[quote AlixandraTheGreat]@bumbleymummy
The mental health/education problems were caused by political decisions irt to closing schools and requiring testing/isolation for close contacts. They created a problem that they are now ‘solving’ by offering a vaccine with minimal health benefits to a population of which a majority is already thought to be immune.
It's amusing to see how you attempt to spin your response from "follow the scientists" (ie. the JCVI as their recommendations were in line with your beliefs) to ("the scientists are political" (as the JCVI have now dialled back their recommendations). Anyway, the vaccine doesn't have minimal health benefits for 12-17 year olds, not all are immune and receiving a vaccination will only add to the immunity of those who already have antibodies. This will further protect them and those around them, and allow them to return to a normal young person's life. How can you believe that be an undesirable thing?
[/quote]
I've not said its political at all.
The JVCI came to one conclusion based on a certain set of criteria. Medical based data on a definition.
The CMOs have come to another based on another set of criteria. Medical based data on a certain definition.
Both are clinical judgments based on evidence
This is part of how medicine works and how we reach evidence based decisions.
We often get different studies which say slightly different things and emphasis different issues. Its why we have peer reviews and cochrane reviews to shift through that and to help make sense and to say whether something is effective and worthwhile or not.
In this particular case we have evidence put before us and we are told that its a) relatively safe - but there are risks to both not getting vaccinate and getting vaccinated b) on balance the risk of two jabs starts to outweigh the benefit the vaccine gives so they wont recommend that c) and that we are now free to make a choice of our own based on the findings that its on a knife edge (which both the JVCI and CMOs both acknowledge).
I note here that the CMOs did stress that the benefit is equally spread:
The CMOs added that pupils who are eligible for free school meals — such as if their parents receive income support and universal credit — missed 30 per cent more school days than other pupils due to Covid-related absences.
This suggests children from disadvantaged areas may have more to gain from vaccination, they said.
This is significant and says something about wanting to try and protect the most vulnerable groups. Which is ethically and morally right. Especially as more well off groups have the education to be able to make sense of this and make their own decisions.
This isn't a political decision but a reflection of the science for this dilemma for this age group.
Thats fundamentally from saying 12 - 15 year olds should have two doses because the science says 2 doses gives you more protection. The whole point is this isnt qualified and doesn't drill down into the relevant evidence specific for this age group. If the risk profile for a second dose differs then that raises questions about whether 2 doses is better - thats exactly what the CMOs are saying. That theyve looked at that and found a problem. Other countries didn't look at that. Medically you make recommendations on the information you have available to you. This can and does change frequently in medicine as more research is done.
The CMO advice in many respect goes into the finer detail - and doesn't contridict JVCI. It references it and draws down from it, expanding on how the risk benefit profile shifts if you look at socio economy details and mental well being.
The thing with medicine is you need to be able to pick up group risk/benefits v individual risk/benefits. Public health advice always is about group risk rather than application to individual circumstances.
When we make decisions about our health our doctor should take us through this process on an individual level. Thats the basis of properly informed consent. What we tend to find in practice is that many doctors make decisions on our behalf to a certain extent. Thats not always in our best interest (and why conveyer belt medicine is fundamentally flawed and can lead to medical scandals - maternity care has a few very good example of how this can go wrong)
As a rule people who are educated and can navigate the system and know what the right questions to ask and can access the correct data to make properly informed choices have better health care outcomes and are more satisfied with the care they receive.
This is for a reason.
The CMOs have spelt out their recommendation. But the more important part of that is their explanation as to why they came to that conclusion. (Which is the bit people dont tend to look at so much). Ditto the JVCI.
Thats what you need to look at on an individual level.
Thats not 'going follow the science, no not that science' . Its properly understanding the evidence available and how it best applies to your personal circumstances and health care needs. Its using the most appropriate and up to date science to make a decision which is 'on balance' in many cases.
There isn't a right answer to this.
There are however wrong answers - emotive language and 'making a gut decision' are wrong responses. You need to sit down look at whats being said and why.
If you are saying two doses are better than one because you say so, you need to ask yourself the hard question about whether this is an emotional response because this is what we've been taught to date and be able to explain firstly what the CMOs point is on this and then why you would go against that based on other evidence. To explain: their point is essentially that a second dose doesn't increase protection enough in this particular age group to justify the increased risk that accompanies the second dose. Thats a fundamental difference to other age groups. Those advocating it on medical grounds need a solid rebuff which explains why 12 to 15 year olds should take that extra risk. And they may have one in certain circumstances.
The JVCI and CMOs do make the case for second jabs in this age group for extremely clinically vulnerable children and had for children in immunocompromised households. Which does highlight the fuzzy line on this and how its not necessarily black and white.
My point being you have to make the case about why you think the recommendation isnt appropriate for your circumstances if you are going to argue against the CMO using rational and evidence rather than 'cos i just think it better' and 'this science says so' without explaining why its more relevant/appropriate and overrides the recommendation.
I would also add that informed consent means you can fully understand something and still decide against a recommendation provided you can argue a rational and logical risk/benefit analysis. It is not properly informed if you come out with irrelevant emotive guff but you still retain the right to withold consent (as always). We should encourage the former. What you can't do is demand medical care against recommendations without an informed and evidence based counter argument that is highly relevant to an individual case. (This is - you should not be allowed to force a medical professional to act in a way they believe will do more harm than good or put you at unnecessary risk. If they are going to do something different they need a bloody good reason to justify why its the best course of action. Hence you can't actively consent to things that go against doctors advice - you need it signed off by a medical professional.)