>The UK regulators are doing a best effort personal risk comparison, and they go down to age 12 quite happily, but say the (health) personal benefits are not clear at age 12.
>One more thing: the UK decision here was based on medicine and did not consider indirect benefits: less time isolating off school, less chance of infecting carers who might be worse affected, and this in turn could affect the life chances of the child, those ar valid extra considerations.
IIRC the UK government assessment said that the medical benefits (personal risk/benefit assessment) for 12-16 year olds was marginal (agree that this assessment may change as more data comes in). The decision to facilitate/offer vaccination of this group was therefore primarily justified by those other indirect considerations. I don't see the Government/media pushing hard for vaccination of this group at the moment. I think this may end up being driven more by travel (holiday) rules - though various country travel rules vary and would be good to have global agreement on them.