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.

I'm in Ireland and DS aged 12 is getting his second dose of the Pfizer jab this weekend.
Most of his classmates are also getting vaccinated according to the mum parents who I know.

I think Australia are perfectly wealthy enough to buy their own vaccines and we don't need to take a moral stance. They DO have vaccines and they DO have a functioning vaccination program, and they HAVE vaccinated their healthcare workers.

In the UK some frontline healthcare workers had their second dose in January (I know one of these) and is now being told their immunity is waning.

Re. 12-15 year olds, vaccination reduces the risk of a positive test (and having Covid) by 3 times.
So if your child had been vaccinated they would be 3 times less likely to test positive and 3 times less likely to have to self-isolate this academic year.
Now the JCVI's decision means your 12-15 year old is 3 times more likely to catch Covid, 3 times more likely to transmit it, 3 times more likely to have to self-isolate for 10 days at home without any exercise than if they had been vaccinated.
That is a pretty mental health toll, even disregarding unknown long-term effects of Covid on their health.

The JCVI should have been looking at the mental health implications of these unnecessary infections and unnecessary self-isolations.

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?

Oh yes, I'm very sure that the government has leaned on them heavily, that much has been obvious over the last couple of weeks. The govt already have the plans to do the jabs in schools ready to go and given that they are shit about planning anything else to do with schools, this is an unusual sense of urgency for them.

The JCVI have had to find a way to say 'no' while still allowing a path for the govt to say 'yes'.

What I don't understand is why the JCVI haven't mentioned long covid in their risk assessment.

*That is a pretty HORRENDOUS mental health toll...

It does benefit the group Marsha. they just seem to not like the idea of marginal benefit (and , yet, I thought that was true of most people under 50). And that's where the further remit of burden of disease upon society comes in,surely?

It’s hilarious how many on this thread are misrepresenting the assessment.

Meanwhile, families I know from Europe sent their kids home for the summer so they could get vaccinated.

@noblegiraffe

The risks outweigh the benefits for that age group

Literally the opposite of what the JCVI said.

Not quite, considering they also said

Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms, but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms.

…according to the sky article, I didn’t read the full thing. I don’t think it’s ok to just gloss over the bit about ‘considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential harms.’

I gratefully accepted my two jabs and was glad that my young adult children had theirs, but I still don’t think encouraging healthy children who are going through puberty to have a vaccine they don’t need is acceptable.

I think once your 12-15 year old is on their 3rd self-isolation this autumn/winter/spring and mentally fed up and physically less fit, you all might reconsider whether a vaccine that reduced their risk of catching by 3 times might have been a valid option.

This is a future scandal.

I’m pretty shocked that so many adults are pretty happy for kids to take a vaccine to protect them ( the adults).
At least people are open about it I guess, in the guise of “society”.
Adults are supposed to protect children from potential harm not the other way round.
It seems to me that pressure is for teens to be vaccinated to make up the numbers for adults that refuse to take the vaccine themselves. That’s not a good enough reason in my world.
Children with health issues may benefit and should of course go ahead.

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

Here it is... it's not long!

Adults are supposed to protect children from potential harm not the other way round

Stop the antivaxx shit. There is ZERO proof the vaccine harms children

Even the JCVI state the the vaccine is positive in the benefit-risk ratio.

When I was a teenager sasha, I was at my most altruistic. I would have done many things to protect wider society.

@Piggywaspushed

It does benefit the group Marsha. they just seem to not like the idea of marginal benefit (and , yet, I thought that was true of most people under 50). And that's where the further remit of burden of disease upon society comes in,surely?

But the margin should satisfy whatever criteria they have. And in this case it doesn’t. The strictness and process is good imo

It may well do btw when CMO decide. Next step is whether to go ahead anyway - in which case parents will have to make decision on very slim margin. But also risk is thankfully low either way.

I have an 11 year old so will decide at 12 - I’m pro vaccine generally but will see he may have had it by then.

The science actually said 'yes'.

“Science” doesn’t give binary yes-or-no answer. If the JCVI, who are able to make an informed assessment of the available data (which the overwhelming majority on MN are not), choose to make this recommendation at this time, then that’s good enough for me.

@user823445234

Adults are supposed to protect children from potential harm not the other way round

Stop the antivaxx shit. There is ZERO proof the vaccine harms children

Even the JCVI state the the vaccine is positive in the benefit-risk ratio.

I’m not an anti vaxxer. I was on the AZ trial and have spent literally hours of my time giving blood, taking tests, going to appointments. Hours and hours. I still don’t think that we should be vaccinating healthy younger teens.

This is really bloody annoying, not least because virtually every other country is vaccinating this age group so we'll constantly have to get this age group kids PCR fit to fly tests to visit them as they will all expect them to be vaccinated (as they should be).

I have 4 kids, the 2 16 plus and all adults have been vaccinated, one is under 12 so too young to need a vaccine passport, leaving one in the middle who I'll have to keep paying for tests every time I want to go away for the next 4 years . Already 4 kids tested positive in his year on the back to school lateral flows as well!

whatever criteria they have

Perhaps that should be clearer then?

What isn't being reported that much is that this most certainly was not a unified or unanimous decision form the JCVI.

It is not just protecting the wider society, it is protecting the chance to have an undisrupted education, which I personally feel is really important.

I want my DD to have the vaccine to protect herself and her education. I'm double jabbed and (apart from the pain in the arse of having to SI for 10 days) am not too fussed about catching Covid.

But she's 15 and so IMO the decision lies with her. And she wants it if it's available. Maybe we should actually start asking teenagers what they think about this?

@Piggywaspushed

whatever criteria they have

Perhaps that should be clearer then?

What isn't being reported that much is that this most certainly was not a unified or unanimous decision form the JCVI.

I think they have been clear it had to benefit group?

True it wasn’t unanimous but majority though.

My DS has just had covid marsha btw (unvaccinated and passed it to me...) .He is still getting his vaccination as soon as he can. Vaccine + natural immunity is meant to be optimal state.

This is so frustrating. they were clear it benefitted group. You spoke before of their margins'. They need to say, perhaps, what would have swung it. Their biggest concern seems to be the myocarditis.

I am happy they have at least opened up the vaccine to more clinically vulnerable children.

Piggy I probably will too, bar new info. 16 yr old already has

I bet it’s because we don’t have enough vaccines. So many other countries are vaccinating teens!

It’s a pain in the bum In terms of travelling too.

It's currently extremely difficult to get CEV children vaccinated despite it being open to them.

DD isn’t CEV, was never shielding, but has a disability that is on the list. Despite the fact that it is an umbrella term that captures very mild symptoms to severe disability and she is far from severe, she was called up for vaccination. I also got a letter saying records showed I was at risk from having an unvaccinated child, I checked with my GP who has no idea why I was flagged but thought it might be from a minor issue I had about 15 years ago. I know of several others who got the same and had no idea why. It seems they have cast the net very wide on this, and I understand today’s announcement casts it wider still. Perhaps there is a difference in how Scotland is doing it, but I find it hard to believe actual CEV children are not being able to get the vaccination.

In response to the OP, it’s all very well that you were unable to make up your mind, but many people want to be able to choose for themselves and by refusing to do what most other countries are doing, the government are putting our children at risk for no good reason.