measles from rubella is a nightmare. Serum Institute have it on their books, but I don’t believe that they actually sell any, and WHO discourage the unbundling anyway.

          4. Cian

            The discussion isn’t about unbundling rubella from MMR (which it used to not be in). As I said above I think the MMR is good, I’m not looking to have it removed. It is very low risk to the individual and has a greater good for both the individual and society. It’s a no-brainer.

            The discussion is that we are vaccinating one population (baby boys and baby girls) to give protection to another population (pregnant women and their unborn).

            And, by extension, if someone opposes the Covid vaccines solely for this reason then they should be anti-Rubella too.

          5. andrew

            @LittleBoy On Fire

            “Switch and divert when caught in a pickle.”

            Says the boy who never actually says anything…

          6. Man On Fire

            Says the guy who whinges about being insulted and than proceeds to petulantly insult.


          7. alickdouglas

            >The discussion is that we are vaccinating one population (baby boys and baby girls) to give protection to another population (pregnant women and their unborn).

            No Cian I do not agree with you; there are plenty of data to show that vaccinating baby boys and girls is not efficient at preventing rubella in pregnant women and that paradoxically there are separate data (see cited reference above, there are others), that unless there is significant uptake in older girls, vaccination of infants can paradoxically exacerbate the problem of CRS. The DATA to support vaccinating young children against rubella is poor. The rationale behind rubella vaccination of infants is not driven by data but nowadays it is driven by habit and convenience and cost. The position is encouraged by the WHO because it supports the aims of the 2011 guidelines on measles.

            >And, by extension, if someone opposes the Covid vaccines solely for this reason then they should be anti-Rubella too

            Oh right, that’s set me straight. I’ll go and sit in the corner now.

  6. andrew

    In teens, the COVID19 vaccines carry a very small risk of myocarditis (heart muscle inflammation) after the 2nd dose. We are talking around 50 cases per million doses in the case of boys and around 12 cases per million doses in girls. In the vast majority of instances, it is mild and resolve itself within a short time.

    Teens who get COVID19 get myocarditis much more frequently – studies have it at anything from 500-3,000 cases per million cases.

    It’s not even a contest.

    The risk of the virus is significantly greater than the risk of the vaccine. And this logic applies to any known negligible risk from the vaccine.

      1. andrew

        Would you accept an NHS link? Or is that agency involved in the lizard-morphing underworld conspiracy too?

  7. george

    So the Dr compares the risk of death from Covid with the risk of some side effects of the vaccine.
    He does not compare the risk of the various other complications from covid-19 with the risk of side effects.
    He does not compare the risk of death from Covid with the risk of death from vaccination.

    He is a disingenuous clown.

    The main study into this was done in Hong Kong and “concluded that, for every 100,000 people vaccinated with CoronaVac, an additional 4.8 people may develop Bell’s palsy”.

  8. Slave to the Rhythm

    I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth
    The north side of my town faced east, and the east was facing south
    And now you dare to look me in the eye
    Those crocodile tears are what you cry
    It’s a genuine problem, you won’t try
    To work it out at all you just pass it by, pass it by

    – Every anti-vax, ‘skeptic’, reactionary crank on this site, ever

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link