That JCVI statement in more detail.
gov.uk/government/pub…
It's clear that their top priority was "reductions in hospitalisations and deaths in the population".
1/
gov.uk/government/pub…
It's clear that their top priority was "reductions in hospitalisations and deaths in the population".
1/
They move on to considering vaccine safety - but say, in effect, there's not enough data.
But many other countries have been vaccinated children without significant safety signals.
But many other countries have been vaccinated children without significant safety signals.
They explain why they recommend vaccination of 12-17yos with certain conditions increasing their risk (and suggest there will be more detail to follow).
And recommend vaccinating those who are household contacts of immunosuppressed.
3/
And recommend vaccinating those who are household contacts of immunosuppressed.
3/
Because "The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain" they conclude that "…the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks"
I'm not convinced this follows.
Just because benefits "are uncertain" does not mean they don't exist.
And many would argue that they are substantial, even if they cannot yet be estimated precisely.
5/
Just because benefits "are uncertain" does not mean they don't exist.
And many would argue that they are substantial, even if they cannot yet be estimated precisely.
5/
In a section headed "Direct health benefits" they consider the fact that few children without underlying conditions will be seriously ill if they get Covid-19.
Oddly (given the section's heading) they then move on to discussing possible VAERs.
Oddly (given the section's heading) they then move on to discussing possible VAERs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
