Boo.
Will this do?
1 Like
Children in the UK aged 12 to 15 are set to be able to get a Covid jab, following advice from the UK’s chief medical officers.
They have recommended the youngsters should be offered one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
Some other countries have been vaccinating younger teenagers for some time - but approaches do differ.
- Why vaccinating all teens is a difficult decision
- Covid: Which children are being vaccinated and why?
What’s happening in Europe?
In May, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds. Since then, different EU countries have moved at different speeds.
Denmark (12 to 15-year-olds) and Spain (12 to 19-year-olds) have both now vaccinated most of their child population with at least a single dose.
France too has been moving quickly with 66% of those aged 12 to 17 now single jabbed, and 52% fully vaccinated. By October the country’s health pass - or pass sanitaire - will be extended to under-18s, meaning all teenagers will need to show proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test to access places like cinemas, museums, restaurants and indoor shopping centres.
In June Germany’s scientific advisers recommended the vaccine should only be offered to children aged 12 to 15 with underlying health conditions. But in August, after the Delta variant started spreading more widely, the rollout was extended to all those over 12 years old.
In Sweden children aged 12 to 15 are only eligible for a vaccine if they have lung disease, severe asthma or another high-risk medical condition. In Norway, not part of the EU, the vaccine rollout was recently extended to children aged 12 to 15, but only a first dose will be offered, with a decision on a second dose to be made later.
The US - some mandatory vaccination
In May, US and Canadian regulators were the first to approve the Pfizer jab for use in children from 12 years and older. The rollout started immediately at sites across the US with two injections given three weeks apart.
By the end of July, 42% of 12 to 17-year-olds had received their first dose and 32% their second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna shots.
The drive to vaccinate children came as the US started to battle a rise in infections driven by the Delta variant.
media caption"My parents won’t let me get the Covid vaccine"
The latest report from the Centre for Disease Control said that the number of children hospitalised with Covid was between 3.4 to 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage.
A handful of US school boards have voted to make the jab mandatory for children aged 12 and over to attend class, despite objections by some parents.
In Los Angeles the order was recently extended to 600,000 pupils, while in New York staff but not students must be inoculated.
Pfizer has also started testing its Covid vaccine on younger children. The first results, in those between five and 11 years old, are expected in September with data for infants aged six months to four years old likely to follow by the end of the year.
President Biden has already indicated that vaccines for that younger age group could be available “soon” after regulators review the clinical data.
China - jab approved for children three and over
In June, China began to allow some children from three to 17 years old to be offered shots of a vaccine produced by drug-maker Sinovac, making it the first country to approve a jab for such a young age group.
The country has set a rough target of vaccinating 80% of its 1.4 billion population by the end of the year, a figure impossible to meet without jabbing large numbers of under-18s.
In theory the Covid vaccine is voluntary in China, although some local governments have said that students will not be allowed back to school this term unless their entire family is double jabbed.
The Sinovac vaccine is also widely used in many countries in Asia, Africa and South America.
In Chile, it has already been approved for use in children from six years old, while the company has recently started clinical trials to test its vaccine on children in South Africa aged from six months to 17 years old.
image captionStudents in Nanjing, China line up to receive a dose of a Covid vaccine at Zhonghua High School
India - adult jabs come first
India is thought to have the largest adolescent population in the world, estimated at about 253 million by Unicef. The latest data from the National Serological Survey suggests about 60% of children have been exposed to coronavirus since the start of the pandemic, and are likely to have built up some immunity from past infection.
In August, the country’s drug regulator granted emergency use for a new vaccine developed by local drug firm Zydus Cadila in all those aged 12 years and over, the first approval to cover children.
The jab currently needs to be given in three separate doses using a needle-free applicator, rather than a traditional syringe. The firm has said it soon hopes to start trials in younger children aged two and over.
Government scientific advisers have said vaccination for children aged 12 to 17 with serious health conditions could start in October, but a wider rollout will only take place after the adult programme in India is completed, currently slated for the end of the year.
Jnr will be offered the jab as of tomorrow. Hmmmmm. Now had covid and was brushed off like a bad cold. I’m no anti-vaxer but at 13 (given we have no idea the long term effects) I’m a little hesitant, It’s jnr’s choice ultimately and currently unsure.
1 Like
Vaccine derived immunity is not redundant if already infected. It augments, in strength and scope, whatever immune response he’s already achieved.
2 Likes
So what is the story behind Ivermectin?
From the outset of the pandemic it has been ridiculed as a quack treatment and labeled as a horse wormer. When in fact it has been used for decades as a treatment for Zika virus, Dengue Fever and other tropical diseases. The discoverer of Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize. It is estimated that over 4 billion doses have been prescribed to humans since it began commercial manufacture.
“Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost, and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO “Essential Medicine” already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in COVID-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone.1 If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then a fortiori the evidence of 2 dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin.”
Why was it so derided during the pandemic? Most people would associate it with a horse de-wormer now.
I am not suggesting that it should or could replace vaccines - but it could probably have reduced the death toll. The sceptic in me thinks a hatchet job has been done on this drug and misinformation has been deliberately spread. Who then is to gain from its suppression as a treatment? The drug companies are obviously the prime suspects - but even then you would have thought that those in charge would have looked at this drug as a treatment - or not?
2 Likes
This is what the drug company (MERCK) have said on its use for COVID-19
"KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
*No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; *
*No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; *
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information."
Granted that press release is 6 months old, but there is nothing to indicate the drug companies view has changed.
A couple of weeks ago The American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) all strongly oppose the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial
This is backed by comments by the WHO, CDC and FDA. All stating ivermectin should not be used.
2 Likes
I am no doctor but this does not make sense. Merck who makes Ivermectin is much bigger than the companies who make the vaccines except for Pfizer would have a lot of leverage to “force” the authorities to use Ivermectin as a supplementary medicine to the vaccines if your theory of the companies pushing their weight around.
To me whether Ivermectin is ok to use or not, I leave it to the experts to go research and argue it out with tests and data. But what I really don’t get is always these theories of government, companies suppressing data for the sake of their own profits. It might be true for some cases but please don’t make every single thing a conspiracy theory.
1 Like
I’m not.
I am simply asking the question in good faith. There seems to be opposing research on this drug - some saying it is a useful tool to have in the fight against Covid - others saying it is useless.
The crux of my question is more to do with how a drug that may possibly be used in the treatment of Covid19, was labelled as a quack medicine and the story was perpetuated that the drug was solely a horse de-wormer. Why did that occur and who perpetuated the untruth?
I think its a combination of things.
One of the things that strikes me when I go to the US and watch TV, is all the adverts for different medications. Ask your doctor about drug X. It will make you look healthy, stronger, more virile. With a picture of a guy in his 50s and bright white teeth. Followed hyperspeed list of all potential side effects.
It seems you have more control over what drugs you take over there. The other week 90,000 people got a prescription for this drug. There are reported shortages. Lots of people buying it from livestock supply centres (who are also running out and more concentrated than what’s intended for humans). One poison control centre has received hundreds of calls.
The issues above are
- Ethical. Should doctors (typically GPs) prescribe drugs against the instructions of the public bodies?
- Public safety as people using drugs intended for animals rather than human consumption
- Public health as people use perceptions of treatments as a reason not to get vaccinated.
Media outlets/politicians hype certain treatments (eg hydroxychloroquine) before they are properly vetted. The counter argument is typically not sexy or compelling . The president is telling me to take hydroxychloroquine. Am I going to wait because some scientist says he needs to do further studies first ?
Poor science communicators also fuck up messages. There is a very real reason to tell people not to take horse medicine bought from a vet. But nuance is also needed, by informing them there are risks, its no wonder drug, you should not be asking your GP for this.
1 Like
It’s not really worth being called news but the announcement of plans A and B is in line with a government who are experts at writing disaster stories.
Knowing how they wasted about 3 weeks last autumn locking down because “businesses” it’s going to be fucking interesting their decision-making (
)and timing in moving from A to B.
Like always they’ll make that decision too late, and because of how weak Plan B is, the move to it likely won’t change things in the slightest when everything will already be out of control. Absolutely no handbrake in sight, at least publicly.
Here we go again.
There was a big research paper on it which was then with drawn as it had numerous claims and errors including issues of getting the maths of the numbers incorrect.
That hasn’t stopped people jumping on it in lieu of the vaccine. The real answer is testing is needed but those that support it wont tell you that.
2 Likes
I heard some of the press conference yesterday and it nearly brought tears to my eyes
Van Tan talking of tents and ensuring that there was enough guy ropes so you dont have to put more in place later.
Whitty talking of hitting hard and early.
Why the f*** wasn’t this philosophy put in place 18 months ago? There’s a reason why the UK is considered plague island and a part of it is an overweight blonde mop standing behind a dispatch box.
2 Likes
This is brilliant, mirrors so many of the points I made above. Loved the but about Pat Cash 
4 Likes
Isn’t Ivermectin a one dose ‘cure’ for parasitic infections?
Even with this one dose strategy frail people have ended up with heart disfunctions and hepititis.
Long term use as a prevention against something that has viable vaccine alternative is nuts imo.
The last line 
The question has been asked by you and answered already though.
The anti-Ivermectin takes are really two separate arguments that seem often to get conflated. One is about why the medical establishment is not recommending its use. The second is why are people who are recommending it are getting vilified.
The first one is simple – because the evidence is not supportive of its use. You can point to its success in treating other illnesses, but that is an irrelevant misdirection. It is common for drugs already in use to be adopted as treatment for other conditions, but that is based on the existence of evidence for its broader use. You don’t give Chemo for a broken leg because we know how effective it is for treating cancer. And to that point, it has been clinically tested and not done well. It is one of many candidate therapies that was identified on the basis of pre-clinical data (test tubes and petri dishes), but it is important to understand the overwhelming majority of substances that show an effect at this level simply do not work as a clinical therapy (see bleach and sunlight for treating covid). Ivermectin is one of these. That doesn’t mean that no study has shown any effect, but that the totality of evidence shows it doesn’t. The positive studies are the outliers. This is balanced against a known unpleasant risk profile. The concern with risk not only what we don’t know about a therapeutic, but often what we do know, and that has to be balanced against its benefits. Chemo is brutal, and we know that because of its long history oif use. So part of the decision on when to use it is based on how bad the outcomes are of the thing it treats. It is a risk-reward consideration. And when the reward is uncertain and very low at best, risk factors more highly into the decisions.
You might ask then how does the paper you shared show a benefit? The answer is because it was a poorly done meta-analysis that derived a significant amount of its benefit from a fraudulent paper that has been withdrawn. Simply put, it is an outlier, and it is so because it relied heavily on fabricated data. This is the key about understanding evidence – it’s not about reading and understanding any single source, but understanding how that sources fits into the total body of evidence.
As for the second argument, it has been pushed as a useful therapy almost exclusively by people with self-serving, often political, interest in going against the scientific consensus with regards to covid. Given the risk to the individual and to society, its surely pretty clear why this is so worthy of criticism. Of course, this requires an acceptance of the first issue to acknowledge this, but for the sake of this argument I will take that as a given. There have no doubt been a significant amount of knee jerk push back from people who themselves know nothing about Ivermectin and are just likely to oppose to anything the likes of Trump to DeSantis say about Covid. To be fair though, that has proven to be a pretty effective heuristic.
So, Ivermectin is something that has been studied and not shown to be beneficial. Regardless, a group of politically motivated shitheads and Covid skeptic grifters have pushed it as a useful tool that if employed can reduce our reliance of actual safe and effective measures. Most of the medical establishment has pushed back on this, resulting on those who buy this line of grift having to look for non-human grade versions of it to prescribed for themselves.
So when you say
Why not ask the opposite…who is to gain for pushing an ineffective and dangerous therapy for a disease they need to pretend isn’t a big deal?
4 Likes
Yes, it’s a drug with significant side effects. Such drugs are only acceptable when the consequences of the disease itself are severe, as is the case for river blindness and elephantitis. A long history of use of a drug does not mean it is “safe”, because safe is very context dependent and balanced against the consequences of not taking it.
It also has a pretty narrow therapeutic window, meaning the difference between an effective dose (for those conditions) and toxic dose is small, making repurposing it even more difficult.
2 Likes
that’s a very good interview, I pulled a lot from that.
is that a news outlet or a Darwin award presentation.