I'd imagine if we had this kind of nuanced science in U.S. public health instead of politicians pushing the panic button blindly, we would have a lot more trust. (Especially in the wake of senior FDA officials resigning over political pressure AHEAD of science)
Clear analysis and risk assessments.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021Looking at the table data.. I don't know how you could reasonably recommend a second dose (for pre-teens). There just doesn't appear to be a net benefit. Maybe reading something wrong, but there is such a negligible benefit to a second dose...
Totally not anti-vax (I am vaxxed), but I would like explained to me that if the vast majority of the benefit is in the first dose. And although the risks are small (both from disease and vaccine), why are we undertaking (in the U.S.) the medical recommendation of a second dose of a vaccine that carries more risk than the harm it prevents in these kids?
Still let's go ahead with the 1st dose on 12-15 year olds in US.
Here is the tradeoff for a second dose if we 2 dose EVERY 12-15 y/o in the US.
We prevent 2.7 pediatric ICU hospitalizations/200 MISC but cause myocarditis in 200-580 kids?
Which even this should probably have a secondary gender based risk assessment.