Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
It met the burden of proof test for our own regulators and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
There are numerous concerns about the study that showed it to be 10% effective but even so some immunity is better than none so until proven otherwise we should continue work under the assumption of what we know about vaccines and how they work which is that it's rare for a vaccine to be completely ineffective against mutations.
We have our own experts making these decisions and they're not idiots. If anything the rollout of the vaccine has shown them to have made the right calls at the right time - i.e the single dose regime.
Now they might be wrong and change the approach if the science changes but then it'll be them to judge when and if that happens.
|
I’m sure in South Africa they’re not idiots either, and importantly they’re assessing the situation on the ground there and not in the UK as JCVI are.
A 10% effective vaccine can influence other factors - human behaviour being one. Very quickly 10% effectiveness could be more than offset by people being less strict about adherence to restrictions. It’s also a gift to the anti-vax brigade and conspiracy theorists who argue it’s about injecting people with microchips and control. It could reduce confidence in future vaccines.
If it was found to be significantly more (relative to 10%) in one age group over another it might change decisions on who you would give it to. I really don’t see why the UK seemingly wants to take offence at anyone trying to make their own, independent, evaluations.
---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Still, imo, rather contrived to make an otherwise reasonable point.
|
Name a country Seph and next time I need to make hypothetical points using geography I’ll use it instead.
