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

It was in response to noble, riveted.

[quote bumbleymummy]@riveted1 I’m not trying to convince anyone to do anything. People can do what they like irt having the vaccine, why would I care? It’s mainly the other way around - vaccinated people trying to convince unvaccinated people to have the vaccine.

I do think it’s ridiculous to not acknowledge natural immunity when implementing things like vaccine passports and mandatory vaccines for health care workers though. So I will continue to post about natural immunity and the evidence in relation to its durability and low risk of reinfection etc.

There is a nature paper that was published recently about improved memory B cell response in previously infected people compared to vaccinated people.[/quote]
But this isn't about any of those points. Again, you're just deflecting and swerving.

You are trying to argue something patently false - that turning down the vaccine will somehow lead to better immunity (?) when it is obvious that vaccination + exposure to coronavirus provides the most robust response.

There is a nature paper that was published recently about improved memory B cell response in previously infected people compared to vaccinated people.
Again, this is irrelevant. You can cherry pick all the studies you want to try and argue that infection-induced immunity is better than that induced by vaccination, but even if that was the case, vaccination does not prevent this from happening.

You have, after all, been in this game a very long time.

Yup, and wasn't it HPV you were bringing up on another recent thread @bumbleymummy? Same arguments, minimising the risks of infection and downplaying the importance of vaccination.

So you think in the middle of a discussion about covid immunity where you are repeatedly talking about 'durable immunity following covid infection' posting a comment

"I think long term immunity to something is desirable. Why wouldn’t you want to have something mildly and not have to worry about it again?"

And when picked up on it claiming that you were suddenly talking about random long term immunity and never having to worry about it again to a different illness and not at all trying to give the impression that if you catch covid, you don't need to worry about it again is posting in good faith, bumbley?

Pull the other one.

@riveted1 no, I’m not trying to argue that at all. I’ve said that I don’t see the point in children taking the risk of potential vaccine side effects when they have already had the virus. The JCVI stated that the benefit was too marginal against the risks on health grounds. If children are already immune then it tilts even further away from there being any benefit of the vaccine for them.

I am not ‘deflecting and swerving’, I am replying to your points.

And my comment about the paper isn’t irrelevant - it was in response to your point:

“ - it is debateable whether (purely on immunity generated), whether vaccination or infection induced is more robust”

@riveted1 emphasising the importance of still having smear tests even with vaccination actually. And pointing out that most HPV infections do resolve on their own without any long term consequences (fact). Do you disagree with either of those?

Noble, if you go back to page 5 (which is only a couple of pages) you can read the comment in context if you’re struggling to remember. :)

[quote bumbleymummy]@riveted1 emphasising the importance of still having smear tests even with vaccination actually. And pointing out that most HPV infections do resolve on their own without any long term consequences (fact). Do you disagree with either of those?[/quote]
As with many of your posts, yup both those points are true, but they're within the context of presenting a partial picture in order to discourage vaccination.

As you know, HPV vaccination is one of the biggest factors in reducing a persons risk of cervical, anal, throat and head & neck cancers.

The fact that there are non-cancerous strains of HPV is irrelevant.

I read it it context, bumbley

So your job is to now explain why you dropped a comment about immunity which was so long term you didn’t have to worry about catching it again into a discussion about covid immunity where that clearly doesn’t apply.

Perhaps you forgot which vaccine you were arguing against this time?

So just to be clear here, it’s ok for you to go off on a tangent about HPV but Noble calls me out if I talk about the benefit of long term immunity to viruses in general because ‘this is a thread about coronavirus’? Right.

Noble calls me out if I talk about the benefit of long term immunity to viruses in general

No, it’s because you were talking about long term immunity to ‘viruses in general’ without saying that’s what you were doing and giving the impression you were talking about covid in particular, as that is what you had been on about up till that random point.

@noblegiraffe we don’t know how long immunity after infection lasts yet. Why are you so determined to think it’s short term when the data to date shows durable protection and that even in rare cases of reinfection, disease is milder? It looks really positive.

I’ve already explained why I was talking about immunity in general in that particular comment. There’s not really much more I can say about it.

@noblegiraffe

Noble calls me out if I talk about the benefit of long term immunity to viruses in general

No, it’s because you were talking about long term immunity to ‘viruses in general’ without saying that’s what you were doing and giving the impression you were talking about covid in particular, as that is what you had been on about up till that random point.

My next line in that post was about the cold virus. I didn’t think it was that hard to follow but I apologise if it caused any confusion.

Potentially it's because members agreed to be on the committee on the grounds that the discussions are confidential, if you are an academic you wouldn't want thinks said in a confidential meeting being misrepresented as soundbites in the press. I know someone on the committee, they are not in the public eye, or rather weren't before covid - there's lots of public bodies similar and whilst the findings are public discussions are not to allow freedom to discuss different angles without being jumped on

@gogohm

Potentially it's because members agreed to be on the committee on the grounds that the discussions are confidential, if you are an academic you wouldn't want thinks said in a confidential meeting being misrepresented as soundbites in the press. I know someone on the committee, they are not in the public eye, or rather weren't before covid - there's lots of public bodies similar and whilst the findings are public discussions are not to allow freedom to discuss different angles without being jumped on

This isn't the case though?

The draft minute of each meeting will be uploaded to the JCVI Box account within 6 weeks of the meeting.

Whilst I agree on the sharing of specific discussion points (although the above point seems to discount this), it is standard practise for academics to release code & datasets to allow independent parties to reproduce the analyses used to inform decisions (i.e., the actual numbers derived from the risk benefit analysis of vaccinating this age group)

Couldn’t they just redact the names though? You wouldn’t know who said what, just what was said in general.