@Cousinit
Agreed, that is a great and very insightful post, Red. I didn't know the UK was turning away from the idea of boosters. Why? Some of our relatives in Europe have just had theirs this week.
They aren't turning away, or at least its not been said, yet.
However there is a change of tone.
It was previously said that all over 50s, key workers and vulnerable patients would get a booster in a programme due to start in September. Possibly at the same time as having a flu jab (which is to be an extended programme of vaccinations in its own right).
However the language in the last couple of weeks has shifted to 'the most vulnerable' only with questions starting to be raised about whether healthy adults need a booster or whether this will lead to us being stuck in a cycle of boosters which might be bad for us and not as effective as natural immunity.
Its not been made entirely clear who will definitely be getting a booster as a result. It sounds like the most elderly and the most clinically vulnerable are on the cards, but now not necessarily everyone over 50.
Advice from JVCI / a formal decision has not yet been reached, but certainly at this stage it looks like the position has shifted back from where it was and it doesn't sound like the booster programme is likely to be as extensive as was initally suggested.
I think it is one of these where there could be a certain amount of shifting in position as things progress over the next few months and more information is available.
My suspicion is that we are now more likely to see a recommendation of vaccinating all secondary school children before boosters in some 50s groups, as there is growing evidence of it being more beneficial to older children and to society in general. Which was very much a borderline argument a couple of months ago. I think the jury is still out on primary age children.
I think part of the reasoning behind the uk not going for comprehensive boosters is because of questions about whether we all need it. I am a bit hazy on this, but I've seen suggestions that there is research which brings into question whether you would need a booster if you've had covid too because covid + vaccination means higher levels of immunity. And this might make sense if we have a higher case load in the UK. I am wondering, with the news this week that those people who have PCR can have an antibody test at the same time might be connected with getting a bit more data in this area and making an assessment about it. It make me suspect there might be a leaning towards only giving boosters to people who haven't tested postive for covid / following an antibody test in the UK. I am speculating here, but I do think theres a few things to watch out for in the coming months with regard to UK strategy.
These decisions being different from other countries do have massive implications for travel though, which I think is a really over looked issue. Foreign policy is way behind domestic policy making.
We know about the India Batch problem quite well now in the UK, but there are lots of other little differences which are going to be issues. Some countries are requiring vaccinations for 12 - 16 year olds to avoid quarantine or entry to various places, which leaves teenagers in limbo. Again, this one is fairly well known. But there are other much less well known issues. I was reading last night about how Austria is only allowing entry on the basis of being within 270 days of your last jab so your certification can effectively expire. Its not hard to see how different policies in different countries might make that something of a problem. At the moment most people in the UK will be ok with that sunset clause - particularly because we had delayed second doses, but that might start becoming a problem for people in the coming months.
Most worryingly on this front, I'm not seeing much international effort or cooperation to start building a consensus / recognising other countries strategies as being acceptable. And that even remains true within the EU, which is going to make it even more difficult for the UK. We should be having talking on this type of stuff and I'm not sure we are seeing enough of it. This is the result of so much Covid Nationalism which is putting up hundreds of little unseen barriers that ordinary people are unwitting victims of and might be well and truly caught out by, with little or no way to find ways around it.
We already know that those on vaccination trials have been hung out to dry and now are getting 'official doses' because they don't have the 'correct paperwork' which undermines research into new vaccinations and trust in future trials for volunteers. It also has political and financial implications for other vaccines - with those approved early and by Western Nations having a significant advantage.
I think someone said upthread we should look to Israel rather than NZ for whats coming next because NZ are effectively 'behind the uk' in their strategy, and I definitely have half an eye on whats going on there, but I also think some of it irrelevant too because they've had certain differences. I also think that the politics of decision making rather than merely the science behind it, are becoming much more important. I think this is where NZ is a better example, because its much more obvious because we've had much more distant differences in options open to us and then had very different strategies. The differences between what Israel and the UK have both done aren't quite as obvious.
I don't think either the UK and NZ have done as much 'wrong' as some suggest once your eliminate how prepared each were when covid hit. I maintain that much of the UK's problem was down to lack of prepareness and how that leads to a crisis spiralling in a way that almost is impossible to stop and that you can only make decisions based on the information based on at the time. The less you have, the harder it is to get it right and this is where luck and location are massively important. And its too easy with hindsight to forget the lack of information you had early on.
I think where the UK is now leaning is towards, needing more information rather than making decisions 'off the hoof' which it was doing much more early on (based off knowledge in other areas). Whereas I think other countries are perhaps doing the opposite in a sense by leaning towards medicalisation without formal evidence on the basis of what they know in other areas. There's an argument in ethics on this one - in the UK 'do nothing / do not intervene' is the default unless you have an emergency, with the emphasis on evidence building being crucial before recommendation/policy making and we are clearly switching back to the latter whereas others may still be treating the situation as still in crisis mode. Where do we now stand ethically? Is it still a crisis situation or are we into the long term management phase? As I say there is a debate to be had on this.
(Sorry this is slightly off topic but I do think is within the scope of the thread and the importance of whats happening in NZ and why especially in relation to what others are doing)