They dismiss PIMS-TS/MIS-C as uncommon and not proven to be caused by Covid-19. (I am comfortable with this.)
They then, similarly, dismiss "Long Covid" in children. Given (the clue's in the name) that it will take time for sequelae, and their duration, to become apparent; and the increasing evidence base on this, this seems an extremely brave decision (as Sir Humphrey would say).
They then briefly mention "indirect health benefits" (not infecting your parents and becoming an orphan etc) and dismiss them as not significant.

Another very brave decision. Where is the modelling?
Modelling assumptions would have to include the risk of vaccinated people being seriously ill (it's not negligible); the diminution in risk of transmission by somebody who's had 1 or 2 doses of vaccine (and the times after the doses)
I really want to see their predictions for the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths in the broader population, particularly in children's parents and grandparents.

I'd love to believe their judgement here isn't complacent. I fear it may be.
I anticipate more data and modelling will emerge over the next few weeks. I fear that it will show, clearly, that the indirect protections are very valuable, making this recommendation and its reasoning seem very feeble, at least in retrospect.
They should have made a decision on the balance of risks; but they appear to have systematically failed to weigh the evidence in support of vaccination appropriately; and they may also have given excessive weight to the risks.
They then move on to "wider…considerations", and suggest that a Covid-19 vaccination campaign might disrupt other important vaccination campaigns - including flu vaccination (which is less serious than Covid-19, and can more easily be prevented by mask-wearing etc.
I'm not convinced I buy this at all.

Generally, vaccination programmes enhance people's willingness to be vaccinated - including against other conditions. And attending for an appointment for one jab is an opportunity to give another "while you're here".
I'm afraid, this feels more like "another pretext" for their decision, not a genuine reason.
They then consider "non-health benefits" - and focus on loss of schooling. They seem to suggest that policies designed to reduce transmission in schools will be changed to allow more transmission in exchange for less disruptive isolation of contacts.
Such policy changes will, of course, increase transmission - more children will be infected (and as they're not vaccinated, they'll still continue to be admitted to hospital and die at the current, albeit low rates). And more parents and other contacts will, too.
But they may be right that such policy changes - however advisable or otherwise they may be - will reduce the loss of school for pupils.

Whether this is acceptable - well, you decide.
They do, however, say that "Should the government wish to consider vaccination of children and young adults aged less than 18 years with the primary aim of reducing the SARS-CoV2 infection rate (asymptomatic and symptomatic cases)…" a universal vax programme would be best.
Finally, they refer to more trials, and say they'll issue more advice as results emerge.

From the context (previous section on choice of vaccines) it might refer only to decisions if other vaccines are licensed (or, strictly, get emergency use authorisation).
I hope and suspect, however, that they will update their recommendations as new evidence emerges. They have dismissed data on Long Covid and on indirect benefits as not strong enough.

Further evidence will emerge, and may force them to recommend universal vaccination.
I think it's only a matter of time before we introduce universal vaccination of 5-17 year olds, and that JCVI's caution (overcaution IMO) in recommending this at this time will cause a lot of avoidable harm.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Peter English #FBPE

Peter English #FBPE Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @petermbenglish

21 Jul
That JCVI statement in more detail.…

It's clear that their top priority was "reductions in hospitalisations and deaths in the population".
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.
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.
Read 6 tweets
18 Jul
It has been announced that JCVI has recommended, or likely to recommend, that only at-risk adolescents be offered the vaccine. I suspect that they considered in their modelling only the direct costs to the health service of acute disease.
I would be particularly interested to see their workings on:

* The benefits to children of ending the pandemic and inevitable restrictions sooner;

* The harms from the secondary cases from the children, especially if teachers, parents or carers are infected;
* The effect of Covid-19 (directly or through self-isolation etc) on loss of school;

* And , crucially, given the growing evidence, the long term consequences on the children and adolescents of “Long Covid”.
Read 4 tweets
7 Jul
Doing trace and isolate properly is hugely resource intensive. Ideally you work out where they caught it and identify others potentially infected by the same source, and identify all the contacts that could become secondary cases and try to persuade them to isolate…
It took all of our resources in Surrey and Sussex for over a week to cope with one case in Feb 2020 There are few shortcuts, despite all we've learned (although there are a few more people to do the work).
It might be manageable if the number of new cases per day (in England) were in the very low hundreds - ideally less than 100.
Read 7 tweets
6 Jul
I think Hancock was eliminated for this reason.

The notorious video had obviously been kept back to be released when the moment was "right" for the conspirators.
It's all very Shakespearean, Caesar, knifed by senators at the base of the Curia in Pompeii.

And who stands to gain the most from this? (Putin?)
It seems all too convenient that, just when the government decided to let the disease rip to appease its ERG/CRG backbenchers, a new health secretary was appointed.
Read 7 tweets
3 Jul
I just referred to this #LBD film in an LBC interview.

I compared the Delta variant to the Spanish Armada gathering on the horizon; and said the PM, far from channelling Churchill, channelled Nelson, turning the blind eye to the telescope and declaring "I see no ships".
I pointed out that people who are vulnerable cannot rely on protection from vaccination.…
They have to rely on others to protect them. The most effective and least intrusive measure is mask wearing in enclosed public spaces, where ventilation is poor. (The less volume of air per person, the greater the risk.) Such as public transport.
Read 14 tweets
20 Jun
"Pandemic preparedness: UK government kept coronavirus modelling secret" @bmj_latest…
Why was it @PHE_UK that said publication would "damage national security"? Is such a decision a PHE responsibility (I doubt it)?
Unless it reveals details of plans to counter bioterrorism or warfare that potential attackers would not guess and would help them, how could publishing reports on pandemic / epidemic preparedness exercises possibly damage national security?
This seems completely implausible.

Just like the identical claims that delayed (until protests forced publication ofthe reports on the impact of Covid-19 on BAME people last year.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!