Should the gap between doses shorten (12-17)

[TheExtraGuineaPig]

Given the urgency around vaccines I'm wondering if they will bring the gap for teenagers in line with the adult schedule. I remember last year when I was in between doses they reduced the gap from 8 to 12 weeks.

It would make sense - especially given the millions of teenagers around the world who've already had both doses with a shorter gap.

Presumably JCBI takes the situation into account and continually reviews and reevaluates risk etc!

The risk of Covid itself for those 12-17 is so low as to be almost nonexistent, the vaccination for them is to reduce disruption to education and to reduce the spread in the wider population.

Shortening the dose interval for them doesn't really bring any benefits, they will generally have a good response from the first dose and so there is negligible if any benefit to shortening the interval in that age group.

The gap is 12 weeks due to an increased risk of myocarditis after the 2nd dose in that age group. Probably safer to leave it as it is

But that's just it - it's such a tiny increase compared to the risk of myocarditis with infection that the 4 week saving would make sense. As the kids in North America, the EU, ANZ and lots of other places have received 2 doses in their millions it seems odd we're still different. It seems more likely to be a capacity/ political decision.

While there are constraints on capacity (which there absolutely are) it makes far more sense to focus on delivering boosters to adults than on delivering second (or any) doses to teenagers and children.

We are a long way from getting adults boosted and they're at higher risk than teens. Makes sense to get the older age groups done first

@TheExtraGuineaPig

But that's just it - it's such a tiny increase compared to the risk of myocarditis with infection that the 4 week saving would make sense. As the kids in North America, the EU, ANZ and lots of other places have received 2 doses in their millions it seems odd we're still different. It seems more likely to be a capacity/ political decision.

You keep saying "it makes sense", but it does not. There is almost zero gain to be had from both an infection rate perspective, as well as a severe illness and/or hospitalisation perspective by giving 12-17 year olds a second dose earlier than 12 weeks. The from a mild infection or a transmission perspective there is not enough data to make a concrete conclusion, but the data we do have shows no statistically significant benefit from reducing the second dose from 12+ weeks to 8 weeks in the 12-17 cohort.

There is also the practical side of things, if we can supply and administer 500k third doses a day, to age groups where severe illness or hospitalisation is more likely, and this delivers the most positive net benefit, then that is why we should be doing.

Finally, everything is a political decision, that is the nature of government, every choice has pros and cons, primary, secondary and often tertiary consequences which can impact in many different ways. All of that needs to be weighed up, to make a choice, which is always political, because there is no other kind of choice in government.

What is the timing please for 2nd dose for 17 year olds? Is it still 12 weeks?

My 12 year old is considered more vulnerable due to his ASD and learning disability. He's had his first two jabs, they were done 8 weeks apart, so i highly doubt the risk of myocarditis is all that significant @dementedpixie or they would have left the vulnerable children for 12 weeks.

@Namechangedforthis72

My 12 year old is considered more vulnerable due to his ASD and learning disability. He's had his first two jabs, they were done 8 weeks apart, so i highly doubt the risk of myocarditis is all that significant *@dementedpixie* or they would have left the vulnerable children for 12 weeks.

Considered more at risk from Covid or more at risk of side effects? Because if it’s the former, then the judgement made is the opposite of what you suggest. The vulnerable children are more vulnerable to serious illness from Covid, so the benefit to them having the second dose sooner outweighs the risk of side effects.

@Namechangedforthis72

My 12 year old is considered more vulnerable due to his ASD and learning disability. He's had his first two jabs, they were done 8 weeks apart, so i highly doubt the risk of myocarditis is all that significant *@dementedpixie* or they would have left the vulnerable children for 12 weeks.

It's to do with the ratio of risk/benefit. As your ds is at more risk from covid he will benefit from getting both doses as quickly as possible. With other kids without underlying conditions the risk of the vaccine side effects is proportionately worse so they can afford to wait longer to minimise those risks