One country is starting to get some common sense

That leads to more questions............

I just read the United Kingdom (U.K.) JCVI statement on COVID_19 vaccination of children and young people aged 12 to 17 years that came out July 15, 2021

Here is one paragraph from their statement.

"Clear information on the potential risks and benefits of vaccination should be provided to the child and those with parental responsibility prior to vaccination.

Until more data become available, JCVI does not currently advise routine universal vaccination of children and young people less than 18 years of age. JCVI will keep this advice under review as more safety and effectiveness information become available on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in children and young people.

The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain. At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks."

So far their recommendations have more common sense than what is going on here in the US. At present the UK is not recommending the COVID mRNA treatment for children ages 12-17 unless certain circumstances warrant, and even then they use the word "offered" for the treatment as opposed to mandatory or required.

But after reading what appears to be some semblance of common sense and rationality, it made me think a bit more and brought on more questions that I would like asked and answered by those pushing/coercing/forcing/threatening the use of the COVID mRNA treatments.

The article linked above focused on children/young adults aged 12-17.

How about now answering the following questions.

How bout they show:

1: the safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments on college age young adults without potentially causing harm?

2: the safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments on people under the age of 40 without any comorbid health conditions and without potentially causing harm?

3: the safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments on people under the age of 60 without any comorbid health conditions and without potentially causing harm?

4: the safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments that proves it lowers risks on people who have already had and recovered from COVID who are now most likely immune, without potentially causing harm?

5: the safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments in people who have increased clotting tendencies without potentially causing harm?

6: the safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments in people with known Autoimmune disease without potentially causing harm?

7: the safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments in pregnant women without potentially causing harm to the Mom or the growing baby?

8: the safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments in breastfeeding women without potentially causing harm to Mom or the child?

While at it answer the above 8 questions and replace the words "COVID mRNA treatments" with "Masks" and/or "Lockdowns".

Show me the data it works and is safe.

The safety and efficacy evidence of the COVID mRNA treatments can be assessed with long term trials, just like past approved vaccines and medical treatments.

Hopefully the mRNA injections are safe and effective.

I truly hope so.

I believe the mRNA technology truly can be a game changer in healthcare but we will not truly know until longer term safety and efficacy trials are completed and independently reviewed.

To continue to force/coerce/pressure people to take this or any treatment without true long term safety data is rolling the dice with their health.

If you thought through all the known pros and cons of the mRNA treatments and have decided to get the treatment then surely do so. That is your right just the same as those who make the decision to wait for more data. Make the decision that is right for you based on logic, not #ProjectFear.

In closing, the argument or debate should not be centered around having to prove the mRNA treatment may be harmful to avoid its use. The onus is on the policy makers to prove it is safe and effective and then and only then should it be made available to those who choose to use the treatment. Making a medical treatment a requirement needs overwhelming long term proof of safety and efficacy BEFORE it can be thought to be made universal. Medical treatments should also never be made mandatory to participate in society. That is a slippery slope we really should not let occur.