Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

2022-12-08

Risk / Benefit analyses have been remarkable throughout the Covid experience by their total absence (please correct me This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if I am wrong).

Finally, now that the regulators in both US and UK are all set to begin rolling out Covid jabs to babes of 6 months and above, the BMJ (why not the MHRA, in the interests of transparency?) has published a paper on the risk / benefit of jabbing healthy university students (aged 18 - 29) against the "omicron variant".

Obviously the devil is in the detail and the full paper needs to be read, but the conclusion is quite succinct and I quote part of it here:

"Our estimate shows that university COVID-19 vaccine mandates are likely to cause net expected harms to young healthy adults—for each hospitalisation averted we estimate approximately 18.5 SAEs and 1430–4626 disruptions of daily activities—that is not outweighed by a proportionate public health benefit. Serious COVID-19 vaccine-associated harms are not adequately compensated for by current US vaccine injury systems. As such, these severe infringements of individual liberty and human rights are ethically unjustifiable."   (My highlights)

(NB: SAE = serious adverse event)

Pretty conclusive I would suggest.

So given that the lower the age group the lower is the risk of hospitalisation from the disease, what possible ethical justification could there be for jabbing babes and toddlers?

I think we should be told.