Government Refuses to Release Minutes of Meeting in Which JVCI Decided Not to Recommend Jabbing Healthy Teens

[Sagaaaats]

^The government has refused to release the minutes of the meeting in which its vaccine advisory committee decided not to recommend vaccinating all 12-15 year olds against covid-19.1

The UK Health Security Agency, which replaced Public Health England, rejected a freedom of information request for the document on the grounds that it intended to publish the minutes “in due course.”

The agency argued that it was in the public interest to withhold the information until it could be released in a “simultaneous, coordinated manner” and that disclosing the minutes before they were finalised could “result in a false impression of the contents of the meeting.” The decision is being appealed.

On 3 September the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said that it would not be recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds because although the health benefits of vaccination were “marginally greater than the potential known harms,” the margin of benefit was considered too small.2 The committee did not explain what factors its conclusion was based on, and neither the minutes nor the data behind the decision have been made public.3

The JCVI asked ministers to seek further advice from the UK’s chief medical officers on the wider potential benefits of vaccination. The government later (13 September) accepted the chief medical officers’ recommendation to vaccinate all 12-15 year olds on the basis of an assessment that included transmission in schools and the effect on children’s education.4

In a letter dated 5 October academics from Independent SAGE wrote to the JCVI highlighting the fact that, despite the committee’s own policy stating that draft minutes would be published within six weeks of each meeting, the last publicly available minutes were from February 2021.5

They urged the JCVI to “abide by its code of practice and be open and transparent through rapid publishing of all agendas, supporting papers and minutes,” arguing that “public confidence in vaccination programmes is assisted by clear and consistent processes and messaging.”

They added, “In that spirit, we wish to have a public assurance from JCVI that all future considerations of covid-19 vaccines, including the extension of vaccination to children under 12 years of age, will be conducted openly and transparently.”^

www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2452?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage

And I haven’t ignored Beware at all. We actually had a conversation on another thread about the importance of establishing a formal definition of long covid so that serious cases like her son’s are actually distinguished from the mild ‘persistent cough for 4 weeks’ cases and get proper recognition.

I don’t think rare cases are particularly helpful on either side of the discussion.

But less rare cases on one side compared to more rare cases on the other - that's what data is, and it's incredibly helpful - the only thing that helps in any sort of vaccination discussion really. There are always going to be a comfortable majority who come safely through any kind of infectious disease we vaccinate against.

The bottom line here is that the data bears out the benefits of vaccination for teens and adults. From a parents point of view, this makes vaccination for 12 - 15s a good idea. From a Tory government's point of view, it might not be worth the bother and money, which I suspect is what it all boils down to, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rewriting of minutes had everything to do with rewording these sentiments into a more palatable statement.

@noblegiraffe

terrible argument. One death doesn’t justify vaccinating an entire population of healthy children

I haven’t argued that it is. However it is reasonable to bring up in the face of your repeated assertions that catching covid is better for kids than being vaccinated. And it’s not just one death is it?

Even the JCVI said the health benefits outweigh the risks for children by a small margin.

Repeated assertions? I mentioned it once upthread that children who have recovered from the virus now have immunity that is the best thing for them.

The JCVI also stated that given the considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms the marginal benefit wasn’t enough to justify vaccinating healthy children.

Given that the majority of children have the virus with no, or mild, cold-like symptoms, why would you want to risk something with considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential harms?

bumbley and while that kind of conversation is appreciated (and the ones where you read the articles on Mis-c and still think covid’s a bit silly, in a conversation with a parent who’s gone through it are much less appreciated) what matters to me is that the gps and consultants looking after ds strongly recommend the vaccine for him. Why would they do that if they in any way thought it would endanger him? Why would they recommend it if they thought his natural immunity was enough? Do you think they’re trying to harm him?

Repeated assertions?

Yes, bumbley., across many, many threads.

At what interval after a meeting are minutes usually published?

The reply suggests that the Munites have not yet been agreed, and they won't be published until they are.

Has there been any occasion on which minutes have been published before they are formally agreed?

Beware, I think you’re well aware that I did not say that ‘covid is a bit silly’ so I would really appreciate it if you wouldn’t misrepresent my comments like that.

I’m not going to speak on your son’s individual case. The JCVI did recommend the vaccine for certain children.

That’s actually the first time I’ve made that comment, noble. It was based on a recent study I read this week about how broad protection after natural infection is.

You’re claiming that this is the first thread where you’ve asserted that catching covid is better for kids than vaccination? Really?

@bumbleymummy

That’s actually the first time I’ve made that comment, noble. It was based on a recent study I read this week about how broad protection after natural infection is.

You have made repeated claims that minimise the impact of coronavirus, downplay the efficacy of vaccinates and exaggerate their risks. They do evolve as the pandemic progresses and new studies are available.

You seem to have ignored all the points explaining that is isn't a situation of vaccine induced or infection-induced immunity, and how it's clear vaccination provides the best level of immunity (as they will be exposed to COVID anyway- whether this results in infection or not it will still boost the response) whilst protecting the individual and those around them.

*The JCVI also stated that given the considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms the marginal benefit wasn’t enough to justify vaccinating healthy children.

Given that the majority of children have the virus with no, or mild, cold-like symptoms, why would you want to risk something with considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential harms?*

And yet you’ll read my posts and read the links I’ve posted (or at least you say you do..) about long term problems associated with covid - so you know there is also “considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential harms” related to covid. I find it odd that doesn’t matter to you.

I mean it’s fine if you don’t want your children to have the vaccine, its everyone’s own personal choice, but it’s odd how much time you devote to denying a thing that is very real.

And for some of us, very personally real. Is reading the room not a thing anymore?

"You have made repeated claims that minimise the impact of coronavirus, downplay the efficacy of vaccinates and exaggerate their risks. They do evolve as the pandemic progresses and new studies are available."

Don't forget s/he claims people are immune after having Covid.

You can already access the jcvi's report in full... www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021

@bumbleymummy

Beware, I think you’re well aware that I did not say that ‘covid is a bit silly’ so I would really appreciate it if you wouldn’t misrepresent my comments like that.

I’m not going to speak on your son’s individual case. The JCVI did recommend the vaccine for certain children.

I’d appreciate it also if you didn’t twist my son’s situation to make people think he has some kind of underlying condition that fell into the JCVI recommended group. He doesn’t, as was made clear in a conversation with his consultant. Fucking hell, new lows.

And you’re right, I was wrong - you said vaccinating 12-15s was a bit silly. I think we’re agreeing to disagree?

And given that jcvi is independent, they would have reached their conclusions without meeting government on this.

[quote eternalopt]You can already access the jcvi's report in full... www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021[/quote]
You obviously haven't read this, as it is in no way complete, hence the FOI

There is a lot missing from that report, eternal that the meeting minutes might explain.

@riveted1 yeah, you’ve accused me of that before. Anything I’ve stated can be backed up with studies. Feel free to challenge the points I’ve made at the time Sounds like you may need to read some more recent studies in relation to natural immunity yourself.

@BewareTheLibrarians I’m not saying it doesn’t matter and I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that it is rare. Are you saying that we shouldn’t talk about it being rare because it offends you? With all due respect, I don’t think we can shut down every discussion on this subject because you happen to be on the thread. And my comment about the JCVI recommending it was irt your son’s doctors being in a better position to assess whether he would benefit from it or not. The JCVI did find that for some children the benefit outweighed the risk.

@Geamhradh she. And actually, it’s all the studies I’ve linked to that claim that. Feel free to disagree with them if you like.

[quote bumbleymummy]@riveted1 yeah, you’ve accused me of that before. Anything I’ve stated can be backed up with studies. Feel free to challenge the points I’ve made at the time Sounds like you may need to read some more recent studies in relation to natural immunity yourself.

@BewareTheLibrarians I’m not saying it doesn’t matter and I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that it is rare. Are you saying that we shouldn’t talk about it being rare because it offends you? With all due respect, I don’t think we can shut down every discussion on this subject because you happen to be on the thread. And my comment about the JCVI recommending it was irt your son’s doctors being in a better position to assess whether he would benefit from it or not. The JCVI did find that for some children the benefit outweighed the risk.

@Geamhradh she. And actually, it’s all the studies I’ve linked to that claim that. Feel free to disagree with them if you like.[/quote]
It seemed relevant given you're presenting this as a new argument and claiming you've never said it before, when it reality it has been rehashed repeatedly.

Sounds like you may need to read some more recent studies in relation to natural immunity yourself.
this isn't really a strong response to valid points I've made about immunity after vaccination and infection, which you keep ignoring.

I have read the jcvi report don't worry.

Possibly more relevant of course given that the government didn't follow jcvi advice, is there advice from the CMOs that they did go with

www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people-aged-12-to-15-years-against-covid-19

I’m not ignoring them. Have you ignored the studies that I’ve linked to showing how long natural immunity lasts and how low reinfection rates are? Have you ignored the recent studies showing how quickly immunity after vaccination wanes (explaining why there are so many breakthrough cases in double vaxed people)?Thankfully, for the most vulnerable people’s sake, they are still offering protection against serious illness and hospitalisation.

@BewareTheLibrarians I’m not saying it doesn’t matter and I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that it is rare. Are you saying that we shouldn’t talk about it being rare because it offends you? With all due respect, I don’t think we can shut down every discussion on this subject because you happen to be on the thread.

And adverse reactions to the vaccine are rare. Yet one is acceptable to you and one isn’t, but you don’t seem to be able to explain why.

Haha at shutting down the discussion if I’m on the thread. Bumbley, here’s the thing. If a mum posted about her child having a rare horrible reaction to chicken pox, for example, and I posted “but adverse reactions to chicken pox are really rare so let’s not overreact.” … wait, I wouldn’t post that. Because it would be a dickish think to do.

If a mum mentioned on a thread that her son had had a bad reaction to the vaccine and was in hospital, I wouldn’t pop up and say “well that’s super rare and doesn’t really happen. He must just be really unlucky!”

I wonder if you understand why.

You haven't linked to any studies on this thread, bumbley? There is a study from Zoe linked by @Languagethoughts though which would seem to draw different conclusions re vaccinations and natural infection.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]**@BewareTheLibrarians I’m not saying it doesn’t matter and I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that it is rare. Are you saying that we shouldn’t talk about it being rare because it offends you? With all due respect, I don’t think we can shut down every discussion on this subject because you happen to be on the thread.

And adverse reactions to the vaccine are rare. Yet one is acceptable to you and one isn’t, but you don’t seem to be able to explain why.

Haha at shutting down the discussion if I’m on the thread. Bumbley, here’s the thing. If a mum posted about her child having a rare horrible reaction to chicken pox, for example, and I posted “but adverse reactions to chicken pox are really rare so let’s not overreact.” … wait, I wouldn’t post that. Because it would be a dickish think to do.

If a mum mentioned on a thread that her son had had a bad reaction to the vaccine and was in hospital, I wouldn’t pop up and say “well that’s super rare and doesn’t really happen. He must just be really unlucky!”

I wonder if you understand why.[/quote]
Actually, I think you’ll find that people do comment that those reactions are really rare - and rightly so. I’m sure you’re aware that they’re very rare yourself so I’m not sure why you object to others saying it. Are you seriously trying to shut down discussion on this?

@Barbie222 sorry, I’ve been in discussions with several people on this thread before so they know what studies I’m referring to.

Here you go - in relation to durability of immunity after infection:

www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2021-06/Duration-of%20protective-immunity-evidence-summary.pdf

Waning immunity after vaccination:

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114?query=featured_home