COVID VACCINE ELIGIBILITY 🇬🇧,
a thread🧵

JCVI have just advised that, going forwards, eligibility for Covid vaccination will be even more tightly restricted.

But the ‘bespoke cost-effectiveness assessment’ upon which this is based is heavily flawed…

gov.uk/government/pub…Image
Before I dive into the issues, let’s just recap where we are…

In the UK, if you’re under 65 and not ‘at risk’, the last time you were eligible for a Covid vaccination was 2 years ago (Autumn 2022).

For most under 50s, it’s been 3 years since you were eligible (Autumn 2021). Image
Meanwhile, in many other countries, the entire population is given A CHOICE.

Their governments recommend that certain risk groups should get vaccinated…

…but even outside these risk groups, ANYONE who wants to get vaccinated, can be as part of their national vax programme. Image
Ok, now let’s review all the reasons why the cost-effectiveness analysis (which has NOT been peer reviewed) is flawed.

There are 4 main issues:

1️⃣ The analysis *only* considered hospital & ICU admissions and deaths using reported data from 2023/24.

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…Image
So why is this a problem?

For starters, Covid hospital data is now significantly under-reported.

Since April 2023, most patients with Covid symptoms are no longer tested to confirm if they have Covid, unless they are eligible for antiviral treatment…

gov.uk/guidance/covid…Image
…and if they aren’t tested, then the hospital admission is not recorded as being a *Covid* hospitalisation.

Even the experts at UKHSA agree that changes in hospital testing policy in April 2023 had a significant impact on hospitalisation numbers. Image
The chart below from @jneill clearly illustrates just how much Covid testing has reduced over the last 2 years.

Hundreds of thousands of PCR tests used to be performed every single day. Now we’re down to a teeny tiny fraction of that. Image
Of course, this lack of testing impacts the death records too.

Here’s an example of data from just one week in late September.

12.8% of all deaths involved flu or pneumonia…

…but the ARI data shows us there was practically no flu at that time, but a LOT of Covid (in purple). Image
Now let’s look at excess deaths…

Overall excess deaths across ALL age groups are heavily skewed by older ages (who are more likely to die)…

…but when we zoom in on the data for younger (UNVACCINATED) age groups, the mortality rate is HIGHER than any recent pre-pandemic year. Image
It’s clear that Covid hospitalisations and Covid deaths are under-reported since the change in testing protocols…

…so if you’re using these figures to calculate how many hospitalisations & deaths would be averted by vaccination, then these numbers will be under-estimated also.
2️⃣ The next issue is that the cost-effectiveness analysis ignores any deaths linked to post-infection sequelae.

As this article by @BawdenTom explains, the risk of having a heart attack or stroke increases significantly for 3 years after Covid infection.

inews.co.uk/news/science/h…Image
Another study examined data from 4.6m adults in England and found that incidence of heart attacks & strokes was LOWER after Covid vaccination compared to those who had not been vaxxed.

This benefit is not included in the cost-effectiveness analysis.

cam.ac.uk/research/news/…Image
But this is only the tip of the iceberg...

3️⃣ The BIGGEST risk for younger people is long-term chronic illness.

The latest data from the GP-Patient Survey (July 2024) shows that 4.6% of the population now have LONG COVID.

That equates to 3.1 MILLION people across the UK! Image
According to the latest ONS Covid Infection Survey (March 2024), 29% of those currently suffering from Long Covid reported that their symptoms started within the last 12 months.

In other words, nearly A THIRD of people suffering from Long Covid are NEW cases since March 2023. Image
We also know that incidence of Long Covid is far higher in the middle age groups, particularly 45 to 64 year olds.

This age group are NOT eligible for vaccination.

(Source: ONS Survey, March 2024)

ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…Image
This high prevalence of Long Covid is having a major impact on the workforce, and in turn, the economy.

The UK LOCOMOTION study revealed that OVER HALF of those with Long Covid had been forced to reduce their working hours or stop working altogether.

evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/how-much…Image
And this report published by @TheEconomist estimated that 252 MILLION work hours may be lost due to Long Covid in 2024.

The economic cost resulting from this is estimated to be over US$15.5 BILLION, equivalent to 0.5% of UK’s GDP.

impact.economist.com/perspectives/h…Image
Many studies have shown that recent vaccination DRAMATICALLY reduces the risk of developing Long Covid.

Given the clear economic impacts of LC, it seems incredible that the vaccine cost-effectiveness analysis doesn’t take this aspect into account at all.

scientificamerican.com/article/vaccin…Image
Another recent study revealed that the risk of developing Long Covid is DOUBLED for those who have NOT been vaccinated compared to those who have been vaccinated.

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10… x.com/zalaly/status/…Image
4️⃣ But it’s not just chronic illness that’s a problem.

Short-term illness (not severe enough to require hospital) is another important consideration since this can cause significant disruption to workplaces.

Covid is not seasonal. It comes in repeated waves throughout the year. Image
This article from @andrewgregory reveals how the cost of workplace illness has risen by 41% to £103 BILLION in 2023 (up from £73bn in 2018), according to the IPPR.

This was largely due to a loss of productivity amid “staggering” levels of presenteeism.

amp.theguardian.com/society/articl…Image
You can read the full IPPR report at the link below.

This report clearly shows how the increased level of illness amongst employees is having a HUGE cost to businesses.

And the majority of this cost is caused by employees attempting to work when sick.

ippr-org.files.svdcdn.com/production/Dow…Image
As a result of this flawed cost-effectiveness analysis (which excluded many of the primary benefits of vaccination), the numbers are VASTLY under-estimated.

This is why the vaccine eligibility has been so tightly restricted to only those aged 75 and over (or immunocompromised). Image
The really interesting thing is that ANOTHER vaccine cost-effectiveness analysis has recently been performed which DID look at some of these additional factors for the UK.

This study was recently published in the Journal of Medical Economics.

tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…Image
Unsurprisingly, this alternative analysis which INCLUDED benefits for averting Long Covid reached a VERY different conclusion:

Expanding vaccine eligibility to all over 50s increases the total cost of vaccination, but REMAINS cost-effective with an ICER of £10,061/QALY gained. Image
Some of my followers may recall that I conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the Covid vaccine ‘bespoke non-standard cost-effectiveness assessment’ methodology when it was first published just over a year ago.

You can have a read of my analysis in the thread below ⬇️
Finally, I wanted to show a side-by-side analysis of Covid vaccine eligibility in Autumn 2022 vs Autumn 2025…

It seems crazy that even those who are clinically vulnerable will no longer be eligible for protection from a Covid booster, unless they are immunosuppressed. Image
Here’s a comparison of the vaccine eligibility for Covid vs Flu.

The criteria is vastly different!

Too many differences to list them all, but children, clinically vulnerable people & healthcare workers are all eligible for the flu jab - but won’t be able to get a Covid booster. Image
So what can you do about this?

I would recommend writing to your local MP and ask them to raise concerns with the Minister for Public Health & Prevention who is responsible for vaccine policy (@GwynneMP).

Below is an excellent letter example written by @GillianSmith16 ⬇️ Image
@GwynneMP @GillianSmith16 You can find details about how to get in touch with your local MP here ⬇️

parliament.uk/get-involved/c…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Cat in the Hat 🐈‍⬛ 🎩 🇬🇧

Cat in the Hat 🐈‍⬛ 🎩 🇬🇧 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @_CatintheHat

Mar 19
COVID INQUIRY: MODULE 3 REPORT

“Fundamental flaws in the UK’s approach to IPC [infection prevention & control] guidance, for example in relation to the use of PPE, put patients and healthcare workers at risk.”

— Baroness Hallett, Chair of the Covid Inquiry

Read more here… ⬇️
These are the words we were all hoping to hear:

“Initial guidance on preventing the spread of infection was flawed. It assumed the virus was spread by contact transmission, failing properly to consider the extent to which it was also spread by AIRBORNE transmission.” Image
But it wasn’t just the “initial guidance” that was flawed!

To this very day, the IPC guidance STILL does not reflect the latest science on AIRBORNE transmission.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 18
Last week, CATA released two explosive reports which revealed a scandal of monumental proportions.

Flawed decisions were made at the start of the Covid pandemic - and then covered up for years to come.

In this series of videos, @SafeDavid3 talks us through the key findings…
The CATA Executive team have worked tirelessly in their pursuit of the truth, forensically analysing over 17,000 Covid Inquiry documents & submitting countless FOI requests.

Concerningly, they discovered around 100 key emails which have not been disclosed to the Covid Inquiry…
Their report explores 7 separate occasions when the IPC Cell was challenged re: the adequacy of its guidance on respiratory protection for healthcare workers.

This included challenges from PHE/UKHSA, Chief Nursing Officers & even the CMO.

Each time, concerns were brushed aside.
Read 17 tweets
Mar 16
In honour of #LongCOVIDAwarenessDay, I’d like to present some important data from the latest GP-Patient survey.

This is a HUGE survey with a sample size of ~700K people in England (5x bigger than ONS’s Covid survey).

In this thread, I’ll walk you through some key findings…

/1 Image
According to the GP-Patient survey:

🚨4.2% of people say they DO have Long Covid. That equates to around 2.3M people in England.

🚨A further 9.5% (~5.3M) say they ‘don’t know’.

So potentially as many as 7.6M people in England either have Long Covid or suspect they might.

/2 Image
The fact that 9.5% of people said they “don’t know” if they have long Covid is actually not surprising.

It’s a HUGE number of people who suspect something isn’t right but don’t have clarity…

…and once you think about how Covid is diagnosed, it makes perfect sense.

/3
Read 23 tweets
Mar 14
CATA's reports are a truly remarkable piece of forensic investigation & took literally YEARS to put together.

The fact it’s taken so long is a fundamental part of the story.

For example: it took a whopping 27 MONTHS to extricate one document from the DHSC via an Fol request... Image
And it took 17 MONTHS to elicit a set of draft minutes from IPC Cell meetings which took place in Dec 2020 - and only following a direct order by the ICO.

This doc is one of the most damning pieces of evidence in the report as it reveals how minutes were fundamentally altered. Image
PHE & UKHSA have been similarly obstructive in providing information in a timely fashion.

The statutory requirement of FoIs is to provide the info requested within 20 working days…

…but it took over 300 WORKING DAYS (roughly 14 MONTHS) to finally extricate one key document. Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 10
In 2023, the British Council for Offices (BCO) updated the ventilation guidance for offices:

💨 The *minimum* recommended ventilation rate was increased from 12 to 14 litres of outdoor air per sec per person.

Now guess what the ventilation rate is in a typical UK classroom…❓ Image
Since 2022, the Schools Air quality Monitoring for Health & Education (SAMHE) project has monitored indoor air quality in hundreds of schools across the UK.

Shockingly, their data revealed that the ventilation rate in a typical UK classroom is just 5.3 litres per sec per person. Image
Worse still, the data shows the average ventilation rate plummets to just 3.8 litres per sec per person in colder weather.

Now compare this to the MINIMUM recommended ventilation rate for offices of 14 litres per sec per person.

Schools are achieving just a fraction of this! Image
Read 18 tweets
Feb 22
FROM THE OLYMPICS TO NASA, WEARING MASKS IS BACK - EXCEPT IN HEALTHCARE

Brilliant article on how masking is increasingly popular with Olympic athletes, actors & astronauts wanting to avoid illness…

…but sadly, in hospitals, masking is rare & those who do are often gaslit.

🧵 Image
Here’s a link to the online version of this article by the brilliant Tess Finch Lees:
independent.ie/opinion/commen…
The link above is paywalled so here’s an archived link where you can read it for free:


(Please do also click the first link as well though to increase traffic & help persuade editors to publish more Covid stories like this).archive.ph/sfP52
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(