16 and 17 year olds will NOT need parental consent to get Covid vaccines, health chiefs reveal

1.3k

View
comments

Sixteen and 17-year-olds will not need parental consent to get the Covid vaccine, health chiefs have revealed as they open the door to jabbing younger teenagers.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) today recommended that the 1.4million people in the age groups should be offered the Pfizer jabs ‘as soon as possible’ with Professor Jonathan Van-Tam saying there was ‘no time to waste’.

Ministers have accepted this advice and the NHS is now preparing to dish out their first doses at centres across the country. Officials said they expected the first to be invited for jabs in ‘a very short number of weeks’.

There are currently no plans to offer the age group second doses, but scientists are reviewing more data to understand the risks of administering the jabs.

Officials close to the programme said a child would be able to give consent for the jab if they were able to understand the risks and benefits of any medical treatment.

The JCVI is also considering vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds, but they said they will need to review more safety data before they can update their recommendation for this group. 

Boris Johnson today called on families to listen to the advice from No10’s top scientists, saying that the committee was ‘among the best in the world’ and that the country should ‘take our lead from them’. 

Professor Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer for England, told a Downing Street press conference today that the first inoculations for 16 and 17-year-olds would be dished out ‘in a very short number of weeks’.

He said: ‘Children are going to start going back to colleges and sixths forms from September, and in Scotland that will be slightly earlier, so there is no time to waste in getting on with this.

‘The NHS has been kept informed of what is being deliberated for JCVI, it has been preparing for multiple options for very many weeks now and I would expect this programme will start in a very short number of weeks.’

He added there was ‘plentiful’ supply of the vaccines to meet the top scientists recommendation that 16 and 17-year-olds should be vaccinated.

A US study published this week found teenagers were around six times more likely to suffer a rare heart condition after their second Pfizer dose, although the overall risk was still very low. Britain’s medical regulator lists the heart condition as a very rare side-effect of the Pfizer jab and says most cases are ‘very mild’. 

Many experts welcomed the move to vaccinate people in younger age groups as ‘sensible’ and ‘another piece of the jigsaw for the UK to return to some kind of normality’. Some Independent SAGE members also heralded the move but said it was ‘too little, too late’ because young people cannot be double-jabbed before the autumn term.

Other scientists have, however, called the plans into question saying it was ‘pointless’ to vaccinate the age group because they are at such low risk from the virus and most already have immunity from previous infection. Office of National Statistics figures suggest up to 60 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds already have antibodies against Covid to fight off the virus.

The JCVI, which advises No10, last month ruled only over-12s with serious underlying health conditions or who live with a vulnerable adult should get jabs. 

The panel, made up of the country’s top experts, warned the ‘minimal health benefits’ did not outweigh the risks to justify vaccinating all children. It adopted a ‘precautionary approach’ because of a rare link between the jab and a cases of heart conditions called myocarditis and pericarditis.

Officials are keen to push the immunisation drive on to more youngsters in order to prevent an autumn surge in infections when they return to schools in September.

It comes after Britian’s Covid cases rose by five per cent in a week today to 29,312, the first time they have gone up in almost two weeks. Another 119 deaths were also recorded, which was up 30 per cent in seven days. 

It comes as: 

• Ministers get set to axe the controversial ‘amber-plus’ list, meaning holidays to Spain are back on for thousands of British sunseekers;  
• Boris Johnson snubbed Nicola Sturgeon‘s offer to meet her when he visits Scotland this week; 
• The Scottish government offers to pay people £50,000 to set up homes, families and businesses on its most remote and beautiful islands;
• UK’s daily Covid cases fell to another five-week low of 21,691 in just a 7 per cent drop on last week – as hospital admissions dip by 15 per cent;
• Study finds Covid survivors who were hooked up to a ventilator in hospital lost up to seven IQ points;
• Nicola Sturgeon is accused of ‘clinging on to large parts of people’s lives’ by keeping lockdown laws on masks and mass events ‘indefinitely’;
• British tourists queue for two hours to get through passport control after three hours of Covid admin to board flight at Malaga.

Speaking to reporters in Scotland, Mr Johnson said: ‘I think it’s very important that everybody in politics listens first to the clinicians and to the medical experts.

‘I would just urge all families thinking about this across the country to listen to the JCVI, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and immunisation.

‘They are extremely expert there, they’re amongst the best if not the best in the world, they know what’s safe and I think we should listen to them and take our lead from them.’

Asked about when the first doses would be administered, Professor Van-Tam told a press conference he believed it was ‘well achievable’ for the inoculations to be done within a term.

He said: ‘It is my confident expectation that this is well achievable within one term, but I think I would not want to go any further than that, without reference back to the deployment specialists who have honestly been thinking about this for weeks and weeks now.’

Asked whether 12 to 15-year-olds could also be vaccinated, Professor Van Tam said the JCVI was still considering this.

‘There is time to go very carefully and very safely on this,’ he said. ‘There is time to go at the speed of science and never faster than that. That is the intention here.’

He added: ‘We will give them (the JCVI) time to arrive at a further view when they are ready to arrive at it in terms of healthy 12 to 15-year-olds.

‘I think I wouldn’t want any of you to come away from this press briefing feeling that anything is ruled in or ruled out other than taking our time and following procedures procedures carefully and thoughtfully.’

The deputy chief medical officer added he would be ‘very much in favour’ of his two youngest children, aged 16 and 17, also being vaccinated.

He said every adult in his family had now been vaccinated, and that he was a ‘strong believer’ they were allowing people to live in a much more normal way with Covid for the foreseeable future. 

The Health Secretary Sajid Javid said: ‘Today’s advice from the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) means more young people aged 16 and over can benefit from Covid vaccines.

‘I have accepted their expert recommendations and I have asked the NHS to prepare to vaccinate those eligible as soon as possible.

‘The JCVI have not recommended vaccinating under-16s without underlying health conditions but will keep its position under review based on the latest data.’  

The JCVI reassessed their recommendation following the surge of infections in younger people in July, and following receiving more data on the safety of jabs. 

Scientists are divided over the hugely controversial topic of vaccinating children, given their tiny risk of dying or falling seriously ill if they catch Covid.

Microbiologist Professor David Livermore told MailOnline today: ‘Sixteen to 17-year-olds are at low risk of serious disease and, through exposure, are developing immunity anyway. 

‘We do not know if vaccine-induced immunity will prove the longer lasting, and the better contributor to herd immunity. Given this, I can see no good reason to prioritise vaccinating them.’

He added: ‘Limited vaccine supplies would be far better used in countries and regions with large vulnerable elderly populations who presently remain unvaccinated —  Australia, much of South East Asia and Latin America, as well as Africa.’ 

A group of 18 scientists including two SAGE advisers and Independent SAGE members backed the recommendation to jab children today but said it had come ‘too late’. 

Independent SAGE member and University College London scientist Professor Christina Pagel said: ‘While it is really good news that 16 and 17-year-olds can now benefit from the protection given by the highly effective vaccine, an opportunity to fully vaccinate students before the start of the next school term has been missed. The same decision even a month earlier would have allowed this.’

Queen Mary epidemiologist Dr Deepti Gurdasani also welcomed the plans but said the delay had put more young people at risk of suffering from ‘long Covid’. 

Dr Gurdasani said: ‘This late change means that many in this age group have been infected over the past weeks, with several developing chronic illness, when they could have been vaccinated.’

They have today submitted a paper to prestigious medical journal The Lancet calling on the JCVI to release its analysis that showed jabs could now be dished out to younger people. 

Experimental medicine expert and SAGE adviser Professor Peter Openshaw also backed the suggested plans to jab 16 and 17-year-olds today.

The Imperial College London expert told BBC Radio 4’s World at One he would be ‘completely happy’ if his own teenage children were jabbed.

Professor Openshaw said: ‘It is a very difficult individual decision isn’t it? If it was my own teenage child I would be completely happy about them being vaccinated.

‘Obviously we are concerned about the risks and there have been various concerns about things like myocarditis — extremely rare — and the risks of being infected and developing complications, even in people of this age, are considerable.

‘I think we just need to balance those different pressures, and my judgment is there is a lot to be said for vaccinating teenagers.’

Myocarditis is the scientific name for inflammation of the heart muscles. There have been suggestions that a string of cases among young adults in Israel and the US could be linked to the Pfizer jab. British regulators list this as a very rare potential side-effect of the Belgian-made jab, but say cases are ‘very mild’.

Professor Steven Riley, of Imperial College London and co-author of the React study which has been tracking the outbreak, said that the latest results from the study would ‘support’ extending the vaccination programme to 16 and 17 year olds. 

He told LBC: ‘Our data would support that in that we’d expect there to be a really good knock-on effect from extending the vaccinations for that group.’

The study — based on random swab-testing of tens of thousands of people across England — found a ‘lot of transmission’ among secondary school-aged children.

The Pfizer vaccine is approved for children aged 12-and-over.

Professor Riley added: ‘If that could be prioritised that would also reduce transmission’

‘What we should probably think about is September, October, November: how much immunity can we have in order to hopefully keep prevalence going down, or if prevalence does start to go up a little bit for it to be as slowly as possible, so there is justification in extending those vaccinations down.

‘But we have to balance against the other needs for the vaccine as well.’

It comes as Universities minister Michelle Donelan this morning refused to confirm whether parental consent would be needed for youngsters to get vaccinated, merely saying advice from the JCVI was ‘imminent’.

Asked whether parents would be consulted on whether they wanted their children to receive a vaccine, she told Sky News she would not ‘pre-empt’ the announcement.

Ms Donelan: ‘As a representative of the Government I am waiting for the JCVI update on this which could be today but it is very imminent. As I have already said I am not going to preempt a policy announcement.’ 

Asked why the Government has had a change of heart on moving the roll-out on to children this morning, Ms Donelan said: ‘We haven’t announced that.’

She added: ‘What we’re doing is waiting for the JCVI announcement.

‘At every stage throughout the pandemic we’ve adopted their advice on this. 

‘They are the experts of course when we’re determining the vaccine rollout and we’ll await their imminent announcement shortly.

‘We are awaiting the feedback from the JCVI and then we will update accordingly, so we haven’t actually had a change of heart, there’s been no policy announcement.’

Ms Donelan said the advice was expected ‘imminently’ and denied was based on ‘political pressure’. 

Questions are now being raised as to what has prompted the sudden change in advice from the panel, which just two weeks ago said it was ‘not currently advising routine vaccination of children’.

Sources close to the JCVI, according to The Times, warned of political attempts to ‘bounce’ the group into making the decision. 

But other insiders claimed the decision was based on fresh evidence that makes the case for jabbing all over-16s, suggesting the risk of myocarditis among teenagers may be lower than feared.

Ms Donelan insisted the decision was ‘not based on political pressure’.

She also claimed the Government was considering ‘all options for incentivising’ younger people to get the Covid vaccine, with ministers hoping to encourage hesitant youngsters into centres with the promise of cut-price taxis and takeaways. Cash bribes have also not been ruled out.

Schools unions have backed the move, saying anything that reassures young people that they are being treated like adults ‘has to be welcomed’. But they insisted schools should have no responsibility for promoting, enforcing or policing inoculation uptake.  

A quarter of children aged 12 to 15 in the US have received two doses, while a third have received one dose.

Other countries, including Israel, Italy, France and Germany are making progress in this age group – and Israel has even approved the vaccine for vulnerable 5 to 11-year-olds. 

Jabs could be administered in schools but Education Secretary Gavin Williamson is expected to push for GP surgeries and NHS hubs to be used.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told MSPs yesterday: ‘I am hoping, possibly veering towards expecting, updated advice from the JCVI literally in the next day or so.’

A major government-funded study found that vaccinating all over-12s could ‘substantially reduce transmission potential in the autumn when levels of social mixing increase.’

Run by Imperial College London, the React Study found the summer wave had been driven by infections among youngsters aged 12 to 24. It said vaccinating children could have ‘knock on benefits across the whole population’.

Because Covid poses little direct risk to children, scientists have been nervous about recommending vaccination if there is even the tiniest risk of negative side effects.

Chief medical officer Chris Whitty said in June that safety would always be the paramount factor. But he said policy makers also had to consider the ‘wider question around the effects on children’s education’.

More than 1.1million children were forced to stay at home in the last week of the summer term because of outbreaks in schools.

Ministers are also concerned that, with some countries demanding proof of vaccination for all over-12s, families could find their travel options limited.

The offer of a Covid jab was extended to all over-18s in mid-June. But, to the frustration of ministers, three million under-30s have yet to take it up.

The React study, which is based on random testing of nearly 100,000 people, found that half of all infections are in those aged five to 24 despite them only making up one in four of the population.

It warned that the rampant spread of the virus in the young means the recent decline in cases could reverse when schools reopen in September.

The study concluded that vaccinating more children could ‘substantially reduce transmission’ and have ‘knock on bene – fits across the whole population’.

Ms Sturgeon added: ‘I very much hope that that expectation will prove to be the case. I am hoping, but this is the JCVI’s advice, that they will recommend further vaccination of people in the 12 to 18-year-old age group.

‘But I’m particularly hopeful that we will see some updated recommendations in relation, as a priority as the first part of this, for 16 and 17-year-olds.’

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: ‘With the JCVI apparently about to give the green light to vaccinating 16 year olds, ministers need to ensure plans are in place to roll out this vital next stage of vaccination while ensuring parents have all the facts and information they need.’ 

A spokesperson for the department of health and social care (DHSC) said it continues to keep jabs for children under review and will be guided by the JCVI’s advice.  

It comes after Ms Sturgeon was yesterday accused of ‘clinging on to large parts of people’s lives’ as she revealed lockdown will officially end next week – but some laws will remain in place indefinitely.

The First Minister confirmed Scotland would exit Level 0, ending social distancing and limits in the size of social gatherings, on August 9.

But she said it was too early to declare freedom from Covid as she confirmed face coverings will still be required by law indoors and large events with capacities of more than 2,000 inside and 5,000 outside will have to gain special permission to take place. 

Schoolchildren will also have to wear mask in lessons and socially distance in schools for six weeks from September.

But in a move that will heap pressure on Boris Johnson amid the English ‘pingdemic’, self-isolation requirements will be dropped if someone passes a PCR test from Monday, a week before the quarantine requirement ends in England.

Announcing that face coverings would remain mandatory the First Minister said it was ‘premature’ to suggest the pandemic had been beaten.

She also raised the spectre of some restrictions returning in winter, saying she could not rule it out.

But Scots Tory leader Douglas Ross accused her of ‘moving the goalposts’ by keeping masks and other measures in place.

‘There are some welcome steps in the right direction but these ongoing restrictions will hold Scotland back,’ he said.

‘We are beyond Level 0, at Level -1 or -2 and still the Government is clinging on to large parts of people’s lives.’

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has snubbed an invitation from Ms Sturgeon to meet during his visit to Scotland this week.

The First Minister had invited Mr Johnson to meet at her official Edinburgh residence, Bute House, to discuss the UK’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.

However, the Prime Minister has replied to Ms Sturgeon in a letter – posted on Twitter by a Sky News journalist – instead aiming to focus on wider discussions at a later point.

In his letter, the Prime Minister said: ‘As I noted when we last met, I am keen to arrange an in-person meeting with you and the other first ministers and deputy first minister to build on the constructive discussions we had earlier this summer.

‘We agreed then that we should establish a structured forum for ongoing engagement between the Government and the devolved administrations to deliver tangible outcomes in the interest of people throughout the UK.

‘There is much for us to discuss as all parts of the UK work together on our shared priority of recovering from the pandemic.

‘I understand our officials have made good progress on the details of this since we last spoke.’

Mr Johnson added: ‘I am particularly keen that we work closely together on the vaccination booster campaign this autumn which will be crucial as we continue to tackle the pandemic.

‘The UK Government has procured millions of vaccines for the entire United Kingdom and we look forward to working with the Scottish Government as we roll out booster jabs in line with JCVI’s advice.

‘The UK Government is working closely with the devolved Scottish Government on a variety of different issues.

‘I know that you have been meeting regularly with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove, but I look forward to meeting with you soon and working together in the interests of people in all parts of our country.’ 

What Covid vaccine will 16 and 17 year olds get? Will they get jabs in school? And will they need to show parental consent? All your questions answered about the Government’s plan to inoculate 1.4million teenagers

Health chiefs are now set to recommend all 16 and 17 year olds get jabs, marking a dramatic U-turn.

Just two weeks ago the same expert panel — the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) — advised against doing so.

Boris Johnson is expected to accept the guidance immediately, paving the way for the roll-out to begin later this month.

But experts are divided over the hugely controversial topic of vaccinating children, given their tiny risk of dying or falling seriously ill. 

Some countries — including the US and Israel — have already started, which made Britain an outlier in so far only vaccinating the most at-risk over-12s.

As plans to vaccinate children in the are due to be unveiled by No10’s scientists, MailOnline answers your questions about the roll-out to youngsters.

When will children be vaccinated? 

The Government has not yet given a timeline on when 16 and 17-year-olds can start coming forward for jabs.

But even if the roll-out out to older teenagers begin straight away, there will only be time to give them one dose by the time the school year begins on September 6.

Britain’s health chiefs say jabs should be dished out eight weeks apart, in order to give the immune system the biggest boost. 

Will jabs be dished out in schools?

Jabs could be administered in schools, like how the HPV vaccine is rolled out for 12 and 13 year old boys and girls.

But Education Secretary Gavin Williamson is expected to push for them to continue to be given at GP surgeries and NHS hubs. 

One public health official claimed they could be done either in schools, or in existing vaccination centres at certain times. 

What vaccine will youngsters get?

The UK has so far only approved Pfizer’s coronavirus jab for use in children over 12.

Moderna’s vaccine — which works in a similar way — has not been given the green light for youngsters.

AstraZeneca’s injection has been linked to rare blood clots, and health chiefs have already restricted its use to over 40s. Therefore, the British-made vaccine is unlikely to be offered to children.

Over-16s are expected to receive two injections eight weeks apart, mirroring how Pfizer’s is given to adults. 

Scientists are currently testing nasal spray forms of the Covid vaccine — a method already used to give out children’s flu jabs. But none of the candidates being studied have yet to make it out of trials. 

Which countries have already began vaccinating children? 

Britain is currently the ‘outlier’, with European countries and the US already giving vaccines to children. 

A quarter of children aged 12 to 15 in the US have received two doses, while a third have received one dose.

France, and Spain, Hungary have already starting giving the jab to over-12s, while 10 per cent of children are already vaccinated in Germany. 

Meanwhile, Canada, Denmark, Austria, Italy, Lithuania, Estonia, Norway, Switzerland, are expected to start giving youngsters jabs soon.

Israel approved the jabs for over-12s in May and subsequently approved it for 5 to 11-year-olds.  

What jabs are they using?

Pfizer has been the go-to jab for vaccinating children around the world.

But Moderna is seeking permission for its jab to be used for over-12s in the EU, US and Canada.

Last week, Italy approved Modern’s jab for use in over-12s.

Have they been trialled on children?

The companies that make the vaccines, as well as other scientists, have studied how safe they are among children. 

Pfizer and Moderna found their jab to pose little risk in over 12s and are now trialling the injection in under-11s. 

Rigorous analysis also revealed the jabs were effective.

The JCVI said a trial of 1,000 12 to 15-year-olds who received the Pfizer jab found it to be effective and only cause short-term side effects like a fever.

University of Oxford scientists are testing the AstraZeneca jab on children aged six to 17.

So what are the potential risks?  

Covid is very rarely severe or fatal in children.

Just one in 500,000 under-18s are at risk of dying from the virus, researchers at leading UK universities found this month.

That means any vaccine given to youngsters has to be very safe because the risk-harm benefit from them catching the virus is so low.  

Since the vaccine roll-out has been expanded to children around the world, there have been reports of rare heart conditions: myocarditis and pericarditis.

Myocarditis is the inflammation of the heart muscle, while pericarditis is when the protective layer around the heart gets inflamed.

Data from the US shows those aged 12-17 are at the most risk of developing the heart problem after a Covid jab, compared to other age groups.

Around one in 14,500 to 18,000 children are thought to develop the condition. The risk drops to one in 250,000 among over 30s.  

There are no specific causes of the conditions but they are usually triggered by a virus.

The British Heart Foundation says in some cases, myocarditis can affect the heart’s electrical system, stopping it from pumping properly. ‘This can cause an abnormal heart rhythm, known as an arrhythmia,’ it claims.

But British regulators insist the 250 cases seen among Pfizer recipients are ‘typically mild’. Affected patients recover ‘within a short time with standard treatment’.  

Will parents have to give consent for the jabs?

One of the most controversial issues surrounding the roll-out to kids is parent’s role in their child’s decision. 

Government sources claimed last night that under-18s wanting the jab would have to provide proof of parental consent.

But universities minister Michelle Donelan would not confirm that would be the case when quizzed about the move this morning, merely saying advice from the JCVI was ‘imminent’.

 Do 16 and 17 year old children REALLY need to get Covid vaccines? Top experts are divided over the controversial topic that’s plagued by safety fears and ethical concerns… but some are ‘annoyed’ it’s taken so long

By Joe Davies and Emily Craig Health reporter for MailOnline

Experts are divided over the hugely controversial topic of vaccinating children, given their tiny risk of dying or falling seriously ill. 

Some countries — including the US and Israel — began months ago, which made Britain an outlier in so far only vaccinating the most vulnerable over-12s.

Now the UK has U-turned to fall in line, with scientists advising the Government now saying it will help to head off any autumn surge by stopping schools from becoming hotbeds for transmission when children return to classrooms in September.

But the move has prompted fierce debate among the country’s top scientists.

Some academics are concerned any risks of the vaccine — which are rare — may slightly outweigh any benefits because the overwhelming majority of infected youngsters escape serious illness. 

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises No10, used the delicate risk/benefit ratio to advise against routinely dishing out Covid jabs to all children just two weeks ago, when the expert panel last reviewed the evidence. 

Other critics of the JCVI’s reversal — which was confirmed this afternoon— argue spare doses should be sent to poorer countries, which are lagging massively behind in their roll-outs.

Professor Anthony Brookes, a geneticist at Leicester University, described the Government’s drive to vaccinate children as an ‘obsessive ratchet’ and said 12-year-olds could be ‘the next target’. The JCVI will continue reviewing data before pressing ahead with any move to jab younger children.

However, advocates for vaccinating children warn it will be impossible to achieve any kind of population immunity without inoculating under-18s. 

One top expert told MailOnline they were ‘annoyed’ and believed the programme should have started sooner. And a group of hardline scientists — representing Independent SAGE — called the delay ‘unacceptable’, arguing it was ‘too little, too late’. 

The major safety concern surrounding giving Covid vaccines to children centres around a heart condition called myocarditis, which UK regulators accept is a potential side effect of Pfizer’s jab — which will be the only one given to youngsters for now. 

The issue is much more common after the second dose, which has prompted UK health chiefs to only commit to giving 16 and 17 year olds their initial jab. Regulators are waiting for more safety data before pressing ahead with plans to give them a top-up. 

Data from the US suggests that, in males aged 12- to 17-year-olds, 9.8 cases of myocarditis were reported per million first doses given. This rises to 67 per million after the second dose but most people recovered from the condition quickly. 

But US officials, who’ve been investigating the link between the jabs are the rare complication for months, say the benefits still outweigh the risks, despite clear data showing teenagers are more likely to be struck down.

Around one in 14,500 12-17 year olds given two doses of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s mRNA-based vaccines are thought to develop the condition, according to the Centers for Disease Protection and Control (CDC).  

The risk drops to one in 18,000 among 18- to 24-year-olds. But it plunges even further for over-30s, with rates of just one in 250,000.

But the US agency has not clarified exactly how much more often myocarditis is occurring, so it is not clear exactly how much risk is posed by the vaccine. 

In real terms, they expect to see between 56 and 69 cases of myocarditis per 1million doses given out among the youngest age group. Under the same circumstances, just two deaths will be prevented — with Covid-infected children facing roughly a one in 500,000 risk of dying. 

However, in a clear sign that the vaccines would have some benefit, more than four times as many hospitalisations were prevented as there were cases of myocarditis caused by the vaccine in 12- to 17-year-olds, the CDC’s data show. 

Vaccines — which are proven to be life-saving and have a tiny risk of serious side effects in rigorous analyses — have already saved tens of thousands of lives in Britain, researchers estimate. 

Covid poses the greatest threat to the elderly, meaning the risk/benefit ratio of vaccines is clearly one-sided for the oldest adults. 

But a clear trend in how dangerous Covid is as people get older has led to difficult decision who to vaccinate, especially given the jabs do carry some side effects — albeit extremely rare ones.   

For example, UK health chiefs recommended under-40s should alternative jabs to those produced by AstraZeneca, after the British-made vaccines were linked to ultra-rare blood clots. 

At the time, infection rates were low, skewing the risk ratio against the company’s jab.  Experts always said that if Covid took off again, the algorithm could change.

Now that Covid is highly prevalent in the UK, some will argue any conversations about the close risk/benefit ratio will be skewed in favour of vaccines.

But cases have actually start to fall in Britain since the JCVI announced its previous advice on jabbing children, prompting question as to whether the panel was ‘bounced’ into the move.

Now scientists want the JCVI to release evidence justifying its decision, in particular why doses are not being offered to 15-year-olds.

Experts and MPs criticised No10’s plans to ease lockdown last month by warning long Covid could become rife in youngsters.

But the poorly-understood condition is rare among youngsters, a major study revealed last night. Fewer than two per cent still suffer symptoms eight weeks after getting infected.

Yet some of the country’s top scientists say it is crucial to vaccinate children because the true extent of long Covid remains a mystery, especially among youngsters. 

Meanwhile, new Office for National Statistics (ONS) research released today left experts even more divided.

It showed nearly 60 per cent of 16 to 17 year olds have Covid-fighting antibodies, suggesting the group already have high levels of immunity.

The data suggests little need to vaccinate children according to some experts. 

But Professor Paul Hunter, an infectious disease expert at the University of East Anglia, claimed it may still be the ‘correct option’ even though most in this age group will already be immune.  

Professor Jonathan Ball, a molecular virologist at the University of Nottingham, said immunity from natural may be short-lived if SARS-CoV-2 is anything like other seasonal coronaviruses.

As plans to vaccinate children in the are due to be unveiled by No10’s scientists, MailOnline asked the experts whether teenagers really need to be vaccinated. 

The Pros

Dr Bharat Pankhania

Public health expert at the University of Exeter 

Dr Bharat Pankhania, a clinical lecturer in public heath at the University of Exeter Medical School, said the roll-out should have been extended to youngsters far earlier.

He told MailOnline that while Covid does not pose a large threat to children themselves, they can act as ‘agents’ of transmission, keeping levels of the virus high in wider society and infecting vulnerable adults. 

Dr Pankhania added that while initial infection may not be severe in children, the threat of long Covid would be curbed by vaccines.

And he said having core immunity in both adults and children would help protect against future variants that may emerge. 

He told MailOnline: ‘I am so pleased [the rollout has been extended] and I feel I was right and the JCVI was wrong. I’m annoyed, as they should have started it sooner. 

‘The vaccine rollout should be expanded further to 12-year-olds and over. It’s disappointing that the UK is doing it in smaller groups. 

‘If the vaccine is found to be protective in youngsters, then there is no harm whatsoever in having some vaccine protection in the population – we do that with flu jabs, where we vaccinate youngster to protect older groups.

‘I hope the Government will further expand the vaccine rollout, but I have feeling we are not being told the full reasons for just vaccinating over-16s. It may be a supply issue and if it is, it’s still better to honestly say that and explain when it is fixed we will have more vaccinated. But that is just speculating.’

Dr Stephen Griffin

Head of antivirals and viral oncology at the University of Leeds

Dr Stephen Griffin told MailOnline vaccinating children will protect them as well as vulnerable adults and the jab should be rolled out to younger groups.

The virus expert from the University of Leeds said: ‘It’s been approved in 12 and over and I would love to see those groups getting it as well.

‘The numbers the JCVI used to reach its decision have not been released, but I can’t see a big different in the risks and benefits for 15-year-olds compared to 16-year-olds. Other countries have used the wider group of those aged 12 to 17. You don’t want to vaccinate arbitrary groups and I worry they have decided on over-16s to allay different groups.

‘What’s the point in having just half of secondary school covered? They should be thinking about preventing cases and not take the risk.

‘Regardless of what proportion of children get severe disease, there have been thousands of children in hospital with the virus. A small proportion of a very large number is still a big number, so it is not just about protecting others.’

He added: ‘But vaccinating children to protect others is not a bad thing. 

‘Some children will be living with vulnerable adults who can’t get the vaccine and what are they supposed to do when their children go back to school?

‘The risk of unvaccinated children going back to school in September is higher than last year because they have got rid of bubbles and are relying on contact tracing. They have also not made progress on ventilating school buildings in England.

‘We should not underestimate the risk of myocarditis and other possible long-term side effects, but the incidence is so low and mild most of time. The US has vaccinated 9million children and its myocarditis rates are so low. So, the benefits far outweigh the risks.’

Professor Peter Openshaw

Experimental medicine expert at Imperial College London

Professor Peter Openshaw said Covid transmission in children and teenagers is the highest of any age group and vaccines could help curb the rampant spread in youngsters.

He said: ‘Infections are generally mild but some are not. Both the short and long-term effects of Covid can seriously disrupt education and leisure.

‘Teenagers have not had the benefit of being naturally infected in early childhood and therefore have no immunological resistance to infection with highly transmissible variants. 

‘Estimates of the proportion of young people affected by long Covid varies, but symptoms range from mild to disabling and Covid may present in unfamiliar ways in childhood.

Professor Openshaw, an experimental medicine expert at Imperial College London, added: ‘The information that we have so far shows that vaccines are highly effective and safe in childhood and adolescence. 

‘There are reports of rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in young males after mRNA vaccines, but the reasons for this and the frequency has yet to be proven.  

‘JCVI are right to continue to monitor safety data from UK studies and from other countries, balancing risks and benefits of vaccination versus natural infection at different ages.

‘Vaccination of teenagers may have a major effect on the return of Covid next winter, assuming that the rates will drop this summer. 

‘Full vaccination takes time, so the sooner we start the sooner this age group will be protected.’

The Cons 

Professor Robert Dingwall

Medical sociologist at Nottingham Trent University

Professor Robert Dingwall, a sociologist at Nottingham Trent University, told MailOnline the risk-benefit for vaccinating children is ‘increasingly precarious’ as you move down the age groups.

The Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said vaccines have to be proven to be incredibly safe to be used on healthy teenagers.

He cited a paper in the Lancet today showing that people aged five to 17 suffer serious illness from Covid ‘very rarely’. 

Professor Dingwall, a former Government adviser, told MailOnline: ‘The risk-benefit ratio for vaccination compared with infection becomes increasingly precarious as we move down from 30-year-olds into younger age groups. 

‘As the Zoe group paper in today’s Lancet shows, Covid very rarely causes a serious illness in 5- to 17-year-olds. 

‘This sets a high bar for the safety of vaccines in healthy teenagers. 

‘In 2009, JCVI decided not to recommend childhood vaccination against chicken pox precisely because this was such a mild illness. 

‘It is important not to overlook that precedent simply because some people think it is desirable to eliminate all possibilities of infection.’ 

Professor David Livermore

Medical microbiologist at the University of East Anglia 

Professor David Livermore, a medical microbiologist at the University of East Anglia, told MailOnline vaccinating children aged 16 and 17 against Covid will be ‘pretty pointless’.

The medical microbiologist at the University of East Anglia said people in the age group are at very little risk of serious illness from the virus.

He said school age children will have already built up a fair amount of immunity from natural infection and will continue to do so when schools reopen.

Vaccines would therefore be of better use being given to countries where rollouts have not yet reached more vulnerable age groups, he argued.

Professor Livermore said: ‘Sixteen to 17-year-olds are at low risk of serious disease and, through exposure, are developing immunity anyway. 

‘We do not know if vaccine-induced or infection-induced immunity will prove the longer lasting, and to the better contributor to herd immunity. 

‘Given this I can see no good reason to prioritise vaccinating them.

‘Limited vaccine supplies would be far better used in countries and regions with large vulnerable elderly populations who presently remain unvaccinated — Australia, much of South East Asia and Latin America, as well as Africa.’

Professor Anthony Brookes

Geneticist at the University of Leicester

Professor Anthony Brookes said the risks of heart inflammation, blood clotting and potential unknown future side effects from vaccination outweigh the harms caused by Covid to children.

The genetics expert at the University of Leicester said the risks of vaccinating young people was recognised by the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) last month, so the U-turn in policy could have been caused by political pressure from the Government.

Professor Brookes told MailOnline: ‘Serious future harms [of vaccinating children] cannot be ruled out. 

‘This compares to the almost non-existent risk of serious harm from Covid for the young. 

‘The JVCI recognised these truths and the responsible balance of risks just a few weeks ago. 

‘Therefore, many will conclude that political pressure from government to ‘reconsider’ is the only reason JCVI will now be changing their position.’So the obsessive ratchet effect continues, and we might well expect 12-year-olds to be the next target, and then everyone down to infants.’