No vaccines for healthy 12-15 Yr olds

[Wellbythebloodyhell]

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vaccines-will-not-be-recommended-for-healthy-children-aged-12-to-15-government-advisers-say-12398444

Is anyone else glad this potential decision has been taken away? I was very much undecided about vaccinating my older dc and now feel a bit of a weight has been lifted now its not something I need to consider.

wouldn’t

@Thislittlefinger123

What is the argument in favour of vaccinating 12-15 year olds? If it doesn't reduce transmission, and that age group don't get very sick with it statistically than what different would it make to schools now that there's no such thing as close contacts isolating?

People just want re-assurance or to feel that there is something they or the govnt are doing. They don't actually care what the 'science says', despite what they might claim - they only care as long as it agrees with what they think or what they want.

I think the government is either planning to overrule the JCVI or else intends to make out they did their best to get children vaccinated but were refused. Why else would they be meeting with the four CMOs of the U.K. otherwise?

Vaccinations do cut transmission according to the government

www.gov.uk/government/news/one-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half

That was from April, so for a start it did not include any vaccinated children and it was also well before delta started doing the rounds, so it really has no bearing on the situation here.

It's a dreadful decision, probably kicking a tough political decision into the long grass due to the questionable call on no parental consent required. It should at least have been allowed by parental choice.

We'll probably rue the lost time come winter.

Notthemessiah not dissonance for me at all. Its a simple case of weighing up the risks vs benefits. For me, the significant hormonal side effects of the vaccine that I experienced were worth it, so I followed the experts advice. Were the same experts to advice giving the vaccine to my DDs if they were 12-15 I would absolutely not, as the risks to them from covid continue to be virtually non existent statistically, but the unknown longterm side effects might be.

JCVI passing the buck.

This makes more restrictions inevitable as Delta will spread like wildfire among unvaccinated teenagers in schools this term.

The JCVI said other advice could be sought so we’ll see if it changes

I don’t think the idea is that the government “overrule” JCVI. The decision has now been given to the CMOs and within their remit they can consider factors outside of children’s individual benefit.

They haven’t actually made a decision just passed the buck to other people to decide. I’m furious my children still can’t get a safe and effective vaccine that was approved by the MRHA months ago. I’ve no idea why they’re focusing so much on the risk of myocarditis which is a very very rare side effect, the risk of getting it from catching Covid is considerably higher. Having the jab reduces the chance of long Covid, which thousands of children in the UK already have and it can be really debilitating.

There will be a complete backtrack on this by October half term.

I mean the longterm side effects of the vaccine.

It will go like this...

1. JCVI say marginal benefit but no 'need' other than potential wider societal

2. Gov. ask their panel of 'experts' "is there a wider societal need"?

3. Panel says "yes"

4. Gov jab 12yr old because the science experts said we need to

5. JCVI are clear of blame

6. Faceless experts will say "we were only looking at avoiding disruption to education"

7. Government will say whatever it likes because it gave up giving a shit what we think a long time ago

Would parents really decide to vaccinate when the scientific consensus is that the risks of the vaccine don’t outweigh the benefits to a healthy child, purely to avoid disrupted learning? confused Particularly when many children are already immune so shouldn’t need to come out of school and isolate anyway.

This. People seem to scream to follow the science, but then when the science doesn't agree with them they scream the science is wrong...

I think the opposite.

I think parents and young adults/ teens should have had personal choice.

By removing the choice you remove them having the choice to protect themselves

@Thislittlefinger123

Notthemessiah not dissonance for me at all. Its a simple case of weighing up the risks vs benefits. For me, the significant hormonal side effects of the vaccine that I experienced were worth it, so I followed the experts advice. Were the same experts to advice giving the vaccine to my DDs if they were 12-15 I would absolutely not, as the risks to them from covid continue to be virtually non existent statistically, but the unknown longterm side effects might be.

Not sure I understand what you mean here. You seem seem to be suggesting that you are happy to follow the experts in both ways, in that you are vaccinated but your kids are not.

I'd only be questioning you if you were happy to follow them in one regard (adult vaccination) but to ignore them in the other (child vaccination).

Maybe I'm reading you wrong though.

@MissyB1

There will be a complete backtrack on this by October half term.

While we're back in lockdown in the meantime.

And also there won't be disruptions to learning to the same extent now surely, as there's no more sending a whole year group home now (rightlh imo).

So a child who tests positive stays home for 10 days, everyone else carries on as normal unless they test positive. So hardly anyone off surely?

@AlecTrevelyan006

It will go like this...

1. JCVI say marginal benefit but no 'need' other than potential wider societal

2. Gov. ask their panel of 'experts' "is there a wider societal need"?

3. Panel says "yes"

4. Gov jab 12yr old because the science experts said we need to

5. JCVI are clear of blame

6. Faceless experts will say "we were only looking at avoiding disruption to education"

7. Government will say whatever it likes because it gave up giving a shit what we think a long time ago

You are probably right sadly.

I would add - if a scandal blows up in the next decade similar to the Pandemrix/narcolepsy one in children the government will have covered their arses sadly.

My 13 year old won't be getting it though.

@PicsInRed

It's a dreadful decision, probably kicking a tough political decision into the long grass due to the questionable call on no parental consent required. It should at least have been allowed by parental choice.

We'll probably rue the lost time come winter.

The article I read said that parental consent would be required in line with other childhood vaccines.

@Thislittlefinger123

And also there won't be disruptions to learning to the same extent now surely, as there's no more sending a whole year group home now (rightlh imo).

So a child who tests positive stays home for 10 days, everyone else carries on as normal unless they test positive. So hardly anyone off surely?

Well that's assuming the child who catches it is the sole case in a classroom.

If not you have....

Child 1 isolating for 10 days.

Say it spreads and it's an increased risk if those carrying it aren't isolating.

Between days 2-10 another 5/6/18 kids get it and all start isolation for 10 days after a test.

So effectively in a 20 day period you've taught the curriculum and either have to revisit or those children have still missed whole chunks of learning. Baring I'm kind of you revisit your plans for weeks 5 and 6 over weeks 7 and 8 that 2 weeks of further stuff in the curriculum you haven't yet taught.

Repeat that however many times.

The truth is whatever decision was made re bubbles and isolation it was never going to mean eduction wasn't disrupted.

@itsgettingwierd

I think the opposite.

I think parents and young adults/ teens should have had personal choice.

By removing the choice you remove them having the choice to protect themselves

It's a nice idea, but as we can see from the posts here, it wouldn't be an informed choice from most of the children involved but basically parents deciding for them.

As the JCVI have obviously decided that the individual benefits to the child are not there, then parents pushing for this are either A: Ignoring the experts or B: Only really concerned for themselves (though they will obviously talk about long covid in kids etc, etc).

As the mother of a teen with long covid, I am bitterly disappointed that I have no choices left to protect my other child.

My reckoning is that they haven't recommended it YET based on the fact we don't have enough vaccines to vaccinate 12-15yr olds and booster all the old people/vulnerable too. Once they've had boosters I bet the JVCI will change their minds.

So a child who tests positive stays home for 10 days, everyone else carries on as normal unless they test positive. So hardly anyone off surely?

It’ll be until the test positive, rather than unless. Children will be off in waves, rather than as a group so individuals will be far more disrupted since the children will all have missed different parts of the curriculum and there won’t be any capacity to ‘catch up’ individuals.