12 ms·

UK scientists not backing Covid jabs for 12 to 15-year-olds

75 points by bryan0 5y ago

kazinator 5y ago
> The decision not to recommend the vaccine to all healthy children was based on concern over an extremely rare side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines which causes heart inflammation, and can lead to palpitations and chest pain. Happened to a 27-year-old man in Richmond, B.C., Canada just a month ago. https://www.richmond-news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-local-news/covid-19-vaccine-sends-young-man-to-richmond-hospital-4219228 https://www.richmond-news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-local-new... > "“I had to get hooked up to an IV and they had to give me oxygen.” > Li was eventually told he was one of the rare cases where male adolescents and young adults are diagnosed with pericarditis or myocarditis after their second vaccine.
- geofft 5y ago
  I thought that they warn for these symptoms nowadays and ask you to get medical attention immediately and that you're basically fine with medical attention, right? (In the early days of the vaccine, like ~March in the US, I think there were one or two deaths because the word hadn't gotten out that this was a symptom that required immediate medical attention. But I haven't heard of serious negative outcomes - death or long-term illness - recently.)
  - walterbell 5y ago
    Is that a formal warning as part of an informed consent disclosure? If so, the disclosure doc would be online and useful to many.
    - geofft 5y ago
      I'm not sure - but I see this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my... > Be on the lookout for any of the following symptoms: > Chest pain > Shortness of breath > Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart > Seek medical care if you think you or your child have any of these symptoms within a week after COVID-19 vaccination. I think they also have a more general request to contact your doctor if you're experiencing side effects after more than a day or two, and messaging to doctors that they should be on the lookout for such symptoms. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/af... says, > Contact your doctor or healthcare provider [...] If your side effects are worrying you or do not seem to be going away after a few days*
  - kazinator 5y ago
    In this case, the dots were connected a little late. Part of the problem was that the man didn't begin to experience the symptoms after over a week. And it was his second dose, too.
- tclancy 5y ago
  Thank you for the anecdata. Got any data to go with it?
  - walterbell 5y ago
    CDC slide #7 reports 20 times higher myopericarditis than baseline for 18-24 year old males, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/03-COVID-Su-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... Aug 2021 study from Yale, John Hopkins, Stanford, UCSF and others, https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2021/08/12/peds.2021-053427.full.pdf https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/ea... > 63 patients with a mean age of 15.6 years were included. 92% were male. All had received an mRNA vaccine and, except for one, presented following the 2nd dose. Four patients had significant dysrhythmia. 14% had mild left ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography which resolved on discharge. 88% met the diagnostic cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.
    - kazinator 5y ago
      > Lake Louise criteria That's a lovely place in Aberta. Why this name? This is evidently due to the criteria emerging from the International Hypoxia Symposium, which took place in Lake Louise in February 2015.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    I posted this for the benefit of people who might be interested of what one person's experience was like who came down with this: what does it mean to have this inflammation surrounding the heart. There is some data referenced right in the same story: > U.S. data analysis showed the estimated rate of heart inflammation happening after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine is 16 cases in a million (one in 62,500 cases), according to a document published by the BCCDC in June 2021. I am getting every available jab, myself. In April 2020, my personal attitude was already that I'm ready for anything experimental: just let me know where and when.
    - didibus 5y ago
- didibus 5y ago
  > The EMA says, after 177 million total Pfizer doses were given out, 283 inflammation cases were reported. And after 20 million Moderna doses, 38 inflammation cases were reported. While five of the European cases saw someone die, the EMA says these were all in older people or those with other conditions. The cases were most commonly found in men under 40 and within 10 days of a second dose. The majority of those recovered quickly with the normal treatments for myocarditis and pericarditis as well as rest. So there was a total 321 people under the age of 40 that got the heart inflammation side effect, with almost all of them recovering from it (only 5 died). That's after 197 million doses. This is EU data from the EMA. Now for Covid, granted now I'm switching to US data (from the CDC), there's been: 0-4 yr: 1421 5 - 17 yr: 2361 18 - 49 yr: 57120 hospitalizations due to Covid. That's a total of 60902 younger people that needed hospitalization (granted this includes 40 - 49 yr old, while the EMA data is under 40, but even just the 0-4 year old group shows a lot more Covid related hospitalization than heart inflammation due to vaccines. There's also 25 reported death from Covid in the under 18. With Covid though, it is hard to know what the denominator is, like we don't know if that's out of 20 million people exposed to Covid, or 200 million, etc. That makes it a little harder to compare, thought my guess is there is probably less than 197 million under 49yr old in the US that got exposed to Covid, since the population count under 49 year is 210 million, so that would mean almost everyone under 49 yr would have been exposed to Covid, which I find unlikely. Which would make the data for Covid even worse proportionally to the vaccines. Almost all vaccines ever have some rare side effects, all drugs do really, people even die from simple things like peanut butter or honey. The thing is, Covid has much worse effects, so it's a matter of risk mitigation. You can make your own risk assessment based on the data, I feel its pretty one-sided with Covid being a much higher risk of being hospitalized and dying from it, even if you are under 18, and definitely if you are 18 to 40 year old. You can decide for yourself, but also consider that under 18 put over 18 at risk as well, so that's another consideration to take into account when choosing if to get vaccinated or not.
  - RustyRussell 5y ago
    I've been using the regularly published Ontario figures, which are broken down in finer grained results by age and sex: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immunization/vaccine-safety https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immuniza.... e.g 164 per million for male 18-24 second dose (which is highest result). For covid fatalities, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 provides a formula which seems to have held up: log10(IFR) = −3.27 + 0.0524 ∗ age (weirdly, this gives a percentage, so IFR=10^(−5.27+.0524×age) may be more useful). e.g 47 per million for an 18yo. Of course, even if you take this data as gospel (you average human you!), these are still apples and oranges: how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply!
ekianjo 5y ago
Oh, I thought "Science" was supposed to have a single voice? Sure these UK scientists must be anti-vaxxers for making a rational risk benefit decision. > concern over an extremely rare side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines which causes heart inflammation, and can lead to palpitations and chest pain. "Extremely" rare? That's hard to know, most side effects from the vaccines are clearly under-reported (most people who have pain, fever, etc... never call their doctor to let them know) and you can see that from the difference in reportings between industrialized countries. We are talking about huge differences (if I remember correctly up to 5x times between countries on the same vaccine brand).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hayd 5y ago
But UK government going ahead with them anyway??!
- Angostura 5y ago
  To be decided, based on whether it is worth it in terms of preventing infection among the older population. My guess is that they decide against doing that.
  - evgen 5y ago
    With school starting over here this week and next for most kids there is going to be a lot of pressure on a very weak government to open up vaccination to 12-15 year-olds. I am betting they are going to allow it, if only to be seen as actually trying to get ahead of something instead of enduring another month or two of reacting (and reacting poorly if past results provide any hints) to unexpected events.
- blitzar 5y ago
  It is being leaked / briefed by downing street that the Prime Minister that he will overrule this decision.
bryan0 5y ago
compare and contrast these findings to the CDC data released today: > Hospitalization rate for unvaccinated teens 10 times the rate for those vaccinated, CDC says (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/03/covid-delta-variant-live-updates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/03/covid-delta...)
- walterbell 5y ago
  How many of those "unvaccinated" were partly vaccinated? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac... > In general, people are considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine
  - bryan0 5y ago
    I believe none. Partially vaxed were not included in the data: > Fully vaccinated adolescents with COVID-19–associated hospitalizations were defined as those who had received a second vaccine dose ≥14 days before a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result associated with their hospitalization. Adolescents whose positive SARS-CoV-2 test date was ≥14 days after a single dose through <14 days after a second dose were considered partially vaccinated and were not included in rates; adolescents who had received a single dose of vaccine <14 days before the positive SARS-CoV-2 test result were also not included in rates. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm
    - walterbell 5y ago
      That's excellent. Do you know if that methodology (exclusion of partly-vaccinated) applies to other CDC studies? e.g. are there studies where partly-vaccinated are reported as a separate category, rather than dropping the data?
      - bryan0 5y ago
tialaramex 5y ago
Note that there's a difference between what makes sense as a public health measure and which interventions are ethical for medics, and thus between government policy (public health focused) and what medics agree to do (ethics). Specifically, the medical ethics concern benefits specifically to the patient being treated, while public health is interested in the whole population. This is why HPV vaccination for boys was much delayed compared to girls. As a public health measure, vaccinating boys obviously makes sense because as likely future sexual partners they can give the girls HPV and thus induce cervical cancer. But, from a medical ethics point of view that's not beneficial to them at all, why should they care if some one night stand they never saw again dies of cancer? However, once there was enough data to say that vaccinating boys likely protects them from non-cervical cancers induced by HPV, yet significant side effects were very rare, that's a clear benefit to giving them a vaccine, while the public health outcome (fewer women die of cervical cancer) means it makes sense to spend money on delivering it. So, it can be true that vaccinating all 12 year olds would benefit public health e.g. by reducing the amount of disease spread in the community, while at the same time being true that vaccinating them wouldn't be ethical because the risk to them is similar to or greater than the benefit of not getting COVID-19 when you're young and healthy and very likely to survive with few problems.
- landemva 5y ago
  'by reducing the amount of disease spread in the community' We were told the vaccine would reduce severity of symptoms thus lightening burden on hospital beds. You claim it reduces transmission, though the studies on that are not complete. Let's keep the public health speculation about transmission based on peer reviewed studies rather than arm waving speculation.
  - bryan0 5y ago
    I wouldn't worry as much about what you're "told" and instead follow the data, of which there is a ton that demonstrates Covid vaccines reduce infections, severe illness, and transmission: > Data from multiple studies in different countries suggest that people vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine who develop COVID-19 have a lower viral load than unvaccinated people.(41-44) This observation may indicate reduced transmissibility, as viral load has been identified as a key driver of transmission.(45) Two studies from the United Kingdom found significantly reduced likelihood of transmission to household contacts from people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were previously vaccinated for COVID-19.(25, 46) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
s5300 5y ago
I'm wondering if you're more likely to have these adverse cardiac affects from energy drinks than the COVID vaccine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501707/ Though, quite recently, UK did ban the sale of energy drinks to those under 16 y/o
bewaretheirs 5y ago
Norway is apparently recommending only one dose for 12-15 at this time, citing the increased risk of myocarditis after the 2nd dose. https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1433567858273882112 https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1433567858273882112
- Andys 5y ago
  So definitely no booster shots then?
  - bewaretheirs 5y ago
    Maybe boosters/2nd doses in the future but not now. https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/12-15-aringer-tilbys-koronavaksinasjon/ https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/12-15-aringer-tilbys-koronav... as translated by Google Translate says: "NIPH has assessed that for this age group, which to a lesser extent than adults and older adolescents has contributed to the spread of infection, the individual considerations of offering vaccination are more important than the societal benefit of limiting the spread of infection. However, this may be considered differently if the infection situation changes in the time ahead. "
realsimplesynd 5y ago
COVID “jabs” seems demeaning to one of the fastest scientific kicks in history. We’ll remember the vaccine research the same as the moon landing.
- grepfru_it 5y ago
  Kinda like the flu shot. It’s not a shot, it’s a vaccine
- bewaretheirs 5y ago
  "jab" is British english slang for vaccination.
bhickey 5y ago
It's strange that they're narrowly focused on myocarditis. In the large scale Israeli vaccine safety study, researchers found elevated rates of kidney injury among covid survivors. Among confirmed pediatric cases the current hospitalization rate stands at around 1 per 100. There's some ascertainment bias going on because we don't know the true infection rate. Even if we're undercounting childhood infections by a factor of ten that works out to 1,000 hospitalizations per million.
robocat 5y ago
Are children in the UK given the choice for themselves? I believe many teenagers would choose to protect their family or decide they don’t need the jab because they have already had Covid. Allowing them the choice also puts them on equal standing with the rest of the adults that choose not to get vaccinated. Also of note, 12 to 15 year olds in New Zealand can get immunisation, usually at the same time a parent does. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126124007/covid19-children-aged-12-to-15-now-eligible-for-pfizer-vaccine https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126124007/covid19-... (New Zealand has only had a few hundred cases of Covid in the community, so it is interesting that our health services encourage vaccination for teenagers). Edit: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-what-rights-do-children-and-parents-have-when-giving-consent-to-be-vaccinated/GOJNB6AHG7FUG3TDDDKUUMNPJA/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-what-righ... says that NZ children can get immunisation or refuse to, regardless of their parents decision, if the child is deemed competent and if they fully understand what is involved in making the decision (the right applies to children of any age). And the tl;dr sentences from the article are: > There are three million children in total in this age group across the UK > 6 million adults who have not even taken up the offer a jab yet [sic] > Data from the US suggests there are 60 cases of the heart condition for every million second doses given to 12 to 17-year-old boys (compared to eight in one million girls) > around half of children [sic] in this age group are thought to have had Covid, providing them with natural immunity anyway
- glanard_frugner 5y ago
  >Are chilren in the UK given the choice for themselves? why should they be? if the scientists determined that the vaccine is of marginal benefit to them compared to the risks, then they don’t need it. the fact that they want it because the tv told them it’s the right thing to do is irrelevant. i guess “following the science” only applies when the science agrees with the predetermined status quo
  - robocat 5y ago
    > then they don’t need it As individuals, they can benefit. The article even identifies 200k individuals within the group that do. The JVCI is saying that as individuals within their age group, there is no obvious benefit on average. Plenty of people, including teenagers, can make more informed choices as an individual, because they have information about their health circumstances, psychological state, personal ethics, or opinions about the risks to others around them. I would hope the JCVI is not making a group level decision that overrides individual choice (within the subpopulation of 12 to 15 year olds.) As stated, New Zealand is letting teenagers make their own choice, and there is a good chance that the decision make by NZ scientists and authorities fairly weighed up the benefits and risks to teenagers (or maybe just decided teenagers should be given a free cost opportunity to make their own decision). It is not hard to guess that over 1% of teenagers (10s of thousands) would be psychologically far better off choosing to get vaccinated. Maybe the JCVI only looks at physical risks, and not psychological risks? Disclaimer: I am strongly pro-choice. I also also strongly believe in a society that limits what non-vaccinated people can do, if their choice is judged to risk severe harm to others. Just as you need a driver’s licence to be able to share the roads safely. You can choose to drive without a driver’s licence, yet society is likely to act against you if you do so, even if you really do need to drive for a very good reason.
sjg007 5y ago
The UK is dumb, they don’t even vaccinate for chicken pox. The reason is that it protects old people from shingles by continuously exposing them supposedly. Haven’t seen any proof of that.
- fanf2 5y ago
  Yeah we decided to pay for chicken pox vaccinations for our kids. It's a horrible illness, and it's cruel to inflict it on children when it is so easily avoided.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    I agree and the lack of a shingles epidemic in the USA since the advent of the chicken pox vaccine means that UK children are suffering needlessly.
- Vecr 5y ago
  The US is willing/able to spend much more money on preventing disease than the UK. UK does not vaccinate for lots of stuff the US does, and the US is willing to pay for more shingles vaccines to replace the natural boosting.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    Is there any evidence for natural boosting?
sjg007 5y ago
Myocarditis is treated with ibuprofen right? So I would say take ibuprofen for a few days after the 2nd shot or just get 1 shot.
- thatswrong0 5y ago
  No you kind of just have to wait it out.. stuff like beta blockers _might_ be prescribed.
charbonneau 5y ago
> The vaccine advisers have been under huge pressure. > Ministers have let it be known they are very keen on getting this age group vaccinated - both through their public pronouncements and privately behind the scenes. > This has caused frustration among JCVI members - with some complaining about the habit of government officials sitting in on meetings. Sounds like a healthy environment for unbiased decision-making.

75 points by bryan0 5y ago

> The decision not to recommend the vaccine to all healthy children was based on concern over an extremely rare side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines which causes heart inflammation, and can lead to palpitations and chest pain. Happened to a 27-year-old man in Richmond, B.C., Canada just a month ago. https://www.richmond-news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-local-news/covid-19-vaccine-sends-young-man-to-richmond-hospital-4219228 https://www.richmond-news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-local-new... > "“I had to get hooked up to an IV and they had to give me oxygen.” > Li was eventually told he was one of the rare cases where male adolescents and young adults are diagnosed with pericarditis or myocarditis after their second vaccine.

geofft 5y ago
I thought that they warn for these symptoms nowadays and ask you to get medical attention immediately and that you're basically fine with medical attention, right? (In the early days of the vaccine, like ~March in the US, I think there were one or two deaths because the word hadn't gotten out that this was a symptom that required immediate medical attention. But I haven't heard of serious negative outcomes - death or long-term illness - recently.)
- walterbell 5y ago
  Is that a formal warning as part of an informed consent disclosure? If so, the disclosure doc would be online and useful to many.
  - geofft 5y ago
    I'm not sure - but I see this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my... > Be on the lookout for any of the following symptoms: > Chest pain > Shortness of breath > Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart > Seek medical care if you think you or your child have any of these symptoms within a week after COVID-19 vaccination. I think they also have a more general request to contact your doctor if you're experiencing side effects after more than a day or two, and messaging to doctors that they should be on the lookout for such symptoms. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/af... says, > Contact your doctor or healthcare provider [...] If your side effects are worrying you or do not seem to be going away after a few days*
- kazinator 5y ago
  In this case, the dots were connected a little late. Part of the problem was that the man didn't begin to experience the symptoms after over a week. And it was his second dose, too.
tclancy 5y ago
Thank you for the anecdata. Got any data to go with it?
- walterbell 5y ago
  CDC slide #7 reports 20 times higher myopericarditis than baseline for 18-24 year old males, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/03-COVID-Su-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... Aug 2021 study from Yale, John Hopkins, Stanford, UCSF and others, https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2021/08/12/peds.2021-053427.full.pdf https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/ea... > 63 patients with a mean age of 15.6 years were included. 92% were male. All had received an mRNA vaccine and, except for one, presented following the 2nd dose. Four patients had significant dysrhythmia. 14% had mild left ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography which resolved on discharge. 88% met the diagnostic cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    > Lake Louise criteria That's a lovely place in Aberta. Why this name? This is evidently due to the criteria emerging from the International Hypoxia Symposium, which took place in Lake Louise in February 2015.
- kazinator 5y ago
  I posted this for the benefit of people who might be interested of what one person's experience was like who came down with this: what does it mean to have this inflammation surrounding the heart. There is some data referenced right in the same story: > U.S. data analysis showed the estimated rate of heart inflammation happening after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine is 16 cases in a million (one in 62,500 cases), according to a document published by the BCCDC in June 2021. I am getting every available jab, myself. In April 2020, my personal attitude was already that I'm ready for anything experimental: just let me know where and when.
  - didibus 5y ago
didibus 5y ago
> The EMA says, after 177 million total Pfizer doses were given out, 283 inflammation cases were reported. And after 20 million Moderna doses, 38 inflammation cases were reported. While five of the European cases saw someone die, the EMA says these were all in older people or those with other conditions. The cases were most commonly found in men under 40 and within 10 days of a second dose. The majority of those recovered quickly with the normal treatments for myocarditis and pericarditis as well as rest. So there was a total 321 people under the age of 40 that got the heart inflammation side effect, with almost all of them recovering from it (only 5 died). That's after 197 million doses. This is EU data from the EMA. Now for Covid, granted now I'm switching to US data (from the CDC), there's been: 0-4 yr: 1421 5 - 17 yr: 2361 18 - 49 yr: 57120 hospitalizations due to Covid. That's a total of 60902 younger people that needed hospitalization (granted this includes 40 - 49 yr old, while the EMA data is under 40, but even just the 0-4 year old group shows a lot more Covid related hospitalization than heart inflammation due to vaccines. There's also 25 reported death from Covid in the under 18. With Covid though, it is hard to know what the denominator is, like we don't know if that's out of 20 million people exposed to Covid, or 200 million, etc. That makes it a little harder to compare, thought my guess is there is probably less than 197 million under 49yr old in the US that got exposed to Covid, since the population count under 49 year is 210 million, so that would mean almost everyone under 49 yr would have been exposed to Covid, which I find unlikely. Which would make the data for Covid even worse proportionally to the vaccines. Almost all vaccines ever have some rare side effects, all drugs do really, people even die from simple things like peanut butter or honey. The thing is, Covid has much worse effects, so it's a matter of risk mitigation. You can make your own risk assessment based on the data, I feel its pretty one-sided with Covid being a much higher risk of being hospitalized and dying from it, even if you are under 18, and definitely if you are 18 to 40 year old. You can decide for yourself, but also consider that under 18 put over 18 at risk as well, so that's another consideration to take into account when choosing if to get vaccinated or not.
- RustyRussell 5y ago
  I've been using the regularly published Ontario figures, which are broken down in finer grained results by age and sex: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immunization/vaccine-safety https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immuniza.... e.g 164 per million for male 18-24 second dose (which is highest result). For covid fatalities, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 provides a formula which seems to have held up: log10(IFR) = −3.27 + 0.0524 ∗ age (weirdly, this gives a percentage, so IFR=10^(−5.27+.0524×age) may be more useful). e.g 47 per million for an 18yo. Of course, even if you take this data as gospel (you average human you!), these are still apples and oranges: how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply!

ekianjo 5y ago

Oh, I thought "Science" was supposed to have a single voice? Sure these UK scientists must be anti-vaxxers for making a rational risk benefit decision. > concern over an extremely rare side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines which causes heart inflammation, and can lead to palpitations and chest pain. "Extremely" rare? That's hard to know, most side effects from the vaccines are clearly under-reported (most people who have pain, fever, etc... never call their doctor to let them know) and you can see that from the difference in reportings between industrialized countries. We are talking about huge differences (if I remember correctly up to 5x times between countries on the same vaccine brand).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hayd 5y ago

But UK government going ahead with them anyway??!

Angostura 5y ago
To be decided, based on whether it is worth it in terms of preventing infection among the older population. My guess is that they decide against doing that.
- evgen 5y ago
  With school starting over here this week and next for most kids there is going to be a lot of pressure on a very weak government to open up vaccination to 12-15 year-olds. I am betting they are going to allow it, if only to be seen as actually trying to get ahead of something instead of enduring another month or two of reacting (and reacting poorly if past results provide any hints) to unexpected events.
blitzar 5y ago
It is being leaked / briefed by downing street that the Prime Minister that he will overrule this decision.

bryan0 5y ago

compare and contrast these findings to the CDC data released today: > Hospitalization rate for unvaccinated teens 10 times the rate for those vaccinated, CDC says (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/03/covid-delta-variant-live-updates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/03/covid-delta...)

walterbell 5y ago
How many of those "unvaccinated" were partly vaccinated? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac... > In general, people are considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine
- bryan0 5y ago
  I believe none. Partially vaxed were not included in the data: > Fully vaccinated adolescents with COVID-19–associated hospitalizations were defined as those who had received a second vaccine dose ≥14 days before a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result associated with their hospitalization. Adolescents whose positive SARS-CoV-2 test date was ≥14 days after a single dose through <14 days after a second dose were considered partially vaccinated and were not included in rates; adolescents who had received a single dose of vaccine <14 days before the positive SARS-CoV-2 test result were also not included in rates. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm
  - walterbell 5y ago
    That's excellent. Do you know if that methodology (exclusion of partly-vaccinated) applies to other CDC studies? e.g. are there studies where partly-vaccinated are reported as a separate category, rather than dropping the data?
    - bryan0 5y ago

tialaramex 5y ago

Note that there's a difference between what makes sense as a public health measure and which interventions are ethical for medics, and thus between government policy (public health focused) and what medics agree to do (ethics). Specifically, the medical ethics concern benefits specifically to the patient being treated, while public health is interested in the whole population. This is why HPV vaccination for boys was much delayed compared to girls. As a public health measure, vaccinating boys obviously makes sense because as likely future sexual partners they can give the girls HPV and thus induce cervical cancer. But, from a medical ethics point of view that's not beneficial to them at all, why should they care if some one night stand they never saw again dies of cancer? However, once there was enough data to say that vaccinating boys likely protects them from non-cervical cancers induced by HPV, yet significant side effects were very rare, that's a clear benefit to giving them a vaccine, while the public health outcome (fewer women die of cervical cancer) means it makes sense to spend money on delivering it. So, it can be true that vaccinating all 12 year olds would benefit public health e.g. by reducing the amount of disease spread in the community, while at the same time being true that vaccinating them wouldn't be ethical because the risk to them is similar to or greater than the benefit of not getting COVID-19 when you're young and healthy and very likely to survive with few problems.

landemva 5y ago
'by reducing the amount of disease spread in the community' We were told the vaccine would reduce severity of symptoms thus lightening burden on hospital beds. You claim it reduces transmission, though the studies on that are not complete. Let's keep the public health speculation about transmission based on peer reviewed studies rather than arm waving speculation.
- bryan0 5y ago
  I wouldn't worry as much about what you're "told" and instead follow the data, of which there is a ton that demonstrates Covid vaccines reduce infections, severe illness, and transmission: > Data from multiple studies in different countries suggest that people vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine who develop COVID-19 have a lower viral load than unvaccinated people.(41-44) This observation may indicate reduced transmissibility, as viral load has been identified as a key driver of transmission.(45) Two studies from the United Kingdom found significantly reduced likelihood of transmission to household contacts from people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were previously vaccinated for COVID-19.(25, 46) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

s5300 5y ago

I'm wondering if you're more likely to have these adverse cardiac affects from energy drinks than the COVID vaccine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501707/ Though, quite recently, UK did ban the sale of energy drinks to those under 16 y/o

bewaretheirs 5y ago

Norway is apparently recommending only one dose for 12-15 at this time, citing the increased risk of myocarditis after the 2nd dose. https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1433567858273882112 https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1433567858273882112

Andys 5y ago
So definitely no booster shots then?
- bewaretheirs 5y ago
  Maybe boosters/2nd doses in the future but not now. https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/12-15-aringer-tilbys-koronavaksinasjon/ https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/12-15-aringer-tilbys-koronav... as translated by Google Translate says: "NIPH has assessed that for this age group, which to a lesser extent than adults and older adolescents has contributed to the spread of infection, the individual considerations of offering vaccination are more important than the societal benefit of limiting the spread of infection. However, this may be considered differently if the infection situation changes in the time ahead. "

realsimplesynd 5y ago

COVID “jabs” seems demeaning to one of the fastest scientific kicks in history. We’ll remember the vaccine research the same as the moon landing.

grepfru_it 5y ago
Kinda like the flu shot. It’s not a shot, it’s a vaccine
bewaretheirs 5y ago
"jab" is British english slang for vaccination.

bhickey 5y ago

It's strange that they're narrowly focused on myocarditis. In the large scale Israeli vaccine safety study, researchers found elevated rates of kidney injury among covid survivors. Among confirmed pediatric cases the current hospitalization rate stands at around 1 per 100. There's some ascertainment bias going on because we don't know the true infection rate. Even if we're undercounting childhood infections by a factor of ten that works out to 1,000 hospitalizations per million.

robocat 5y ago

Are children in the UK given the choice for themselves? I believe many teenagers would choose to protect their family or decide they don’t need the jab because they have already had Covid. Allowing them the choice also puts them on equal standing with the rest of the adults that choose not to get vaccinated. Also of note, 12 to 15 year olds in New Zealand can get immunisation, usually at the same time a parent does. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126124007/covid19-children-aged-12-to-15-now-eligible-for-pfizer-vaccine https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126124007/covid19-... (New Zealand has only had a few hundred cases of Covid in the community, so it is interesting that our health services encourage vaccination for teenagers). Edit: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-what-rights-do-children-and-parents-have-when-giving-consent-to-be-vaccinated/GOJNB6AHG7FUG3TDDDKUUMNPJA/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-what-righ... says that NZ children can get immunisation or refuse to, regardless of their parents decision, if the child is deemed competent and if they fully understand what is involved in making the decision (the right applies to children of any age). And the tl;dr sentences from the article are: > There are three million children in total in this age group across the UK > 6 million adults who have not even taken up the offer a jab yet [sic] > Data from the US suggests there are 60 cases of the heart condition for every million second doses given to 12 to 17-year-old boys (compared to eight in one million girls) > around half of children [sic] in this age group are thought to have had Covid, providing them with natural immunity anyway

glanard_frugner 5y ago
>Are chilren in the UK given the choice for themselves? why should they be? if the scientists determined that the vaccine is of marginal benefit to them compared to the risks, then they don’t need it. the fact that they want it because the tv told them it’s the right thing to do is irrelevant. i guess “following the science” only applies when the science agrees with the predetermined status quo
- robocat 5y ago
  > then they don’t need it As individuals, they can benefit. The article even identifies 200k individuals within the group that do. The JVCI is saying that as individuals within their age group, there is no obvious benefit on average. Plenty of people, including teenagers, can make more informed choices as an individual, because they have information about their health circumstances, psychological state, personal ethics, or opinions about the risks to others around them. I would hope the JCVI is not making a group level decision that overrides individual choice (within the subpopulation of 12 to 15 year olds.) As stated, New Zealand is letting teenagers make their own choice, and there is a good chance that the decision make by NZ scientists and authorities fairly weighed up the benefits and risks to teenagers (or maybe just decided teenagers should be given a free cost opportunity to make their own decision). It is not hard to guess that over 1% of teenagers (10s of thousands) would be psychologically far better off choosing to get vaccinated. Maybe the JCVI only looks at physical risks, and not psychological risks? Disclaimer: I am strongly pro-choice. I also also strongly believe in a society that limits what non-vaccinated people can do, if their choice is judged to risk severe harm to others. Just as you need a driver’s licence to be able to share the roads safely. You can choose to drive without a driver’s licence, yet society is likely to act against you if you do so, even if you really do need to drive for a very good reason.

sjg007 5y ago

The UK is dumb, they don’t even vaccinate for chicken pox. The reason is that it protects old people from shingles by continuously exposing them supposedly. Haven’t seen any proof of that.

fanf2 5y ago
Yeah we decided to pay for chicken pox vaccinations for our kids. It's a horrible illness, and it's cruel to inflict it on children when it is so easily avoided.
- sjg007 5y ago
  I agree and the lack of a shingles epidemic in the USA since the advent of the chicken pox vaccine means that UK children are suffering needlessly.
Vecr 5y ago
The US is willing/able to spend much more money on preventing disease than the UK. UK does not vaccinate for lots of stuff the US does, and the US is willing to pay for more shingles vaccines to replace the natural boosting.
- sjg007 5y ago
  Is there any evidence for natural boosting?

sjg007 5y ago

Myocarditis is treated with ibuprofen right? So I would say take ibuprofen for a few days after the 2nd shot or just get 1 shot.

thatswrong0 5y ago
No you kind of just have to wait it out.. stuff like beta blockers _might_ be prescribed.

charbonneau 5y ago

> The vaccine advisers have been under huge pressure. > Ministers have let it be known they are very keen on getting this age group vaccinated - both through their public pronouncements and privately behind the scenes. > This has caused frustration among JCVI members - with some complaining about the habit of government officials sitting in on meetings. Sounds like a healthy environment for unbiased decision-making.