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.

‘Some form’ which currently includes mild symptoms that persist for 4 weeks anc the majority of which resolve within 12.

From the report -

“ Concerns have been raised regarding post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (long COVID) in children. Emerging large-scale epidemiological studies indicate that this risk is very low in children, especially in comparison with adults, and similar to the sequelae of other respiratory viral infections in children. “

@bumbleymummy

‘Some form’ which currently includes mild symptoms that persist for 4 weeks anc the majority of which resolve within 12.

From the report -

“ Concerns have been raised regarding post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (long COVID) in children. Emerging large-scale epidemiological studies indicate that this risk is very low in children, especially in comparison with adults, and similar to the sequelae of other respiratory viral infections in children. “

As far said before… rare side effects of vaccines in teens have been reported to majorly subside within a few days.

If you’re ok with long Covid subsiding for many after 12 weeks or more then the above is ok too. No?

@bumbleymummy

‘Some form’ which currently includes mild symptoms that persist for 4 weeks anc the majority of which resolve within 12.

From the report -

“ Concerns have been raised regarding post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (long COVID) in children. Emerging large-scale epidemiological studies indicate that this risk is very low in children, especially in comparison with adults, and similar to the sequelae of other respiratory viral infections in children. “

And the study actually says between 7 and 8% long Covid persist after 12 weeks.

(In kids to be clear)

@bumbleymummy

Well they’re only having to do that because they’re placing restrictions on 18 year olds if they’re not vaccinated. The vaccine itself isn’t necessary (or shouldn’t be) for them either - they’re not high risk.

So the JCVI doesn’t have to consider reality when it makes its decisions, then? I question that, given the 3-months before your 18th birthday thing, anyway - I think the JCVI just didn’t think things through, nor did the Government, and the result is yet another fuck up for the lives of young people.

I will go back and read the last few pages I’ve missed but can I ask, did anyone know when/how to get teens vaccinated? I would love dd almost 17 to get it as someone in house is immunocompromised.
I’m guessing it’s going to be a while away but was sure I’d heard/read you could maybe turn up at sites to see if there are any spare or is that wrong?

@Wildewoodz

(In kids to be clear)

The risk of myocarditis has nothing to do with my reason for not wanting my children to have this vaccine. I’m just pointing out the jcvi’s decision - they did factor in the risk of long covid, which a pp said they did not, and they’ve said

“ These reports are being closely evaluated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and JCVI. Data on the incidence of these events in children and young people are currently limited, and the longer-term health effects from the myocarditis events reported are not yet well understood. See MHRA reports on COVID-19 vaccines.

Any decision on deployment of vaccines must be made on the basis that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks to those people who are vaccinated.”

In this instance, they’ve found that the benefits don’t outweigh the risks to children. (Except in cv children/ cv households)

@walkabout I’m sure the JCVI thought things through just fine. You just don’t agree with their decision.

The government are definitely fucking up in relation to vaccine passports. It’s a stupid idea that doesn’t help anyone or anything.

@bumbleymummy - so you think the JCVI decision that children aged 17 and 9 months upwards should be offered the vaccination is entirely based on science?! Amazing, how specific science can be, that 3 months off your 18th birthday, the risks fall away. Nothing to do with vaccine passports or not thinking things through properly at all…

They seemed to reckon that vaccine take-up in children would be lower in poor communities but didn’t seem to back this up with evidence from other school vaccination programmes, merely adult covid vaccine take-up in those areas.

@noblegiraffe

They seemed to reckon that vaccine take-up in children would be lower in poor communities but didn’t seem to back this up with evidence from other school vaccination programmes, merely adult covid vaccine take-up in those areas.

I suppose that is relevant for under 16s as parental consent is required, but 16-17 year olds could lead by example in their families.

Wondering whether any areas near us are allowing 17 year olds to get the vaccine, there are reports that walk in centres in London and SE have been allowing people to have it.

@noblegiraffe

They seemed to reckon that vaccine take-up in children would be lower in poor communities but didn’t seem to back this up with evidence from other school vaccination programmes, merely adult covid vaccine take-up in those areas.

What is the uptake for HPV, in boys particularly, in lower income areas. New vaccination, administered in school. In my MAT higher uptake with both boys and girls in the lower income schools. However I have no idea if this is replicated nationally

Well that would have been useful data to reference, Regulus but they didn't. Which seems odd, for scientists.

They said "Data from the adult COVID-19 vaccination programme indicates that vaccine coverage is lower in more deprived neighbourhoods compared to less deprived neighbourhoods. How similarly differential vaccine uptake among school-aged children might affect health inequalities should be considered ahead of any policy decision on this front."

But they also said " A successful adult COVID-19 immunisation programme would mean that education staff and adult household members of students should have been vaccinated, reducing the risk of onward transmission from children to adults in school or at home, respectively."

So logically, they should be arguing that children in poorer areas should be vaccinated not only to alleviate disruption to their schooling but also to protect the adults in their household who are less likely to be vaccinated.

Their arguments aren't coherent.

Data from the adult COVID-19 vaccination programme indicates that vaccine coverage is lower in more deprived neighbourhoods compared to less deprived neighbourhoods

But is this due to vaccine hesitancy or life opportunities. Minimum wage, zero hours employees find it more difficult to book a vaccination a week or more in advance, plus more likely to find the cost of travel prohibitive combined with the fact they are more likely to have contacted covid due to the lack of ability to work from home.

Someone posted this on the Y12 thread. Her 17.5 year old got the vaccine with no problems:

***

I got this message from one of the medics who works (at a walk in centre) so decided it was worth a try:

Hi the programme isn’t advertising call ups for those below 18 yet but if someone from 16-18 wishes to have the vaccine we can offer it and the national protocol covers them.
Yes anywhere operating under the national protocol - so that’s most of the pharmacy sites or national vaccination centres. GP and hospital sites may be slightly different as they can operate under other protocols / directions so best checking with them.

So logically, they should be arguing that children in poorer areas should be vaccinated not only to alleviate disruption to their schooling but also to protect the adults in their household who are less likely to be vaccinated.

But the benefit for the child doesn’t outweigh the risks. They shouldn’t have to take the risk to benefit the adult.

Then why are they recommending that healthy children with immunocompromised parents are vaccinated if they shouldn’t have to take the risk to benefit the adult?

Then why are they recommending that healthy children with immunocompromised parents are vaccinated if they shouldn’t have to take the risk to benefit the adult?

Risk to an immunocompromised parent also represents risk to children's mental health. Protecting parents is benefitting children directly.

Protecting strangers (including anxious healthy vaccinated adults)/helping the world in achieving herd immunity... not so much.

@Monkey2001

Someone posted this on the Y12 thread. Her 17.5 year old got the vaccine with no problems:

***

I got this message from one of the medics who works (at a walk in centre) so decided it was worth a try:

Hi the programme isn’t advertising call ups for those below 18 yet but if someone from 16-18 wishes to have the vaccine we can offer it and the national protocol covers them.
Yes anywhere operating under the national protocol - so that’s most of the pharmacy sites or national vaccination centres. GP and hospital sites may be slightly different as they can operate under other protocols / directions so best checking with them.

I’ve tried about 10 days ago, DS17 did his best improvisation of Bambi eyes (despite the beard and the general teen scruffiness) but we were turned away. Local vaccination centre, walk in. Empty, end of shift. They were sympathetic but said they could not do it :-(

The rationale behind the 3months before is (I believe) simply to enable a 18yo on the day of his birthday to have same “rights” to…travel? Go clubbing? Whatever will need a vaccine in September. They simply push the difference to 3 months before 18, instead of 3 months after. Perhaps because 18yo can vote and 17 3/4 can’t :-)

@Monkey2001

Someone posted this on the Y12 thread. Her 17.5 year old got the vaccine with no problems:

***

I got this message from one of the medics who works (at a walk in centre) so decided it was worth a try:

Hi the programme isn’t advertising call ups for those below 18 yet but if someone from 16-18 wishes to have the vaccine we can offer it and the national protocol covers them.
Yes anywhere operating under the national protocol - so that’s most of the pharmacy sites or national vaccination centres. GP and hospital sites may be slightly different as they can operate under other protocols / directions so best checking with them.

My 17 year has been vaccinated. We turned up with her NHS number and no further questions asked. Planning on getting her 2nd jab after a month at a local hospital where they do 2nd vaccines post 21 days

@wintertravel1980

Then why are they recommending that healthy children with immunocompromised parents are vaccinated if they shouldn’t have to take the risk to benefit the adult?

Risk to an immunocompromised parent also represents risk to children's mental health. Protecting parents is benefitting children directly.

Protecting strangers (including anxious healthy vaccinated adults)/helping the world in achieving herd immunity... not so much.

Exactly this. This scenario has always been one of the cases considered for teen vaccinations, as well as a handful of serious illnesses in children. It still leaves the choice in the parent’s hands, but they are able to make that choice under their GP. It’s not something, obviously, to be done lightly.

Hopefully they can also advice the child to get maybe just one dose, as it seems most of the serious side effects for teens take place after the second dose

The newspapers are publishing today that US is on its way to get the vaccines approved and happening for under 12s.
Yet, here, no vaccines for under 18 yet (at least there are other health issues)
It does not make full sense.
UK's commitee took a brave and unusual decision by increasing the time between doses, which was more than unnerving, but it paid off. It did not work bad in the end. And they are known to be good at their job.
But there are several others who are taking the opposed view, and already rolling the vaccines to teens.
I have the feeling we may end up with a massive rush to vaccinate them all at once later on, when we find ourselves in a even worse conandrum.....

If the rest of the world goes for vaccinating 12-18 year olds and then decides not to let unvaccinated 12-18 year olds to travel outside the UK, there may be a substantial body of UK teenagers more pissed off about the way UK decisions have consistently harmed their quality of life than about their risk of harm from vaccines that are not actually particularly more likely to harm you at 16 or 17 than at 18 - it’s the inability to lead a normal life that is more harmful to people this age, and refusing to vaccinate them is not actually helping them with that.

the inability to lead a normal life that is more harmful to people this age

They don’t need a vaccine to lead a normal life. They need a government that will make evidence-based decisions and we don’t have that. Teenagers are at little danger from this disease—restrictions need to take that into account.

Mandating a vaccine for a disease that doesn’t affect them just to get their rights back is straight up dystopian.

@UsedUpUsername - no, their lives are affected by the decisions of other countries, too, as I pointed out in the bit of my message you chose not to quote.