# Pfizer/BioNTech Covid jab may be offered to 12-year-olds in Europe from June



## Northerner (Apr 30, 2021)

BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine, jointly developed with Pfizer, should be available to 12- to 15-year-olds in Europe from June, the chief executive of the German company has said.

Uğur Şahin said BioNTech had submitted its application for emergency approval of vaccines for this age group in the US at the start of April, and next Wednesday would be ready to submit the application for approval by the European Medicines Agency.

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is already approved in the US and the EU for those 16 years of age and older. Vaccinating children is seen as a crucial next step towards herd immunity and ending the pandemic.

The prospect of getting older children inoculated before the next school year starts would also relieve the strain on parents, who are juggling the demands of homeschooling while keeping up with jobs.









						Pfizer/BioNTech Covid jab may be offered to 12-year-olds in Europe from June
					

BioNTech submitting applications in US and Europe for vaccine to be available to those aged 12-15




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Inka (Apr 30, 2021)

Inevitable as it will be hard controlling spread without children being vaccinated.


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 30, 2021)

If the adults are all vaccinated, it makes little difference whether all the children are. Still a good idea, mind, if you are aiming for elimination of the possibility of variants appearing


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 30, 2021)

This caught my attention last night in Tim Spectors latest update. He said if you have already had covid, then the younger you are the more likely you are to have a bad effect from a vaccine. 

See video at 4:15


----------



## mikeyB (May 4, 2021)

What he said was you may get a worse effect from the vaccine, not a bad effect the younger you are if you have had Covid.

That is actually what you might expect, simply because youthful immune systems are at their peak, so produce more vivid side effects from the vaccine, particularly if previously infected.


----------



## Amity Island (May 5, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> What he said was you may get a worse effect from the vaccine, not a bad effect the younger you are if you have had Covid.


HI Mikeyb,

That isn't what I heard. I'm convinced he said those worried about getting a "bad" effect not "worse".

I'm also not convinced what benefit children would have from a covid vaccine.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 6, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I'm also not convinced what benefit children would have from a covid vaccine.


Children benefit much less than older adults from the protection against the virus, but there have been a few cases of sickness and deaths in children, and there seems to be some evidence of long covid (though I'm not sure that'll end up being significant for children).

Regardless, children (like the rest of us) would benefit from all these restrictions going and controlling the virus effectively  will allow that. They're a significant proportion of the population so allowing them to be vaccinated seems helpful. Not so much in the short term, but it seems possible that as autumn starts we'll want a higher proportion of the population to be vaccinated (because of a variant which is a bit more infectious and a bit less well handled by existing immunity).

On the whole I'm optimistic: I suspect the vaccines will be fine against variants and that there's a good chance that (in the wealthy countries that have vaccinated effectively) we won't need to worry about this virus for much longer.

Makes sense to make plans to offer vaccinations to children, even so. I doubt we'll actually do it much (maybe offer it to children of vulnerable parents and the like).


----------



## pm133 (May 6, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Children benefit much less than older adults from the protection against the virus, but there have been a few cases of sickness and deaths in children, and there seems to be some evidence of long covid (though I'm not sure that'll end up being significant for children).
> 
> Regardless, children (like the rest of us) would benefit from all these restrictions going and controlling the virus effectively  will allow that. They're a significant proportion of the population so allowing them to be vaccinated seems helpful. Not so much in the short term, but it seems possible that as autumn starts we'll want a higher proportion of the population to be vaccinated (because of a variant which is a bit more infectious and a bit less well handled by existing immunity).
> 
> ...


The number of children affected by either covid or post viral symptoms must be vanishingly small and the number who have these things without having underlying health issues must be close to zero.

Personally, I don't think we should be vaccinating children solely to protect adults once all adults are fully vaccinated, even though vaccines are not 100% protective. Especially given that children are essentially not affected by this.

On balance, I think that once all adults are fully vaccinated, we should probably be sending vaccines (in excess of our booster needs) to other countries to help prevent further mutations coming in via airports etc.

5 weeks to go before all restrictions are removed, if you believe our clown of a Prime Minister.


----------



## Amity Island (May 6, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Children benefit much less than older adults from the protection against the virus, but there have been a few cases of sickness and deaths in children,


The truth is, we just don't know about long term affects of the new vaccines, so why would anyone want children to take this risk for basically little benefit to the child? We've currently got extremely low levels of the virus, low deaths, low strain on the NHS and we are now out of panedemic levels.


----------



## Amity Island (May 6, 2021)

Why would a parent basically force their own child to take something they themselves know nothing about? There may well be instances where a child may benefit, but that doesn't equal mass vaccination for all. People are talking about these "jabs" like they're giving out sweets. These mRNA vaccines are next century technology, not your traditional inactive vaccines which we've been using for decades.

A child basically has no say in the matter, but who suffers if things go wrong? the parent?

I'd draw the line at where you can decide for yourself and decide for others, when risks are so vanishing minimal.


----------



## mikeyB (May 6, 2021)

I agree, vaccinating kids age 12 is probably over the top, the chances of an adverse reaction to the vaccine are probably greater than getting a bad dose of Covid, or dying. And they can carry on working on the virus  till it behaves itself and just becomes an occasional irritant. That’s the road map of all non fatal (usually) viruses.


----------



## Amity Island (May 6, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> I agree, vaccinating kids age 12 is probably over the top, the chances of an adverse reaction to the vaccine are probably greater than getting a bad dose of Covid, or dying. And they can carry on working on the virus  till it behaves itself and just becomes an occasional irritant. That’s the road map of all non fatal (usually) viruses.


MikeyB,

I wish you and people like you were advising the government on these matters.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 6, 2021)

pm133 said:


> The number of children affected by either covid or post viral symptoms must be vanishingly small and the number who have these things without having underlying health issues must be close to zero.


It makes sense to go through the testing to make vaccines available for children with underlying health issues. And (likely) their siblings and maybe close friends (some of who might want to be vaccinated).

I'm guessing not that many children will take it. But as I understand it there's been little difficulty getting volunteers for the trials so maybe I'm wrong.

I'm also guessing the vaccines to be offered won't be AstraZeneca or J&J. Rather, the offer would be a single dose of Pfizer or maybe one of the yet to be approved ones. So likely comparatively expensive, which would again suggest against widespread use.


Amity Island said:


> We've currently got extremely low levels of the virus, low deaths, low strain on the NHS and we are now out of panedemic levels.


Yes, but suppose that changes in the autumn? Again, I'm not saying I think it's likely. I think things will be fine, but I also think it makes sense to do some planning for worse outcomes.


----------



## Amity Island (May 6, 2021)

Northerner said:


> BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine, jointly developed with Pfizer, should be available to 12- to 15-year-olds in Europe from June, the chief executive of the German company has said.
> 
> Uğur Şahin said BioNTech had submitted its application for emergency approval of vaccines for this age group in the US at the start of April, and next Wednesday would be ready to submit the application for approval by the European Medicines Agency.
> 
> ...


And in America they are aiming to roll it out to the 2 to 11 year olds.









						Pfizer to seek authorization for Covid-19 vaccine for children ages 2 to 11 in September
					

Pfizer expects to file for full US Food and Drug Administration approval for its Covid-19 vaccine for people ages 16 to 85 this month, and will seek emergency use authorization for its vaccine for children ages 2 to 11 in September, the company said during an earnings call on Tuesday.




					edition.cnn.com


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 6, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> And in America they are aiming for roll it out to the 2 to 11 year olds.


Which does seem to me to be a bit of a stretch. I suspect they don't expect to be vaccinating very many such young children. Maybe a few of the older ones in special circumstances.

But I'm not surprised Pfizer's seeking authorisation. Why wouldn't they? (If they aren't already, I'm sure they're considering looking at the pet market now that we know that cats and dogs can (occasionally) catch the virus.)


----------



## pm133 (May 7, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> It makes sense to go through the testing to make vaccines available for children with underlying health issues.


Yeah that's reasonable.


----------



## Amity Island (May 7, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I suspect they don't expect to be vaccinating very many such young children. Maybe a few of the older ones in special circumstances.


Yes that does seem reasonable, as we mustn't forget these vaccines are only emergency authorised, so as you say, really, given we have no long term data on them, they should only be given to the absolutely minimum of people who really do benefit from them in a way that exceeds the potential risks. If they are rolled out to everyone, then what happens in the event a problem arises in the years ahead?


----------



## mikeyB (May 10, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> If they are rolled out to everyone, then what happens in the event a problem arises in the years ahead?


Problems in the years ahead? Are all subsequent health problems to be ascribed to an immunisation 5 years earlier? 10 years? 25 years? Countless Millions have been vaccinated, and the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, with a tiny few who have developed clotting problems, some of whom had a previous history of clotting problems.

I’m surprised you can walk out of the front door with all the risks entailed with crossing the road. I don’t know if you drive,  but that’s more likely to produce life changing damage or death than a vaccine ever will.

The main argument for not vaccinating most children lies in the cost/benefit analysis, not the spurious risk that they might get some other illness later in life, as has happened to all of us on this forum.


----------



## Amity Island (May 10, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> Problems in the years ahead? Are all subsequent health problems to be ascribed to an immunisation 5 years earlier? 10 years? 25 years? Countless Millions have been vaccinated, and the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, with a tiny few who have developed clotting problems, some of whom had a previous history of clotting problems.
> 
> I’m surprised you can walk out of the front door with all the risks entailed with crossing the road. I don’t know if you drive,  but that’s more likely to produce life changing damage or death than a vaccine ever will.
> 
> The main argument for not vaccinating most children lies in the cost/benefit analysis, not the spurious risk that they might get some other illness later in life, as has happened to all of us on this forum.


I just think that a bit caution wouldn't go a miss. Nobody can deny that there is no long term data for these new mRNA vaccines and that there is little historical data for previous uses of them either.


----------



## Robin (May 10, 2021)

I think as a species we have become very risk averse. Nobody these days would sail off to look for an uknown new land armed just with a compass and sextant.


----------



## Amity Island (May 10, 2021)

Robin said:


> I think as a species we have become very risk averse. Nobody these days would sail off to look for an uknown new land armed just with a compass and sextant.


And even more so when there is little to no benefit from taking that risk.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 10, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> And even more so when there is little to no benefit from taking that risk.


Again, as far as I can tell the idea's just to permit use in children, not to try and give the vaccination to all children over 12. I remember hearing a few interviews of teenagers distressed that they weren't allowed to have a vaccination; these were children who were vulnerable in various ways who very much wanted to be vaccinated so that they could return to school and start seeing their friends.

I presume in the fullness of time the government will make it easier to choose which vaccine is given. I could imagine some people nervous about the mRNA vaccines being OK with one or other of the vaccines producing using other technologies. (There's at least one French one using inactivated virus, so a very traditional model.)

(Though it looks like the EU is giving up on the Oxford/AstraZeneca one, preferring the Pfizer one.)


----------



## Inka (May 10, 2021)

There was a BBC article recently about children desperate to have the vaccine who were clinically vulnerable. Obviously it would be something they’d welcome. I’ll see if I can find the article - here we are:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-56765176

.


----------



## Amity Island (May 10, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Again, as far as I can tell the idea's just to permit use in children, not to try and give the vaccination to all children over 12.


I hope that is the case, however, if the american strategy to vaccinate all those from 2+ from september as the previous link I posted is followed here, that won't be the case.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 10, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I hope that is the case, however, if the american strategy to vaccinate all those from 2+ from september as the previous link I posted is followed here, that won't be the case.


That story says they want it authorised for use in children over 2, not that they're intending to use it on everyone over 2.

As I understand it there's a significant proportion of US adults who're unlikely to accept vaccination (20% or so) so attempting to make it part of the normal childhood vaccinations seems unlikely to be successful even if anyone wanted to try.

Presuming the virus lingers for years, if it turns out there are some long term effects on children from infection (which seems to me unlikely but not impossible) I could imagine there being calls for vaccination of younger children. (Even if the effects were relatively rare.)

I could also imagine some calls for vaccination for international travel: I'd bet if you were 12 and wanted to travel to Australia they'd be much happier if you were vaccinated. (Presuming the vaccines gain approval for those ages.)


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 11, 2021)

A bunch of epidemiologists & vaccine people have been posting "Why We Should Vax Kids" pieces. This is a pretty accessible one: https://gidmk.medium.com/vaccinating-children-against-covid-19-ad9d8801a4e


----------



## Amity Island (May 11, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> A bunch of epidemiologists & vaccine people have been posting "Why We Should Vax Kids" pieces. This is a pretty accessible one: https://gidmk.medium.com/vaccinating-children-against-covid-19-ad9d8801a4e


Here in the BMJ last week, a disussion on "why we shouldn't vaccinate kids".

Simply put, there is no justification under "emergency use" (as there is no emergency facing children from covid19) to mass vaccinate. However, children at particular risk may still wish to receive a vaccine.

"Unlike for adults, however, the likelihood of severe outcomes or death associated with covid-19 infection is very low for children, undermining the appropriateness of an emergency use authorization for child covid-19 vaccines."

"Unlike for adults, the rarity of severe covid-19 outcomes for children means that trials cannot demonstrate that the balance of the benefits of vaccination against the potential adverse effects are favorable to the children themselves. In short, given the rarity of severe clinical courses and limited clarity of risks, the criteria for emergency use authorization do not appear to be met for children.

"Even in the likely scenario that no significant adverse events materialize, we may still pay a price for the pursuit of emergency use authorizations for covid-19 vaccines in children."









						Covid vaccines for children should not get emergency use authorization - The BMJ
					

Emergency use authorization for mass child vaccination presents a different balance of risks and benefits than it did for adults, say Wesley Pegden, Vinay Prasad, and Stefan Baral The rapid [...]More...




					blogs.bmj.com


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 11, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Here in the BMJ last week, a disussion on "why we shouldn't vaccinate kids".
> 
> Simply put, there is no justification under "emergency use" (as there is no emergency facing children from covid19) to mass vaccinate. However, children at particular risk may still wish to receive a vaccine.
> 
> ...


A rejoinder: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1391968944328695809


----------



## Amity Island (May 11, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> A rejoinder:
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1391968944328695809


My response to that is still the same.

There is no justification under "emergency use" (as there is no emergency facing children from covid19) to mass vaccinate. However, children at particular risk may still wish to receive a vaccine.

For the reason that the emergency use vaccines have no long term safety data.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 11, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> However, children at particular risk may still wish to receive a vaccine.


Like those who are significantly overweight? Did you notice the article said "58% of the hospitalized children had no underlying medical condition."?

I must admit I'm not at all sure an effort at mass vaccination of children is that likely to be considered in the UK. All I've heard from government advisors suggests they take the view that children are generally at too low a risk to justify vaccinating them all. I guess that may change if other countries do it.

I do think it's worth considering it once we've offered a vaccination to all adults, if we can get supplies of the mRNA vaccines (or others which look similarly safe).


----------



## Amity Island (May 12, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> AlI I've heard from government advisors suggests they take the view that children are generally at too low a risk to justify vaccinating them all.


I agree with that.


----------

