|
|
|
|
|
|
by glanard_frugner
1749 days ago
|
|
|
>Are chilren in the UK given the choice for themselves? why should they be? if the scientists determined that the vaccine is of marginal benefit to them compared to the risks, then they don’t need it. the fact that they want it because the tv told them it’s the right thing to do is irrelevant. i guess “following the science” only applies when the science agrees with the predetermined status quo |
|
|
As individuals, they can benefit. The article even identifies 200k individuals within the group that do.
The JVCI is saying that as individuals within their age group, there is no obvious benefit on average.
Plenty of people, including teenagers, can make more informed choices as an individual, because they have information about their health circumstances, psychological state, personal ethics, or opinions about the risks to others around them.
I would hope the JCVI is not making a group level decision that overrides individual choice (within the subpopulation of 12 to 15 year olds.)
As stated, New Zealand is letting teenagers make their own choice, and there is a good chance that the decision make by NZ scientists and authorities fairly weighed up the benefits and risks to teenagers (or maybe just decided teenagers should be given a free cost opportunity to make their own decision).
It is not hard to guess that over 1% of teenagers (10s of thousands) would be psychologically far better off choosing to get vaccinated. Maybe the JCVI only looks at physical risks, and not psychological risks?
Disclaimer: I am strongly pro-choice. I also also strongly believe in a society that limits what non-vaccinated people can do, if their choice is judged to risk severe harm to others. Just as you need a driver’s licence to be able to share the roads safely. You can choose to drive without a driver’s licence, yet society is likely to act against you if you do so, even if you really do need to drive for a very good reason.