Hi again, @OhYouBadBadKitten - how's the storm modelling going?
OK, a very potted summary indeed:
In 2018-2019 the JCVI under Professor Andrew Pollard (who I've got a lot of time for, personally) decided to recommend that the (non-live) Shingrix vaccine should (a) replace the live Zostavax vaccine, and that (b) the cohort to whom it should be offered would be greatly expanded to include those age 65+, and those who were 50+ and immune-compromised.
Of note: JCVI make recommendations for guidelines that then go to the Dept for Health for decision, and then onto the relevant parts of the NHS and secondary/primary care for action.
There were discussions at JCVI about the definition of 'immune-compromised'. It is clear from the minutes of meetings at this stage - 2019, prior to pandemic - that the definition was going to include underlying conditions as well as treatments, and be a pretty broad brush definition, because JCVI determined that the benefits of vaccinating the immune-compromised population and preventing shingles in these patients was a public health priority. A sub-committee was set up to prepare the definition.
And then covid happened.
By the time the definition of immune-compromised appeared, it was heavily skewed toward managing not just the effects of the pandemic, but the social consequences of lockdown. The definition we are left with 'post-covid' (ha ha) is, it would appear, narrower than the original one intended.
However, 'individual clinical judgements by doctors' was always in the documentation. So any treating physician could always look at their patient and say, 'you know what, given that you have inflammatory arthritis and are trying out DMARDs and shingles would absolutely fell you, I'm going to recommend the Shingrix vaccine'. (Or a patient could ask their consultant clinic to write a note to their GP to that effect.)
The intention of the JCVI was to widen participation as far as possible so that over 50s with auto-immune diseases were included, not excluded, as much as possible.