The Minister of Vaccines denied that he did not listen to experts because he insisted government It has not yet been decided whether to vaccinate healthy children between 12 and 15 years old with the coronavirus.
Nadim Zahavi He said that if the UK’s chief medical officer recommends vaccination, then “absolutely” is the right approach, but he said he does not want to “predetermine” this.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) decided to support this initiative not only on health grounds, because the risk of Covid-19 to young adolescents is so low.
But Professor Chris Whitty and three other chief medical officers in the UK are reviewing the broader benefits of vaccinating for this age group, such as minimizing absenteeism, and are expected to announce their findings within a few days.
The government is awaiting their suggestions before making a final decision, but the ministers said they are eager to authorize a wider promotion.
Speaking of the sky Trevor Phillips On Sunday, Mr. Zahavi said: “We have not yet made any decision, so we have not yet decided not to listen to experts.
“On the contrary, all four ministers, Secretary of State Sajid Javid And his other ministers in the decentralized government have agreed to ask the chief medical officer to convene a panel of experts, including JCVI, in order to be able to advise us on what we should do with healthy 12-15 year old children. “
He said that if the child is approved to be vaccinated with the coronavirus, the consent of the parents of healthy children aged 12 to 15 will be sought.
“I can definitely make such a guarantee,” he said.
But at Times Radio, he said that children between 12 and 15 years old can ignore their parents’ wishes, “if they are deemed capable of making decisions and all information is available.”
Mr. Zahawi told the T&G plan: “What you basically have to do is to ensure that clinicians discuss this issue with parents and teenagers. If they are deemed capable of making a competent decision, then the decision will take effect. Approve of what the teenager decides to do. .”
At the same time, Professor Peter Openshaw, a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threat Advisory Group (Nervtag), which advises the government, told BBC Breakfast that he was “a little surprised” by JCVI’s decision.
“We do know that the virus is very widespread among people of this age, and if we can reduce the infection rate and prevent a further surge in infection that may be late in the winter, then this is the need to become immune,” he said.
“The best way to get immunization is to get a vaccination. There has never been so much information in the past. It is completely wrong to think that there is not enough research.”
Professor Openshaw added: “In my opinion, public health benefits are very, very important. We must take a broader view. Unless we do reduce the infection rate of this particular population, it will be very, very difficult to prevent (Covid- 19’s) further large-scale recurrence.
“What I want to say is that teenagers are often one of the most selfless and generous people in society. They often think deeply about these moral and ethical issues, and they also want to protect others.
“So I think many teenagers, in fact, are more willing to get vaccinated if they see comprehensive evidence.”
On Friday, JCVI approved the expansion of the vaccination program to another 200,000 children aged 12 to 15 with underlying health problems.
But after investigating the potential side effects, they did not recommend a full rollout, such as the extremely rare myocardial inflammation event after Pfizer or Moderna vaccination, that is, myocarditis.
Although this situation may lead to a short-term hospitalization for observation and then usually a quick recovery, JCVI concluded that the medium and long-term results are still uncertain and more follow-up time is needed to understand the situation more clearly.
JCVI Covid-19 Immunization Chair Professor Wei Shen Lim said that the organization’s view is that the benefits of vaccination for this age group are “slightly greater than the potential harm”, but the benefits are “too small” to support universal promotion at this stage.
