Thread by @dgurdasani1

No. A single intervention that reduces *infection* and transmission by 70%-80% is *highly effective*, even if the protection wanes over time. How can someone in JCVI say vaccines reduce transmission 'poorly'? Vaccines + mitigations are the most effective tools.

https://twitter.com/adamhfinn/status/1448729253487521798

Just look at the real-world data across the globe, and even in England. The highest infection rates are among the unvaccinated:

https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1448688542750760965?s=20

Sadly this is down to decisions made by JCVI, and rhetoric put out suggesting it's ok for children to get infected rather than vaccinated. This will have tragic consequences for many families:
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…

It concerns me that a body with members who do not appear to understand current evidence on vaccination, & vaccine efficacy are making recommendations that are influencing policy. JCVI still has not released the basis for its decisions, despite being an outlier across the globe.

And here- just look at the divergence of infection rates between 16/17 yr olds (60% received 1st dose) vs 12-15 yr olds (~13% vaccinated):

https://twitter.com/Ricky_too2/status/1448831366288879619?s=20