π¨Dame Kate Binghamπ¨
Dubbed the "hero in a pink jacket π"
On Evusheld:
"I felt very strongly [.]. We were following a very clear 2 tier strategy where the CV immunocompromised were being deprioritised [.] I felt that was *manifestly* wrong both ethically and morally [.]"
1/π§΅
The above video was taken out of sequence. The below should give more context...
KB "So actually, the first goal was around protecting the UK population."
CTI [Hugo Keith KC]
"Do you think you succeeded on securing or making available those monoclonal antibodies?"
KB "No!" 2/
Kate goes on to make the argument that by not protecting this population, we were also promoting viral mutation and the evolution of variants.
3/
On funding, clinical trials, and onshore manufacturing. We need long-term planning and strategy.
KB "We don't have that level of capability or long-term thinking in government."
4/
On the inclusion of therapeutics within the remit of the Vaccine Taskforce:
KB "It was quite clear that there was 'open warfare' between BEIS [Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy] and the Department for Health"
5/
CTI "If you had brought [.] therapeutics within the remit of the VTF, you might have ended up dividing your attention [.] You would have been less able to focus ruthlessly on the question of identifying, procuring, and making available vaccines [.]"
KB "Correct" 6/
KB "I felt strongly that we should have governance over the neutralising antibodies because there are a portion on people in the UK who are immunocompromised."
"It was part of our original mandate."
"to protect all those people *including* the immunocompromised."
7/
She goes on to explain the difference between the antibodies and how Evusheld was designed to last longer to dose every 6m minimum. Other antibodies, designed as treatments, only last around 1 month.
8/
If the VTF had taken on antivirals, Kate believes that they could have made treatments available more rapidly, and they might have been more effective. However, she would have required a larger team.
9/
CTI "Did you ever get the impression during your time in the VTF that the issue of prophylactic development was being left behind, being made to be a second-class citizen?"
KB " I absolutely felt that, yes. From late October 2020."
10/
The JCVI identified *30 MILLION* people who were deemed to be Clinically Vulnerable (at that time):
πAll adults over 50
πThose under 50 with severe underlying disease
Kate described it as an "enhanced 'flu cohort"
11/
"Immediately" in May 2020, the VTF were aware of the development of Evusheld.
12/
KB "We initially signed a [.] letter of intent, but non-binding for a million doses of their long acting antibody cocktail [.] expected to have a 6m effect."
13/
1 million doses of Evusheld =
2 doses spread over 1 year
OR
1 dose per winter for 2 winters
"The numbers of immunocompromised people [500k] were data that had come from the Department of Health."
14/
AZ couldn't supply this order, as they had 2.5M doses for the world.
They then asked what was the minimum order to protect the immunocompromised population.
15/
The CMOs suggested no more than 50,000 if there was a political will.
Ultimately, no prophylactic treatment has *ever* been purchased to protect this, our most vulnerable, population.
16/
KB "I felt very strongly [.]. We were following a very clear 2 tier strategy where the CV immunocompromised were being deprioritised [.] 1 felt that was *manifestly* wrong both ethically and morally [.]"
17/
KB " It did not follow the goal that we had been set, which was to protect the entire population."
18/
Important comparison between the attitude to procuring vaccines vs. prophylactic treatments for people who are not sufficiently protected by vaccines.
19/
CTI suggests that the cost of Evusheld was not the reason for the decision against.
Kate quotes JVT, "I consider cost, including cost effectiveness and practicality considerations to be entirely rational factors when making decisions on neutralising Ab procurement."
20/
π§¨π₯
Thank you π @katebingham2 π
"The fact that the vaccine rollout had been effective doesn't stop people without an immune system getting infected."
21/
The decision about purchasing Evusheld was ultimately with ministers.
22/
Kate Bingham on that lack of purchase of Evusheld:
"I just think that it was the wrong decision."
23/
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
π Calling all UK COβ monitor owners
AND any helpful UK voters
PLEASE REPOST β»οΈ β€οΈ and tag others!
π Can you *please* help us at the local elections next Thursday?
- Even if you don't own one, we still need your help!
1/π§΅
<Read our new article - next post>
Last year, your evidence helped us change the Electoral Commission guidance for assisting Clinically Vulnerable voters - which has improved safety for everyone.
This year, we NEED YOUR HELP - to audit whether the guidance has worked. π
The UK has not shared data from 2025. But for CV people it is much worse:
2024 JCVI data showed that vaccines reduced hospitalisations for Clinically Vulnerable people by 45%.
They published it!
...then removed millions with health conditions from eligibility!
2/
45% may sound lower.
But if your baseline is 2-12x more likely to be hospitalised from Covid, a 45% reduction in risk prevents 2-12x more hospitalisations per dose.
The JCVI removed high-risk groups on cost-effectiveness grounds.
But the cost-effectiveness case is stronger!
3/
The government just published its Pandemic Preparedness Strategy.
TLDR: Some welcome commitments inc. on ventilation. But Clinically Vulnerable people are still not clearly defined or automatically protected, and the prioritisation framework won't arrive until 2027.
1/π§΅
What's new?
Published 25 March 2026, this is the UK's first major pandemic strategy since Covid.
It covers all 4 nations, sets out 12 principles and detailed action plans to 2030, backed by around Β£1 billion of investment.
But what about the detail...?
2/
They know another pandemic is coming... and epidemics are also a risk.
The question is:
Will Clinically Vulnerable families be protected when it does?
- This document raises the question more than it answers it.
β οΈEast Kent Trust failed to report their first case for 2 daysβ οΈ
Here's what you need to know.
TLDR: Peaked 13th March. No new cases since - with reporting delays, but that's even better news than it sounds.
1/π§΅ π @laurabundock @SkyNews
THE OUTBREAK IS DECLINING but understates how well that's going. π
The earliest case became unwell on 9th March, with the latest on 16th March, and the peak was 13th March.
2/
Cases take time to be confirmed and reported.
The fact that nothing new has surfaced in the data as of 23rd March - despite the reporting lag - means the real-world situation is almost certainly better than the numbers show.
Meningitis
* Important thread for those who prefer balanced and factual information *
In order to understand risk we need to break down a few things....
π¦ Risk from the bacteria
πππ Individual risk
π Environmental risks 1/
The Kent outbreak is predominantly MenB (Group B). This is a serious infection - and potentially an adapted strain - investigations are ongoing...
Bacterial meningitis is rare but more severe than viral, and up to 1 in 10 cases of bacterial meningitis in the UK is fatal.
2/
MenB isn't new. There are around 300 cases of MenB per year in the UK, even with vaccination programmes.
What's unusual is the cluster - multiple cases linked to a single location in a short window. It has now spread to a student at a second university in Canterbury, Kent. 3/
UK COVID INQUIRY - CVFπππ
@AdamWagner1 Closing Submissions
The Covid Inquiry has good ventilation protocols (as advised by CVF at the start of the Inquiry) including HEPA filters.
Under 1000ppm is therefore the safe threshold ( but without it would be under 800ppm).
1/
We need to understand airborne transmission in order to make all indoor environments safer for everyone, and especially for Clinically Vulnerable people.
2/
The need for Clinically Vulnerable people to have: