Government Refuses to Release Minutes of Meeting in Which JVCI Decided Not to Recommend Jabbing Healthy Teens

[Sagaaaats]

^The government has refused to release the minutes of the meeting in which its vaccine advisory committee decided not to recommend vaccinating all 12-15 year olds against covid-19.1

The UK Health Security Agency, which replaced Public Health England, rejected a freedom of information request for the document on the grounds that it intended to publish the minutes “in due course.”

The agency argued that it was in the public interest to withhold the information until it could be released in a “simultaneous, coordinated manner” and that disclosing the minutes before they were finalised could “result in a false impression of the contents of the meeting.” The decision is being appealed.

On 3 September the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said that it would not be recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds because although the health benefits of vaccination were “marginally greater than the potential known harms,” the margin of benefit was considered too small.2 The committee did not explain what factors its conclusion was based on, and neither the minutes nor the data behind the decision have been made public.3

The JCVI asked ministers to seek further advice from the UK’s chief medical officers on the wider potential benefits of vaccination. The government later (13 September) accepted the chief medical officers’ recommendation to vaccinate all 12-15 year olds on the basis of an assessment that included transmission in schools and the effect on children’s education.4

In a letter dated 5 October academics from Independent SAGE wrote to the JCVI highlighting the fact that, despite the committee’s own policy stating that draft minutes would be published within six weeks of each meeting, the last publicly available minutes were from February 2021.5

They urged the JCVI to “abide by its code of practice and be open and transparent through rapid publishing of all agendas, supporting papers and minutes,” arguing that “public confidence in vaccination programmes is assisted by clear and consistent processes and messaging.”

They added, “In that spirit, we wish to have a public assurance from JCVI that all future considerations of covid-19 vaccines, including the extension of vaccination to children under 12 years of age, will be conducted openly and transparently.”^

www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2452?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage

Thanks for this.

I’d also be very interested to see their thinking, especially the reasons behind their decision not to take the effects of long covid in children into consideration, nor the
unknown long term effects of covid itself. Also, how their thinking differed from that of the MHRA, who approved the vaccine in that age group.

Oh, and if the JCVI member who was not only not a scientist, but had links to the discredited HART group which influenced the government towards the herd immunity policy had much influence over this decision.

Interesting. Although in a way academic because I doubt it would make much difference to the woefully slow roll out now happening in schools.

The question there then is why are they taking so long to finalise the minutes and why are they worried they might misrepresent the meetings? In what way?

@noblegiraffe

The question there then is why are they taking so long to finalise the minutes and why are they worried they might misrepresent the meetings? In what way?

THIS

Worrying to think they could be playing for time to doctor the minutes so they are ‘on message’ instead of a true reflection of the discussion.

They could also be seeking to delay publication until moat kids of that age are vaccinated ans minds can’t be changed.

Just seen this retweeted from 26th September

"Chap on the radio this week said - unchallenged - that kids don't spread Covid, and there's not too much pressure on the NHS. This would seem to be untrue. To put it politely. And the chap is on the JCVI. This would seem to be unfortunate. To put it politely."

If people on the JCVI think that kids don't spread covid then they have severely miscalculated the impact of covid v vaccines. That we haven't been allowed to see their working/thinking while being told that it's a parent's responsibility to make the decision re vaccinating their child is shocking.

twitter.com/dminghella/status/1442198871531143174?s=21

They could also be seeking to delay publication until moat kids of that age are vaccinated ans minds can’t be changed.

I don't think so as they didn't recommend vaccination for this age group in the first place.

I suspect they cannot provide good evidence of their risk versus benefit analysis and so are scrambling. There's no reason why the minutes shouldn't have been finalised shortly after the meeting given that the decision was made and announced publicly!

Hard to believe that withholding the minutes for longer will do much to change people’s minds towards vaccination.

Those that are undecided are unlikely to be impressed if they hear that minutes are being withheld.

It’s only going to add fuel to those that base their ideas in conspiracy.

And, as @BewareTheLibrarians says, if there’s really something dodgy going on, good to see the light upon it.

@riveted1

They could also be seeking to delay publication until moat kids of that age are vaccinated ans minds can’t be changed.

I don't think so as they didn't recommend vaccination for this age group in the first place.

I suspect they cannot provide good evidence of their risk versus benefit analysis and so are scrambling. There's no reason why the minutes shouldn't have been finalised shortly after the meeting given that the decision was made and announced publicly!

I think the fact they didn’t recommend it is EXACTLY why this scenario is a possibility.

There may well have been issues ans concerns discussed that fed into that decision that haven’t yet seen the light of day. Publicising them may well put off a tranche of parents, which may lower numbers taking the vaccine.

Hard to believe that withholding the minutes for longer will do much to change people’s minds towards vaccination.

Those that are undecided are unlikely to be impressed if they hear that minutes are being withheld.

It’s only going to add fuel to those that base their ideas in conspiracy.

Exactly

@Totallydefeated

I really doubt this. They didn't recommend vaccination and there would be no reason to bury or hide more solid evidence that backed this up, particularly given the controversy surrounding the decision.

I suspect they cannot provide good evidence of their risk versus benefit analysis and so are scrambling

This is definitely possible.

Whatever the actual reason, it’s a very poor show and not acceptable in a democracy to be withholding information in this way.

@Totallydefeated

I suspect they cannot provide good evidence of their risk versus benefit analysis and so are scrambling

This is definitely possible.

Whatever the actual reason, it’s a very poor show and not acceptable in a democracy to be withholding information in this way.

Definitely agree with you on this!

I really doubt this. They didn't recommend vaccination and there would be no reason to bury or hide more solid evidence that backed this up, particularly given the controversy surrounding the decision.

You think it could be only the JCVI itself playing a part in the decision to refuse the FOI request?!

You haven’t worked in government, have you....?!

The decision was overruled, remember. The government as a whole won’t want anything out in the public domain that could undermine the decision the government came to. The JCVI won’t be working alone here. It would be naive to think other departments/ministers/the PM wouldn’t have had input here, or that the JCVI wouldn’t be aware of not embarrassing their colleagues.

that the JCVI wouldn’t be aware of not embarrassing their colleagues.

They don't seem to be shy of going on the radio and spouting bollocks about how kids don't transmit covid. Perhaps the cover-up is of their incompetence.

@Totallydefeated

I really doubt this. They didn't recommend vaccination and there would be no reason to bury or hide more solid evidence that backed this up, particularly given the controversy surrounding the decision.

You think it could be only the JCVI itself playing a part in the decision to refuse the FOI request?!

You haven’t worked in government, have you....?!

The decision was overruled, remember. The government as a whole won’t want anything out in the public domain that could undermine the decision the government came to. The JCVI won’t be working alone here. It would be naive to think other departments/ministers/the PM wouldn’t have had input here, or that the JCVI wouldn’t be aware of not embarrassing their colleagues.

I have actually (briefly) worked in government policy, it was a shambles

Where is this buried evidence in other countries assessment of the risks v benefits? I really don't see how the UK could be hiding something incredibly damaging about offering vaccination to teens that had passed the rest of the world's experts by.

The factors that they considered were in line with other experts in the field, and the reason the different decision was made was because they only considered direct medical benefits to teens rather than indirect benefits.

You know what, I would far rather these people could discuss this stuff freely, saying what they need to say and voicing their opinions without people crawling all over the arguments and off the cuff remarks.
It if the decision that matters, how the decision is reached has to remain a free process otherwise everything is edited all the time. Is this what we want?

@Mybalconyiscracking

You know what, I would far rather these people could discuss this stuff freely, saying what they need to say and voicing their opinions without people crawling all over the arguments and off the cuff remarks. It if the decision that matters, how the decision is reached has to remain a free process otherwise everything is edited all the time. Is this what we want?

without people crawling all over the arguments

But are you saying that they shouldn't need to release minutes?

It is standard practise to release datasets and analytic pipelines showing how a decision was made in terms of risks and benefits regarding a health intervention. Transparency and reproducibility is incredibly important.

The fact that they haven't done this yet is concerning.

without people crawling all over the arguments

Given that parents are now supposed to come to their own decision, wouldn't that information be useful?

They need to show their working.

I'd be hesitant about attributing this to a specific cover up relating to the vaccination of under 16s given that we're still (barely) within the 6 weeks target publication date from an early September meeting, and they haven't actually published any minutes since February (far from ideal).

I have actually (briefly) worked in government policy, it was a shambles grin

I would concur with the shambles comment! I’ve worked across several departments and as a result, my usual response to conspiracy theories around government doings is to believe it’s far more likely to be a SNAFU situation than deliberate conspiracy, most of which would require a level of sophistication in their operation that would be way beyond the ability of the Civil Service or most of the ministers I met

However, one thing they are usually very exercised about is not undermining the message for things like this where they are desperate for Joe Public to follow a course of action they’ve identified as key to their plan. How things look to the public - and how they might be spun by the media- is a huge concern. Hence my suspicions.

There are a number of plausible scenarios here, I do hope we do get to find out which one it actually is.

But they have made decisions relating to the vaccination of children since February (yes to 16/17, yes to vulnerable 12+). So those minutes are missing too.

It if the decision that matters, how the decision is reached has to remain a free process otherwise everything is edited all the time. Is this what we want?

I couldn’t disagree with this more. In a democracy transparency is fundamental. Decisions should be justifiable. There are already procedures for where restricted information informs a decision.

But they have made decisions relating to the vaccination of children since February (yes to 16/17, yes to vulnerable 12+). So those minutes are missing too.

That makes it an even bigger concern, then.

Why haven’t they found time to type up minutes and get them approved? It’s an absolutely bog standard part of how the Civil Service operates.

Why’s this lack of transparency only coming to light now?

It wasn't previously the decision that mattered. They gave thorough and detailed reasoning for the decision to switch to Pfizer for the under-40s.