British NHS COVID booster guidelilines
01-16-2024, 05:14 AM
#1
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
British NHS COVID booster guidelilines
The UK was one of the nations that was as unprepared for COVID as any. They were also one of the first to jump on the bandwagon for public isolation measures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...gulations_2020
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19/what-the-bma-is-doing/the-public-health-response-by-uk-governments-to-covid-
19
and like most of the world initially struggled with coping it. The NHS is kind of poorly resourced whatever else you might say about the British National Health Service, their form of socialized medicine does provide excellent access to immunization programs because of the cost effectiveness of such programs.Their childhood immunization stats at age five routinely exceed those of the US and that also carries through into adult immunizations. They do try to get the most bang for the healthcare £, and rational use of immunizations is one way to do that.
Which brings UA around to their current immunization policies for COVID:
https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2023...-need-to-know/
Some excerpts:
Clinical risk groups for individuals aged 16 years and over include:
In comparison, the US CDC guidelines are very much more aggressive in who they say should have boosters.
https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viru...9-12-2023.html
So who is right? The UKs targeted approach of people at risk or the CDCs shotgun approach of everyone over six months of age? Because they can't BOTH be right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...gulations_2020
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19/what-the-bma-is-doing/the-public-health-response-by-uk-governments-to-covid-
19
and like most of the world initially struggled with coping it. The NHS is kind of poorly resourced whatever else you might say about the British National Health Service, their form of socialized medicine does provide excellent access to immunization programs because of the cost effectiveness of such programs.Their childhood immunization stats at age five routinely exceed those of the US and that also carries through into adult immunizations. They do try to get the most bang for the healthcare £, and rational use of immunizations is one way to do that.
Which brings UA around to their current immunization policies for COVID:
https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2023...-need-to-know/
Some excerpts:
Am I eligible for an autumn Covid booster?
The following people are eligible for an autumn Covid booster:- Residents in care homes for older adults
- All adults aged 65 years and over
- People aged 6 months to 64 years in a clinical risk group, as defined in tables 3 and 4 of the Covid-19 chapter of the UKHSA Green Book on Immunisation
- frontline health and social care workers.
- People aged 12 to 64 years who are household contacts of people with immunosuppression, as defined in the UKHSA Green Book
- People aged 16 to 64 years who are carers, as defined in the UKHSA Green Book, and staff working in care homes for older adults
How does the JCVI define a clinical risk group?
Tables 3 and 4 of the Covid-19 chapter of UKHSA the Green Book defines who is in a clinical risk group.Clinical risk groups for individuals aged 16 years and over include:
- Chronic respiratory disease
- Chronic kidney disease
- Chronic neurological disease, such as stroke and individuals with cerebral palsy, profound multiple learning disabilities, Down’s syndrome, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease and related or similar conditions.
- Diabetes
- Those with immunosuppression
- Asplenia or dysfunction of the spleen
- Morbid obesity
- Severe mental illness
- Younger adults in long-stay nursing and residential care settings
- Pregnant women
- Chronic respiratory disease
- Chronic heart conditions
- Chronic conditions of the kidney, liver or digestive system
- Chronic neurological disease
- Endocrine disorders
- Immunosuppression
- Asplenia or dysfunction of the spleen
- Serious genetic abnormalities that affect a number of systems
- Pregnancy
What about people who’ve not had a Covid vaccine?
- The JCVI advises that people who have not yet received their first Covid jab should be offered a single vaccine dose as their primary course.
- The criteria for eligibility for a first Covid vaccine is the same as the autumn 2023 booster.
Why should I get an autumn booster?
- Vaccines help to protect against severe illness, hospitalisations and deaths from Covid.
- People who received an autumn booster vaccine last year were around 53% less likely to go to the hospital with Covid in the two to four weeks after getting vaccinated, compared to those who didn't get a booster.
- Last year's autumn booster programme saw almost 84% of over-80s vaccinated and more than 73% of 65-70-year-olds, protecting the most vulnerable and helping us to live with Covid.
In comparison, the US CDC guidelines are very much more aggressive in who they say should have boosters.
https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viru...9-12-2023.html
Key Takeaways:
- Updated COVID-19 vaccines are recommended for everyone 6 months and older and will be available by the end of this week at most places you would normally go to get your vaccines.
- Older adults and persons with weakened immune systems are at greatest risk for hospitalization and death. In addition, healthy children and adults can still experience severe disease.
- The updated vaccines should work well against currently circulating variants of COVID-19, including BA.2.86, and continue to be the best way to protect yourself against severe disease.
- The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh any potential risks. Serious reactions after COVID-19 vaccination are rare.
- In one study, the risk of cardiac complications, including myocarditis, in males 12-17 years old was 1.8 – 5.6 times higher after COVID-19 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination.
- The vaccines are covered by insurance, including private insurance, Medicare plans, and Medicaid plans. Uninsured children and uninsured adults also have access through the Vaccine for Children Program and Bridge Access Program, respectively.
01-16-2024, 07:58 AM
#2
Speed Verified
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,123
The UK was one of the nations that was as unprepared for COVID as any. They were also one of the first to jump on the bandwagon for public isolation measures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...gulations_2020
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19/what-the-bma-is-doing/the-public-health-response-by-uk-governments-to-covid-
19
and like most of the world initially struggled with coping it. The NHS is kind of poorly resourced whatever else you might say about the British National Health Service, their form of socialized medicine does provide excellent access to immunization programs because of the cost effectiveness of such programs.Their childhood immunization stats at age five routinely exceed those of the US and that also carries through into adult immunizations. They do try to get the most bang for the healthcare £, and rational use of immunizations is one way to do that.
Which brings UA around to their current immunization policies for COVID:
https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2023...-need-to-know/
Some excerpts:
In comparison, the US CDC guidelines are very much more aggressive in who they say should have boosters.
https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viru...9-12-2023.html
So who is right? The UKs targeted approach of people at risk or the CDCs shotgun approach of everyone over six months of age? Because they can't BOTH be right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...gulations_2020
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19/what-the-bma-is-doing/the-public-health-response-by-uk-governments-to-covid-
19
and like most of the world initially struggled with coping it. The NHS is kind of poorly resourced whatever else you might say about the British National Health Service, their form of socialized medicine does provide excellent access to immunization programs because of the cost effectiveness of such programs.Their childhood immunization stats at age five routinely exceed those of the US and that also carries through into adult immunizations. They do try to get the most bang for the healthcare £, and rational use of immunizations is one way to do that.
Which brings UA around to their current immunization policies for COVID:
https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2023...-need-to-know/
Some excerpts:
In comparison, the US CDC guidelines are very much more aggressive in who they say should have boosters.
https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viru...9-12-2023.html
So who is right? The UKs targeted approach of people at risk or the CDCs shotgun approach of everyone over six months of age? Because they can't BOTH be right.
01-16-2024, 07:59 AM
#3
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,016
In context...
Socialized medicine. Gov has to pay for it all.
They don't mind if healthy people lose a week in bed due to the flu as long as they don't end up in the ICU ($$$).
I still like my flu shot. Haven't felt the need for any covid boosters, I keep getting close exposure with no ill effects. But I know from experience the flu can kick my arse.
Socialized medicine. Gov has to pay for it all.
They don't mind if healthy people lose a week in bed due to the flu as long as they don't end up in the ICU ($$$).
I still like my flu shot. Haven't felt the need for any covid boosters, I keep getting close exposure with no ill effects. But I know from experience the flu can kick my arse.
01-16-2024, 12:14 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 173
Most reasonable people: Medicine is an inexact science. Even so, inexact science is = much better than no science. Thanks modern medicine for basically eradicating measles, bubonic plague, chicken pox, and smallpox in the developed world. Also, thanks for flu shots which, while not perfect, still make a difference from a public health perspective. Etc, etc.
Conservative conspiracy theorists: Holy crap guys, did you know that medical science isn't perfect? BURN IT DOWN!
Reasonable people: So, uh, what are we going to do after everything's all burnt to ashes & there isn't a public health system anymore?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Don't you think an imperfect public health system is better than nothing at all?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Ok. You nutjobs go back to your Breitbart/Redstate/Tucker Carlson/Infowars circle jerk while the rest of us figure out how to make society work. You know, like grownups are supposed to do.
Conservative conspiracy theorists: Holy crap guys, did you know that medical science isn't perfect? BURN IT DOWN!
Reasonable people: So, uh, what are we going to do after everything's all burnt to ashes & there isn't a public health system anymore?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Don't you think an imperfect public health system is better than nothing at all?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Ok. You nutjobs go back to your Breitbart/Redstate/Tucker Carlson/Infowars circle jerk while the rest of us figure out how to make society work. You know, like grownups are supposed to do.
01-16-2024, 03:41 PM
#5
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
Most reasonable people: Medicine is an inexact science. Even so, inexact science is = much better than no science. Thanks modern medicine for basically eradicating measles, bubonic plague, chicken pox, and smallpox in the developed world. Also, thanks for flu shots which, while not perfect, still make a difference from a public health perspective. Etc, etc.
Conservative conspiracy theorists: Holy crap guys, did you know that medical science isn't perfect? BURN IT DOWN!
Reasonable people: So, uh, what are we going to do after everything's all burnt to ashes & there isn't a public health system anymore?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Don't you think an imperfect public health system is better than nothing at all?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Ok. You nutjobs go back to your Breitbart/Redstate/Tucker Carlson/Infowars circle jerk while the rest of us figure out how to make society work. You know, like grownups are supposed to do.
Conservative conspiracy theorists: Holy crap guys, did you know that medical science isn't perfect? BURN IT DOWN!
Reasonable people: So, uh, what are we going to do after everything's all burnt to ashes & there isn't a public health system anymore?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Don't you think an imperfect public health system is better than nothing at all?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Ok. You nutjobs go back to your Breitbart/Redstate/Tucker Carlson/Infowars circle jerk while the rest of us figure out how to make society work. You know, like grownups are supposed to do.
Medicine has trade-offs. I certainly support the use of opiates for taking care of pain IN PATIENTS IN WHICH OPIATE USE IS INDICATED. Somebody with terminal cancer? It is a matter of complete indifference to me if they wish to be as comfortable as possible even if the opiate kills them. But the US got conned by the Purdue Pharma people - that's been shown in multiple courts - who didn't mind starting an opiate addiction epidemic that is now killing 100,000 people a year and a lot of other countries didn't. Observing and investigating disparities in our medical practices against other countries medical practices - and the outcomes that result - is part of science, not some conspiracy theory.
01-16-2024, 08:10 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 173
So do you believe the Brits to be UNREASONABLE people when it comes down to Public Health? Or the Swedes or Germans? I'm no more antivax for those where the benefit exceeds the risk and while conceding there is little risk a number of other countries have decided that for those under 12 (15, or 16, depending on the country) the benefit is so minimal in healthy kids that even that small risk (barring special circumstances such as someone in the household being immune suppressed) is greater than the benefit to be derived by giving them a booster. That IS SCIENCE as those countries see it.
Medicine has trade-offs. I certainly support the use of opiates for taking care of pain IN PATIENTS IN WHICH OPIATE USE IS INDICATED. Somebody with terminal cancer? It is a matter of complete indifference to me if they wish to be as comfortable as possible even if the opiate kills them. But the US got conned by the Purdue Pharma people - that's been shown in multiple courts - who didn't mind starting an opiate addiction epidemic that is now killing 100,000 people a year and a lot of other countries didn't. Observing and investigating disparities in our medical practices against other countries medical practices - and the outcomes that result - is part of science, not some conspiracy theory.
Medicine has trade-offs. I certainly support the use of opiates for taking care of pain IN PATIENTS IN WHICH OPIATE USE IS INDICATED. Somebody with terminal cancer? It is a matter of complete indifference to me if they wish to be as comfortable as possible even if the opiate kills them. But the US got conned by the Purdue Pharma people - that's been shown in multiple courts - who didn't mind starting an opiate addiction epidemic that is now killing 100,000 people a year and a lot of other countries didn't. Observing and investigating disparities in our medical practices against other countries medical practices - and the outcomes that result - is part of science, not some conspiracy theory.
01-16-2024, 08:50 PM
#7
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
Most reasonable people: Medicine is an inexact science. Even so, inexact science is = much better than no science. Thanks modern medicine for basically eradicating measles, bubonic plague, chicken pox, and smallpox in the developed world. Also, thanks for flu shots which, while not perfect, still make a difference from a public health perspective. Etc, etc.
Conservative conspiracy theorists: Holy crap guys, did you know that medical science isn't perfect? BURN IT DOWN!
Reasonable people: So, uh, what are we going to do after everything's all burnt to ashes & there isn't a public health system anymore?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Don't you think an imperfect public health system is better than nothing at all?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Ok. You nutjobs go back to your Breitbart/Redstate/Tucker Carlson/Infowars circle jerk while the rest of us figure out how to make society work. You know, like grownups are supposed to do.
Conservative conspiracy theorists: Holy crap guys, did you know that medical science isn't perfect? BURN IT DOWN!
Reasonable people: So, uh, what are we going to do after everything's all burnt to ashes & there isn't a public health system anymore?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Don't you think an imperfect public health system is better than nothing at all?
Conservative conspiracy theorists: ...
Reasonable people: Ok. You nutjobs go back to your Breitbart/Redstate/Tucker Carlson/Infowars circle jerk while the rest of us figure out how to make society work. You know, like grownups are supposed to do.
https://www.realclearinvestigations....t_1004781.html
A couple of excerpts:
Finances at the vaccine manufacturer Moderna began to fall almost as quickly as they had risen, as most Americans resisted getting yet another COVID booster shot. The pharmaceutical company, whose pioneering mRNA vaccine had turned it from small startup to biotech giant worth more than $100 billion in just a few years, reported a third-quarter loss last year of $3.6 billion, as most Americans refused to get another COVID booster shot.
Moderna, perhaps more than other drug firms, is overwhelmingly reliant on the continued success of its vaccine. The company announced a price hike of up to $130 a dose this month, far higher than the $15-26 for American federal contracts, according to the Wall Street Journal. “We’re expecting a 90% reduction in demand,” Modena CEO Stéphane Bancel said, when he was asked to defend the decision. “As you can see, we’re losing economies of scale.”
https://www.pharmaceutical-technolog...nings/?cf-view
An excerpt:
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2023/11/shutterstock_2193720145-e1698940047810.jpgModerna has six Phase III programmes underway, including one for a CMV vaccine, which has completed enrolment. Credit: Tada Images via www.shutterstock.com.Moderna has posted a reported net loss of $3.6bn in its Q3 earnings compared to a net income of $1bn during the same period last year, in line with the decreasing Covid-19-related revenues seen across the sector this year.
Moderna chief executive officer Stephane Bancel said: “In the third quarter, we significantly resized our manufacturing infrastructure to make our Covid-19 franchise profitable for 2024 and beyond. We are preparing to launch multiple products through 2025, including our RSV vaccine.
“We expect to return to sales growth in 2025 and, through disciplined investment, to break even in 2026.”
In August 2023, the company announced a reported total revenue of $344m for Q2 2023, indicating a 92.7% decline from $4.7bn in the same quarter of 2022.
“We expect to return to sales growth in 2025 and, through disciplined investment, to break even in 2026.”
In August 2023, the company announced a reported total revenue of $344m for Q2 2023, indicating a 92.7% decline from $4.7bn in the same quarter of 2022.
01-17-2024, 11:39 AM
#9
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
Au contraire. It really doesn't take that much time to do nefarious things. It's just that I have largely outgrown such things. More fun now to critique the nefarious things of others...😉
01-18-2024, 01:35 AM
#10
Speed Verified
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,123
My post was more in response to Beechdude than yourself. Probably would've been better off in the naval aviators 900% thread. I know I'm critical of your positions in the Ukraine thread, but I think you're much more reasoned here & there is certainly room for discussion with regard to your original post. I think Rickair is pretty much spot on the reasoning for the differences in policy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
