Teens will not be routinely vaccinated, JCVI recommends

[noblegiraffe]

Their report isn't out till tomorrow, but continuing with the govt tradition of making big announcements via favoured news outlets, the Telegraph reports that the guidance will be that children aged 12+ will not be offered routine covid vaccinations.

"Instead, under guidance due to be issued on Monday, jabs will be offered to children between 12 and 15 who are deemed vulnerable to Covid or who live with adults who are immunosuppressed or otherwise vulnerable to the virus. They will also now be offered to all 17-year-olds within three months of their 18th birthday."

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/17/children-will-get-covid-vaccines-vulnerable/

So from September, there will be literally nothing stopping covid spreading around schools bar the odd open window.

[quote SoOvethis]@PermanentlyDizzy
That’s because it is currently allowed to be administered to 16+ who are clinically vulnerable. Not sure what they consider CV though.[/quote]
It’s only CEV chidren who are currently allowed it, with the agreement of their medical professionals.

My son is CV, not CEV, in that it most likely will make him ill for a prolonged period, with a very long recovery time (his condition is actually one that is triggered as part of Long Covid) but probably won’t be life threatening. So it ‘probably’ won’t kill him, it will just destroy months, if not a year of his life and result in him missing yet another year of education. Not to mention, without a vaccination, he will be trapped at home for what will have been over two years by the time he has immunity from even the first dose of vaccine.

I'd rather risk the vaccine than my kids catching covid, which is now inevitable.

Exactly this. It's not vaccine or nothing, it's vaccine -controlled exposure to the virus- or catching the virus and taking your chances.
As I understand it the US is offering it to ages 12 plus as are some countries in Europe

I'm surprised that so many people are so surprised by this.

They've been saying from the start of the pandemic that Covid very rarely makes children seriously unwell. The vaccines do carry risks, however small.

If the vaccine poses more of a risk to children than the illness itself, how can it be ethical to vaccinate them on a large scale? It could result in more children dying from vaccine complications than would have from Covid.

The guidance actually states

“ The examples above are not exhaustive, and, within these groups, the prescriber should apply clinical judgment to take into account the risk of COVID-19 exacerbating any underlying disease that a patient may have, as well as the risk of serious illness from COVID-19 itself.”

Unfortunately, very few doctors want to be the one to make that call with cases like ds. In other countries my son’s condition is considered Neurological, but not in the UK. Some people, with helpful, proactive consultants have been able to get their teens, with the same condition, vaccinated, but they are in the minority.

Essentially, studies have been done on ages 12-15 and 18+, but not the 16-18 age group, so they can’t/won’t recommend that group for vaccination.

This is the guidance up until they announce their up to date findings tomorrow, which, if the Telegraph article is correct, still doesn’t encompass the 16-18 age group.

Exactly @Zaragirl84

If the vaccine poses more of a risk to children than the illness itself, how can it be ethical to vaccinate them on a large scale? It could result in more children dying from vaccine complications than would have from Covid

Mutations?

Both myself and DH are double jabbed. We have 2 teens and I would not be happy vaccinating them because we do not know the long term side effects and if they catch covid it is generally pretty mild. I think they need to scrap all isolations and just let kids get back to having a life. I work in a primary school and we have 3 year groups out , nursery, 1 and 2 because lots of little ones currently have it. These are generally the kids of the younger parents who have been out socialising and bringing it into the home. I think around my area most cases are in people under 30or children under 7 , there are certainly far more cases in primary schools rather than secondary schools and these jabs are not offered to under 12's so even jabbing the teenagers will not stop primary aged children getting it.

What kind of mutations?

Ones that are more dangerous to children? Or ones that may evade vaccines?

Presumably decisions have been made with the evidence currently available. Why do a bunch of non qualified people on mumsnet presume to know better than the JVCIi?

Mutations are the new granny killers/long Covid/etc justifications to cry for more restrictions and vaccinations

Well it doesn’t bear thinking, doesn’t it? A mutation that adapts particularly well to the group where it’s now spreading freely, and a government which had the powers to prevent it but not the will to do it. By the time it’s identified, it’s a scramble to immunise young people. I honestly, seriously don’t want to be misinterpreted as an ageist, but being in mumsnet it’s not hopefully going to be terribly controversial to say that if this virus was harsher with children we would not be here to discuss about ages and trials and points of view. The instinct to protect the offspring is universal. We’d be fighting over the vials.
I have not been worried about any vaccine before, I have never known which brand or product was given to my kids. (I might find it in their vaccination cards, I suppose, who cares). I now think there will be no other tools to protect my children, no school bubble, no isolation, no prevention. I can hope in some open windows. And a vaccine which is given on a voluntary basis to 4-5 equivalent size countries in the EU, the USA and Israel, but I’m not given the choice.

To my mind I no longer trust how the UK government is handling things, so would look to what the US and Europe are doing, and they're offering vaccines to 12-17 year olds. I think at the very least it should be offered to 16-18 year olds before they return to school in September with high cases and no restrictions. Letting the virus circulate in unvaccinated teens is an experiment.

sorry 16-17 year olds

@Zaragirl84

I'm surprised that so many people are so surprised by this.

They've been saying from the start of the pandemic that Covid very rarely makes children seriously unwell. The vaccines do carry risks, however small.

If the vaccine poses more of a risk to children than the illness itself, how can it be ethical to vaccinate them on a large scale? It could result in more children dying from vaccine complications than would have from Covid.

This! I am relieved about the JCVI decision, I think the risks do outweigh the benefits for children apart from those children who are clinically vulnerable. So this is what I would have expected, and I am pleased to see them go down this route.

[quote CantGetNoSleep73]@Appuskidu the bloody vaccine is more dangerous than covid to kids ffs I am sick of seeing all the jab kids posts. You want yours jabbed fine, do it - but not everyone wants them jabbed [/quote]
It wouldn’t be mandatory though.

If they allowed the jab you could still say no. You have a choice.

If it’s not allowed those who want it don’t have a choice.

I know several children (friends and family) with long term complications including long Covid, pims and kidney damage.

We don’t know the long term effects of the virus.

Parents should have a choice

The problem is I don't think we have enough supply?

Particularly if Beta strain takes hold and we need to give mRNA boosters to the all the CV and CEV who've had Astrazeneca.

I’m confused. Why are people so afraid of their kids catching Covid?

That's awful Wildewoodz

If it's not because of supply, I don't know why they'd decide against offering all over 12s.

I have an 18 year old 2 x Pfizer, but a 14 and almost 17 year old unvaccinated. But DH is T1 diabetic so we do have the genetic propensity towards the boys developing it. From what the JCVI have said, I’m assuming that with a vulnerable parent that vaccination would be an option for us?

Goodness knows @BoPeeple

After the jcvi’s decision that asthma sufferers who take steroid inhalers everyday aren’t vulnerable … well I don’t find them very trustworthy.

Such criteria makes you vulnerable enough for a vaccine in every other country.

Other countries have approved vaccines for 12+ too.

We’re world beating. We have herd immunity sociologists like Dingwall on the jcvi influencing decisions. The same bloke who said the old should be grateful to die of covid

@Tealightsandd

That's awful Wildewoodz

If it's not because of supply, I don't know why they'd decide against offering all over 12s.

I’m wondering if supply might be an issue too.

Definitely speak to your GP @Poppyliveshere to discuss their potential risk level and see what the doctor says.

@Tealightsandd

Definitely speak to your GP *@Poppyliveshere* to discuss their potential risk level and see what the doctor says.

Thank you, I will do. We are in Wales, and my 18 year old is double vaxxed already so will see where that goes with the younger two

@BoPeeple

I’m confused. Why are people so afraid of their kids catching Covid?

Because for those of us with strong family histories of auto immune disease, and for us that is T1 diabetes, if you live with it, then you’d do anything not to have kids with T1 diabetes too, and that is a clear risk from Covid. It should be a choice surely