Wednesday’s decision is at odds with the JCVI’s previous statements on vaccinating children.
In September, the JCVI advised the British government that they were not recommending the widespread vaccination of healthy 12 to 15-year-olds against Covid-19. They said that “the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12- to 15-year-olds at this time”.
Back in September, the experts said some of their caution was required because of the “admittedly small ” risk of a rare heart inflammation arising in those aged 12-15 after receiving Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. It said it preferred to wait for more information about reports of myocarditis in young people following vaccination in the United States.
JCVI member, Professor Adam Finn, told Sky News that ‘the latest data from paediatric cardiologists in the US shows that there are concerns about the long-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccine for children’. Professor Finn added that he believed the Covid-19 jabs could be doing “more harm than good” as the “risk of Covid is so small in healthy children”.
‘NATURAL IMMUNITY MAY LAST LONGER’ THAN COVID-19 VACCINATION
Significantly, in the JCVI’s statement on the vaccination of children aged five to 11 years old, the UK Government’s vaccine advisors conceded that “natural immunity may last longer” than vaccination for Covid.
The JCVI also pointed out that UK statistics show that over 85 per cent of children in this age group will have had prior infection by the end of January 2022. The committee notes that natural immunity gained from prior infection will help to protect children against future disease.
“It is estimated that over 85% of all children aged 5 to 11 will have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection by the end of January 2022 with roughly half of these infections due to the Omicron variant. Natural immunity arising from prior infection will contribute towards protection against future infection and severe disease.”
‘EXTREMELY LOW RISK’
Outlining key considerations surrounding the decision, the JCVI assert that Covid poses a very minimal risk to most children aged 5-11. Most children, it said, are at “extremely low risk” of severe infection.
“Most children aged 5 to 11 have asymptomatic or mild disease following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Some may experience post-COVID-19 symptoms lasting longer than a few days. Children aged 5 to 11 years who are not in a COVID-19 clinical risk group are at extremely low risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease. Of those admitted to hospital over the last few weeks comprising the Omicron wave, the average length of hospital stay was 1 to 2 days. A proportion of these admissions are for precautionary reasons.”
VACCINE OFFERS ONLY SHORT-TERM PROTECTION TO CHILDREN
The JCVI also notes that vaccination of children who are not in a clinical risk group is only predicted to “prevent a small number of hospital admissions and intensive care admissions in the population.” Further, it states that the Covid vaccine “would only provide short-term protections against non-severe infection (asymptomatic and symptomatic infection that does not require hospital-based care).”
Further, it states: “The extent of these impacts is highly uncertain. They are closely related to future levels of infection in the population in the period following vaccination; these in turn are influenced by the timing, size and severity of any future waves of infection, and the characteristics of any new variants that may dominate future waves of infection. Vaccination is commonly associated with systemic and local reactions (such as headache, fatigue and local arm pain) which typically resolve within 1 to 3 days.”
The JCVI also acknowledged that the Pfizer vaccine is “less well matched” to Omicron, and that effectiveness wanes from 70% after 10 weeks.
“Data from adults indicate that effectiveness against symptomatic infection due to Omicron (Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine) wanes over time from around 70% shortly after 2 vaccine doses to around 25% after 10 weeks and 10% after 20 weeks,” the report indicates.
NO EVIDENCE THAT VACCINATION RELIEVES PRESSURE ON SCHOOLS
The JCVI also points out that there is no clear proof that vaccination against Covid-19 had an impact on reducing school absences. In June, the UK’s chief medical officer Prof Chris Whitty said that vaccinating children could limit damage caused to schooling, and that children should be vaccinated to ensure their education could continue their education. Unions echoed his comments, calling for pupils to be fully vaccinated before making a return to class. It appears the argument made in favour of vaccination to save disruption is now without much basis, with the JCVI statting: “Overall JCVI considered that the benefits of vaccination in preventing school absences were indeterminate.”
The report further states that: “Vaccination of children aged 5 to 11 who are not in a clinical risk group is not expected to have an impact on the current wave of Omicron infection.”
Possible benefits put forward by the committee are done so in a cautionary approach, with the report stating: “The size of these benefits will depend on the timing and severity of any future wave of infection.”
CONCERNS ABOUT ROLL-OUT IMPACT ON OTHER VACCINE PROGRAMMES
In terms of vaccine deployment, the JCVI states that it has concerns about the impact a roll out of the Covid vaccine for this programme would have on ‘other essential vaccine programmes’ including for HPV, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) and MenACWY (meningitis). The JCVI also asserted that the roll-out of a vaccine for 5–11-year-olds is ‘complex’ and requires ‘substantial time, care and resources’.
“Delivery of a vaccination programme that involves an injection to younger children is complex,” the vaccine advisors state.
“It will typically require longer appointment times than for older children, child friendly settings and appropriately trained staff. Substantial time, care and resources will be necessary to deliver a positive programme. A poor experience of vaccination could adversely affect vaccine confidence towards other immunisation programmes available at older ages, such as against meningitis and human papilloma virus (HPV).”
Despite the assertions made in the report, the committee agreed that the potential health benefits of vaccination are greater than the potential health risks when not including the opportunity costs of a programme to vaccinate all children aged 5 to 11 due to this being part of a pandemic response.
On Twitter, some voiced concerns that there was an attempt at play to ‘push liability’ on parents. One user wrote, “The govt push the liability onto parents, so when something goes wrong they can say, you made the decision yourself, you were not forced, ergo informed consent. Buyer accepts all responsibility.”
Others pointed to the cost of more vaccine roll-outs, and NHS time required to administer them. One user said extending vaccines to young children was, aside from anything else, “a staggering waste of money and resources.”
Someone else, upon reading the report, asked: “Good grief. How do they manage to interpret their own advice as anything other than children should NOT be given it?”