As people much smarter than me have said, the issue of vaccinating children against #COVID19 is a tricky one
I urge caution if you think it is straightforward
A quick look at recent developments and decisions from around the world to put this into context
1/7
A quick recap of main considerations:
-Children's risk from #COVID19 is extremely low
-Vaccines are very safe but do have some rare adverse effects
-Vulnerable people in other countries need vaccinating, and supplies are limited
-Younger children are different from teens
2/7
First to Germany 🇩🇪
Following EMA approval of Pfizer for 12 - 15yo, their vaccine advisory committee is recommending the jab only for those with existing comorbidities putting them at higher risk
Their health ministry is recommending the jab only for 12-15yo who are higher risk for severe illness, live with vulnerable family members, or who are travelling over seas
After issuing EUA for 12-15yo, the FDA seem less certain about this being the correct route for younger children, given their different immunology, lower disease risk, lower transmission risk, and need for more safety data (see 🧵)
-Do benefits of vaccines for kids outweigh potential risks? (prob yes, but more data needed)
-Do we need to vaccinate kids to interrupt transmission? (maybe teens, unlikely younger)
-Can we justify vaccinating kids whilst vulnerable in LMICs waiting? (?)
6/7
These are thorny issues for the JCVI to consider for the short term: risks, benefits, and global equity
Even just for domestic policy, would vaccines be better given to kids, or as seasonal boosters for the vulnerable?
I'm grateful for those leaning into the uncertainty
7/7
It’s also useful to understand that there are 2 different types of decision here (depending on where you live)
- Policy makers deciding on risk balance across populations and prioritisation of resources
- Parents deciding on individual risk balance for their child/children
And of course, it is vitally important for teenagers that THEY have a say
I know that work is ongoing through the NIHR Transmission of COVID in Schools study network to get feedback and input from young people themselves on policy decision and implementation
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are some claims that the ongoing randomised trial of Daily Contact Testing (DCT) vs blanket quarantine/isolation in schools for cases of #COVID19 is "unethical"
Here is a short thread on why that is completely wrong
1/8
Randomised trials are indicated (ethical) when we have "equipoise", meaning we can't be sure which of some options is better
We want to get the best of all outcomes, e.g. a pill which is really good at treating mild coughs but frequently causes cancer is not good overall
2/8
For COVID-19 cases in schools, we know that we want to avoid transmission, but we also know that children missing school is harmful
There is equipoise as to whether the best of *all outcomes* is blanket quarantining of bubbles, or doing DCT
Some decent data is now emerging regarding prolonged symptoms after acute #COVID19 infection in children
Fortunately the data looks reassuring 👍
Low prevalence of prolonged symptoms in children, especially when compared to a control group
Let's take a look!
1/5
First, a large serology screening study from Switzerland 🇨🇭
No difference between seropositive and negative children with symptoms beyond 4 weeks (~10%), and similarly very low rates of symptoms at 6 months (2 & 4%)
Reports are of 600 child deaths from COVID-19 in the US, but no clarification of how many children died WITH COVID-19, or FROM COVID-19 (unlike adults, this is a big issue for kids data)
NB: The CDC estimates ~600 child deaths from flu annually