Does anyone find the JCVI infuriatingly slow?

[nynynynyny]

Their decision making is so slow. They have signed off on boosters for only 500k people.

It's clear we need the booster program to start ASAP. They drag their feet with every decision understandably the urgency to start this seems quite clear.

The efficacy of the vaccine clearly wears off

From what I understand, the efficacy in preventing infection, but not serious illness? If all (or most) intubated patients are vaccine refusers, as claimed upthread, then that is good news for the elderly who you would be expecting to see in hospital now as their vaccines wear off?

Those rates will rise further once schools and unis go back.
2% is one in each of my dc year groups or 8 per week in school...
Where noone then isolates except those infected.
I do see what you mean about the vax evasion though as it works for some variants not others.
However i do think we should offer the vax to all who want it including all chilldren. If it could decrease long covid. And it would decrease spread. Our rates are much hogher here.
The main risk to both grandparents sets 69-78yo is our 2 unvaxxed dc.
It affects dc as they could miss 10d of school. Mine only missed pockdowns plus 4 days last year anyway.
If girls are at higher lc risk but much lower myocarditis risk vaccinating them first is a no brainer.

I am really not happy with the removal of household quarantine - for kids especially.

The adverse effects of the vaccines are all more conmon with getting wild covid.
2-7% getting lc.

No, I don't think they're too slow. They are supposed to be analysing large amounts of scientific data.

I'm over 60 and had my second in June so wouldn't expect a booster until at least December and even then that is only 6 months, hopefully they are concentrating on the elderly people and HC who got their second in March. I wouldn't expect to hear anything about mine until at least November

hopefully they are concentrating on the elderly people and HC

No elderly on the list of 500,000 - it's the most vulnerable (immune issues - not all the previous CEV group)

They have already decided the 500,000 haven't they so should be deciding on the next group now, which will be elderly, HC and other CEV, whoever got second jab around March, they should be concentrating on them and not healthy 50-60 year olds, many of whom got second jabs in late May/June. There are a lot on MN selfishly shouting for a booster who I doubt are even 50.

i don't think it's clear yet that many people actually need boosters. Certainly where I work we've been told there is no correlation (as yet anyway) between double jabbed in hospital with covid and the date of their vaccine - which you would expect to see if vaccine immunity was waning. And the majority in any case are unvaccinated.
I am fairly anti vaccinating younger non vulnerable teens so happy the JCVI weigh up all the evidence carefully. I trust their decision making process. They've been proved right about a lot of their decisions so far.

There is no point in signing off on them for everyone if the vast majority do not need them. Remember that medical decisions are based on a scientific, evidence based approach, not based on being a scared nut job.

it does seem to me that the same people that yelled "follow the science!!" for most of 2020 and are now advocating for the opposite in their desperation to vaccinate children.
No idea why this has become the latest cause to shout loudly about - I assume to keep engagement on their Twitter feeds high

"I thought the most vulnerable 12-15 yos, and those who are household members of immune-compromised/CEV were able to have the vaccine?"

Ds is but is still waiting for it whilst the GP figures out how they are going to do it given that many of this group are very difficult to vaccinate/ perform any medical procedure on and some won't have been inside anywhere medical for at least 18 months. I don't think enough thought as been given to that side of things.

My cev relative has been contacted about making an appointment for his booster. If you think that they're saying the vaccine only lasts 6 months, I guess they don't want to start boostering too early in case that is time limited too.

@TubeOfSmarties

No, I don't think they're too slow. They are supposed to be analysing large amounts of scientific data.

You see this is where they're going wrong. They should be employing Mumsnetters to analyse that data. After all they've read articles in the Daily Mail so they understand all scientific information. They could do it in an hour over a coffee and a Kitkat. And they can make decisions on everything, even when they don't have all the information. Yes, totally unqualified MNers will be able to point out to that ignorant group of highly qualified professionals on the JCVI just where they're going wrong and what they should be doing.

@Haywirecity very high brow sarcasm there. Well done you

@sashagabadon

it does seem to me that the same people that yelled "follow the science!!" for most of 2020 and are now advocating for the opposite in their desperation to vaccinate children. No idea why this has become the latest cause to shout loudly about - I assume to keep engagement on their Twitter feeds high

hmmm so do you think science is different in the US and in the rest of Europe and if so how? As presumably the British scientists and the American ones are looking at the same data as they come to their very different conclusions?

Yes, totally unqualified MNers will be able to point out to that ignorant group of highly qualified professionals on the JCVI just where they're going wrong and what they should be doing.

As regards totally unqualified, I assume you are speaking of yourself here?

As of course, you can't possibly know what qualifications any of the rest of us have?

yes I do think "science" can be different and interpreted differently between countries and lets face it within countries. Look at all the arguments on Twitter and the cherry picking of surveys, data etc to suit different narratives. Look at all the different approaches to the Lab leak stuff. One minute a conspiracy theory, the next not.
One thing this pandemic as taught me is that scientists are not a hive mind and can think different things about the same "science".

We don't live in the US or Europe so it only matters what our own JCVI decide.

@Notthemessiah

God forbid they actually do their job and make decisions based on science and evidence. Instead they should just give up and let the public decide on when to vaccinate children based purely on how afraid they are and a bit of gut instinct. Or better yet, let the politicians pressure them to make the decision for the good of the economy.

Stupid Jcvi, actually considering what's actually best for children.

So MHRA approved Pfizer for kids on June 4th (from a quick google) It has taken almost 3 months to decide & implement that children 12-15 in the most vulnerable situations can have a vaccination. Most CCGs began these vaccinations last week.

This does not give time for full immunity to develop before schools go back, with very few mitigations.

The JCVI has just decided that immunosuppressed individuals 12+ can have a third dose of vaccine. However, the timeframe for the children 12-15 in this group to get the third dose will be in the very late autumn/ winter, as they generally have only just had the first dose. So in the interim they will be in the thick of very crowded schools, with no shielding remaining and strong mandates to return to education.

Of course we all want our kids in school, best place for them, but the timing of the vaccinations has created a dilemma about catching covid for those very children, the most vulnerable, for whom the JCVI felt vaccination was indicated.

Do you think this is part of a cunning plan then? And if so, can you explain it to us?

Could you also explain please how this is best for these children?

Please? do enlighten us.

@sashagabadon

yes I do think "science" can be different and interpreted differently between countries and lets face it within countries. Look at all the arguments on Twitter and the cherry picking of surveys, data etc to suit different narratives. Look at all the different approaches to the Lab leak stuff. One minute a conspiracy theory, the next not. One thing this pandemic as taught me is that scientists are not a hive mind and can think different things about the same "science".

We don't live in the US or Europe so it only matters what our own JCVI decide.

oh I think we have a different understanding of science then.

That sounds more like politics and sociology.

[quote nynynynyny]@Haywirecity very high brow sarcasm there. Well done you [/quote]
Thank you. 😊

Could you also explain please how this is best for these children?

Here is a good explanation of why JCVI is very cautious in its recommendations:

mobile.twitter.com/ID_ethics/status/1432878800035991557

Most of CDC (US) information on vaccine side effects that gets posted on twitter by zero Covid proponents is of pretty poor quality.

A more detailed analysis suggests: (i) there is some risk, (ii) the risk appears very, very low, (iii) however, based on the Denge vaccine experience, the population's tolerance for vaccine adverse events impacting children is very close to zero. JCVI are trying to assess whether "very, very low" qualifies as "very close to zero".

It is also worth remembering that children who may suffer from vaccine side effects (healthy, fit teenage boys) are the category that falls into the lowest Covid risk. If we compare potential long-term impact of Covid, of course, at a population level it will be much more damaging but it is not obvious that the statement will remain true for healthy teenage boys with normal BMI.

@herecomesthsun

Yes, totally unqualified MNers will be able to point out to that ignorant group of highly qualified professionals on the JCVI just where they're going wrong and what they should be doing.

As regards totally unqualified, I assume you are speaking of yourself here?

As of course, you can't possibly know what qualifications any of the rest of us have?

How do you know I don't know? If I don't know what you know, then you don't know what I know.

Can I add that what I would actually hope & expect them to be doing would be something like an evidence-based meta-analysis of all the available data. I would hope that ongoing studies would release their data early to the MHRA and JCVI to make all the relevant information available as early as possible, so that data trends can be picked up.

So something very evidence-based and medical/ pharmacological looking at trends in terms of who is vulnerable to the most severe illness with covid and what the risks are.

I would not expect there to be very much variation between the UK & US for a lot of this other than issues around ethnicity & deprivation leading to vulnerability - there would be different profiles in different areas - and also different medical practice / availability of ICU beds would be relevant.

There is a cost/ benefit ratio for deciding on whether a medication is appropriate, but a lot of that work would already have been done by the MHRA.

I'd expect them to take into account factors like the beginning of term & the fact that rollout takes time.

I think cost is in the mix also.

I think it is surprising that we are choosing to do vaccination 12-15 so very differently from Europe & the US and I think it warrants more explanation actually. Why not make the offer to all CEV kids who were shielding, for example?

JVT has said it isn't about supply (and was saying several weeks ago that he expected a wider roll out to 12-15s to be forthcoming).

@Haywirecity

Presumably you aren't qualified enough to comment?

I think there is more to the decision making than is being reported. For example there may be concern about new variants, if we boost now can another booster be provided soon after if a vaccine resistant variant emerges.

Also what is the impact on boosting now to immunity in 6 months time. It might be better to delay boosting a couple of months so immunity lasts longer up to next summer.

There is also the evidence on cross immunity to consider. Two doses plus a mild natural infection is meant to be better for immunity against new variants than three doses. It might therefore be sensible to allow natural infection amongst those fully vaccinated.