Reason for vaccinating 12-15

[SoOvethis]

I was listening to Maajid Nawaz yesterday and he said his personal belief for why the government will want to override the JCVI decision not to vaccinate healthy 12-15 year olds is because he thinks the government will want to introduce domestic vaccine passports and they can’t restrict 12 plus year olds unless they have been given the option to have a vaccine!

Anyone else feel this is probably most likely what will happen? As that is already happening in other countries…

Let’s keep in mind that the vaccine is not sterilising - so you can still catch Covid and spread it if you have it with the same amount of viral load as someone who isn’t vaccinated. Also as mentioned before - research is showing that natural immunity is broader and longer lasting.

I don’t mind the vaccine being offered to healthy 12-15 year olds for those who want it as long as my son won’t be at a disadvantage because he has not had it. But I have a bad feeling that this won’t be the case…

My concern is that we will end up in a politcal position where the "choice" that parents make is nothing to do with a medical risk/ benefit being in favour of the vaccine but because of domestic and international political pressure.

We've already had the situation where we've travelled to another European country to see family for the first time in over 18m then the DCs weren't even allowed into relatives houses because they're not vaccinated despite having met conditions of travel, having been away from school 10+ days and in order not to compromise travel, kept to low risk environments for 10 days prior to travel. The wind and rain were not condusive to happy socialising, and we will not be repeating the palaver for another year anyway.

If I'm consenting to a medical intervention for it, I want it to be for sound medical reasons not social and political pressure.

I’d read that the reason it’s not been recommended as there’s no overall health benefit to healthy children and it’s just to do with keeping schools open.

If I'm consenting to a medical intervention for it, I want it to be for sound medical reasons not social and political pressure.

Absolutely this!

@BogRollBOGOF

My concern is that we will end up in a politcal position where the "choice" that parents make is nothing to do with a medical risk/ benefit being in favour of the vaccine but because of domestic and international political pressure.

We've already had the situation where we've travelled to another European country to see family for the first time in over 18m then the DCs weren't even allowed into relatives houses because they're not vaccinated despite having met conditions of travel, having been away from school 10+ days and in order not to compromise travel, kept to low risk environments for 10 days prior to travel. The wind and rain were not condusive to happy socialising, and we will not be repeating the palaver for another year anyway.

If I'm consenting to a medical intervention for it, I want it to be for sound medical reasons not social and political pressure.

Completely agree. The JCVI have been clear. Sadly unless the majority follow their advice and ppl make a fuss then vaccine passports will be in our future. It’s not way to be in a free society

I doubt it. Because the Jcvi didn’t recommend it, I don’t think they can introduce rules to compel parents/children to have it.

I don't think we should be using vaccines on healthy teens when do many across the world cannot access it. Maybe it should be possible to request for vulnerable children but we should be helping poorer countries protect their vulnerable

Maybe it should be possible to request for vulnerable children but we should be helping poorer countries protect their vulnerable

Many vulnerable children (or those who live with vulnerable adults) already can get vaccinated.

Have you had your son vaccinated against Rubella (part of the MMR)? Although Rubella infection can be unpleasant for boys, the reason it’s part of a national campaign is solely to protect pregnant women, not for the benefit of the boys themselves. This is a well established precedent for vaccinating children to minimise risks to others.

Covid in children and young people is not a benign disease: there have been some deaths and critical illnesses, but a whopping 1 in 6 infected children have prolonged symptoms. It is unclear how and when these symptoms might eventually resolve.

People who have had the vaccine are much less likely to catch covid - if you haven’t caught covid you can’t pass it on. Peak duration of infection is shorter in vaccinated people which also limits the duration of infectiousness. The vaccine doesn’t provide total sterilising immunity but these effects combined make it substantially less likely that recipients transmit the virus.

The JCVI didn’t look at the broader social benefits to vaccinating teenagers, in particular the potential of a vaccination program to halt further disruption to education. I don’t think anyone could argue that children haven’t missed out massively from repeated school closures.

In summary there are sound reasons for teenagers to have the vaccine and as these become fully recognised it’s inevitable that there will be increasing social incentives to have the vaccine.

And I’ll be totally happy with that

In summary there are sound reasons for teenagers to have the vaccine and as these become fully recognised it’s inevitable that there will be increasing social incentives to have the vaccine.

If teenagers want the vaccine, I can see a case for letting them choose to have it with all the information about the marginal benefit to them. It is totally morally wrong to deny them entry to premises, festivals etc because they chose not to have a vaccine which a group of scientific experts decided not to recommend for them.

The risk to boys of the Pfizer vaccine is much higher than to girls. As my children are both male and 12-15, I am not keen for them to have the vaccine, and I don't think they should be making it a condition of travel etc.

The JCVI concluded it wasn't worth vaccinating healthy 12-15s from an individual health perspective as the benefits to vaccination were 'marginal'. So on just that basis there are some, marginal, benefits - not enough to roll it out but certainly wouldn't contraindicate it.
So any additional social or educational benefits (and those are a big deal if it means less schooling missed) are on top of that.
It would therefore make a lot of sense for the government to approve them but leave it up to the teen and their parents. Teens who have a clinically vulnerable family member living with them, or a CEV grandparent they visit, or are in an exam year, would then have the option to have it - the combined health, educational and social benefits clearly make it worth it for them.
Vaccine passports are of course an issue. But foreign travel may also require vaccines anyway as many countries are rolling them out to teens.
It is an issue that developing countries don't have enough vaccines, but the pfizer and moderna vaccines that would be used for teens aren't suitable for donation anyway due to the need for a cold supply chain, and the country has enough for the boosters and teens who want them.

@PurpleDaisies

In summary there are sound reasons for teenagers to have the vaccine and as these become fully recognised it’s inevitable that there will be increasing social incentives to have the vaccine.

If teenagers want the vaccine, I can see a case for letting them choose to have it with all the information about the marginal benefit to them. It is totally morally wrong to deny them entry to premises, festivals etc because they chose not to have a vaccine which a group of scientific experts decided not to recommend for them.

Clearly this is an evolving area of understanding. Given that the vaccine is not currently recommended for 12-15 year olds it is not going to be a requirement to enter modes of transport or social spaces just yet.

As our learning about the risks of covid in children increases its very likely that this will change, rightly so in my view. That’s the thing about public health: the actions of the individual have a profound impact on the life chances of others, something that our individualist society really struggles with

Even if it isn’t harder here to access things ie a pass I do think about o/s and how hard that will be

@trumpisagit

The risk to boys of the Pfizer vaccine is much higher than to girls. As my children are both male and 12-15, I am not keen for them to have the vaccine, and I don't think they should be making it a condition of travel etc.

Do you have a reference for the assertion that the risks of the Pfizer vaccine are greater in boys? It’s not something I’ve come across recently. If you’re concerned about the risk of myocarditis, this is six times more likely after covid infection than after vaccination

@MontagueLeo
You are given the MMR vaccine as a one year old…I can understand vaccinating against rubella as a lot of young children will have a mother who will fall pregnant again!

Apparently up to 70% of women get arthritis like symptoms from rubella.
The most serious consequences of rubella infection occur when it is acquired during the first 3 months of pregnancy. In this situation the virus can affect all the organs of the developing foetus, causing foetal death, miscarriage, or congenital malformation.
This is a bit different to what is happening with Covid.

The Rubella vaccine was first introduced in Canada in 1969…quite a few years before my children had them. So you can’t really compare.

That’s the thing about public health: the actions of the individual have a profound impact on the life chances of others, something that our individualist society really struggles with

I don’t agree with this view for dc and I really appreciate JCVI deciding based on child alone.

But I’m not sure we’ll be fully free from a division in access - o/s at least for now

Like I said - I don’t mind others to choose to vaccinate their children. But I worry, and think it is very likely, that the children who haven’t been vaccinated will be excluded from cinemas, leisure centres, restaurants etc
If they do impose the domestic passports then there should be options to get tested. But let’s be honest - everyone should be getting tested as just because you are vaccinated doesn’t mean you are not carrying Covid around!
I know at least 20 people who have had covid recently and every single one was double jabbed! It’s still ripping through to those who never had it in the previous waves.

Given that the vaccine is not currently recommended for 12-15 year olds it is not going to be a requirement to enter modes of transport or social spaces just yet.

You seemed to be arguing that regardless if the JCVI recommendation, places should be able deny entry to unvaccinated 12-15year olds. Since you’re now saying that’s not the case, we are in agreement. While the jcvi is not recommended the jab for that group, it is wrong to try and compel them to take it.

@montagueleo
Yes myocarditis
Source BBC News
"For every million Pfizer second doses given to 12-17-year-old-boys, around 60 had the condition (compared with 8 in a million among girls)."
"A key unknown is the risk of myocarditis from Covid infection itself," says Prof Neil Ferguson, a government adviser, from Imperial College London."

Why do you think the risk is greater from covid of Myocarditis? I don't think there is sufficient research to state that.

You’re comfortable with the idea of vaccinating children against rubella in order to protect their potentially vulnerable pregnant mothers. Would you not have consented to it had your children been babies in 1970 as it was too new?

This is a very comparable situation to vaccinating children against covid in order to minimise the risks of transmission to older family members (there are also substantial health and social benefits to the children themselves).

The difference between now and the early 70s is that social media has given a platform to the ill informed, the superstitious and the frankly malicious to spread anti vaccine anxiety.

Which is very sad

Btw. My children have all had covid . So they are less likely to catch COVID again than someone who has never had covid but is double jabbed.
So why should they not have the same access and rights considering they are “less of a threat” to society.
Also, they are all fine, so why would I want to add any additional possible risk by vaccinating them?

I don't think comparing JCVI recommendation to malicious anti vaccine madness, is very helpful.
Of course parents care about the individual outcome for their child.
The risks from covid to healthy children is still tiny.

The MMR vaccine is given in 2 doses to young children which gives (for most people) protection for life.
The COVID vaccination is not the same
You really cannot compare the two.

I want my 14y old to have it because he hardly gets I'll but when he does he gets quite ill. He has a weird immune system (allergies etc) so I want him to have as many anti covid antibodies in his system as possible ready to go when he gets it.

@MontagueLeo
I can’t tell you what I would have done back then. Obviously if I thought that every time I was going to become pregnant my unborn child might die or become intellectually disabled then I probably would lean towards the vaccine. What I can’t find though, is how long did they take to make this vaccine and assess its safety? I know that there was a rubella pandemic from 1964/65 in the USA so I am presuming the research and testing would have started then at the latest. That is 4/5 years before it was introduced in Canada.

The difference is also that children who live with a CEV family member can already be vaccinated if they are over 12!
My husband is CEV - and he is of the opinion that no, our children should not be vaccinated for his benefit. He has had covid and been double jabbed. That should give him enough protection.