The British Vaccination Committee (the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, JCVI) took the opposite view of many of its equivalents elsewhere in Europe and the United States, by refusing, Friday, September 3, to recommend vaccination against Covid-19 for children aged 12 to 15. “The health benefits of vaccination only marginally outweigh the potential risks [liés à une infection au coronavirus]. This profit margin is considered too narrow for us to recommend mass vaccination of healthy 12-15 year olds ”, the independent body justified itself in a press release.
However, he had given the green light to the vaccination of under-16s from the end of 2020, in very specific cases – that in particular of adolescents suffering from “Severe neurological disabilities”. The highly respected British National Medicines Agency (MHRA) has also approved the use of the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine for 12-17 year olds in June (and that of Moderna in August). But in recent weeks, the JCVI has resisted all pressures: from the Johnson government, but also from experts and part of the teaching world. He stayed on “An extremely cautious position”, Thus conceded the professor of pediatrics Adam Finn, member of the committee, at the end of August.
The JCVI thus contented itself, at the end of July, with extending its recommendation to over 12s. “At risk of complications” virus-related or ” in touch “ with immunodeficient people. The vaccination campaign was also open to 16 and 17 year olds in early August but for a single dose of Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine for the moment. The resistance of the JCVI is mainly motivated, according to its press release on Friday, by this “Proven link between anti-Covid messenger RNA vaccines and myocarditis [inflammations du myocarde]. This is an extremely rare negative reaction. But its medium and long term consequences are not known, and studies are underway ”.
Purely health analysis
JCVI members “Are not outright advocates of vaccination, they do not believe that foreign substances should be introduced into people’s bodies unless the benefit is obvious”, further explains sociologist Robert Dingwall, member of the committee, in the Financial Times. The JCVI adds that it stuck to a purely health analysis and only considered the strict health of children: “He is not in [ses] responsibilities to take into account the broader societal impacts of vaccination, such as the benefits of education. “ That the vaccination of 12-15 year olds allows young people to stay in school was therefore not taken into account in his decision.
You have 41.9% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.
