[wizofaus]

Neither of those links back up your claims. The pause on administering Moderna was originally set to expire December last year - I can't find any suggestion it was extended after that (wikipedia claims it's still restricted in Finland, but the source is an article from December). At any rate the risk was identified as extremely rare, and I'm yet to see any indication it has caused deaths in anyone under 30 in the many countries it's definitely used. Use of AZ as a booster I understand to be unadvised due to efficacy concerns.

[internet_user]

Why are you reading Wikipedia instead of the official government data that I linked?

Directly from the Finnish and British governments.

First link. Click on “vaccines for young people”: Moderna is still banned for boys/young men in Finland. They’ll only give you Pfizer.

The NHS link states exactly what I wrote in my comment too.

Why are you denying the official government sources? Follow the science and advice of competent authorities.

[wizofaus]

Ok so one country has chosen, for whatever reason, not to administer Moderna to men under 30, presumably on the basis that they feel other alternatives are safer (with an explicit note that the guideline is a temporary precautionary measure). That's hardly proof that vaccines are harmful. All medical treatment carries risk. But the risk of refusing it vastly outweighs that.

PS. I still don't see anything on the NHS site indicating there's any concern that AZ is harmful to those under 40.

[internet_user]

>Ok so one country has chosen

FALSE. 20+ countries.

You apparently simply refuse to follow the science from credible authorities.

>But the risk of refusing it vastly outweighs that.

FALSE. Again, why are you refusing to follow the science?

UK's JCVI which is the official scientific body advising the UK govt, and staffed by internationally renowned immunologists and infectious disease specialists, recommended against universal vaccination to 12-15 year olds.

It was specifically due to the risk-benefit consideration, because the benefit is marginal and risks of infection in that age category are very low. [1]

This is the list of the prominent scientists who made those calls.

  Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
  Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
  Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
  Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England)
  Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England)
  Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
  Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
  Alison Lawrence (lay member)
  Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
  Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
  Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
  Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
  Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
  Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
  Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
  Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)

>I still don't see anything on the NHS site indicating there's any concern that AZ is harmful to those under 40.

on the NHS website I linked: "if you're pregnant or under 40 you'll usually be offered appointments for the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines"

Notice how AZ is NOT offered first to those under 40. Did you expect something like: "WARNING. AZ WILL KILL YOU"?

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vacc...

[wizofaus]

Again, absolutely none of that demonstrates vaccines being harmful, only that certain institutions have taken a particular position out of an abundance of caution. Elsewhere in the world literally billions of people in all age groups have received vaccines of all types. If significant numbers were dying or suffering severe long term side effects from said vaccines, we'd know.

[internet_user]

FALSE. We do know.

That's why certain vaccines are NOT given to certain populations. That's precisely why JCVI declined to recommend, it was based on RISK vs benefit considerations.

Because we know. In an emergency, in a global pandemic, a recommendation AGAINST universal vaccination isn't taken lightly, and you seem to imply you know better than JCVI?

lol.

[wizofaus]

Where did I say I was recommending universal vaccination?

The benefit-to-risk ratio may well be quite low for particular vaccines with particular age groups. Again, that's not the same as saying particular vaccines are "harmful". By any reasonable definition all the vaccines we have are extremely safe, and for anyone with a typical chance of contracting COVID and having it develop into a serious illness, I can't see why you wouldn't choose any of them.