Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

No vaccines for healthy 12-15 Yr olds

999 replies

Wellbythebloodyhell · 03/09/2021 16:06

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Pootle40 · 03/09/2021 18:15

A good decision.

MrsLCSofLichfield · 03/09/2021 18:16

@Piggywaspushed - Indeed. This sort of 'reasoning' and 'risk assessment' is all part of her legacy. Never forgive and never forget.

noblegiraffe · 03/09/2021 18:16

@MarshaBradyo

The margin isn’t great enough for it to be yes.

Whether people choose to go ahead if CMO decide differently- maybe or not

No, the science said 'yes' and the scientists went 'but we need to be cautious'.
NailsNeedDoing · 03/09/2021 18:19

The decision makes sense to me. The risks outweigh the benefits for that age group, and children shouldn’t be expected to have an invasive medical procedure for the sake of other people. Even by their parents.

user823445234 · 03/09/2021 18:19

There are 4 million children aged 12-15 years old who would have received a vaccination if it were not for the JCVI in the UK.

Is it a coincidence that the very same afternoon that the UK announced it would not be vaccinating 12-15 year olds, Australia announced the UK were just about to send them 4 million Pfizer vaccines?

Exactly the same number, the logical conclusion of which is this: parents of 12-15 year olds, your child's vaccine is now on a plane to that very wealthy low-Covid case and death rate country of Australia.

Cuck00soup · 03/09/2021 18:19

As more evidence emerges that Covid vaccines don’t prevent vaccinated people from passing on the virus and we know that most 12 - 15 year olds don’t become seriously ill with Covid, I am personally reluctant to vaccinate my own 13yo. On current information, at a population level, the side effects exceed the benefits.

I’m a vaccine nurse.

Piggywaspushed · 03/09/2021 18:20

The risks outweigh the benefits for that age group

Gosh, I am going to try now to. That is NOT WHAT THE REPORT CONCLUDED.

Sorry for caps but it really is irksome that people think they know what the JCVI said.

noblegiraffe · 03/09/2021 18:20

The risks outweigh the benefits for that age group

Literally the opposite of what the JCVI said.

MarshaBradyo · 03/09/2021 18:21

And scientists decide according to set criteria. Some will think they’re wrong but I don’t agree.

I don’t get people saying JCVI shouldn’t decide according to this remit - it’s their purpose.

And as I said CMO may decide differently and on a very narrow margin parents will decide.

Hotcoffee10 · 03/09/2021 18:22

Good decision from the JCVI. The vaccinations don’t prevent transmission. We don’t know how long immunity will last. There are clearly side effects and benefit is marginal in this age group.

user823445234 · 03/09/2021 18:23

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9954357/Boris-Johnson-sends-FOUR-MILLION-Pfizer-doses-Australia.html

4 million vaccines now not needed for the 4 million 12-15 year olds in the UK, now on their way to Australia

Piggywaspushed · 03/09/2021 18:23

Here is the report, should anyone wish to actually read it.

www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Heruka · 03/09/2021 18:23

This is great news. Let’s wait for the govt now to go against scientific advice.

noblegiraffe · 03/09/2021 18:24

I don’t get people saying JCVI shouldn’t decide according to this remit - it’s their purpose.

It's interesting that they have stepped outside this remit for the flu jab then isn't it?

The whole thing has got a lot going on behind the scenes.

Piggywaspushed · 03/09/2021 18:24

marsha the JCVI's purpose it 'to consider the burden of disease upon society.'

That literally is their remit .

Vintagevixen · 03/09/2021 18:25

Plus haven't there been several studies recently pointing to natural immunity being superior to vaccination induced immunity? I haven't read in detail admittedly but I remember that being in the news.

sashagabadon · 03/09/2021 18:25

@user823445234

There are 4 million children aged 12-15 years old who would have received a vaccination if it were not for the JCVI in the UK.

Is it a coincidence that the very same afternoon that the UK announced it would not be vaccinating 12-15 year olds, Australia announced the UK were just about to send them 4 million Pfizer vaccines?

Exactly the same number, the logical conclusion of which is this: parents of 12-15 year olds, your child's vaccine is now on a plane to that very wealthy low-Covid case and death rate country of Australia.

That is nonsense. Supply is not the issue. There is a very good argument though that we should not be vaccinating our not at risk young teens over elderly and healthcare workers in other nations ( including Australia) That’s not JCVI’s remit though so I am sure did not play a role in their decision but is still a moral decision that should be pointed out.
FfrothiCoffi · 03/09/2021 18:26

The whole thing has got a lot going on behind the scenes

As the government have been clear that they want to vaccinate 12-15 year olds, who do you think is applying pressure behind the scenes?

didireallysaythat · 03/09/2021 18:27

If a side effect of the vaccine is that their education may be less interrupted, I think that's OK.

It's depressing watching kids futures disappearing down the pan because of the stop start schooling they've had (not blaming schools, what can they do?)

Sweetpeasaremadeforbees · 03/09/2021 18:27

I thought the JCVI said that the benefits for that age group were 'marginal' and didn't warrant a rollout, not that the risks outweighed the benefits. And they said that they only considered health factors, not the effects on education etc, that was for the CMOs to examine.

MarshaBradyo · 03/09/2021 18:27

@noblegiraffe

I don’t get people saying JCVI shouldn’t decide according to this remit - it’s their purpose.

It's interesting that they have stepped outside this remit for the flu jab then isn't it?

The whole thing has got a lot going on behind the scenes.

What is the evidence for this

I’m not for or against decision, probably slightly for vaccination, but I don’t see that this is happening, why do you think they would do this?

MarshaBradyo · 03/09/2021 18:28

@Piggywaspushed

marsha the JCVI's purpose it 'to consider the burden of disease upon society.'

That literally is their remit .

They’ve been very clear it has to benefit the group - ie children.
Nerdygirl · 03/09/2021 18:29

Here you go - from the same website

A vital part of protecting the whole population from flu is to vaccinate children, who we know are ‘super-spreaders’, passing the virus more easily to those around them. This differs from COVID-19, where the overwhelming majority of children experience mild or no symptoms and transmit no more than adults.

bumbleymummy · 03/09/2021 18:29

@noblegiraffe

Yes bumbley but it is incorrect to say that the benefits don't outweigh the risks, they just didn't think by enough to recommend it.
Fair enough. I should have chosen my words better.