Thread by @ProfColinDavis

It's been a long wait (it always is with JCVI) but we can finally read the JCVI minutes.

So let's take a look at their arguments against vaccination. 🧵

I'll focus on minutes from Thurs 13 May 2021, which sets out the arguments against vaccination. This has been attracting some attention, understandably, as it confirms the panel's interest in #HerdImmunityViaInfection

For a more comprehensive thread:

https://twitter.com/karamballes/status/1454235882400145414?s=20

"Children rarely develop severe disease or die of COVID-19; even children with underlying comorbidities have a very low risk".

Really?

Over 10,000 children have been hospitalised in UK.

Over 100 children have died.

Over 10,000 have been ill for over a year (ONS estimate).

"There are limited data on COVID-19 vaccine use in children; there is a need to consider the mild transient illness of COVID-19 versus potential rare adverse events associated with vaccination"

The vaccine is safe and effective. COVID in children isn't always mild or transient.

"All adults will be vaccinated and there is a low risk of child-to-child transmission. Staff and parents will be protected."

FFS. These are supposed to be experts. Children infect each other - a lot. They also infect vaccinated adults: teachers & parents. (graph: @PaulMainwood)

"Childhood infections reflect adult infection in the community; vaccinating adults will lead to lower community infection rates and lower risk of transmission to children".

Nope. Transmission in schools drives the epidemic (especially when adults are mostly vaccinated).

"There is an argument for allowing the virus to circulate amongst children which could provide broader immunity to the children and boost immunity in adults."

And here we have it: #HerdImmunityViaMassInfection

A second ago the story was that "there is a low risk of child-to-child transmission". But no-one really took that seriously. JCVI understands full well that children will spread the virus amongst each other-and that's a good thing! Catch Covid to get immunity! (Huh, what??)

But it's not just about the children getting infected. By then transmitting to adults they'll be acting as live boosters. And again, that's seen as a good thing.

Recall that this is the same committee that outright rejects the notion that there could be any grounds for considering whether vaccination of children might protect adults. That would be completely unethical, apparently (why would children want to protect their (grand)parents?)

But allowing children to be infected is good, cos they can infect the rest of the household and boost immunity. Brilliant! What a splendid idea. (No, none of this makes any sense to me, either).

"Vaccines could be used for those who need it most; ie high-risk populations, such as the elderly, in other countries"

This is such bullshit sophistry. We've wasted more vaccine than we've given to children. We're hoarding huge amounts. We've helped Big Pharma maintain patents.

Of course we should have done more to ensure poor countries have access to vaccines and we still should. But that's completely independent of the question of vaccinating children. Vaccine scarcity is a product of capitalism and greed.

So there we have it. Nothing too surprising for those who've been paying any attention. Dingwall was at this meeting and was making the same arguments publicly at this time. But it's confirmation JCVI openly discussed children as vectors of transmission to boost adult immunity.

By downplaying the risk to children they took a very different line to other Western nations.
As a consequence hundreds of thousands of children have been infected in the last few months alone. Some have died. Some will be ill for a long time. Some will lose parents.

Ultimately, this is about values. I think this was the wrong choice. My belief is that most people would feel the same way, were it explained to them clearly. But the decision was put in the hands of people like Dingwall, for whom "pretty much anything we do merely prolongs life"