4 ms·

For teens, UK [edit:] Chief Medical Officer recommends but not mandates first dose, and does not recommend second dose at least until spring. The benefits are m

For teens, UK [edit:] Chief Medical Officer recommends but not mandates first dose, and does not recommend second dose at least until spring. The benefits are marginal. 2 ICU prevented admissions / million first doses 87 hospital prevented admissions / million first doses 0.16 ICU prevented admissions / million second doses 6 hospital prevented admissions / million second doses > Having the vaccine is not compulsory. > Prof Whitty said an "offer" of vaccination will be made to all children aged 12-15. > But he said young people and their parents needed to be supported and there should be no stigma attached to their choice. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57888429 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57888429

makomk 5y ago
On the other hand, the UK vaccination advisory board does not recommend vaccinating under-16s because they consider there to be inadequate evidence the risks outweigh the benefits. (Despite considerable and very public political pressure to come to a different conclusion, and if I remember correctly even some of the members who were most sceptical about it resigning and being replaced.)
- angelzen 5y ago
  Quoting from the recent BBC article: "The UK's chief medical officers recommended a single Pfizer dose for all children aged 12 to 15." Perhaps there is a difference of position between 'advisory board' and 'chief medical officer', I am not that familiar with the UK scene.
  - makomk 5y ago
    From the article: "They made their recommendation after the JCVI - the scientific body advising the government on vaccines - said it did not recommend vaccinating healthy children on health grounds alone." The JCVI are the body that normally makes these decisions and has for the pandemic so far, but they kept on repeatedly refusing to recommend vaccination for under-16s unless they had a pre-existing condition no matter how many times the government asked or how unsubtle their hints - so there was a kind of weird political fudge where the government found another body that'd approve of them, largely based on the potential to reduce disruption to kids' education. (However, that disruption was itself mostly a result of government policy decisions, and the main reason the UK actually seems to be vaccinating under-16s is because other countries have been doing it which makde it politically untenable not to do the same.)
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Thanks for clarifying!

makomk 5y ago

On the other hand, the UK vaccination advisory board does not recommend vaccinating under-16s because they consider there to be inadequate evidence the risks outweigh the benefits. (Despite considerable and very public political pressure to come to a different conclusion, and if I remember correctly even some of the members who were most sceptical about it resigning and being replaced.)

angelzen 5y ago
Quoting from the recent BBC article: "The UK's chief medical officers recommended a single Pfizer dose for all children aged 12 to 15." Perhaps there is a difference of position between 'advisory board' and 'chief medical officer', I am not that familiar with the UK scene.
- makomk 5y ago
  From the article: "They made their recommendation after the JCVI - the scientific body advising the government on vaccines - said it did not recommend vaccinating healthy children on health grounds alone." The JCVI are the body that normally makes these decisions and has for the pandemic so far, but they kept on repeatedly refusing to recommend vaccination for under-16s unless they had a pre-existing condition no matter how many times the government asked or how unsubtle their hints - so there was a kind of weird political fudge where the government found another body that'd approve of them, largely based on the potential to reduce disruption to kids' education. (However, that disruption was itself mostly a result of government policy decisions, and the main reason the UK actually seems to be vaccinating under-16s is because other countries have been doing it which makde it politically untenable not to do the same.)
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Thanks for clarifying!