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

I think it needs to be stressed whilst staring at the risk of myocarditis, that a 'do nothing' approach isnt risk free either.

Unless they’ve already had the virus of course.

@ThisIsNotAMill

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.

I think you also run the risk of bragging rights for being rebellious if you do it in a queue more like other school vaccines - and herd mentality kicking in (either way).

Its very hard for kids to asset themselves in certain situations.

I do understand the anxiety parents who want to say no are feeling with this gillick stuff.

I actually think they have to go down the route of only vaccinating kids who are yes / yes first. And then going back and assessing differences of opinion later on rather than on the spot.

Parents need reassuring on the gillick argument that informed decision making is being made and respected full stop.

And it would also depend on when they had it, bumbley as even natural immunity wears off.

@noblegiraffe

And it would also depend on when they had it, bumbley as even natural immunity wears off.

So far studies have shown that it lasts 9+ months in the majority and recent (smaller) studies have shown up to 12 months.

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

Yes, and their methods are problematic, which was explained in the tweet I linked to above from the pediatric cardiologist. His second tweet in the chain explained the problem quite well, I thought.

More here
sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of-a-vaers-dumpster-dive/

Or here
mobile.twitter.com/Neurofourier/status/1436308226082025496

@bumbleymummy

I think it needs to be stressed whilst staring at the risk of myocarditis, that a 'do nothing' approach isnt risk free either.

Unless they’ve already had the virus of course.

We still dont actually know that one for sure - plus risks are also mental health risks for time off school and long term risks associated with time off school and the vaccine may reduce the risk of these....

Dont forget, covid + vaccine is coming out better in some studies than vaccine alone. France are using a positive test as an alternative to one jab as they think it gives as much protection as two doses.

Its not straight forward!!!

And covid + vaccine is coming out better than natural immunity alone...

We still dont actually know that one for sure - plus risks are also mental health risks for time off school and long term risks associated with time off school and the vaccine may reduce the risk of these.

We do actually have a lot of data on durability of immunity after infection now. Children who have a history of infection/proof of antibodies shouldn’t really be required to isolate so that would help with the mental health/disruption issues.

Beware. I’ll happily wait for peer review. It is a preprint after all. I don’t think it should be dismissed as pure ‘anti-vaxx’ reports though given the criteria they have used to select cases in their methods.

Children aren't required to isolate as contacts whether they have been previously infected or not, bumbley.

@bumbleymummy

I think that your portrayal of all these reports as solely from anti-vaxxers is more misleading tbh.

I did not say this at all. I said VAERS data is primarily consisted of vexatious anti-vaxer reports, vastly outweighing any medical reports. If you're going to quote me, do it accurately - thanks.

@bumbleymummy

Beware. I’ll happily wait for peer review. It is a preprint after all. I don’t think it should be dismissed as pure ‘anti-vaxx’ reports though given the criteria they have used to select cases in their methods.

No one has stated this - there have been objections to the methods used being used: a) how they have derived their numbers and b) being used to prove a causal relationship

You're attempting to claim people are screaming "anti-vax!!" without reading it, but many posters have explained the problems with the manuscript in it's current form.

It is true that the misuse of VAERS data is a classic anti-vaccine trope though. Not clear here if the authors are unaware (which in itself is really problematic), or doing it deliberately.

I really hope that someone, somewhere is planning a challege on the use of Gillick for this vaccination. A vaccination that has not been recommended by the JCVI.

I think there are many parents who are unware of Gillick and this has been a real eye opener for them. I wonder if parents know that it took a court case to decide that it is 'highly unlikely' that 13-14 year olds could consent to puberty blockers but 16-17 are deemed competent.

The state can over rule you and deem your 13 year old is able to make these decisions. Gillick needs to be reviewed.

[quote AlixandraTheGreat]@bumbleymummy

I think that your portrayal of all these reports as solely from anti-vaxxers is more misleading tbh.

I did not say this at all. I said VAERS data is primarily consisted of vexatious anti-vaxer reports, vastly outweighing any medical reports. If you're going to quote me, do it accurately - thanks.[/quote]
Fine. I still think that saying that these are primarily Vexatious anti-vaxx reports in relation to this study, given the selection criteria that they have used, is misleading.

Gillick needs to be reviewed

This with bells on.

The only time I really hear about Gillick is when people gleefully post that it's not your decision as a parent anyway, because Gillick. About all sorts, not just vaccines.

My very academically intelligent, fairly mature 13 year old tried to dig a piece of toast out of the toaster last week with a (metal) spoon because of course, he knows using a knife is dangerous. Ffs. He just never thought, apparently.

At 13 they're still children that often don't have the capacity to consider anything greater than what to wear. And call me sexist but ime boys definitely more so than girls.

They're not going to be jabbing teens at school behind their parents' back. Fuck knows why the govt are raising the idea that they might, particularly when schools are already getting angry letters written in crayon and pseudo-legalese threatening dire consequences if vaccines in schools go ahead.

My DC is just about to turn 12 so will be one of the youngest they will be offering this to. From what I can gather younger boys are at the most risk and benefit the least from the vaccine so he'll not be having it. I am not anti vaccine and all adults in the family are vaccinated. He can get vaccinated when he is an adult too.

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'm hoping that there'll be arrangements for catch up jabs (maybe at the normal adult centres) because my DD currently has covid so won't be able to have the vaccine for 28 days afterwards anyway.

I haven't read any research but I would assume logically that (delta) covid + vax will act like a two dose course with 2 different vaccines.

Maybe covid will turn out to be like chicken pox, a little exposure every so often will boost immunity to it?

@2021Vision

I really hope that someone, somewhere is planning a challege on the use of Gillick for this vaccination. A vaccination that has not been recommended by the JCVI.

I think there are many parents who are unware of Gillick and this has been a real eye opener for them. I wonder if parents know that it took a court case to decide that it is 'highly unlikely' that 13-14 year olds could consent to puberty blockers but 16-17 are deemed competent.

The state can over rule you and deem your 13 year old is able to make these decisions. Gillick needs to be reviewed.

Particularly given the studies from recent years irt the development of the teenage brain and decision making.

Teenage decision making is a very clear cut process…
www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/teenagers-vaccine-decisions-based-entirely-on-pissing-off-parents-20210914212035

@BewareTheLibrarians

Teenage decision making is a very clear cut process… www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/teenagers-vaccine-decisions-based-entirely-on-pissing-off-parents-20210914212035

Like it!

To all those staying gillick ... the state is not going to be overturning your wishes anytime soon, only a judge's order can confirm competency on advice of a doctor, the courts are kind of busy so they aren't going to be rushing to overturn your decisions anytime soon. Instead they will get on with vaccinating all the kids whose parents actually understand medical evidence and consented rather than relying on anti vaxxed propaganda

Instead they will get on with vaccinating all the kids whose parents actually understand medical evidence and consented rather than relying on anti vaxxed propaganda

This is an unfair comment. I haven't read any anti vax propaganda. I have a teenage ds and he won't be getting vaccinated after what the JCVI said.

@Comedycook

Instead they will get on with vaccinating all the kids whose parents actually understand medical evidence and consented rather than relying on anti vaxxed propaganda

This is an unfair comment. I haven't read any anti vax propaganda. I have a teenage ds and he won't be getting vaccinated after what the JCVI said.

I think it unfair too.

Even at the press conference and since it’s been evident that it’s a close decision.