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

I’m enjoying bumbleymummy extolling the virtues of superior immunity to covid via catching covid while simultaneously suggesting that children catching covid is nothing to worry about.

If immunity is desirable in children, then that presumes that covid is something to be avoided. Shouldn’t we, in that case, be trying to give them immunity to it via vaccination if they haven’t had it, or even more superior immunity via vaccination if they have had it?

Is immunity to covid desirable, bumbley, and if so, why?

Is superior immunity to covid desirable, bumbley, and if so, why?

Thank you @bumbleymummy . In relation to your quote:

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)?

• there is nothing in either study which indicates any difference between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. The only time it's ever mentioned in either report is the section I've highlighted below. I'm struggling to see how you can draw the conclusion that natural immunity has more of an effect?

Bumbley Are you seriously saying that you don’t try to shut down discussion by downplaying any risk of covid to children whatsoever? See how that works?

And no. When someone comments that they’ve had a rare reaction, normal people don’t leap in and tell them “it’s rare, other people shouldn’t worry about this.” They offer sympathy, or add that knowledge to their thinking, or make sure not to say something insensitive, or understand it’s a real complication.

Maybe something to think about.

I’m not interested in shutting down any discussion, by the way. I’m sorry that me asking you to read the room triggered such an angry response from you.

@noblegiraffe

I’m enjoying bumbleymummy extolling the virtues of superior immunity to covid via catching covid while simultaneously suggesting that children catching covid is nothing to worry about.

If immunity is desirable in children, then that presumes that covid is something to be avoided. Shouldn’t we, in that case, be trying to give them immunity to it via vaccination if they haven’t had it, or even more superior immunity via vaccination if they have had it?

Is immunity to covid desirable, bumbley, and if so, why?

Is superior immunity to covid desirable, bumbley, and if so, why?

Schroedinger's immunity innit.

Superior immunity to contracting it again and broader protection against variants compared to having to have a vaccine every few months? Why wouldn’t that be desirable? Also beneficial to have a level of broad, durable immunity in the population to keep circulation low and help to protect those who are at higher risk and will need to have the vaccine regularly.

@noblegiraffe

It is a bit late for the ones who have caught it already, bumbley. One particularly awful news story springs to mind that suggests it's not always the best thing for them.

Agree. A healthy 15yo school girl died of covid the day she was due her vaccination here recently.

@bumbleymummy

Superior immunity to contracting it again and broader protection against variants compared to having to have a vaccine every few months? Why wouldn’t that be desirable? Also beneficial to have a level of broad, durable immunity in the population to keep circulation low and help to protect those who are at higher risk and will need to have the vaccine regularly.

And I have repeatedly said, the outcome is the same whether someone is vaccinated or not, which you don't seem to understand. Given the high circulating rates, everyone will be exposed to COVID at some point, the only difference is whether someone is vaccinated or not.

Vaccinated person infected with COVID - benefits boosted immunity which includes increased robustness and broader protection against previous strains whilst having protection from illness, long term complications, and transmission to others.

Non-vaccinated person infected with COVID - gets variable level of immunity (not necessarily superior to vaccination - it depends on many factors) PLUS the risk of illness, long term complications, and transmission to others.

It really isn't rocket science.

So to summarise in a sentence - vaccination does not result in poorer immunity, and neither does it stop the process of gaining additional immunity when exposed to COVID.

Why wouldn’t that be desirable?

Because, bumbley you have to catch covid to get that 'desirable immunity' to covid.

If you think immunity to covid is desirable, then you must think that catching covid is something to be avoided. Therefore your 'desirable immunity' has the downside of catching the thing that you want people to be immune from catching.

@bumbleymummy

Superior immunity to contracting it again and broader protection against variants compared to having to have a vaccine every few months? Why wouldn’t that be desirable? Also beneficial to have a level of broad, durable immunity in the population to keep circulation low and help to protect those who are at higher risk and will need to have the vaccine regularly.

Ugh the more I read this this more frustrating it is. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding or not.

Vaccination does not prevent this from happening. It simply allows the development of robust immunity when people are exposed to COVID, whilst minimising the risks of illness, death and transmission.

At least someone in Sage is thinking it through. From today's Guardian:

Prof Calum Semple, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), warned that the rapid spread of the virus among children in school years 7 to 11 could mean that children reach herd immunity through infection rather than vaccination.
Semple told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s not a good way to get to herd immunity. Commentators would usually say it’s ridiculous to aim for herd immunity using natural wild-type infection because that brings with it disease and damage to children both from acute disease and potentially long Covid.”

And that's before getting to the brewing of new variants!

@Barbie222 it’s in relation to durability. The first link shows that immunity after infection lasts 9 months+ in the majority (and recent studies have shown up to 12 months) whereas the second study shows waning immunity within a few months - hence the high rate of breakthrough infections.

Yes, @BewareTheLibrarians, they offer sympathy (as I have done in the past) but not necessarily on w wry thread where it’s discussed - and they will also point out that it’s rare and they don’t shut down discussion. No, no matter how much I disagree with something or how much it may relate to my personal experiences, which may be upsetting, I do not try to shut a discussion down.

hence the high rate of breakthrough infections.

But you have also argued that 'breakthrough infections' are not a problem because they are not causing serious numbers of hospitalisations and deaths.

@riveted1 , as you know, the risk of long term illness and complications in young, healthy people are very low already and the vaccine also carries a risk. If, as a young healthy person, you have already had the virus and recovered without any long term complications then the benefit of the vaccine to you is minimal with all the potential of “ considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms”.

I think long term immunity to something is desirable. Why wouldn’t you want to have something mildly and not have to worry about it again? To give another example, a cold is usually nothing more than a mild inconvenience but wouldn’t it be great if you could just have one cold and be immune to them for years? (Not possible but desirable all the same!) And I don’t think colds are something that should be avoided at all costs.

@Barbie222 if they’re worried about variants it would make more difference to prioritise vaccination in developing countries where the virus is spreading unchecked through much bigger populations.

@noblegiraffe they’re not, because the vaccine is still, thankfully, offering protection against serious illness. But it clearly doesn’t mean that it’s as durable/more durable than natural infection.

I think long term immunity to something is desirable. Why wouldn’t you want to have something mildly and not have to worry about it again?

But we know that you can catch covid again so why are you whiffling on about long term immunity? You've already said 'up to 12 months'...so you would have to worry about catching it again.

Are you getting your argument against the covid vaccine muddled up with one against chickenpox?

But it clearly doesn’t mean that it’s as durable/more durable than natural infection.

You are avoiding addressing the fact that you are arguing for protection against covid by catching covid.

Is catching covid something that it is desirable to avoid?

@noblegiraffe

I think long term immunity to something is desirable. Why wouldn’t you want to have something mildly and not have to worry about it again?

But we know that you can catch covid again so why are you whiffling on about long term immunity? You've already said 'up to 12 months'...so you would have to worry about catching it again.

Are you getting your argument against the covid vaccine muddled up with one against chickenpox?

We have studies showing protection up to 12 months so far. That doesn’t mean that it only lasts 12 months.

Re avoiding contracting covid - only if you are old/vulnerable/in a more at risk group. Snd I think we’ve established that no one is actually going to be able to avoid it anyway.

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of natural vs vax immunity, bumbley, but it is a real stretch to read the two conclusions "immunity lasts for around nine months" and "immunity begins to decline from a level of 96% after six months" and draw any assumptions that immunity in one case lasts longer than another.

That's basic stats stuff and misinformation, and needs calling out. The words on the page are there in black and white to stop morphing and backfitting like this happening: no evidence for any difference.

[quote bumbleymummy]@riveted1 , as you know, the risk of long term illness and complications in young, healthy people are very low already and the vaccine also carries a risk. If, as a young healthy person, you have already had the virus and recovered without any long term complications then the benefit of the vaccine to you is minimal with all the potential of “ considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms”.

I think long term immunity to something is desirable. Why wouldn’t you want to have something mildly and not have to worry about it again? To give another example, a cold is usually nothing more than a mild inconvenience but wouldn’t it be great if you could just have one cold and be immune to them for years? (Not possible but desirable all the same!) And I don’t think colds are something that should be avoided at all costs.

@Barbie222 if they’re worried about variants it would make more difference to prioritise vaccination in developing countries where the virus is spreading unchecked through much bigger populations.[/quote]
Again you have completely missed the point and are deliberately swerving onto another topic.

We weren't discussing the risk of side effects or whether the benefits of vaccination are worth it for this age group.

You are trying to claim that vaccination will somehow lead to children having poorer immunity than if they were not vaccinated. As I have explained, this is not the case.

Everyone will be exposed to coronavirus, the only difference is whether you are vaccinated or not. Vaccination does not prevent development of immunity from coronavirus exposure. It simply allows the development of robust immunity when people are exposed to COVID, whilst minimising the risks of illness, death and transmission.

as you know, the risk of long term illness and complications in young, healthy people are very low already and the vaccine also carries a risk.

bumbleymummy Can you produce one single piece of evidence that shows the risk of long term complications and/or adverse reactions is greater from the vaccine than from covid? (An actual scientific paper, not a YouTube video…)

I’ll save you a google - it’s not possible to show this.

And what’s the problem with being accurate and saying “the vaccine also carries a very low risk.” right next to where you state the same about the covid risk?

I’ve asked you before and you’ve completely failed to answer why a very low risk is acceptable from covid but completely unacceptable from a vaccine.

And if you think continuing to respond in a thread with “I don’t see why kids need a vaccine” after I’ve posted about DS’s mis-c and complications is normal behaviour, then we’ll have to agree to disagree on that too.

Re the OP. I can't be certain but I suspect the reason was due to supply limitations.

We have studies showing protection up to 12 months so far. That doesn’t mean that it only lasts 12 months.

Why on earth would anyone support playing Russian roulette with our children's lives - and long term health. Supply constraint is one thing and something there is little that can be done about except wait for more. Actively pushing not to have the protection of a vaccine is quite another matter. It's madness.

We can't possibly know how long immunity will last, nor the extent of any long term effects and damage. SARS-COV-2 is a new disease - and one that was potentially human modified and then leaked from a lab. Therefore the long-term is unknown.

Re avoiding contracting covid - only if you are old/vulnerable/in a more at risk

That is millions of people. Including some children. 'The Vulnerable' comprise a significant proportion of the population.

And of course the risk of Long Covid means that everyone is potentially vulnerable.

@Barbie222

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of natural vs vax immunity, bumbley, but it is a real stretch to read the two conclusions "immunity lasts for around nine months" and "immunity begins to decline from a level of 96% after six months" and draw any assumptions that immunity in one case lasts longer than another.

That's basic stats stuff and misinformation, and needs calling out. The words on the page are there in black and white to stop morphing and backfitting like this happening: no evidence for any difference.

@Barbie222 that’s against serious disease. Protection against infection declined much faster to much lower levels. “ Effectiveness declined gradually thereafter, with the decline accelerating after the fourth month to reach approximately 20% in months 5 through 7 after the second dose.” Reinfection, in comparison, is very rare. Protection seems to last for 9-12 months in the majority.

@BewareTheLibrarians I have never linked to a YouTube video as evidence.

As the JCVI said, there is ‘considerable uncertainty’ irt complications from the vaccination in young people. We know that the risks to young people are low based on well over a years worth of data. My point in that post is that the pp had completely left out any consideration of risk from the vaccine. And again, why should a young person take a vaccine (with the associated risks) when they have already recovered from infection without any ill effects?

There is even more considerable uncertainty over the potential long term effects of infection.