Thread by @whartonswords

I have just watched the press conference given by @CMO_England and apparently attended by our most ‘astute’ journalists of the day. It was disappointing not to hear one challenging question put to the panel on their decision to vaccinate children aged 12-15.

If I were still working in National newspapers, here are the questions I would want to ask:

35,000 women have reported that the vaccine interferes with their period. Do we know why that would happen? And if not, why not? And why then would we vaccinate those with developing reproductive systems.

Whitty is basing his decision to vax kids on not causing further disruption to their education, but this was a policy decision taken in this country, not others. Why couldn’t he seek assurances from the gov not to do this again instead?

Teachers want to feel safe but presumably they’ve had the vaccine so they are safe, and anyway, a public health england study found that teaching staff do not have a higher risk of infection.

Adults do not want to catch COVID from their kids (though presumably they’re vaccinated too now) but according to a study in Iceland of 40k people, almost all COVID transmission came from adults to children, rather than vice versa

Also, a Scottish study of 300,000 people concluded there was NO evidence that living with young children increased the risk of catching COVID.

We’ve been told for the last 18 months that children are not harmed by COVID and experience, if anything, asymptomatic illness, so was all that wrong? Whitty himself admits the risk to children from COVID is tiny, and therefore so are the benefits of vaxxing them.

It’s estimated that up to 1 in 3000 adolescent boys’ hearts will be damaged as a result of the vaccine. This is treated with further medication which presumably has its own side effects, what are they?

We know the vaccine doesn’t stop positive cases, or transmission, so are vaccinated school children still going to have to isolate, and if not, what exactly will be gained?

Whitty said he has sought assurances that children who do not want the vaccine will not be stigmatised — how does he suppose to get those assurances? Playgrounds can be cruel places, and adults who aren’t vaccinated are stigmatised.

Whitty said the ability of kids to decide on medical intervention is based on Gillick competence — but this was based on the contraceptive pill which had been in circulation for decades by then. How can they apply the same thinking to a vaccine with no long term data?

And come to think of it, what are the long term side effects of the vaccine on children? Because even Pfizer admit it’s too early to tell.

What will be the benefits offered to children who take the vaccine? For example, is the gov now going to lower the age that the unvaccinated should take PCR tests after holidays? Which would have a significant cost impact on a family holiday.

The JCVI refused to say at the press conference they endorse the decision made by the CMO today, they made their decision based on the health of the child, Whitty made his decision based on education, but he wasn’t concerned about mental health when he isolated kids for months.

Any parent who vaccinates their child knows that the JCVI advised against it, it does not help the greater good by stopping infection or transmission, and all those who say ‘well at least I didn’t end up in hospital cos I had the vax’ know that children don’t generally anyway.

So as I’ve said before, if you vaccinated your child, you better hope it’s someone else’s kid that gets the side effects and not yours. 🤷🏼‍♀️

These are just a few questions I came up with off the top of my head, it was disappointing to not see any National news journalists ask one single question about side effects when according to the MHRA more than 1,500 people have died after taking the vaccine.

But as Whitty said: “no vaccine is without risk.” So, are you going to take the risk and get your kid vaccinated?