Immoral and dangerous - or sensible? Vaccination for 16 year old.

[CaptainCaveMum]

Locally many many healthy (not CV nor living with someone CV) 16 year olds are getting vaccinated. The majority of my DS’s friends have now had their first dose. I’m being encouraged (by other parents) to take DS for the vaccine.

I’m conflicted.

The JCVI has clearly said the risk (small) to these children outweighs the benefits (even smaller).
Morally I am uncomfortable about cheating the system when older and sicker people here and overseas would benefit more.

But.

From a social perspective, my unvaccinated DS may miss out on some things eg nightclubs, festivals.
And what if the JCVI are wrong?
And what if he catches COVID?

DS says he’ll do what I advise.
Please help me unpick this.

My 12 year old is desperate to have it. I’d happily let her. Canada have vaccinated with Pfizer from 12 upwards. Wish we would here!

@Geamhradh

Ahhh. I think the bat signal may have been hidden in plain sight in the OP.

@Geamhradh and again

I hope none of you work in PR.

I am here looking for facts and science to help my DS make a decision. I’ve been accused of being a journalist, a troll, and a terrible parent.

I am fully vaccinated. I have no issues with the safety and efficacy of the vaccine for 18+.

@bethelighthouse thank you for the data. If I interpret correctly, the data is saying that on an individual patient basis, for a 16 year old, the benefits outweigh the risks, but on a population basis, the data shows different. And as my DS is an individual patient who has never shown any idiosyncratic adverse reactions in the past, I should look at the individual patient data, rather than the population data which may be confounded by patients with particular idiosyncrasies. So, your answer to my question would be yes it’s better for him to be vaccinated now. Yes?

I’m going to ignore all posters with conspiracy theories for or against vaccination. I also happen to think the JCVI is a pretty trustworthy group.

And yes to PPs asking I am in a high COVID prevalence, low vaccination rate area so the pop up centres aren’t asking too many questions.

I think the morality argument is changed somewhat by the government’s current policy position on trying to infect as many young people as possible.

@bethelighthouse

The JCVI has clearly said the risk (small) to these children outweighs the benefits (even smaller)

Really? I don't think they have said this outright. JCVI only prioritise the vaccine, they are not responsible for assessing data. That is the MHRA.
The government are misleading the public about that to cover up a shortage of supply and/or some rather anti-vaxx sentiment near the heart of government.

The MHRA have at no time said that the risk outweighs the benefit for the over 12s - quite the opposite, the MHRA have approved the vaccine for ALL over 12s and based on their on-going monitoring of ALL the data (which they receive directly as the sole body responsible for pharmacovigilance or drug safety in the UK) they have not changed their assessment or made any change to the marketing authorisation (approval) of the Pfizer vaccine for ALL over 12s.

The vaccination doesn’t have a marketing authorisation though, it has an emergency use authorisation. I’m not sure why you are so disparaging of the JCVI they are clinicians advising on judicious use. A trial of 1000 is tiny, many side effects would not be picked up. WHO also say there’s insufficient evidence to make recommendations at this time but that children should not be prioritised above older people. That’s essentially what JCVI have said, we’re still vaccinating older age groups. Waiting a while to see what evidence comes from other countries and the children who are most at risk who are recommended vaccination is not such a bad thing. Rare side effects tend to only present when the vaccine is given to large numbers and take time to present. Which is what we’ve observed and what yellow card reports show

@bethelighthouse Indeed, a confused SAHM who manages to quote convenient statements from the JCVI, but not the more expert and legally relevant ones from the MHRA.

Because all SAHMs know nothing…

I did have a job, indeed a career in the past, gosh I even have a scientific degree. I’ve worked in a scientific industry BUT I know enough to know I don’t know enough about COVID vaccination. I just googled JCVI and read through their statements.

Wow, a SAHM with a brain

Like I said, I hope you don’t work in PR…

My 16 year old has had it. My 11 year old will get it next year.

My children 15 & 12 will not be having this jab! I am not saying not ever but there is no evidence of any long term harm so I will wait to see how things go over the next couple of years. Me and the hubs have both had ours but healthy children are at near zero risk so I wouldn’t take the risk. They have also both had Covid absolutely no problems at all just annoyed my daughter because she couldn’t taste for a few days that’s it! There are risks from the vaccine I know that’s incredibly small but why take the risk when the virus itself poses no threat

To all those saying that C19 is a mild disease in the young, there is another thread on here from a mother whose 17 year old DS ,admittedly with what sounds like exercise induced asthma, is in hospital with it. Another poster on that thread has a 24 year old in hospital on oxygen IIRC.

The risk of the vaccine harming your child is tiny. But the benefits beyond your immediate concerns of him going clubbing are huge. As he has way less chance of catching and spreading it.

Honesty people need to think more about society as a whole. If we don't start vaccinating teens it's going to keep spreading and although many or even most adults are vaccinated. There's always a proportion who will get ill and die.

Which will cause further lockdown and social distancing measures and further impact on the economy.

He gets vaccinated and he's helping prevent all of this. No brainer to me.

There are many studies published recently about effect of virus. This is one of them.
neurosciencenews.com/covid-neurology-children-18933/
Most may not die, or may not get severely ill, but some will. With case numbers rising, and many other countries have already started vaccinating children over12, I don't think it's immoral or dangerous to vaccinate children, compared to the danger of covid.

@EducatingArti

Why is it cheating the system if they are being offered it?

This.

Is this just another anti vax rant using anything and everything to gradually give reasons why not to

Take a read of this which outlines a study of brain loss regardless of severity of covid

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/covid19s-impact-on-the-brain

‘Why is it cheating the system if they are being offered it?’

This.

Is this just another anti vax rant using anything and everything to gradually give reasons why not to hmm

@TheTallOakTrees in answer to your question: No

But thanks for assuming that anyone with questions is an anti-vaxer looking for excuses- you couldn’t be more wrong.

And by cheating the system I mean pretending their 16 year old lives with someone CV.

So back to evidence.
I’ve got MHRA licence as a pro but the numbers are small and it’s an emergency authorisation
I’ve got WHO saying no - but that’s more about the ethics of vaccine supply rather than clinical safety
I’ve got JCVI saying no based on population data and a very very rare side effect seen in young men

I was hoping for a clear yes or no - just feeling more conflicted now.

Please can someone post proper data - I can’t seem to find the MHRA data - only press packs.

Another one, study about Myocarditis.

"Conclusions: Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine."

Source:
Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis

This is the best explanation of the JCVI decision I can find twitter.com/ShamezLadhani/status/1419982617974353926?s=20

@GiveMeNovocain, but the fact is, it's more likely for young person to get Myocarditis from covid than vaccine, that's why other countries are vaccinating 12+. And covid is ripping through those young people in UK at the moment. I don't understand why they don't in UK.
Long covid affect those who are lucky enough to be asymptomatic. It's horrible thing to let young people suffer, after all those restrictions and disrupted educations, imo.

BTW young people have a risk of dying of myocarditis from non-Covid viruses too. An 18 year old friend of DD's recently died after a virus caused her heart to fail, and her heart transplant also failed.

[quote roguetomato]@GiveMeNovocain, but the fact is, it's more likely for young person to get Myocarditis from covid than vaccine, that's why other countries are vaccinating 12+. And covid is ripping through those young people in UK at the moment. I don't understand why they don't in UK.
Long covid affect those who are lucky enough to be asymptomatic. It's horrible thing to let young people suffer, after all those restrictions and disrupted educations, imo.[/quote]
I'm not sure why people think the JCVI has any agenda other than weighing up the evidence, including Long Covid and other health impacts. Have you read the whole commentary?

My 14 year old will be getting soon when registration opens here. He wants it and I have no objections.

I don't think they have agenda, I just think while they are waiting for more data, more children maybe affected.

My 16 year old has had the pfeizer. His dad is CEV..I am keen to get my 14 year old done but he doesn't want to have it. I think I heard recently that he would be eligible but I'm not 100% and I don't know what to do if he is dead against.

How are the 16yo in your area even been offered the vaccine? At the CCG I work at its strictly 17y 9m (recently changed from 18+) anyone under this is very strictly by GP referral only or they've started working in the care sector in which proof of employment is needed

It's not living with someone who is CV that allows you to have it at 16. It's living with someone who is CEV and immunosuppressed. It's very difficult to get it. The GP must put it on your records.

@bethelighthouse

The JCVI has clearly said the risk (small) to these children outweighs the benefits (even smaller)

Really? I don't think they have said this outright. JCVI only prioritise the vaccine, they are not responsible for assessing data. That is the MHRA.
The government are misleading the public about that to cover up a shortage of supply and/or some rather anti-vaxx sentiment near the heart of government.

The MHRA have at no time said that the risk outweighs the benefit for the over 12s - quite the opposite, the MHRA have approved the vaccine for ALL over 12s and based on their on-going monitoring of ALL the data (which they receive directly as the sole body responsible for pharmacovigilance or drug safety in the UK) they have not changed their assessment or made any change to the marketing authorisation (approval) of the Pfizer vaccine for ALL over 12s.

Agree.

UK decision not to vaccinate children is a sorry mess and has undermined my trust in the government even further, because it appears lack of supply is a factor in the course we are taking.

Vaccines should not be political.

Unless they have an underlying condition then I wouldn’t vaccinate a 16 year old (or younger). They’re incredibly low risk as a group and most of them are probably immune anyway after a year of mixing in schools etc. They aren’t at any increased risk of serious illness than they were all year, pre-vaccine.