Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
This Professor who sits on the JCVI that made the decision (it was scientists on the JCVI that decided it, not Johnson or the UK Government, which gogo seems to forget)
I didn't forget. I didn't know.

But what you're describing seems to contradict the JCVI's code of practice.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...13_-_final.pdf

Their ToR states:

"To advise UK health departments on immunisations for the prevention of infectionsand/or disease following due consideration of the evidence on the burden of disease,on vaccine safety and efficacy and on the impact and cost effectiveness ofimmunisation strategies. To consider and identify factors for the successful andeffective implementation of immunisation strategies. To identify important knowledgegaps relating to immunisations or immunisation programmes where further researchand/or surveillance should be considered."

It also states:

"JCVI provides advice and recommendations as described in the terms of reference(see earlier) based on consideration of scientific and other evidence (see later) that isused by Government to inform, develop and make policy. JCVI is not a policy maker inits own right and has no regulatory function"

Has their ToR changed?