Dancing with tiers in my eyes, Weeping for the memory of a life gone by

[dancemom]

New thread, a very appropriate title I feel ...

Good decision for now by JCVI - added to that, it's too late now for vaccinating older kids to make a significant impact in winter covid cases or school disruption, given the 2 jag time lag and speed to roll out we'd be at Christmas even if approved now.

Boosters of individuals more at risk from covid is a better looking strategy at this stage.

Ha sorry Wi-fi glitch!

@ssd you were asking about vaccine data for hospital cases.
This is England but may be of interest (Scotland doesn't publish such data)

apple.news/AB7fxbo4HS3OZfz32CIPE8Q

@teacupdrama I agree it needs to be in best interests but we do already provide vaccination of children for the benefit of others such as flu. One of the big reasons children are given a flu vaccine is to reduce the spread to adults!

I certainly wouldn't like to be medical officers making the decision, my DS is way too young for it. There is the benefit of protecting education disruption but not sure if that's a good enough reason!

I don't think non vulnerable children should be vaccinated ahead of vulnerable adults globally but this argument is going to keep going around and keep coming up.

[quote Scottishskifun]@teacupdrama I agree it needs to be in best interests but we do already provide vaccination of children for the benefit of others such as flu. One of the big reasons children are given a flu vaccine is to reduce the spread to adults!

I certainly wouldn't like to be medical officers making the decision, my DS is way too young for it. There is the benefit of protecting education disruption but not sure if that's a good enough reason!

I don't think non vulnerable children should be vaccinated ahead of vulnerable adults globally but this argument is going to keep going around and keep coming up.[/quote]
The flu comparison is interesting and was discussed in one of the recent ZOE webinars. The argument was that flu was different for a couple of reasons - firstly that children are generally more seriously affected by flu than by COVID so there is more of a direct benefit to them, and secondly that we have vaccines that are very effective against severe disease (even if they don't stop spread) that can and indeed have been given to the vulnerable, so the additional benefit to vaccinating children on a society-wide scale is unclear (especially now that herd immunity is unachievable).

My young teens have been done because of a vulnerable person in the family.
They are 14 and 15 and both 5'10 so I'm not sure why it would be any worse for their bodies to have it than a small adult?
But anyway, they were very happy to haven't, one in particular had been really worried about catching covid and passing it on to his grandpa. He felt quite strongly that he has to sit in a busy classroom all day, he doesn't have the choice of sitting outside or avoiding busy places, he should be able to be vaccinated if he wanted to be.

I did feel a big weird about it on the day they went for their jags though, it's such an unknown. But on balance it was ther right thing for us, considering our family health circumstances.

[quote TeacupDrama]@scottishskifun I know everything has side effects but it's the weighing up of side effects against benefits it is very obvious in the over 50's that benefits outwiegh risks and quite obvious in the over 30's it is a finer balance in the under 30's and possibly swinging the other way in the under 20's
if you are vaccinating teenagers principally for the benefit of older adults the margin of safety needs to be greater than if the benefit of vaccnation was principally for the teenager themselves hence the decision by the committee that it overall no benefit to teenagers in taking the vaccine because either the risks of side effects from the vaccine are worse than the risks of covid or the risk of side effects from the vaccine is equal to risk from covid neither or which are a good case for vaccination
The only case for vaccinating teenagers is that the risks from the vaccination are lower than the risks from covid which they may or may not get and as yet this does not appear to be the proven case[/quote]
Yes, this makes perfect sense to me! I know we give children the flu vaccine largely to protect older adults (as they ARE actually germ buckets wrt flu) but, as far as I know, there are very few side effects of the flu vaccine on the children. Plus the benefit that it reduces the chance the children themselves get ill, which can indeed be problematic for some, not to mention the economic impact of preventing parents from working etc - and possibly post viral illnesses too. It sounds as if the benefit vs risk of the Covid vaccine is much less clear cut for younger teens themselves, and if this is the case, we can't ask them to take on the burden of having it to protect others.

I was a bit worried that the BBC article on this suggested that the devolved nations would ask their own CMOs to make a decision on whether vaccination of this age group was still beneficial, to avoid disruption to education. I'm struggling with that argument a bit... yes, covid has obviously proved to be disruptive, but that has, to date, been largely because of the requirement for close contacts to isolate. Now that isn't the case, I suppose positive cases will still be disrupted for 10 days, and contacts for potentially a day or so... though other illnesses also cause that. If we are insisting on a marginal vaccine to avoid every child having 10 days off school (potentially) - why don't we also prioritise (for example) the chicken pox vaccine? That's a highly contagious, generally mild illness (though about 20 people every year die from it, apparently - 9 per 100,000 cases, though mostly adults ) that requires time off school in the region of a week. Wouldn't adding that vaccine to the childhood schedule reduce educational disruption to the same extent? (Not a serious question, really - I know there are issues with the CP vaccine- including it's cost- but just pointing out that if educational disruption is cited for covid, it could also be an issue with other illnesses that we currently don't vaccinate for, or there are breakthrough cases despite vaccination).

I do wonder what the uptake would be if Gov decides to go ahead anyway and offer 12-15?
I'm thankful mine have now just snuck into the age groups recommended by jcvi so I don't have to face that decision

I was just hearing on the news about the risk of myocarditis, particularly in younger male teens, after a 2nd dose of Pfizer.
My guys only got one dose and at the minute that's all under 16s are scheduled to get right now.

It's such a minefield.

@ResilienceWanker I know what you mean, and I think that deferring to CMOs is unprecedented too. Generally, the JCVI are respected as an independent body of experts and governments follow their advice to the letter. I can't think of any occasion where their advice has been overruled previously (presumably by people with less specialised expertise, if CMOs are now overruling them). And yes, the only reason COVID is/was disrupting education is the requirement to isolate if contact traced, and the mass testing of people without serious symptoms. If these measures were dropped we'd be back to the only children being off school being those who are actually too ill to attend, which would be no more disruptive than in any other year. There may once have been a valid argument for these measures - about stopping spread to protect the vulnerable - but since the vulnerable are all now as protected as they'll ever be and a consensus is forming around the realisation that we're not going to be able to stop spread (even if we vaccinate children) there really needs to be a whole-sale rethink in the strategy.

I have to say I'm bitterly disappointed that DS 15 won't be getting the vaccine.

Firstly and most importantly because it would reduce circulation at schools and might have got rid of the current merry go round of testing and missing school while they wait. Agree that it wouldn't be done quickly but even having most of it done by Christmas would help avoid the looming possibility of another lockdown and or volte face about exams because DCs have missed too much school.

Secondly for holidays - would be cheaper and much less stressful if DS was double jabbed.

Thirdly for visiting my elderly DPs who are still pretty much isolating despite having both jabs. They'd feel safer ( well actually just DM, DF perfectly happy to take his chances) if DS had the vaccine and was less likely to pass anything on.

DS is taller and weighs more than I do, so his immune system etc. would respond pretty much like an adults I expect.

Agree @Y0uCann0tBeSer10us the whole testing/isolation rigmarole really is a nonsense. It's endemic at the moment.

I'm not feeling well enough for a meal out this evening but one of the friends going has a DC who has tested positive and another one waiting for results ( appears test lab has lost them ). She tested negative on PCR but as they all took the test at the same time, then it could well be brewing. Now multiple that scenario for most of the tables and some of the waiting staff.
The only limit on case numbers is the capacity of the test centres.

@sartorius thanks

They need to stop the testing and isolating, rather than jag children when the experts say it’s not appropriate.

@Rae36

I was just hearing on the news about the risk of myocarditis, particularly in younger male teens, after a 2nd dose of Pfizer. My guys only got one dose and at the minute that's all under 16s are scheduled to get right now.

It's such a minefield.

I believe the risk is higher from covid though, is that right?

No, @StarryEyeSurprise it’s the other way round, certainly for teenage boys.The thinking is one dose might be safer.

It’s a subject close to my heart so I’m following closely 😊

Although both risks very small

Is that the risk if you get Covid, or the risk of you catching Covid + having myocarditis?
As obviously a vaccine is a guaranteed risk whereas any teen may or may not catch Covid in the first place. (Though I think it's looking more like "will" given what my classes were like this week)

@rookiemere just saw prof balloux reporting that JCVI recommending one dose for healthy 16/17 year olds - might help your worries?

JCVI's full thinking is here. Essentially, it seems the evidence might show marginal benefit in vaccinating 12-15 year olds, but this effect really is marginal and, in their view, doesn't justify wide spread vaccination of this group. This is just considering the known harms too, and it certainly doesn't look like the benefits very clearly outweigh the risks as a certain advisor would have us believe . I don't have children in this age bracket, but if I did I'm not sure I'd want to risk the vaccine unless there was a very clear benefit to them which doesn't seem to be the case.

"For otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year old children, their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small. The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms.

Taking a precautionary approach, this margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal COVID-19 vaccination for this age group at this time. The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge."

I'm sympathetic to the school disruption, untold effects for the children, but if the overall point of that is to reduce serious illness from covid in vulnerable people then boosters are a better idea than jabbing the younger cohort.

Go full on for boosters for people who are likely to suffer from covid and keep schools going.

I think we should focus on vaccination in less developed countries before kids. It doesn't sit right with me that there's not more focus of discussion on this.

Am I on my own in worrying whether the COVID jags have longer term side effects we don't yet know about? The rare myocarditis issue is a recently discovered short term risk but what of the possibility of longer term issues which have not yet arisen? Am I the only person worried for the kids especially as they have a much longer life expectancy than us old mumsnetters?

No @Aurea, you're not alone. I feel exactly the same. I wouldn't have my DDs vaccinated at the moment (albeit they're only toddlers so irrelevant). I've had mine, but don't want to risk them with something pretty untested.