UKC

Vaccines for 5 to 11 - thoughts? 

Thumb up for yes.  Thumb down for no. 

Here's what the scientists say (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116298):

"Although Covid-19 is generally milder in children than in adults, severe illness and long-term complications, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), can occur after the primary infection.  School-age children represent a high proportion of Covid-19 cases, and they may play an important role in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, including spread of the highly transmissible B.1.617.2 (or delta) variant. At the end of September 2021, persons younger than 18 years of age represented more than a quarter of weekly U.S. cases and 1.6 to 4.2% of cumulative hospitalizations. Covid-19–associated hospitalizations among children have increased steadily since early July 2021 in the United States; prevalence among 5-to-11-year-old children reached an all-time high of 1.1 per 100,000 population in late September. The pandemic has also interrupted education and has adversely affected children’s social and emotional development and mental health. Therefore, the availability of safe and efficacious vaccines for school-age children is critical."

The only logical/rational argument against them I can see is that COVID is an international problem that needs an International solution, and when supply of vaccines are limited, is it both ethical and sensible for rich countries to be vaccinating this age group when do many poorer rates still have so little of the population covered?

This is the WHO’s objection to this approach. It may also come back to haunt the richer countries if new variants arise in low vaccination countries.

It isn't though. Hasn't been for ages. It's distribution, delivery and willingness that's lacking. Supply is absolutely not limited. The world isn't in any way short of doses any more.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-021-00073-x

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=http://www.ft.com/content/f98c9081-76bb-47d7-8dd5-1...

3:10 mintues in. 

  youtube.com/watch?v=D6RsXN_Wars&

As the parent oof a soon-to-be five year old who has knowingly had covid once back in summer 2020 and very likely had it again since, I'd like to see the statistical data comparing the pros and cons of the current jabs for someone in his scenario before I have someone give it to him. Hopefully this will be made available soon. Given the point that the rest of the pandemic has now reached, my concern is entirely for him and the effect on wider transmission doesn't really enter the equation for me.

I gave a thumbs up as I am happy that it will be available as a choice for (parents of) children who might be concerned for a particular reason.

However, I will not be getting my children vaccinated (both in that age range) as they've had Covid already (mild) and I'm not convinced it will be necessary for them. If evidence comes out that it will be of benefit and de-risk something I don't know about yet, then I will change my mind.

Edit: to clarify I am triple jabbed and fully supportive of the vaccine rollout thus far. I'm glad I caught Covid after my booster as it was very mild, unlike many other people I know who caught it prior to vaccination.

I can only make 12.30

It’s good to know that the absolute supply is no longer limited,  but I think the WHO’s point is that developed nations should even be redirecting the money they are spending on vaccinating the lower risk groups on providing vaccines and the associated infrastructure costs for poorer nations, not just out of altruism, but in enlightened self interest to reduce overall risk worldwide. 

Latest episode of BBC More or Less looked at some of the risk for children. It debunked the 1 in 100 kids with COVID end up in hospital stat, which was clearly nonse.

My initial response was that I would like to see the stats, then I realised that other folk who actually work in this area know more about it than me so I will trust them.

I never questioned giving my kids the flu vaccine, I seem to have been infected with a very mild dose of vaccine scepticism, which I quickly kicked my self out of. Interesting to see as I would have put myself at the very far end of pro-vax scale.

does anyone remember the good old days of smallpox?

Would people's thoughts change if the vaccine was updated and it regained its old efficacy against infection/transmission? Other vaccines are given to children that aren't entirely for their benefit - e.g. Rubella to stop circulation of the virus and hence protect pregnant women from infection, and the flu vaccination is partly to protect older adults.

Another factor to consider: teaching staff repeatedly catching Covid from their pupils. 

Personally: I don’t have a strong enough view to vote. 

I've actually looked at the data now - it's available on the JCVI website. It makes the case pretty well that overall giving jabs will avoid more hospitalisations than it causes if there is another large wave of covid with severity similar to Delta (as opposed to Omicron). However the data isn't broken down to look at the relative benefits/detriments for children in different groups (eg already had covid or not) possibly because they don't have enough data to do that. In my mind it's a borderline decision for someone in my (son's) situation - it's not clear whether the hospitalisations predicted due to covid are all in the 15% of kids that JCVI believe have not had prior infection or are evenly split across all kids, and of course it's not clear there is going to be another large covid wave of the nature analysed. In a more moderate wave, the evidence presented so far doesn't clearly support giving the jabs to kids who have already been infected.

I generally agree with your bit on trusting the experts but I am uncomfortable about the amount of political pressure put on them in recent months. It's also worth noting that the JCVI comms make very clear that they consider other childhood vaccine programmes like MMR to be higher priority than covid vaccines and they want to see those vaccination programmes recovered as a priority, as they have suffered during the pandemic.

​​​​

JCVI also clear that any protection the jab provides for kids against moderate infection (and therefore transmission) will be (1) limited and (2) short term only, because of the gap between Omicron and the wild type virus on which the vaccines are based. The only factor considered to provide merit in vaccinating kids now is reduction in severe disease. They also looked at the impact on education and predicted that time off school due to jab side effects would be (slightly) greater than time off saved by removing some infections, assuming 100% take-up.

The vote seems fairly evenly split so far. 

I'm of the same mind as yourself - I have a daughter (aged 10) who had a very mild covid infection. She had no symptoms - we only tested her because I caught it.  Her class has had regular outbreaks for the last few months with multiple kids off with it on a regular basis.  I'd like someone to make a good case for her having it as I'm not convinced she needs it.  

I'm not a covid-denier or anti-vaccine, my wife and I are both fully vaccinated, as are our older children (aged 20 and 25).  However, despite being double jabbed I have had covid twice, this is probably thanks to working in a secondary school that has been full of it. 

I voted yes.

 Almost every child in this country gets immunised against chicken pox, scarlet fever, polio and god knows what else.  Someone else (parents/guardians), decides whether to have them immunised.  

So whats the difference here?

The chicken pox vaccine is actually a good example of one for which the opposite approach is adopted. Policy is effectively for kids to build up immunity through natural infection, and only give the vaccine to adults deemed vulnerable or on contact with vulnerable people.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/chickenpox-vaccine/

Chickenpox vaccine overview

The chickenpox vaccine protects against the varicella zoster virus that causes chickenpox.

The chickenpox vaccine is not part of the routine childhood vaccination schedule.

It is currently only offered on the NHS to people who are in close contact with someone who is particularly vulnerable to chickenpox or its complications.

There are 2 chickenpox vaccines currently available. The brand names of the chickenpox vaccine are VARIVAX and VARILRIX.

Read the patient information leaflet (PIL) for VARIVAX.

Read the patient information leaflet (PIL) for VARILRIX.

Who is at risk from chickenpox?

Chickenpox is a common childhood infection. Usually, it's mild and complications are rare. Almost all children develop immunity to chickenpox after infection, so most only catch it once. The disease can be more severe in adults.

Certain groups of people, however, are at greater risk of serious complications from chickenpox. These include:

people who have weakened immune systems through illnesses such as HIV, or treatments like chemotherapy

pregnant women – chickenpox can be very serious for an unborn baby when a pregnant woman catches the infection. It can cause a range of serious birth defects, as well as severe disease in the baby when it is born. Read more about what to do if you catch or are exposed to chickenpox in pregnancy

Who should have the chickenpox vaccine?

It is recommended for certain individuals, such as:

non-immune healthcare workers

people who come into close contact with someone who has a weakened immune system

This is to lower the chances of infecting people at risk. For example, if you're having chemotherapy treatment, it's advisable that non-immune children close to you are given the chickenpox vaccine.

The vaccine would also be recommended if you were about to start work in a radiotherapy department and had not had chickenpox before.

I think it's brilliant news that parents now have the option to get younger children vaccinated. 

Reduced transmission in schools protects teachers (this keeping schools open) and elderly grandparents as well as the kids themselves. Youngsters are never going to manage social distancing, so vaccination is the obvious way to protect them.

That said I can understand parental reluctance, putting aside serious health concerns the vaccine can have some pretty unpleasant side effects. Who wants to make their own child feel poorly, just to protect them from a disease that probably won't make them seriously ill? 

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm glad it's being offered, but unlike with adults I can understand the reluctance to have it done.

Just looking at the question you pose and not the direct risk/benefit to the child:

We aren't going to stop circulation of Covid with vaccination.

A household that has one or more members shielding from Covid due to higher vulnerability would benefit from all members of the household having high immunity-against-infection at times of high prevalence of Covid.  As you note, that needs a vaccine well matched to the in-circulation variant.

Timing of such vaccination is very important for this, as immunity-against-infeciton wanes on a much faster timescale than immunity-against-severe-illness, so if the parents/carers in a household decide to get their children vaccinated as part of strengthening the household shield, the timing as well as the variant-matched vaccine are critical.  With all covid measures decaying rapidly now, and with a poor variant match, there is no obvious benefit to the household.  With a variant matched vaccine, it's still not clear there's a benefit as we don't know what the variant will be that drives the next "Covid season" some time around late autumn; (or sooner if the high variant generation rate globally from remaining pandemic Covid drives an earlier breakthrough wave).

I see the role of the current vaccines are removing the majority of risk associated with the first live infection as we move to endemic Covid.  The risks of any possible course of action for children - without any indication of vulnerability - towards the low end of the 5-11 age range are so low that it's difficult to reach an objective view on what the best option is.  There are no bad options IMO.

My personal take is pretty close to Si dH's. 

Thanks for that.  I'm a little out of date on children's vaccinations being 72 yrs old!  I'm assuming that children still get the other vaccines I mentioned or are those different now?

Either way., my point is that children don't get to choose! 

I voted yes - and personally for our family again, our children will get vaccinated.

This will reduce transmission and disruption in schools (incl for teachers) risk of infecting elderly grandparents, improve their immunity along with natural immunity from infection, and sit alongside all their other vaccinations. Plus allow us to go on holiday to Europe, and reduce disruption to our lives generally because one of us is infected. I had so many jabs in my twenties for yellow fever, hepatitis etc I see it as the same thing.

One thing I've noticed anecdotally is that omicron seems to be worse in children than delta / alpha, and the next variant might be more so. I know several under 10 year olds who were really quite ill from it.

thumb down from me

i have a 3 and 10 year old and have no interest in getting them vaccinated for covid.

^^ this. If your kids haven't had the virus or had it a long time ago then vaccination makes sense because it will give them a level of protection they don't currently have. Otherwise it doesn't.

The statistics will tell you that the pros and cons for the child's health pale into insignificance compared with the danger from being run over on the walk to school.

On the other hand, the probability of being able to go to school (with all the associated benefits, along with the benefits to the wider society which the soon to be 5 will also enjoy) will be enhanced by 5-11s taking the vaccine.

If you read my subsequent post and/or looked at the at the JCVI analysis, you'll find that's not the case. JCVI analysis appeared to suggest that absences due to side effects (estimated using data from those kids who have had the jab already) would be slightly higher than absences saved due to the limited protection against getting covid. Unless I completely misread it. (I did find this surprising. I assume it was in the context of isolation requirements being removed. At that point it makes more sense.)