Why do British experts oppose jabbing under-18s against Covid-19 - Daily Mail

While some argue that the only way out of the pandemic is vaccinating the entire population, including children, others, among them highly respected doctors and researchers, have a different view: that it might be safer to let most youngsters catch Covid and develop natural immunity than have the jab.

In the US children aged between 12 and 15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine.

Last Monday health chiefs announced that hundreds of thousands of children aged 12 and older, who are at higher risk from coronavirus infection, will be offered a Covid shot.

This they say will provide ‘indirect protection’, preventing these children contracting the virus and possibly unknowingly passing it on to their vulnerable family member.

It means she is highly vulnerable to the virus.

Despite having shielded since the start of the pandemic – she barely left home – Christina caught Covid in December last year and spent three weeks in intensive care.

But he’ll also be helping to protect other vulnerable people in society, and himself.’.

Young men are said to be at a slight increased risk of this.

And only the Pfizer jab is approved at present for use in children aged 12 to 17.

Meanwhile, the risk of a healthy child dying from the virus is so small it’s hard to put a figure on it.

Scientists recently looked at death records in England and concluded that 25 people under 18 died as a direct result of the Covid virus up to the end of February.

So far Public Health England data shows that 469,982 children had Covid, meaning it led to about five deaths per 100,000 child infections.

This has led some scientists – including those on the JCVI panels – to conclude the risk of the jab, however small, is greater than the risk of Covid to most children.

Professor Robert Dingwall, a JCVI member, caused a stir when he wrote last month: ‘Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection, than by asking them to take the possible risk of a vaccine.’.

Although the risk was tiny – vastly smaller than for many other commonly taken medicines – the risk of severe Covid illness for those aged 18 to 30 was even lower, and so this age group is no longer offered that particular jab.

Many have suggested it’s vital to look beyond the personal health risk the virus poses to children and consider the wider impacts that a continuing pandemic causes, in terms of disruption of education, and wider mental health.

We vaccinate school-age children against flu every year and Covid is more fatal than flu, even for young children.

Prof Tang argues that the pandemic will only truly end once all children – including babies – are jabbed.

He added: ‘There are many people who are still vulnerable to Covid.

This delay in vaccinating children will have consequences.’?

The JCVI has said it’s not clear how effective it would be to jab children, in an effort to stop the virus spreading to older, less resilient members of the community.

It is clear that vaccinating children aged 12 to 17 would dramatically decrease the number of overall Covid cases.

But paediatrician and JCVI member Professor Adam Finn wrote: ‘There’s a lot of discussion about the merits of immunising children to protect adults but surprisingly little about the importance of immunising adults to protect children and their education.

If this were to be done via infection, at least six million children would need to catch the virus, she said, adding: ‘Each one also potentially infecting someone else.

It would seem that allowing the virus to spread unchecked in children may be a gamble

Figures on Thursday showed 618,903 people in England and Wales using the Covid app were sent alerts telling them to self isolate last week

A: Figures on Thursday showed 618,903 people in England and Wales using the Covid app were sent alerts telling them to self isolate last week