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

Everyone is concerned about myocarditis and rightly so.
However no one is concerned about the risk of myocarditis from covid infection even in asymptomatic cases which is higher than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine? Never mind the other risks of covid in young people. Although to be fair the UK government have been spinning it as though there has been absolutely no risk to young people from covid all along

@LookieLikie

To those of you staying you won’t be allowing your children to have it, can I just point out it’ll be their decision not yours?

Hollow laugh. Maybe in your house. Here the children do what we tell them to as they trust our judgment.

So if your child had a reasoned argument for why they wanted it you wouldn’t take their view into account?

And even with consent from parents if the young person refuses then they certainly wouldn’t be made to have it against their will.

@Idyllic

Our boy won't be getting it. We don't want him to have it and he doesn't want it anyway. Good news for parents who do want their child to have it.

I'm surprised at the govt going against JCVI advice, I do wonder if any child does have adverse effects will it be hushed up?

Its not going against JCVI.

Its in line with what the JCVI have said. They said they couldn't recommend it given it only gives marginal health benefits and a double dose was more of a risk to this age group rather than covid itself. Thus there wasn't enough on this basis for JCVI to recommend it. Their remit is only to make decisions on a clinical basic.

The chief medical officers are saying this is true - and thats partly why they've opted for one dose only - but they are saying that whilst there is only a marginal direct health benefit for one dose for 12 - 15 year olds, there is an indirect benefit to this group if it keeps this group in school without absence from covid (as they are less likely to test positive with one dose).

This has a positive impact on mental health for example. It also improves health outcomes long term because educational attainment is linked to health. (So if you do better at school, your health is likely to be better because you are less likely to live in poverty later in life / are better at making good health decisions because you have better understanding). Its a long term public health decision.

Basically the CMOs get to take into account a broader range of medical concerns issues - both direct and indirect and short term and long term.

It is a purely medical decision, but its one which is more complex than goes beyond what the JCVI would look at.

So they are consistent with each other and the CMO recommendation references the concern of the JCVI on risks by saying only one dose.

POLITICALLY it would have been easier for the government if they'd said two doses because it would mean Dominic Raab would be off the hook and could stay sat on his backside. Now he has to resolve the conflict in policy with other countries... and actually do some work.

@noblegiraffe

I just filled out a consent form for the flu vaccine in school, and it said 'if you decline consent for the vaccine, your child will not be given it'.

I suspect Javid is talking out of his arse on that point.

Exactly I actually had a phone call from the flu immunisation team as my son refused the flu jab . She said they couldn’t persuade him or force him so he wouldn’t be getting it done. So I can’t see them doing children when the parents have said no.

@FlorenceWintle

I would absolutely agree to have it if I thought it would prevent further disruption to their education. And that is what they are giving as one of the reasons to recommend it but they’re not explaining HOW. It was the bubbles and household isolation that was causing the disruption (lockdowns aside) and they’re no longer a requirement.

Whitty's just said in the press conference that this alone isn't going to stop disruption to education – that it will reduce but not eliminate.

@FlorenceWintle

I would absolutely agree to have it if I thought it would prevent further disruption to their education. And that is what they are giving as one of the reasons to recommend it but they’re not explaining HOW. It was the bubbles and household isolation that was causing the disruption (lockdowns aside) and they’re no longer a requirement.

Children being infected will still mean they miss more education though, and being vaccinated massively reduces the chance of being infected.

I know 3 young people who have had their start to year 7 delayed as they have tested positive. Over coming weeks chances are many more will miss two weeks of school due to positive tests.

I would absolutely agree to have it if I thought it would prevent further disruption to their education. And that is what they are giving as one of the reasons to recommend it but they’re not explaining HOW

By reducing the spread of covid in school. When a child catches covid they have to isolate for 10 days. Less covid, fewer isolations.

Being vaccinated doesn’t stop you catching Covid so they would still have to isolate for 10 days regardless .

@Explosivefarts

Being vaccinated doesn’t stop you catching Covid so they would still have to isolate for 10 days regardless .

But it does reduce the risks of catching it.

Agree it was the bubbles and multiple isolations that caused the disruption.

So where is the potential disruption coming from? If they get Covid and have to be off for 10 days? That’s it though. And that could happen for any illness. A week or so off school.

Are they trying to protect vaccinated teachers more? It’s a bit unclear.

It’s an individual choice. But mine are never ill so I don’t see much disruption to their education if isolation and bubbles have ended.

I feel frustrated that the UK is yet again slow to make decisions, but my personal view is this is positive. I will encourage my children to engage and exercise medical autonomy in deciding what they want to do.

I wonder will they also change the isolation requirements as well. Double vaccinated adults and under 18s (because they hadn't had the chance to have the vaccine) no longer need to isolate.
Possibly now it is being offered to all over 12 those who are not vaccinated will have to isolate as a close contact if the need for further mitigations happen in winter. Therefore people making their own choice about having their children's education disrupted and after all the drama about that over the last year on mumsnet you would think people would want to try to avoid further disruption to education.

I know of so many people who have got it in recent weeks despite being double vaccinated . So they still had to isolate for 10 days so would still be out of education for 10 days. If that is the thing that is tipping the balance against the JCVIs decision not to vaccine that age group.

Yeeeooooo!💃💃💃💃💃

How sad is it that I’m at the point where I don’t trust the CMOS. I really don’t.

The benefit to vaccination children is to get herd immunity for the rest of the population. That’s why they closed schools - to protect the community - not to protect children.

They didn’t give a shit about trying to provide enough financial support to schools to help maintain education, they’ve not provided enough support to boost mental health of children nor to provide decent catch up education.

On paper, the risks may look marginal - but just how marginal?

I’ve never ever been in a position to question a vaccine - I’ve sent my child for every thing going - but on this one, I’m in two minds and I find that really upsetting.

I will be interested in the uptake of this. My DCs aren’t having it, I cannot see any benefit to their health to have it and that’s my main concern and neither of them want it either (before anyone says it’s not my decision). I’ve had both jabs but I’m in my 50s so my risk is greater. Also what happens if we want to go abroad? Will they be classed as unvaccinated as they’ve only had 1 jab? I just hope it doesn’t go the same way as adults where you are called stupid, selfish etc etc if you don’t get the vaccine. I feel uneasy at it and it’s becoming a very divisive issue.

@jumpbounce As far as I understood Chris Whitty said earlier nobody should be disadvantaged by a decision not to, as the benefit is minimal.

@shellstarbarley

Interesting. Just watching the press conference now I was all up for them to get the vaccine but husband was against it. Neither of my teens want it as they feel it is too new. So from what I can grasp medically the risks don't really outweigh the benefits enough but if you put the mental health of children and school disruptions it is advised. So it is really health benefits vs social and education benefits.

No, not quite.

Its a public health decision.

Its been noted that poorer kids are more likely to get covid and end up out of school so it affects their education long term.

That in turn has an impact on their education, which has an effect on their long term health (because they are more likely to continue the cycle of poverty which is connected to poorer health outcomes in adults).

Public Health is about looking at the broader picture of improving health of the public in general (usually along socio-economic lines) and promoting preventative policies which will improve health of the country as a whole.

What its saying is that kids having to stay off school because they test positive are more likely to have long term poorer life opportunities and therefore health (and this disproportionately affects the poorest kids) than those who don't test positive.

The vaccine makes you less likely to catch covid and for it to spread in schools (meaning teachers are less likely to be absent too) even with just one dose.

They've also acknowledged the impact on mental health for being forced to isolate for testing positive.

So its marginal, but its about health outcomes first and foremost (but these are linked directly to education and can not be separated from that).

Chris witty said himself we shouldn’t judge people either way for their decision. He said it’s important children and parents come to an informed decision that is best for them. He said it’s not clear cut like it is for older members of the population .

Chris Whitty said in today’s press conference
“Children do still have problems with covid. It is not a benign (harmless) disease even in children. It’s more likely to cause more problems in adults, especially older adults, but there are problems that some children get into (with COVID).”

They've also acknowledged the impact on mental health for being forced to isolate for testing positive.

I know the situation was different but hard to hear this finally stated and pushed, given how much it’s been used on children, multiplie times often.

Like the the previous poster said, I will be interested to see what the uptake is.

I personally don’t want my son to have it and luckily he feels the same way.

Also want to see how isolation will work going forward for over 12’s that are not vaccinated.

I've just watched the whole press conference and at no point have they clarified how having the vaccine will reduce disruption to education.
Most of the disruption to education has been lockdowns and bubbles being sent home.
The closest they got was Chris Whitty said vaccination reduces a child's chance of catching covid by 50-55%.

@Explosivefarts

Chris witty said himself we shouldn’t judge people either way for their decision. He said it’s important children and parents come to an informed decision that is best for them. He said it’s not clear cut like it is for older members of the population .

He’s good at this. Calm explanation on an important issue (as he said)

I agree it’s not as clear cut