Why is one jab good enough for kids but not adults?

[Whatdoyawannado]

If one jab is adequate for under 18s how is it not enough for over 18s?

If protection against Delta is 67% I assume that means that near enough 1 in 3 vaccinated people exposed to covid will catch it but only a tiny tiny amount will be hospitalised and even fewer will die.

I believe it is a bit more complicated than that as your susceptibility will also depend on how often you’re exposed, the risk related to that exposure, etc. It looks at overall likelihood of infection/symptomatic infection.

So sorry you are feeling grim! Hope you’re on the mend really soon.

As I have said repeatedly on MN: Delta is a total fucker.

Thank you, Delta is indeed a total fucker!

It’s because vaccinating kids makes no difference but the government has bowed to pressure. The ‘compromise’ is that kids are only getting one jab. Too time consuming and costly (and pointless) to give them two jabs.

[quote Megistotherium]@pontypridd here you go.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-covid-girl-anti-vax-mom-b1918895.html[/quote]
Yes, there have tragically been a few deaths in children - most as there are from RSV and flu every year. My point was that it is not more deadly in the US than here. And I’m not sure how wearing a mask when out would have helped her if she contracted it from her mum.

Just* as there are…

More deadly for children… as I said in my pp.

It’s because vaccinating kids makes no difference but the government has bowed to pressure.

I don’t think the evidence supports this statement - can you share what you’re basing it on, please?

@JassyRadlett

It’s because vaccinating kids makes no difference but the government has bowed to pressure.

I don’t think the evidence supports this statement - can you share what you’re basing it on, please?

www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

@AlecTrevelyan006 That is very specifically looking within narrow guard rails about the relative risks (all extremely low on both sides of the scales) of vaccination versus Covid.

It doesn’t support a wider assertion that vaccinating children/teens makes no difference - eg to wider transmission rates, education missed, etc.

These are not straightforward decisions for individual parents and teens to make. But at a population level I’ve seen no evidence to support the idea that more vaccinated people won’t make any difference to infection rates (and potentially to wider hospitalisation and death rates, if we can get immunity high enough with boosters and more people having at least one dose.)

Whilst it's a random cut off point to an extent, that's what pharma does with most drugs - eg 1 paracetamol for under a certain age, 2 for above that age etc.
Obviously in this case as well, the risks of the vaccine rise the younger the age of the person receiving it, as has been shown by vaers statistics and of course that is in inverse proportion to Covid risk, so it is also to some extent a fudge to try to keep the risk ratio down considering the JCVI recommendation.

I really just think if there is any risk at all, it's not beneficial to vaccinate the children.

It’s a balance of benefit versus risk. This is what the data says

That’s a great chart @Bizawit. Sets it out really clearly about what the relative risk is.

I’m fascinated by the wider unknowns as well eg reducing the risk of long Covid, etc.

Except the figures seem to be out of date for incidence of myocarditis, particularly after the second dose.

How long will protection from one dose last? If protection from infection in adults starts to decline after 4-6 months and if it's the same for kids, those being vaxed now might need a booster/2nd dose before end of winter anyway. Is it safer with a longer gap? Who knows! As mentioned up thread, I'm not convinced this has been thought through. If uptake is limited it won't make much difference anyway.

@containsnuts

Goid point. Unfortunately this vaccine for children has been completely rushed and these questions just don't seem to have an answer we are asking.

This might sound dim. But aren't the majority of this age group ( excluding the vulnerable members of this age group ) only getting the jab to stop the spread ? Rather than to protect them ? Covid is literally not a risk to teenager, I thought. Happy to be corrected. Same with children ( again, unless they're vulnerable ). So if they only get one jab, the research must suggest that there is some sort of evidence that even one jab lowers the spread somehow ? This is contrary to what we've heard about delta though. But it must be enough, if they've decided to do it. Happy to be corrected, but that's what I've got.

@Peteycat

"13:57MrsFezziwig

Can you not see that this is a deeply concerning issue around vaccine passports, people will not and do not want to be controlled via an app.

I thought they weren’t bothering with vaccine passports? And what is this app, should I have it?"

They haven't implemented them this month, however there is still time. How many times have the government backtracked? The app is the NHS app that has been marketed and plugged for a while now.

That's all a bit hypothetical isn't it?

Especially compared with the near-certainty of children getting exposed to covid in schools.

"That's all a bit hypothetical isn't it?

Especially compared with the near-certainty of children getting exposed to covid in schools."

Hypothetical maybe, yes, but not completely unfathomable. Are you saying they didn't backtrack? I think they did.

How long will protection from one dose last? If protection from infection in adults starts to decline after 4-6 months and if it's the same for kids, those being vaxed now might need a booster/2nd dose before end of winter anyway. Is it safer with a longer gap? Who knows! As mentioned up thread, I'm not convinced this has been thought through. If uptake is limited it won't make much difference anyway.

Didn’t the CMOs say that they’d look at the data and decide on second doses in the spring at earliest?

As before, waning of protection isn’t uniform across age groups - the John Burn-Murdoch data visualisation on Twitter of the data in the PHE pre-print is really good for this.

The same goes for vaccine effectiveness from the outset - lower for older age groups.

@Peteycat

"That's all a bit hypothetical isn't it?

Especially compared with the near-certainty of children getting exposed to covid in schools."

Hypothetical maybe, yes, but not completely unfathomable. Are you saying they didn't backtrack? I think they did.

No, I was saying that you are pursuing a hypothetical issue with vaccine passports. The government will do everything they can to avoid implementing them because it will upset Telegraph readers so much and they have just said as much.

So your argument is a bit a pie in the sky isn't it.

I'm not sure but my best guess is that jabbing them once is enough to help the government's statistics on "vaccinated" compared to other countries in the league tables, gets rid of the surplus vaccines the 20somethings didn't take before expiry dates are up, and makes at least some pharmaceutical profit; while only having one dose makes it less likely there'll be headline death of a healthy teenager which would jeapodise all of the above through damaging publicity.

This might sound dim. But aren't the majority of this age group ( excluding the vulnerable members of this age group ) only getting the jab to stop the spread ? Rather than to protect them ? Covid is literally not a risk to teenager, I thought. Happy to be corrected. Same with children ( again, unless they're vulnerable ). So if they only get one jab, the research must suggest that there is some sort of evidence that even one jab lowers the spread somehow ? This is contrary to what we've heard about delta though. But it must be enough, if they've decided to do it. Happy to be corrected, but that's what I've got.

The CMOs decision was based solely on impact on the children themselves - the very low health impacts either way (JCVI found small overall health benefit) and other direct and indirect impacts. They didn’t consider wider impacts on other groups.

There’s no need to speculate - their advice to ministers, including their terms of reference and the evidence the considered, is publicly available.

@herecomesthsun

"No, I was saying that you are pursuing a hypothetical issue with vaccine passports. The government will do everything they can to avoid implementing them because it will upset Telegraph readers so much and they have just said as much.

So your argument is a bit a pie in the sky isn't"

I am fully awareyou are talking about vaccine passports, because you replied to my previous comment about them.

How do you know they will try not to implement them? Guessing again. As for the Telegraph comment, I'm not getting into a slanging match about tabloids. You are on your own there.

Thanks Jassy. They don’t seem to have considered previous infection irt reducing transmission etc. Unless I’ve missed it.