why should they be? if the scientists determined that the vaccine is of marginal benefit to them compared to the risks, then they don’t need it. the fact that they want it because the tv told them it’s the right thing to do is irrelevant.
i guess “following the science” only applies when the science agrees with the predetermined status quo
As individuals, they can benefit. The article even identifies 200k individuals within the group that do.
The JVCI is saying that as individuals within their age group, there is no obvious benefit on average.
Plenty of people, including teenagers, can make more informed choices as an individual, because they have information about their health circumstances, psychological state, personal ethics, or opinions about the risks to others around them.
I would hope the JCVI is not making a group level decision that overrides individual choice (within the subpopulation of 12 to 15 year olds.)
As stated, New Zealand is letting teenagers make their own choice, and there is a good chance that the decision make by NZ scientists and authorities fairly weighed up the benefits and risks to teenagers (or maybe just decided teenagers should be given a free cost opportunity to make their own decision).
It is not hard to guess that over 1% of teenagers (10s of thousands) would be psychologically far better off choosing to get vaccinated. Maybe the JCVI only looks at physical risks, and not psychological risks?
Disclaimer: I am strongly pro-choice. I also also strongly believe in a society that limits what non-vaccinated people can do, if their choice is judged to risk severe harm to others. Just as you need a driver’s licence to be able to share the roads safely. You can choose to drive without a driver’s licence, yet society is likely to act against you if you do so, even if you really do need to drive for a very good reason.
JCVI advises that children and young people aged 12 years and over with specific underlying health conditions that put them at risk of serious COVID-19, should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.
At the current time, children 12 to 15 years of age with severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome, underlying conditions resulting in immunosuppression, and those with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD)[footnote 1], severe learning disabilities or who are on the learning disability register are considered at increased risk for serious COVID-19 disease and should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccinat...
In the current decision they did advise widening the existing vaccine programme to include an extra 200,000 teenagers with specific underlying conditions.
I believe many teenagers would choose to protect their family or decide they don’t need the jab because they have already had Covid. Allowing them the choice also puts them on equal standing with the rest of the adults that choose not to get vaccinated.
Also of note, 12 to 15 year olds in New Zealand can get immunisation, usually at the same time a parent does. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126124007/covid19-... (New Zealand has only had a few hundred cases of Covid in the community, so it is interesting that our health services encourage vaccination for teenagers). Edit: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-what-righ... says that NZ children can get immunisation or refuse to, regardless of their parents decision, if the child is deemed competent and if they fully understand what is involved in making the decision (the right applies to children of any age).
And the tl;dr sentences from the article are:
> There are three million children in total in this age group across the UK
> 6 million adults who have not even taken up the offer a jab yet [sic]
> Data from the US suggests there are 60 cases of the heart condition for every million second doses given to 12 to 17-year-old boys (compared to eight in one million girls)
> around half of children [sic] in this age group are thought to have had Covid, providing them with natural immunity anyway