All 12-15s to be offered single dose of Pfizer, CMOs decide

[bagofconkers]

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines-to-be-offered-to-children-aged-12-to-15-chief-medical-officers-decide-12402855

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]bumbley thank you, not sure how I managed to cock that one up! this link should work but it’s all still there on his Twitter feed if not. Fingers crossed this one works!

mobile.twitter.com/han_francis/status/1436167765220634631[/quote]
Right, now I know that works - He’s a paediatric cardiologist and his key takeaways are:

“Remember VAERS is designed as a research hypothesis generating tool, not a diagnostic tool, and most definitely not a tool to seek causation. Physician review of VAERS reports really matters. Cardiologists assessing patients for myocarditis using formal criteria matters.”

Frank Han
@han_francis
·
Sep 10
“I have yet to witness (and have asked my colleagues too) one post-vaccine myocarditis child go on life support. Have I heard of post-#COVID19 disease children get on life support, and MISC kids go on life support? Absolutely.”

@bumbleymummy

That tweet seems to have been deleted Beware.

This from the paper - “ and required the term “troponin” in the laboratory data.”

Suggests that they were trying to limit the data to medically reported events.

Medically reported events on VAERS, as I've said to you previously, are vastly outnumbered by vexatious reports from anti-vaxers - rendering the system next to useless. It has no oversight or follow-up and no controls. Using it as a population group for research purposes is a strange choice.

@bumbleymummy

^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.^

Although adult uptake in this socioeconomic group is lower so it will likely also be lower in children too.

And if children are already immune, the benefit-risk tilts further away from it being of any benefit - for health or school disruption reasons. Proof of infection (or proof of antibodies) could be used to help identify those still more at risk.

I actually think this is a potentially valid argument.

However we do not have research into this as an approach. So whilst I think the argument stands up and probably is a good one, its also not the question the CMO were looking at which was are the vaccines safe for children in this age group, whats the risk/benefit in this age group and whats the impact on education in this age group.

Thats the type of further questioning we probably should be doing.

If your child has had a verified case of covid does this change the benefit to having the vaccine? The answer is I don't know and Im not sure the CMOs have an answer on this either (do correct me if I'm wrong).

I think the wisdom on this is currently that covid + vaccine is a good one for immunity. But thats not based on this age group specifically.

We should ask searching questions like this. We might not get answers we need but if nothing else it opens up where the research should be done.

My worry in this sense is we might get some groups hesitant about vaccinations in school but the school vaccine programme will be a one time offer, if you miss it this year its going to be difficult to get a jab at a later date. (i missed my TB one as I was sick and despite trying the system wouldn't let me have it outside school or the following year).

I am hoping there is going to be a contingency for those who might delay but want later and I hope that privacy around the decision is properly upheld in schools rather than class queues which i think have been appalling in terms of peer pressure for lateral flow testing and have put school process ahead of conditions which allow for proper consent making.

Thank you ollyollyoxenfree

I really need to look into this further. Whilst I'm leaning towards my child in this group being vaccinated, the focus on missed education in the briefing has left me not sure.

A pp hit the nail on the head.

This new review is contrary to the previous advice not to vaccinate children because they're now considering the wider perspective - ie, transmission in adults, lockdown, the economy going to shit, financial ruin, travel problems, NHS funding issues.

The advice not to vaccinate 12-15 year olds was based on medical, clinical findings.

The advice to vaccinate them is the Government deciding that the kids need to take one for the team.

Um, nope.

And education

So that's right, it is not about adversely affecting kids, it is about making sure they have a less disrupted year of education.

We are lucky enough to be really well set up for homeschooling in many ways but even so, I think our kids have had enough of being off school and they actively want to be in school with their friends.

We have vulnerabilities as well so we were very grateful for offers of a vaccine.

But it would put things on a much more stable footing in schools if at least some children were protected, quite apart from the overall marginal benefit to health.

The advice not to vaccinate 12-15 year olds was based on medical, clinical findings.

Not to completely disagree with you (it will sound like it so bear with me!) but as I posted upthread, the MHRA cleared the vaccine for use in 12-15 year olds based on clinical findings and trials, before the JCVI came to their decision. (Also I’m not sure the JCVI decision was purely based on health, as they mentioned in their report that a vaccination programme in schools would be disruptive to education. Not sure why they included that, as it’s not a medical concern.)

My point is - they honestly could not have made this harder for parents if they’d tried. The communication around everything from masks to vaccines to transmission has been muddled, conflicting and often biased, which is one thing when it’s your own health, but infinitely more stressful when having to make a decision for your children.

I'm finding it really confusing that so many of the anti-this-vaccine for children parents are concerned about the risk of myocardial infection, when they also believe the risks of covid to this age group are small, and that 'some kids don't even realise they have it'.

Here are a couple of screenshots I've taken from reliable sources about myocarditis.

@AlixandraTheGreat yes, I’ve replied to you before about that and addressed your point in the post you’ve quoted.

I'm finding it really confusing that so many of the anti-this-vaccine for children parents are concerned about the risk of myocardial infection, when they also believe the risks of covid to this age group are small, and that 'some kids don't even realise they have it'

I don't understand your point tbh.

I'm 'anti vaccine' for my dc.
Yes I find the reports of myocarditis concerning.
Yes I believe most children are barely affected by covid.
I'm also aware that myocarditis is often mild and can go unnoticed.

Which of these of my viewpoints is confusing?

It’s confusing for parents but the bottom line is everyone’s situation is completely different so there’s no right or wrong. It’s boiled right down to individual choice (which is correct).

My DS is at a very small secondary school. 45 in the whole year. No isolations last year. Small village. We are very lucky. Nobody vulnerable in our family.

If he was at a huge secondary in a hotspot and we had vulnerable family at home the balance would tip.

I’m still slightly on the fence about it all. But there’s no rush. I’ll spend more time researching and deciding.

[quote bumbleymummy]@AlixandraTheGreat yes, I’ve replied to you before about that and addressed your point in the post you’ve quoted.[/quote]

And if you still post the exact same misinformation link with the exact same lead-in text, expect the same response.

No but they said that it wasn’t recommended on health grounds for children

No they didn’t.

I’m finding your posts @RedToothBrush really helpful so thanks.

It’s a good question. Is this a one time only offer? I’d prefer to wait as everything is so unclear.

@ThisIsNotAMill

Just confused that some people are very "I won't use the vaccine due to the risk of myocarditis", when those same people equate the risk of Covid to be negligible. Both conditions seem to be described similarly.

@Delatron

I’m finding your posts *@RedToothBrush* really helpful so thanks.

It’s a good question. Is this a one time only offer? I’d prefer to wait as everything is so unclear.

That is a good question. Hopefully once proper plans for these vaccines to be extended to this age group are published, it will offer more clarity. I totally understand those wanting to wait and see.

@ThisIsNotAMill

To clarify, I wonder if the risk of serious illness from myocarditis is thought to be much higher by people than it factually is. Much the same as those who think the risk of serious illness from covid is higher for children than it factually is.

There is a time element though, in that covid will be running through secondary schools fairly quickly this term.

@noblegiraffe

There is a time element though, in that covid will be running through secondary schools fairly quickly this term.

This is true, but if my teenager being vaccinated can offer a side-benefit of helping to reduce the chance of infection for those teenagers who haven't decided yet, that's a positive thing.

From Sky News

COVID-19 vaccine available for 12 to 15-year-olds in England from next week - and child can have jab without consent from parents if deemed 'competent'

It’s not misinformation. It’s from their methods.

“ We searched the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data for females and males ages 12-17 in reports processed from 1/1/2021 through 6/18/2021 with diagnoses of “myocarditis,” “pericarditis,” “myopericarditis” or “chest pain” in the symptom notes and required the term “troponin” in the laboratory data. We defined a CAE using the CDC working case definition for a probable case.[2] Specifically, the symptom of “chest pain” required at least one of the following: diagnosis of myocarditis, peri- or myopericarditis, acute myocardial infarction; elevated troponin; abnormal electrocardiogram (EKG), abnormal echocardiogram (ECHO), or cardiac MRI (cMRI) findings consistent with myocarditis (as defined in Supplement 1).”

(Supplement 1 is the cdc working definition of myocarditis). I think that your portrayal of all these reports as solely from anti-vaxxers is more misleading tbh.

I think its been handled badly tbh.

The amount of disinformation, misunderstandings and common misconceptions is alarming. Parents simply dont understand how or why the JVCI and CMOs can make different assessments because they don't understand the different processing and assessment methods which are both valid and both solely about the health benefit to children receiving the jabs and them alone (not a wider impact on society)

I think it needs to be stressed whilst staring at the risk of myocarditis, that a 'do nothing' approach isnt risk free either. You ultimately pick the set of risks you like the look of best, and hope that you arent the one who gets unlucky.

Whatever you decide you are rolling the dice and gambling.

What the CMO are saying is that your dice is weighted to be more likely to give you a 6 if you go for the vaccine though.

And its worth stressing that both the JVCI and CMO have been much more considered and conservative in their approach than some other countries - using data not available previously and from real world usage. And the CMO are still coming out on the side of 1 dose. So they must think its got enough merit to do that.

yes @BewareTheLibrarians I agree re the messaging.

I was thinking this morning (and I realise this is after the fact) but it's a shame that the CMOs and JCVI could not have come up with this as a joint coherent plan, rather than having it come out in 2 stages. Ideally, before term began, but there you go.

@noblegiraffe

There is a time element though, in that covid will be running through secondary schools fairly quickly this term.

Quite. If they don't get the fuck on with it, they reduce the potential benefit over getting covid itself for everyone.

I think it was always likely to have been mid to late September but I dont know why planning for that with individual schools wasn't initiated in June/July as it would have been easier to stand down if the decision had gone the other way.

COVID-19 vaccine available for 12 to 15-year-olds in England from next week - and child can have jab without consent from parents if deemed 'competent'

This is exactly why my 13 year old will not be in school on any day when vaccinations are taking place, even if I have to keep him home for a month.

The risk of a 'misunderstanding', a show off teen wanting to impress his friends with no real capability to decide or even an overzealous nurse edging into the territory of coercion is too great.