Vaccine in 12-16 year olds?

[beckypv]

I’m trying to work understand the real reason why 12-16 aren’t currently being offered the vaccine. I know they have said that it is because they are still weighing up the personal risk benefit to the child. Is that actually true? or is it because they are not yet in a position logistically to role it out fully to this age group, or they are actually thinking globally in terms of diverting vaccine resources to the rest of the world?
I ask this because my 12 year old son falls into the general ‘vulnerable category’ because he is on multiple immunosuppressant drugs and will be offered the vaccine soon. We have been told over the last year that JIA kids are no more vulnerable to Covid than other kids, therefore I am concerned he has been put in the vulnerable catagory under a wide sweeping brush and that actually it is no more appropriate for him to have the covid vaccine than other children.
So basically, we want to make to correct decision for him so am trying to understand the science behind not vaccinating children versus the political message.
Hope that makes sense 😀

@Peteycat

They are not medically trained though.

You seem to be throwing any (false) argument you can think of against the vaccination programme in general

The people administering vaccines are trained in how to do this safely. Clinicians and medical personal are on site to deal with specific questions regarding suitability of vaccination and any adverse effects that could occur.

@EnjoyingTheArmoire I’m sorry to hear that you haven’t been offered the vaccine. There were so very few children left if the shielding category as the pandemic progressed, I’m amazed that you are still in that catagory and not being offered it. That feels like an error in the system. Can you contact your GP. My son was told for the first year by direct government communication that he needed to shield, but actual information from the specialists was that he didn’t need to so we followed that. So now he is offered the vaccine even though he isn’t cev to Covid. I hope they can sort it for you (or even better, explain to you their reasons for not offering it, and therefore enable you to stop shielding - it must have been an awful year)

Why do you feel you know better than experts with decades of experience and expertise in this area?

Why do you? The JCVI decided against it for children in the U.K. but you still think they should be offered it.

@bumbleymummy

Why do you feel you know better than experts with decades of experience and expertise in this area?

Why do you? The JCVI decided against it for children in the U.K. but you still think they should be offered it.

As I have repeatedly stated @bumbleymummy, the JCVI are outliers who are going against advice made by MHRA and others.

Ireland (so not the UK) are going ahead with the majority opinion.

I think 12-16s will be offered it here in the next few months-I don’t think it will be much longer.

The JCVI are taking vaccination coverage and antibody levels in the U.K. when they are making decisions about risks and benefits to children here. Those risks and benefits will be different in other countries where fewer adults may be vaccinated or there is a lower percentage of the population with antibodies.

into consideration*

@bumbleymummy

The JCVI are taking vaccination coverage and antibody levels in the U.K. when they are making decisions about risks and benefits to children here. Those risks and benefits will be different in other countries where fewer adults may be vaccinated or there is a lower percentage of the population with antibodies.

I think everyone understand that it is context dependent, but given the UK is comparable with other countries offering vaccination to this age group it is still a decision that goes against best evidence.

Your point about antibodies is interesting given how on other threads (when proportions of people testing positive are used in statements that you are opposed to), you're quick to point out how they don't tell the full picture regarding immunity.

@bumbleymummy

This has been demonstrated to drastically cut your chances of re-infection.
@Foliageeverywhere122
Do you have a link to that study please?

I see you were linked the study. Here it is copied and pasted (yet) again:

Not the PP but I have seen people link you to this multiple times

It is the study from the CDC presumably.
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

In a cohort of people with a previous infection, those unvaccinated were 2.34x less likely to be re-infected with COVID.

No, antibodies do not tell the full immunity story and the ONS acknowledge that in their reports. They’re what we’re working with atm wrt measuring immunity after vaccination/infection though.

It’s your opinion that it does against best evidence. In this case, the JCVI experts have decided that it isn’t in the best interest of children in the U.K. to be vaccinated.

This thread is a great example of lots of people saying "there may be some benefit to vaccinating children, let's offer it to them", and the (vocal minority) opposing view of "no, never, it shouldn't be offered, it's harmful, you want to force people to take it".

I'm pretty fed up with being told that offering vaccines to children is in some way negligent or dangerous.

Most of the abuse and aggression I'm seeing, both online and in real life, is not coming from those who have been vaccinated. The vast majority are just quietly getting vaccinated and getting on with their lives.

Thanks for that. Was wondering if it was a different one. As olly has pointed out, it’s been linked to and discussed before so not much point in rehashing it all here again.

@bumbleymummy

Thanks for that. Was wondering if it was a different one. As olly has pointed out, it’s been linked to and discussed before so not much point in rehashing it all here again.

???

That's not what I said at all - you asked for evidence that vaccination provides extra protection after a previous infection, this evidence was provided.

You seem to ignore any study that doesn't support your views. And it has been extensively discussed but with you repeatedly stating it's irrelevant, when it clearly is.

..not

“Offering” it is fine. Technically the vaccine has just been ‘offered’ to all other the other age groups but look where we’ve ended up. Unvaccinated people being shunned, insulted, losing their jobs, being excluded from events etc. People probably don’t want to see the same thing happening to their children - particularly when the personal benefit is even lower for them than for other age groups.

You said it had already been linked to when you linked to it. I haven’t said it’s irrelevant. As I just said, it has already been discussed so no point in rehashing it all. Thanks for the link (again).

You may see it as being shunned or excluded. The way I see it is that the vaccine has enabled society to open up, so should the people who are taking the (minute) risk of vaccination benefit from doing so? And should those who refuse the vaccination gain the benefits in exactly the same way?

It's a dilemma for society. As i said earlier, some people are taking a small risk to help society as a whole. Some are refusing that small risk. I can understand that there would be resentment between the two groups.

For those who refuse the vaccination, do you think that society would be still in and out of lockdown if everyone refused? Or do you think Covid would just have gone away? Do you have any recognition that those who have been vaccinated have reduced your risk?

It's definitely being shunned and excluded. As bumbley says, I don't want that for anyone let alone children. We wouldn't still be in lockdown if everyone refused no. The reason being it only offers some protection. It's not the holy grail most thought it would be. Don't be silly. I'm fully aware Covid won't go away. It will circulate yearly I think like other respiratory viruses.

To you turquoise it may be a small risk. To others not so.

@TurquoiseBaubles. We locked down to prevent the nhs being overwhelmed. We vaccinated the groups most likely to become seriously ill/be hospitalised/die so the need for lockdown was eliminated. The benefit of the vaccine to those priority groups was much higher because the risk of the disease to them was higher - the uptake in those groups was therefore very high. We weren’t going to be able to stay locked down forever so it was in their best interest to be vaccinated or they had the risk of serious illness/death when the restrictions ended.

It’s not really a case that we ‘benefitted’ from people taking a vaccine to get back to normal life. Normal life, without restrictions is supposed to be the default position. It’s more accurate to say that the vulnerable groups ‘benefited’ from us locking down and having restrictions that reduced their risk of serious illness/death in the absence of the vaccine. They have now ‘benefitted’ from the vaccine to reduce their risk of serious illness/death. So maybe instead of resenting people that haven’t taken a vaccine that they personally are ‘benefitting’ from, people should be grateful that other low-risk people sacrificed so much for the last year to enable others to ‘benefit’ from protection during lockdown and be prioritised for the ‘benefit’ of vaccination.

IRT vaccinating children - Children have been mingling in school, on buses, at various different activities over the last year completely unvaccinated. Now, some parents will decide to vaccinate their children and then won’t let them mingle with the unvaccinated children because they’re ‘more at risk’?

Most people aren't quietly getting vaccinated. They are asking intrusive rude questions at the start of conversations about medical records. They are putting silly love hearts (VIRTUE SIGNALLING) around things. They are shouting down those who want to wait or refuse.

They are saying things like had my first bla bla bla.

Employers are emailing staff openly asking who is vaccinated and who isn't. That is not quietly getting on with their lives.

It's interesting to read others' opinions on this. Obviously I disagree with many of your points, and it seems scientific advisors in most countries also disagree, but I suspect there's not much point in links and figures and nitty-gritty as I presume no matter what facts either side produces the other side won't agree.

However, I stick by my original point; if children (or their parents) want to be vaccinated, they should be allowed to do so (once the vaccine is approved in their country, of course). I'm not (nor have I seen anyone else) say all children should be vaccinated.

What people do in their own houses and their own lives is their own business. But just as an individual is allowed to not be vaccinated, another individual should be allowed to decide who else not to be in contact with.

You can't have it both ways - if you want the freedom to refuse vaccination, you can't then turn around and complain that others are exercising their freedom to refuse to be in close contact with you.

That's a generic "you" by the way, I'm not speaking personally to anyone on this thread or elsewhere.

^What people do in their own houses and their own lives is their own business. But just as an individual is allowed to not be vaccinated, another individual should be allowed to decide who else not to be in contact with.

You can't have it both ways - if you want the freedom to refuse vaccination, you can't then turn around and complain that others are exercising their freedom to refuse to be in close contact with you.^

Except it makes little sense because people who were happy to interact and be in close contact with people when they weren’t vaccinated, just a few months ago, are behaving like they are more at risk from unvaccinated people now that they are, themselves, vaccinated.

No doubt the parents objecting the loudest to their little darling mingling with the ‘unvaccinated’ will be the same ones that dosed their own children up on Calpol and sent them into school so they wouldn’t miss out on their attendance award