There are two key things to note - the definition of who is a contact; and the definition of "severely immunosuppressed individuals".
"Severely immunosuppressed individuals" (SII) does not include everybody who is "clinically extremely vulnerable" (CEV).
4/13
So, just because you are, or your contact is CEV, it doesn't automatically mean they are SII.
5/13
The letter is a bit vague - it's not clear that all immunosuppressive cancer immunotherapy is included, for example; but if you look at the operational guidance it would appear that it is. So refer to the guidance to check!
6/13
And note that it is only people who live with the SII who is eligible. (Image from the letter.)
7/13
Vaccination clinics are supposed to check that the SII person was sent a letter by their GP identifying them, with their address; and the household contacts will be required to present proof they live at the same address. The operational guidance provides details.
8/13
As we work down the age-groups (people who are or who turn age 32 by 1 July are now eligible) there will be smaller numbers of people who are in "grey areas".
9/13
In my opinion, pregnancy should have been added to the list of underlying conditions when further evidence appeared about a month ago.
10/13 doi.org/10.1001/jama.2… c1dc.gov/coronavirus/20…
But although I can argue the case for this, JCVI has not added pregnancy to the list of underlying conditions. I think they're wrong 😉; but vaccination clinics have to follow rigid guidelines.
They have little or no discretion: NHS England can be very heavy-handed.
11/13
So… if you are borderline - say, a regular carer or visitor but not actually resident at the same address as a SII person AND a borderline underlying condition - they might be prepared to stretch a point.
12/13
But please don't cross with them if they don't - the implications for the healthcare worker or the people running the clinic could be very serious if NHS England decide they vaccinated somebody who wasn't strictly eligible according to rigid criteria.
13/13
From 23 May the UK is designated as a virus variant area of concern, so there are lots of restrictions on who can travel to Germany and the reasons which are permissible.
1/12
tldr: The @foreignoffice@fcotravel guidance is contradictory, but can be read as saying that you don't need to quarantine if you can show you're immune or were tested. I think this is WRONG. There appear to be few if any exemptions from 14-day quarantine.
2/12
Is it just me, or is this (image) contradictory? It looks like you can be "released from quarantine immediately if…" you can demonstrate proof of immunity (fully vaccinated or recent recovery), or…
3/12
The BBC has been a mouthpiece of the tory right wing every since politicians attacked it for accurately reporting Kelly's death.
They did not let opponents of the Health and Social Care Bill/Act (HSCA) speak.
1/6
Nearly all professional bodies - medical royal colleges etc - knew it would be a disaster. Yet the BBC fielded people for "balance" who actually supported the HSCA but provided token words against it.
2/6
Nobody who wasn't reading the trade press would have had any idea that the medical, nursing, social care and other professions were saying the HSCA would be the disaster it is now almost universally recognised to have been.
3/6
1/8 Pregnant women are at greater risk if they catch Covid-19.
1.Adhikari EH, Spong CY. COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnant and Lactating Women. JAMA 2021;325(11):1039-1040. (doi.org/10.1001/jama.2…).
2/8 In Germany, the risk is considered so great in pregnancy that the household members of pregnant women are offered vaccination to reduce the risk of their spreading it to the pregnant woman.
3/8 Pregnant women respond well to Covid-19 vaccines.
2. Gray KJ, Bordt EA, Atyeo C, Deriso E, Akinwunmi B, Young N, et al. COVID-19 vaccine response in pregnant and lactating women: a cohort study. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2021. (ajog.org/article/S0002-…).
Somebody else was responsible for fitting unsafe cladding to their buildings. Leaseholders had every right to expect regulations to ensure their buildings were safe.
Maybe property developers fitted unsafe cladding knowingly, to save money; or perhaps were misled.
2/5
Either way, the responsibility for regulating buildings' safety lies with government.
It may or may not be reasonable to force developers or building owners to pay, but there's no point bankrupting them, and the ultimate responsibility lies with government.
3/5
I'm struggling to understand the first sentence of the abstract: "Delayed second-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination trades maximal effectiveness for a lower level of immunity across more of the population."
1/6
Longer prime-boost intervals generally elicit better immunity. So "delaying the second dose…" is likely to ensure a higher level of immunity across the population (once the booster dose has been given).
2/6
Also "…patients receiving these drugs should be prioritized for optimally timed second doses."
What is the "optimal" timing for a second dose?
3/6
Can anybody tell me how the "COVID-19 Antivirals Taskforce" announced this week gov.uk/government/new… relates to the "The COVID-19 Therapeutics Taskforce" which has I think existed since early 2020? gov.uk/government/gro…
1/8
Is this just yet another example of the government announcing something it's already done as something new, to make us think they are doing more than they actually are?
2/8
(They usually do this with money, announcing "new" spending which, when you look at the small print, isn't new at all.)
3/8