Should we be vaccinating 12-15 year old girls only?

[ItllBeOverByChristmas]

Another study has come out on the risks of the Pfizer vaccine. It's only a preprint and you could pick holes in the approach, but it's telling us what the JCVI have already said, that the risk for this age group of non-trivial side effects from the vaccine may outweigh the risk of harm from the disease....but only in boys.

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

It's come at exactly the wrong time for the government who are about to announce that it will be rolled out for all 12-15 year olds for reasons which go beyond simple health benefits.

But if you were looking at this is a vacuum there's an obvious conclusion: give it to the children who will definitely benefit, don't give it to the ones for whom the risks might outweigh the benefits. Just vaccinate the girls.

I know it'll never happen but the politics are interesting. Why is it so unthinkable?

Another option is to give boys 12-15 one dose and give the girls two doses. (as myocarditis with vaccine vs covid myocarditis risk is more of an issue after the second dose in the normal weight healthy boys)

I am sure that all the options are being considered.

I’d wondered this too.
However, firstly I think it would be impossible to implement and deliver, even if the figures for myocarditis were really seriously different for girls and boys. But more importantly in this case in terms of reality for implementation, although there’s a difference between girls and boys, for both groups the risk is tiny tiny tiny.

The difference between girls and boys isn’t enough to make a difference in the call for the 2 genders. It is 52 in a million. You’d need bigger differences to even try to justify giving it to girls and not boys.

It is highly likely they will approve the jab for all 12-15s in my view. The risks to healthy 12-15s are minor. Not only do tiny numbers get myocarditis, but recovery is swift for those without underlying health issues. In my view, it will be for all 12-15s and they won’t differentiate between girls and boys because there’s not enough of a difference to not offer to all, which will be a relief as trying o offer to one gender would cause a massive communication difficulty and uproar.

Crucially, parents will make the decision about whether to accept the offer. Anyone who has any doubts can hold back on it. People need to remember that.

I agree that one for boys and two for girls might make sense and be an easier sell. My 17 year old boy is between doses at the moment and I am having a bit of a wobble. It's his choice but he tends to health anxiety so I haven't so far actively presented him with the facts on side effects. Am reassuring myself with the fact that it's still quite rare, and treatable.

I thought they had only given one dose to 16=17 year olds (and will advise about the second)? I may be wrong as we don't have one of those

Currently it is 1 does for 16-17s, but a decision is due about if they have a 2nd before we get to the 12 week point.

Personally, I think trying o distinguish between genders would be a nightmare to implement and sell as an idea. Luckily, although boys have a slightly higher risk level, it is very low for both boys and girls and for healthy people who get myocarditis as a result of jab, recovery is swift. On this basis, I think they will be able to offer a 2nd jab to 16s and 17s and there won’t be a gender difference.

I think the same thing will happen for 12-15s. First one jab, then later approval for 2nd before 12 weeks is reached. Think will be for both genders or no-one. If the risk is seen as significant enough to stop them having jab, it will be case for both boys and girls.

Other countries have given it to both genders. It would be very odd if UK chose to give to just one.

Parents will have decision for 12-15s. 16-17s have the final say, but I’d imagine most are guided by what their parents think.

It's not a "slightly" higher risk for boys. Latest report suggests it's ten times higher. The virus is unquestionably more dangerous than the vaccine for girls, it's only for boys that there's a query.

If it was denied to boys, how would the NHS react to a teenager who stated they identify as a girl?

Perhaps the recommendation should be 1 dose for boys, 2 for girls, with the decision left to the individuals (i.e. if two doses are desired by boys they can have them).

@ItllBeOverByChristmas

It's not a "slightly" higher risk for boys. Latest report suggests it's ten times higher. The virus is unquestionably more dangerous than the vaccine for girls, it's only for boys that there's a query.

the risk is extremely small to start with

This bit is important "This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so shouldnotbe used to guide clinical practice."
For me vaccinating children isn't about protecting them from hospitalisation due to the virus - at least not with this strain. We know they are unlikely to become ill, but we need their education to suffer no more interruptions.

@ItllBeOverByChristmas

It's not a "slightly" higher risk for boys. Latest report suggests it's ten times higher. The virus is unquestionably more dangerous than the vaccine for girls, it's only for boys that there's a query.

It's not a report though, it's a pre-print yet to be peer reviewed using methods that aren't recommended for determining causality (i.e., relying on VAERS reports)

Doesn't mean it should be ignored, but should be interpreted with a huge degree of caution and definitely not solely used to inform policy.

Here's a summary of some of the methodological issues:
twitter.com/han_francis/status/1436167765220634631

What about checking for antibodies first? Lots of kids have probably been exposed to it already.

@Ifailed

If it was denied to boys, how would the NHS react to a teenager who stated they identify as a girl?

Surely they would distinguish by asking those with female gender at birth to be vaccinated. I’m sure those that identify as female but we’re not female at birth will understand this. It’s the biological makeup of the genders that makes males more susceptible.

@DayKay

What about checking for antibodies first? Lots of kids have probably been exposed to it already.

Excellent point; logistical issue; and a lot of interesting scientific questions around this, the answers to which I am not sure that we yet have.

Also when you fill an econsult online, the nhs website very clearly asks for gender at birth. Those that identify as girls will have most probably come across this before and would understand.

Yes, this latest report isn't rock solid, but it's confirming what we already knew, that this is a male problem not a female problem.
Here's the CDC previous report, again showing a male to female ratio of between 4 to 1 and 10 to 1.
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm

What a surprise to already find ollyollyoxenfree on this thread championing vaccines above all else and other reason.

Doesn’t matter how low everyone proclaims the risk to be, that risk is too high against the risk of serious covid issues and myocarditis is never mild! Yes boys can recover, but the heart tissue that was killed off will never regenerate.

Sorry elderly and vulnerable people, as harsh as it may sound, I’m not willing to take that risk with my DC for your apparent protection - even though you can protect yourself with your own vaccine

I’m sick of skirting around, when it comes to children, we must ALL protect them above all else.

biological makeup of the genders

There's a word for that - sex.

Do they still give teenage girls a rubella booster? If they can do that then they can have different vaccine regimens for girls and boys.

It would seem odd to deny girls the vaccine because of the risk to boys.

[quote ItllBeOverByChristmas]Yes, this latest report isn't rock solid, but it's confirming what we already knew, that this is a male problem not a female problem.
Here's the CDC previous report, again showing a male to female ratio of between 4 to 1 and 10 to 1.
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm[/quote]
The problem isn't that it isn't "rock solid", it's due to the methodological issues used.

They would always reflect a higher rate of myocarditis in males as it's more common in them - there will always be a higher baseline rate in young men than young women.

It's about understanding whether this risk is higher from vaccines or from COVID, of which there's still uncertainty. There's a published paper in NJEM (I think) using decent method and demonstrating the exact opposite.

It's not a "slightly" higher risk for boys. Latest report suggests it's ten times higher. The virus is unquestionably more dangerous than the vaccine for girls, it's only for boys that there's a query.

I heard the woman who developed the Oxford vaccine taking about this very issue, she said the risk to boys is absolute tiny and the risk to girls even smaller. IIIC she said teenage boys have exactly the same risk of dying from Covid than of suffering this side effect from vaccine.

@Lostinacloud

What a surprise to already find ollyollyoxenfree on this thread championing vaccines above all else and other reason.

Doesn’t matter how low everyone proclaims the risk to be, that risk is too high against the risk of serious covid issues and myocarditis is never mild! Yes boys can recover, but the heart tissue that was killed off will never regenerate.

Sorry elderly and vulnerable people, as harsh as it may sound, I’m not willing to take that risk with my DC for your apparent protection - even though you can protect yourself with your own vaccine

Please link to any of my posts where I've "championed vaccines"?

I haven’t got 3 days spare ollyollyoxenfree

@Lostinacloud

I haven’t got 3 days spare ollyollyoxenfree

Well no, you just won't be able to find a single post where as you say I've done this "above all else and other reason".

You can't even find an example on the thread you've brought it up on