Should non-vulnerable children be vaccinated?

dont we have scientists, that can determine what is best? i would leave it to them, im not even a healer.

As a small note, they now call the variants alpha, beta, gamma, delta on purpose, to avoid association with a country. so if we continue saying indian delta variant, it undermines the effort to not blame countries.

What I don't understand about statements like #7's is why not?

Children may be unlikely to be seriously affected by the virus but their 100 times less likely to get serious side effects from the vaccine so there's zero risk and only reward.

You can argue for hours about how it may not be a big deal if they get it or not but it's pointless as there is nothing to lose and everything to gain from getting vaccinated. The virus is more dangerous than the vaccine (for all age groups).

I wish that people would stop saying stuff like "extremely unlikely" when they mean 99.9% and then just leaving it at that.

A 0.1% mortality rate is 100 people dead if spread to 100 thousand people (the size of a large town, maybe a small city).

The percentage matters but at the end of the day that's still 100 people.

The "very unlikely that children would die from it" isn't that reassuring.

.1%, .01%, etc. is low but not as low as 0%, which we are refusing to achieve because of anti vax logic. It's easy and free to get vaccinated. There is no downside.