Children told to wait 3 months before having vacc if they've had covid

[Changemusthappen]

This news hit yesterday and I'm posting for awareness more than anything else.

However I am frustrated and annoyed with how the government have dealt with the role out of the vacc to children. Surely they realised that it would rip through schools in autumn? So now we are in a situation where many will have to wait and many havent waited that should have done. Given children are, evidently, mostly asymptomatic, who knows who should have the vacc.

This is especially frustrating for those caught up in the testing cockup, many of whom, like me, have waited the 28 days before agreeing to the jab and now find we shoud have waited longer to be safe.

@Changemusthappen I guess this advice just applies to youngsters?

Did they say why they need to wait?
Was it to take advantage of immunity from having had it? If so, I guess it doesn't matter if they've had it asymptomatically... Though i can see they will want to prioritise vaccines to other groups where they'll be most effective at reducing death and serious illness...

Or is it because it puts children at risk of more side effects, in which case it's pretty important to know.

I guess one option is to wait three months from now and see if the child would do regular lfts to rule out asymptomatic infection for the next three months.

This is for the 12-17 year old age group.

"The UK Health Security Agency said the change was a precaution against the small risk of heart inflammation"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59298833

I would have thought this should almost stop the role out of the vacc in schools although too late for the children at my DC school. I'm cross because I made a point of checking this before saying DC could have the vacc.

I heard this on the radio this morning. This affects us as my young teens had covid just before the October half term. My older teen kept testing negative but had a cold and chest pains/tight chest a week later and she’s due her second vaccine quite soon.

My kids had their vaccines last week. My eldest was just over 4 weeks after testing positive. That was all they asked in the consent form. Why have they changed it AFTER kids have started having vaccines??!!

This has caused me so much worry. dd2 had her jab on Saturday, just over 4 weeks after having covid. On Sunday she was very ill and had a nosebleed (her first ever), we were advised by 111 to take her to A&E. Doctor had a chat with us about her symptoms and then sent her home, no tests.

Im pretty pissed off because it implies that there’s an even higher risk - but how is this just coming about now????

@Iggly

Im pretty pissed off because it implies that there’s an even higher risk - but how is this just coming about now????

They’ve been constantly monitoring our programme and those abroad. There’s a slightly lower already low risk with a longer interval after covid.

What is better? To extend the wait or have people complain that the risk wasn’t minimised when they had data to show a longer wait was better?

I don’t think it’s been well communicated at all.

@PurpleDaisies I’m annoyed because it’s been snuck out which makes me wonder how long have they been sitting on this?

In future, don't be afraid to augment the one-size-fits-all guidance with a bit of common sense. Why would you need to vaccinate a child/teenager for a disease that they had only a month or two ago? Reinfection within 6 months is very rare and it's not that surprising that exposing the body to the virus's genetic material again so soon after an infection with the real deal could increase the risk of inflammation.

[quote Iggly]@PurpleDaisies I’m annoyed because it’s been snuck out which makes me wonder how long have they been sitting on this?[/quote]
Why would they have been sitting on it? Changes have been made when there’s been enough data for it to be clear. They have been very cautious recommending vaccination for children with still only going for one jab for most kids despite plenty of other countries going faster.

There hasn’t been enough publicity is what I meant. Children getting vaccinated today will be asked if they have had covid in the last 12 weeks and not vaccinated if so. That’s going to be a surprise to a fair few, I’m sure.

I did use my common sense. I have two pupils who have had covid twice within the six months. I genuinely believed I was doing the right thing.

I’m in NI and I’ve been told that they are sticking to the previous 28 days guidance, for now at least. Not sure what the evidence is that suggests waiting longer. Countries such as NZ and USA don’t even wait 28 days, just until you’ve recovered from the infection.

Some people think it’s just down to supply issues.

My ds13 had his 28 days after testing positive, he's completely fine.

Why would they have been sitting on it

The fact it hasn’t been widely publicised and there is currently a vaccination programme going on with some 12 -15 year olds who’ve been jabbed now, within 12 weeks of having covid - why would they be subtle about it? They’re effectively saying that those children are at a slightly increased risk of side effects now. But not making it widely known.

Plenty of teens will be in this bracket now.

My DS has just had his jab as have some
Of his peers and som have had covid since being at school. The risks of myocarditis have been downplayed but now they’re saying actually they’re slightly higher?

I hate the lack of publicity. They know that decisions around vaccinating children are sensitive and this just makes it worse.

@Coldpressed

In future, don't be afraid to augment the one-size-fits-all guidance with a bit of common sense. Why would you need to vaccinate a child/teenager for a disease that they had only a month or two ago? Reinfection within 6 months is very rare and it's not that surprising that exposing the body to the virus's genetic material again so soon after an infection with the real deal could increase the risk of inflammation.

This! 👌🏼 Not forgetting that the JCVI conclusion was that the risk of vaccine was higher than the risk of Covid for this age group...

"Not forgetting that the JCVI conclusion was that the risk of vaccine was higher than the risk of Covid for this age group..." Thought JCVI said there was a benefit of vaccination over covid.

Not forgetting that the JCVI conclusion was that the risk of vaccine was higher than the risk of Covid for this age group...

That’s not correct. It was that the margin of benefit was small. Not that that the risk was higher.

My DS1 had covid mid October and his vaccine was due bang on the 4 weeks after his positive PCR. I had originally given consent before he caught covid (they kept postponing the vaccination date and in the meantime loads of the kids caught it and brought it home to the adults in their households).

I withdrew consent because he still has a covid rash and I felt that his body is still having a reaction to it and intended to take him to a vaccination centre in a few weeks once the rash is gone.

On the day of the vaccination, the school tried to persuade him to have the vaccination anyway and even told him that 4 weeks after was fine (this was a week ago!). He thankfully dug his heels in and refused to, saying he'd discussed it with me and we had made a joint decision that he was sticking to. Bless him, he's only 12.

Now I am pleased that we made that decision, and I'll now defer his vaccine until mid January when he's 3 months post covid. But honestly what a mess.

@halcyondays

I’m in NI and I’ve been told that they are sticking to the previous 28 days guidance, for now at least. Not sure what the evidence is that suggests waiting longer. Countries such as NZ and USA don’t even wait 28 days, just until you’ve recovered from the infection.

Some people think it’s just down to supply issues.

Update: NI are now following the 120 days guidance. Was changed mid morning, when dd went to get her jab they said the advice had changed half an hour ago so she didn’t get it.

@Coldpressed

In future, don't be afraid to augment the one-size-fits-all guidance with a bit of common sense. Why would you need to vaccinate a child/teenager for a disease that they had only a month or two ago? Reinfection within 6 months is very rare and it's not that surprising that exposing the body to the virus's genetic material again so soon after an infection with the real deal could increase the risk of inflammation.

I agree with you, but it becomes a particular problem if children have had it asymptomatically or with which mild symptoms that it was not diagnosed..

@alwayswantchocolate

My DS1 had covid mid October and his vaccine was due bang on the 4 weeks after his positive PCR. I had originally given consent before he caught covid (they kept postponing the vaccination date and in the meantime loads of the kids caught it and brought it home to the adults in their households).

I withdrew consent because he still has a covid rash and I felt that his body is still having a reaction to it and intended to take him to a vaccination centre in a few weeks once the rash is gone.

On the day of the vaccination, the school tried to persuade him to have the vaccination anyway and even told him that 4 weeks after was fine (this was a week ago!). He thankfully dug his heels in and refused to, saying he'd discussed it with me and we had made a joint decision that he was sticking to. Bless him, he's only 12.

Now I am pleased that we made that decision, and I'll now defer his vaccine until mid January when he's 3 months post covid. But honestly what a mess.

Same happened here. Ds had covid in sept and it was over the 4 weeks when they were having the vaccine at school. I withdrew consent on the day and said we would get it at a later date - so glad I did that now.
Ds was also told by school staff that it was fine for him to get the vaccine, just relieved I thought twice and they didn't try to persuade him!

Sorry if this is me being somewhat dim but is this just a suggestion or is it the rule now? DS had covid early October and has his vaccine booked for Saturday. Should I be cancelling it? Will he be turned away? I rang 119 and they didn’t know which isn’t helpful at all

I expect he would be turned away, Questionable.