EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


We have covered the proposal to vaccinate all kids from 12 years upwards previously (here here and here).

The JCVI agreed with our standpoint (although they drew the line at saying that vaccines were more dangerous than Covid, they recognised the high level of uncertainty and the insignificance of the likelihood of any benefit). In a sane world, that would have been it.

Yesterday, the Times reported that

"Chris Whitty is expected to recommend next week that children aged 12 and over be vaccinated after expert advisers told him it would benefit their mental health, education and social development".

I wonder what evidence he would cite (if any) for such a judgement? It seems to me that there is no scientific basis for it, and nothing that would justify overriding the JCVI, but I hope he or Sajid Javid will prove either me or the Times wrong.

Meanwhile the Daily Sceptic reports that a "major new US study has found that teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems due to the vaccine than to be hospitalised from Covid".

And just in case there is any doubt about the final destination: Pfizer Preparing to Seek Approval for Its Covid Vaccine in 5-11 Year-Olds