The burning question asked about vaccine safety at todays covid briefing

[Amity Island]

BBC's Fergus Walsh asked the Deputy Chief Medical Officer Professor Jonathan Van Tam today if he would be prepared to be among the first people to be vaccinated?

He answered, "If I could, rightly and morally, be at the very front of the queue then I would do so. "Because I absolutely trust the judgement of the MHRA on safety and efficacy. "But that clearly isn't right - we have to target most highest risk individuals in society and that is how it should be. "If I could be at the front of the queue, then I would be.


“I think the ‘mum test’ is very important here. My mum is 78, she will be 79 shortly, and I have already said to her, ‘mum, make sure when you are called you are ready, be ready to take this up, this is really important for you because of your age’.”

You can watch at 25:00 into the video.

 

[Robin]

And if they did announce, 'we are going to vaccinate the cabinet and the chief medical officers etc first', there’d be an outcry in the press about privilege.

 

[Inka]

@Robin beat me to it. They’d be criticised if they took the vaccine ahead of the most vulnerable. Also, even if, say, the PM had the vaccine to demonstrate it was safe, I’d bet there’d be people saying it wasn’t really the vaccine and that he just had saline.

Personally, I’d be more worried not less if they went to such effort to show me it was safe. It’d smack of trying to hard.

Finally - who was it, John Gummer? Ostentatiously stuffing a beef burger in his child’s mouth to prove beef was safe during Mad Cow Disease?. Not a good look!

 

[Christinepat]

I’m not going to take the vaccine ( if I’m offered it) until I know 100% that it’s safe as I feel it’s been rushed out without all the usual testing, after all it’s been made in months and can’t possibly have went though all the rigours testing

 

[Robin]

There are going to be thousands of doses of vaccines available, yet apparantly not a single dose can be spared to let our chief medical officer convince the public about taking the vaccine. Same for prime minster? Surely these are people in key positions and would be a high priorty for being vaccinated

I never mentioned the cabinet, just the chief medical officer leading by example.

Ah, as you mentioned the Prime Minister specifically, and then talked about 'people in key positions' I read into it that you weren’t necessarily confining it to those two (either the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, who wasn’t actually asked about it, or his deputy, JVT)

 

[Robin]

Hi Robin,
The point of my post is that, the people with the opportunity to re-assure the public are not taking the opportunity to do so. Obviously, some will come up with any reason to justify them not leading by example, by saying well, there'd be public outrage at them getting first chance", but for me, this is avoiding the issue, the issue is please show us you have personal confidence in the vaccine by being the first. And confirm that even without long term saftey testing you are happy to take it.

Yes, I got the point of your post, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that, if that were decided, the press would have a field day proclaiming 'Privilege!' It’s what the Press do.

 

[nonethewiser]

For me this is a very non-commital, a very un-reasuring response for a person who has the perfect opportunity to lead the way and lead the country by example. There are going to be thousands of doses of vaccines available, yet apparantly not a single dose can be spared to let our chief medical officer convince the public about taking the vaccine. Same for prime minster?

Exemplary behaviour if you ask me.

Drug has already been tested on humans, albeit not in usual numbers or for longer duration. First & foremost must be most vulnerable in society who get vaccine first to save lives.

 

[mikeyB]

Well, I'd volunteer without worrying about side effects. Given that the target of the vaccine is the spike in the coat of the virus, which is lipid based and so wouldn't contain and virus RNA, any side effects would be at worst an allergic reaction to the preservatives. Unless, of course they grow the virus in eggs like they do with flu virus, in which case an allergy to eggs is a possible irritant.

The only person who had to drop out of the trial developed transverse myelitis. Though that can sometimes be caused by viruses such as mumps or herpes zoster, there are no reports anywhere among the millions who have had covid-19 infections developing it, but as there is no live virus in the vaccine there's no worry. Folk will get side effects, of course, because some people always will - even when given a placebo.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I intend to take the vaccine at the first possible opportunity (and after those deemed more vulnerable/vital have had first option - either clinically, through age, or because of crucial work they do).

I hope everyone else does the same.

 

[Eddy Edson]

I intend to take the vaccine at the first possible opportunity (and after those deemed more vulnerable/vital have had first option - either clinically, through age, or because of crucial work they do).

I hope everyone else does the same.

Yep, me too.

 

[trophywench]

Hi Mike,
And what do you think about someone (like deputy/chief medical officer) being an example to us all, to get a better take up across the population?

Not if it prevents a single other person getting theirs Amity Island. I'll be damned (and that ain't the word I actually mean) if he will before me, or my husband, thanks.

 

[rebrascora]

Why do you feel the need for someone to set an example? The chances of getting ill from the vaccine are minute so what benefit is it to you seeing any one person have it or agree to have it first. There are plenty of volunteers who have already trialed it, so what difference would another person make and if he was to have the vaccine, do you then wait weeks or months to see if he drops dead (or takes ill) before giving it to everyone else? Your argument isn't logical in my opinion. I agree with others that he would get slated in the press if he was given the vaccine ahead of front line workers.
I will have no hesitation in getting it when it is deemed that those who need it before me have been vaccinated. I am sure that is also the deputy chief medical officer's position and rightly so.

 

[Inka]

Apparently, they are struggling to convince everybody to take the new vaccine and are going to great lengths through advertising, articles, interviews and shutting down anti-vaccine posts on social media etc to change peoples minds. What could be more convincing than the people pushing the vaccine rollout to take it themselves first?

But a fair number of those refusing the vaccine are mired in conspiracy theories. If the Chief Med Officer had the vaccine, the conspiracy people would just twist their narrative to make that even more suspicious (“Look how desperate they are to get you to have it! Microchips...5G....Bill Gates...blah...blah.....The vaccine he had was clear just like saline so obviously a fake....All a big act....blah blah..”)

The people with more usual fears will read the evidence and make their decision. I doubt the CMO having it would contribute much to persuade them.

 

[mikeyB]

I agree, @rebrascora. It is a better example to show by not getting a vaccination ahead of the more needy. it would be a PR disaster if he did. It's one of those situations where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't, and it's sod all to do with safety of the vaccine.

Strikes me that it's madness to worry about the unlikely event of adverse reactions. Would you prefer to risk the known possible effects of Covid-19 infections? Some folk need to learn a bit about relative risk. It's because i know about relative risk that I'll be perfectly happy to get vaccinated. The greater risk is not the unlikely event of an adverse reaction, but rather the vaccine is not completely effective.

The interesting question will be whether those who have had the infection will be offered immunisation. I suspect the illness gives you immunity just as well as a vaccine.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

It's one of those situations where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't, and it's sod all to do with safety of the vaccine.

What they surely need to avoid is the kind of disaster the Blair's fell into with MMR: when someone in their family ought to be having the vaccine, make sure they have it and say that they've had it. (Or have some plausible explanation for why they haven't yet or don't want to say. And make sure it doesn't involve crystals.)

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Hi Mike,
And what do you think about someone (like deputy/chief medical officer) being an example to us all, to get a better take up across the population?

Personally I don't feel that would have much impact at all - and potentially could have a negative impact as others have suggested.

He has already said that if it were ethically right he would have the jab now, but knows he needs to wait for those in greater need to go first. And that he would encourage his mum to have it as soon as it was offered to her (I thought his 'Mum test' was pretty clear myself).

If you wanted someone to set an example and be a figurehead I don't think someone like him would do the job. It would need to be someone more universally liked. Closest example I can think of is David Attenborough, but he's got more of an environmental vibe. So someone as loved as him, but to do with science and medicine 🙂

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Besides, the MMR vaccine wasn't new then, nor was it a new mRNA DNA technology that hadn't been used on humans before.

It was newly controversial. It would have helped had Blair been able to say that yes, his children had had the vaccine.

I thought it was a perfectly reasonble question to ask the DCMO at the briefing if he'd be one of the first to receive the vaccine and I would have been re-assured if he'd of just said yes, without any further explanation.

Or he could have said that he'd be happy to receive it when invited to do so, but that given his age and medical status that wouldn't be for a while since there were lots of others who were rightly ahead of him.

 

[pm133]

Why do you feel the need for someone to set an example? The chances of getting ill from the vaccine are minute so what benefit is it to you seeing any one person have it or agree to have it first.

What are you basing that on?
You might be right but there's not been anywhere near enough testing of it to be so certain.

 

[pm133]

Hi Trophy,
I didn't mean it in the way you mentioned, I don't think it's going to be offered on an individual "named" persons basis and I wouldn't expect any single person to give up their personally allotted dose, there is however 10,000,000 doses ordered and more to come after that. I'd hope everybody would be offered it at some point. I meant it in a "for the greater good" sense. I've always believed in "do I as I do" and not in the "do as I say and not as I do".

If I end up getting a letter offering the vaccine, he can have mine. I am more than happy to sit things out for a little while until this shows itself to be safe.

 

[trophywench]

Well exactly! Won't we generally have heard eg how many 80+ folk in care homes have had it and how many have perished within a few days or whatever, before someone sends us a personal invitation to get one? Any number of people we're acquainted with have parents still living and in care, plus we have several 80+ personal acquaintances not in care ourselves anyway, and the 75+ ones too.