Vaccine and JCVI

[Sharrowgirl]

Right, last September, the JCVI did not recommend the vaccine for 12-16 year olds because the benefits are only marginal on an individual level. The government went ahead anyway, as they (reasonably) took into account the wider picture of the community spread, disruption to education and so on.

For 5-11 year olds, the JCVI have just recommended it. As far as I know, this age group are at no more risk than the older one.

I want to know why they came to a different conclusion, and whether they will be revising the decision previously made for the 12-16 year olds.

Anyone have any insight or thoughts?

They need to release the minutes ASAP, or at least a statement (and address this specific issue).

It's crazy to offer it but say parents should decide for their child, without releasing any actual information to help them make that decision.

Other countries are vaccinating 5-11. With omicron, it makes sense to give choice to vaccinate the age group if parents want s to, since it seems to affect children compared to other variants. And also the data from other countries suggests that adverse effects are very rare in this age range.

I think in both cases the JCVI said there were marginal benefits to being vaccinated in terms of individual health risk? So better to vax than not, although not by much both times. No difference in message?

It's then presumably down to the cost and mechanics of providing it and whether the game's worth the candle there, which is presumably why it was offered only to vulnerable children in this age group before, and there seem to have been significant difficulties in rolling that out.

They have recommended it on a non urgent basis. Families who want it can now access it eg for travel. My friend has already tried to book her dd in (unsuccessfully obviously drs only found out when we did!)

I'm no expert but I think it's partly because of the sheer numbers of cases in children that they anticipate going forward. I remember with younger adults the risk vs benefits changed according to prevelance (among many other factors). Also, I'm sure either Denmark or Sweden (can't remember which ) mentioned this was an important part of their decision making.

It's not being rolled-out until April so it could change again depending on what happens in terms of variant/prevelance etc.

The messaging around/from the JCVI has been woeful. Their advice on the first dose was so unclear (benefits marginally outweigh risks but we’re not able to give advice so leaving the decision to the government.)

It’s worth pointing out as well that the JCVI “not advising” the dose didn’t happen, that was a weird bit of media spin.

The JCVI then authorized the 2nd dose for 12-15 year olds, which also doesn’t seem to be well known. The government went ahead with that on advice from the JCVI.

So given all of that, it’s not surprising that they’ve gone ahead with the 5-11 year olds’ dose, but god they’ve made a mess of actually letting anyone know any of that!

What’s also interesting is why they’re suddenly worried about prevalence and new strains being worse (the implication of needing vaccinations for this age group) when we’ve been told that covid is now endemic and “not a big deal” (according to the government.)

Doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Warning not warming! also my theory only makes sense as a conspiracy theory if you believe our government could organise themselves out of an open binbag, which I don’t.

But the JCVI’s remit is not to decide based on what other countries are doing, how much it costs, vaccine availability or anything else. It is literally ‘do we recommend we put this drug in this person’s arm?’ and for 12-16s they said the evidence didn’t support it.

The obvious answer is that the evidence has changed but I’d sure like to know what and how before I decide what to do.

I want to know why they came to a different conclusion, and whether they will be revising the decision previously made for the 12-16 year olds.

They already did - they updated their advice in November.

The messaging around/from the JCVI has been woeful. Their advice on the first dose was so unclear (benefits marginally outweigh risks but we’re not able to give advice so leaving the decision to the government.)

They’ve been abysmal but it’s hardly surprising. This is the public body that brought you the evidence-free (and evidence-ignoring) deliberations on childhood varicella vaccine.

There are actually very few public bodies in which I have less confidence; thankfully with this vaccine we can also look at other countries’ risk-benefit analyses and also have the views of the MHRA to help guide our own personal decisions.

@Sharrowgirl

But the JCVI’s remit is not to decide based on what other countries are doing, how much it costs, vaccine availability or anything else. It is literally ‘do we recommend we put this drug in this person’s arm?’ and for 12-16s they said the evidence didn’t support it.

The obvious answer is that the evidence has changed but I’d sure like to know what and how before I decide what to do.

If that’s the case (and I agree with you that it should be!) then why was there so much focus in the first 12-15s report on potential disruption to education either through the vaccine programme in schools, or children missing days of school with post vaccine headaches/fever?

That’s not a question I’m demanding you answer btw it’s just one of the examples of weirdness in that first report.

Also, I think the “is it safe to put in people’s arms” question is for the MHRA to answer (and they’ve approved both the 12-15 and 5-11 year groups) whereas the JCVI is more involved with the logistics of the vaccine programme/rollout.

Now if that’s the case it answers my question above, but what it doesn’t do is answer the questioning why the JCVI’s decision is given more weight than the MHRA’s.

Have they actually recommended that 5-11yo should have it or that the vaccine should be made available to those dc If their parents decide to access it? Offering it and recommending it are not the same thing. Obviously they're not advising against it which would suggest it's safe if people choose to access it

With the “evidence changing” point as well, I think (although correct me if I’m wrong) that one dose was approved for 12-15s, and they would wait and see what the safety record/myocarditis concerns were (presumably by looking at other countries’ data). before authorising the second dose.

As they then approved the second dose for 12-15s (even shortening the gap between doses) they must have been reassured by the data they saw. But did they publicise that? Of course not, leaving people confused about their message and the safety of the vaccine.

@Wellbythebloodyhell I’ve done a deep linguistic analysis* of the report and the official line seems to be:

“you can have it or not, whatever, do what you want, don’t care.”

*haha no.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]**@Wellbythebloodyhell* I’ve done a deep linguistic analysis of the report and the official line seems to be:

“you can have it or not, whatever, do what you want, don’t care.”

*haha no.[/quote]
😂😂 Accurate.

I’m still a little surprised that they’ve actually approved it for kids. Delighted, but surprised that they’re actually in line with other countries for once.

I honestly think there is an element of ‘oh god, we can’t just do what everyone else has done, it’ll just make us look like we don’t make our own decisions’ in JCVI. They certainly make a fair few outlier recommendations….

I think not letting parents have choice can be a big problem, in case something really bad happened to them.

I've just heard a news on my native country's news channel. Teenager who had no underlying condition died of covid, cause of death was blood clot all over the body.
So, it's rare that children suffer, but not nonexistent.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists released a really nice decision making tool for pregnant women.

It outlines short term & long term risks of COVID, including numbers of deaths, hospitilisations etc. And then contrasts it against benefits and risks of vaccination, with the most recent safety data from other countries included.

I really really think whatever the equivalent body is for child health should release something similar for 5-11 year olds, because how are parents supposed to make an informed decision on this? So much misinformation (from both sides of argument), making it impossible for people who want to get reliable information.

@JassyRadlett

I’m still a little surprised that they’ve actually approved it for kids. Delighted, but surprised that they’re actually in line with other countries for once.

"I honestly think there is an element of ‘oh god, we can’t just do what everyone else has done, it’ll just make us look like we don’t make our own decisions’ in JCVI. They certainly make a fair few outlier recommendations…."

Maybe, but I also think they know many are skeptical and they want to appear to be taking extra time in order to reassure people. I fear it may have the opposite effect by giving the impression that they are still unsure.

Maybe, but I also think they know many are skeptical and they want to appear to be taking extra time in order to reassure people. I fear it may have the opposite effect by giving the impression that they are still unsure.

Very possibly and I certainly struggle to give them the benefit of the doubt given their downright mendacity over the evidence on varicella.