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.

@Dghgcotcitc

Jcvi are scientists scientists have told us not to vaccinate kids abs I thought we “listened to the scientists” or is it more “find a scientist who thinks what I think and listen to them” which isn’t the same thing.

Well some of the scientists on the JCVI committee advocate vaccinating children 12 upwards…

JCVI member, Professor Jeffrey Almond, said teenagers needed to be vaccinated so that the UK could reach the benchmark for herd immunity.

@pinkpip100 gps may consider vaccination in certain circumstances. It’s the mass roll out of vaccinations for every child that they have decided against.

@noblegiraffe

The government doesn’t pay any attention to independent sage though do they?

I don’t think it’s appropriate for scientists on government bodies to be publicly supporting anti-lockdown political campaign groups.

But why? Being against lockdowns as a tool for controlling a pandemic is a valid position. It was the position the WHO took prior to March 2020. And his is only one view on the JCVI. A range of views is perfectly acceptable. He hasn’t made this decision unilaterally.

[quote bumbleymummy]@pinkpip100 did you read the recent study showing how low the hospitalisation rate was even vulnerable children? You might find some reassurance there. I know it’s not a guarantee but the incidence of hospitalisation for children with rsv/flu is much much higher every year.[/quote]
But @bumbleymummy, those of us with vulnerable children have been doing everything we can to keep them from catching Covid - most were shielded last year, class bubbles have been isolating if there's a positive case, schools have at least had some mitigations in place (though not enough), most parents were offered vaccination in an earlier group than their age band etc. Relatively few children with my dd's condition have caught Covid, so there is very little data about how she would be affected, but over-16s with her condition are known to be high risk. It's not hugely reassuring, especially with the Delta variant seemingly spreading more rapidly in younger age groups.

Who is against vaccinating teenagers. They’re not sure whether the benefit would outweigh the risks and have said that westerns countries instead of vaccinating teenagers who are not at risk should be donating /sending their vaccines to other countries where they would be needed.

If the option is introduced then soon we’ll be like in France where unless you have had the vaccine you can’t go to restaurants and this also applies to kids

Well some of the scientists on the JCVI committee advocate vaccinating children 12 upwards...

Yes, and that’s why they have people on the panel with a range of views. That is literally the point of a panel. So that one person doesn’t make a unilateral decision based on their personal opinion.

@ChloeDecker there have been a few articles recently showing that herd immunity isn’t possible with the delta variant now. You would need to vaccinate over 100% of the population - so mathematically impossible.

@littlepeas

This decision pleases me, as I was unhappy about my dc receiving the vaccine and this seems like a good middle ground where those who are vulnerable are protected. It is ethically a bit dodgy to vaccinate healthy dc, who are very unlikely to be seriously unwell - not just from the point of view of the balance of risk for them personally, but also because there are vulnerable people in other parts of the world who have not yet received a vaccination.

But no one would have forced you to vaccinate your children.

Why do you think it's better for you to have a choice and those who would have vaccinated their children not to have one?

@EasterIssland,

France has finally got it. I applaud them for it.

Just watch COVID die in France as it explodes in the UK once they reach 85-90% of the entire population vaccinated.

Sometimes you need to impose your will on some for the benefit of all. Hopefully, it won't happen again in our lifetime.

Quotes here seems much more pro the idea, suggesting it’ll be 17 year olds/vulnerable and those living with vulnerable people first. Hopefully once this happens, it’ll pave the way for the rest of the 12+ to be done if parents want.

@Appuskidu that does sound more positive - thanks for sharing. Feeling very despondent today about the whole situation, but maybe there is a glimmer of hope.

@Ifitquacks

Well some of the scientists on the JCVI committee advocate vaccinating children 12 upwards...

Yes, and that’s why they have people on the panel with a range of views. That is literally the point of a panel. So that one person doesn’t make a unilateral decision based on their personal opinion.

I agree. I was literally responding to that poster specifically who said JCVI scientists have told us not to vacinate kids and I was merely pointing out that not all of the scientists do think that. They all have different opinions. I perfectly valid point to make in fairness.

Thanks bumbleymummy. I’m going to have a read of them. Bloody Delta variant, eh!?

@Whatever9999

Can I just ask, those of you who are saying (either way) that you would choose for your child, would it not actually be up to the child (if they are capable of making that decision). I mean when my 11yo is 12 he won't actually be able to make that decision due to LD, but if he were able (he's CV so would be able to get it), then I would sit down with him and then it would ultimately be his decision. As it is I will be talking to him nearer the time and still taking his views in to account, so he'll have some input in the ultimate decision.

Children are a product of their environment, I talk a lot to mine and share with them the alternative viewpoints but I can't help but be biased and this does rub off on my children. It will be the parents that are asked to consent, but the child can refuse on the day...I can't see a school vacs program willing to vaccs a child without the parents consent.

Great so my kids will continue to have their education disrupted.

They won't be able to see their grandparents for another 4 years then as isolation needed for all over 12s who are unvaccinated. I hope I'll be able to buy them privately

If it is vaccines for those within three months of 18 I do feel very sorry for the younger year 13s

I agree. I was literally responding to that poster specifically who said JCVI scientists have told us not to vacinate kids and I was merely pointing out that not all of the scientists do think that. They all have different opinions. I perfectly valid point to make in fairness

I assumed that the poster meant the consensus opinion of the JCVI, who are responsible for making the decision, is that children shouldn’t be vaccinated. Not that it was the opinion of every member.
We can’t (and this isn’t aimed at you, but in general) only trust the opinion of the scientists we agree with. And that goes both ways. The point of a panel is that they present a range of views and a consensus is reached based on the evidence they have. Not all members of the panel will have the same opinion, which is why no single person makes the decision alone.

If it’s safe for 12+ I wish they’d offer it.
I’d like my DS start his A levels with the hope of less or no disruption than he had with his GCSE’s.

They’re offering nasal flu to all high school children so why can’t they have Covid ?
They seem to be more at risk of catching Covid than flu at the moment.

@DinosaurDiana

They’re offering nasal flu to all high school children so why can’t they have Covid ? They seem to be more at risk of catching Covid than flu at the moment.

They aren't vaccinating children to protect them but to protect adults. Apparently this is perfectly fine for 'flu but not for covid.

@Wakemeuuuup

Great so my kids will continue to have their education disrupted.

They won't be able to see their grandparents for another 4 years then as isolation needed for all over 12s who are unvaccinated. I hope I'll be able to buy them privately

that's not the case i believe , kids won't have to self isolate if there is a case in their class , they'll have to test it daily

They are ignoring the fact that loads of teenagers who have had Covid have ended up with long covid, until children are offered the vaccine, schools are going to be pools of germs, the virus will keep on going around & more kids will end up with long covid. Parents have no option but to send children to school & this is going to keep transmission rates up.

It’s to protect both.

I feel sorry for teachers. They should have been offered the jab earlier, along with police, and having high school kids jabbed would help protect staff in schools.

bumbleymummy I have very quickly found the recent study by Gravenor and Friston (02 July 2021) on the UK’s current situation.

According to Gravenor and Friston, an R value between five and seven means that somewhere between 80 and 85 per cent of the population need to be protected from the Delta variant, in order to achieve herd immunity, a considerable jump from the original estimates of 60-70 per cent, with the previous variants.

At face value, this would no longer appear viable given that current government policies do not involve vaccinating children above 12 as standard. Even in the unlikely event of every single adult in the UK receiving the vaccine, this would still only represent 78 per cent of the UK’s 66.7 million population, without including children over 12 in the programme. With children over 12 included, this could be achieved. They could at least try, then, in my opinion.

Such a dilemma though. I’d like to think policy makers would make the right decision but currently looks increasingly unlikely, with their track record.