The UK response - Part II - read OP

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

The FDA are saying that they were distributed before the FDA could give them approval, there are concerns with the labelling on the devices, their accuracy has not been established (presumably by the FDA) and there are issues around the distribution. None of this is relevant to the UK because the MHRA has given them approval, they are not distributed via the US and the labelling issue is not relevant as they are repackaged with NHS labelling.

The MHRA, as is their job, are reviewing the data from the FDA and making their own decision.

The FDA is questioning their use as a diagnostic tool, at no point has the UK used them for this purpose, they are indicative only and the NHS go to great lengths to make this very obvious.

the effectiveness of these tests applies to all antigen tests, none are as accurate as a proper PCR test and you will not find anyone that claims otherwise.

They were making extravagant claims as to the effectiveness of their test and provided no data to back them up and the uk trials offered no further support. The accuracy had been assessed to be as low as 58%. Now we see that up to 60% of positive tests are coming out pcr negative. That's dismal results. How more reassured can anyone who tests negative using one of these kits actually be that they are covid free? How many school/work days are being lost through false positives?

Nobody talked about diagnostics or comparing with pcr so forget about that strawman. I'm sure LFT has an important role to play in the battle to get back to normal, but i think it would help too if you were distributing tests that weren't so unreliable. Tbh, that's a minimum I'd expect for £3.2bn (and counting), but perhaps

S.M.B.

I have yet to take one of these tests as I don't have much confidence in the results. Is anyone in the UK doing so twice per week or as recommended?

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They were making extravagant claims as to the effectiveness of their test and provided no data to back them up and the uk trials offered no further support. The accuracy had been assessed to be as low as 58%. Now we see that up to 60% of positive tests are coming out pcr negative. That's dismal results. How more reassured can anyone who tests negative using one of these kits actually be that they are covid free? How many school/work days are being lost through false positives?

Nobody talked about diagnostics or comparing with pcr so forget about that strawman. I'm sure LFT has an important role to play in the battle to get back to normal, but i think it would help too if you were distributing tests that weren't so unreliable. Tbh, that's a minimum I'd expect for £3.2bn (and counting), but perhaps

how many school days would be lost if an asymptomatic child infected their entire class as well as their teacher?

How much should it cost? should the government be paying nothing? Should it be doing nothing? what level of accuracy should you get for £3.2bn?

Is your problem with the government, the use of lateral flow tests or the £3.2bn?

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

I have yet to take one of these tests as I don't have much confidence in the results. Is anyone in the UK doing so twice per week or as recommended?

A class mate of my niece tested positive using one, then positive from a PCT test.

Which meant my niece was pinged as a close contact. Her PCR was negative though, as her previous antigen tests had been.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

how many school days would be lost if an asymptomatic child infected their entire class as well as their teacher?

How much should it cost? should the government be paying nothing? Should it be doing nothing? what level of accuracy should you get for £3.2bn?

Is your problem with the government, the use of lateral flow tests or the £3.2bn?

Maybe I'm crazy but i just believe that for £3.2bn it should be possible for any second rate government to come up with a test that is at least passably reliable. I personally would want nothing to do with a company that allegedly sent falsified data to another regulator in order to secure approval. I personally would have dropped any firm like a stone which produced the dismal set of results during uk trials last year and not doubled down and pumped more billions into it as this government did. Of all the test manufacturers or distributors, why so joined at the hip to this one? It's not even serco, not even british, yet claiming billions out of the covid war chest nonetheless, generally reserved, i thought, for home grown "entrepreneurs".

How many school days would be saved if they'd spent their money on one of the no doubt many tests that would do better than an "up to 60%" false positive rate?

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

How many school days would be saved if they'd spent their money on one of the no doubt many tests that would do better than an "up to 60%" false positive rate?

Which ones?

This is just more of your usual negativity.

It’s like the Labour MP on BBC breakfast this morning trashing the government for their lack of clarity over the traffic light system, but when asked by Naga what he would do, blatantly changed the subject, three times.

It’s easy to point fingers and criticise, much harder to come up with an actual solution.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

Which ones?

This is just more of your usual negativity.

It’s like the Labour MP on BBC breakfast this morning trashing the government for their lack of clarity over the traffic light system, but when asked by Naga what he would do, blatantly changed the subject, three times.

It’s easy to point fingers and criticise, much harder to come up with an actual solution.

Changing the subject? Traffic lights! That's good.

Solution available last year - ditch innova, don't give them extra billions for unreliable tests. Seek alternative source, including home grown options, and do deal. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me anyway.

Joe_ Public

Anyway, i don't think anyone's particularly interested in this subject anymore. After all, what's another couple of billion really matter among the oceans of money that have already been spaffed on test and trace and other misfiring covid ventures? But as to this particular business and the involvement of this curious US firm, Innova, this is definitely a piece worth reading if you have time and/or are interested. I've read the first 2 parts - of 4 - and it really is an outstanding work of investigative reporting and good to see the form isn't quite dead yet. And from a tory to boot!

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-innova-lateral-flow-tests-another-scandal-in-the-making-part-1/

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Changing the subject? Traffic lights! That's good.

Solution available last year - ditch innova, don't give them extra billions for unreliable tests. Seek alternative source, including home grown options, and do deal. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me anyway.

I’m not sure if you get this

Lateral flow tests aren’t accurate. The very nature of them makes them unreliable. Oxford university, Porton Down and PHE assessed fifty different tests, only two made it past initial tests.

It isn’t as simple as “ditch innovation and use another” because the next one is likely to be just as inaccurate.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Anyway, i don't think anyone's particularly interested in this subject anymore. After all, what's another couple of billion really matter among the oceans of money that have already been spaffed on test and trace and other misfiring covid ventures? But as to this particular business and the involvement of this curious US firm, Innova, this is definitely a piece worth reading if you have time and/or are interested. I've read the first 2 parts - of 4 - and it really is an outstanding work of investigative reporting and good to see the form isn't quite dead yet. And from a tory to boot!

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-innova-lateral-flow-tests-another-scandal-in-the-making-part-1/

Before you start hanging your hat on that website, you might want to check out their other articles, such as “Why BA refuse to deny pilots died from Covid jab” or the one by the same author claiming PCR testing is a scandal, Sage are part of a mass behavioral experiment and why her child should not wear a face mask.

It’s a loopers website to be honest.

robinph

S.M.B. wrote: »

I have yet to take one of these tests as I don't have much confidence in the results. Is anyone in the UK doing so twice per week or as recommended?

Not doing the twice weekly as I'm not doing that to the 5 year old that often. But we have done tests prior to meeting with others in certain situations.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

I’m not sure if you get this

Lateral flow tests aren’t accurate. The very nature of them makes them unreliable. Oxford university, Porton Down and PHE assessed fifty different tests, only two made it past initial tests.

It isn’t as simple as “ditch innovation and use another” because the next one is likely to be just as inaccurate.

Look, they ran trials of this Innova test in Liverpool and Birmingham last year and the results were dreadful. Up to 60% false positives as reported in the telegraph and elsewhere tallies with what was recorded in Liverpool so the emerging statistics are merely confirming what was hinted at initially and what scientists were warning against. So at what point does unreliability of these tests make them more of a hindrance than a benefit? And nobody ever said LFTs were 100% reliable so stop with the strawman, but some will quite obviously be more accurate than others so quite why they have to continue with this outfit, given what we have learned about them over the past year, just seems bizarre to me. Expect to see them issued another juicy contract extension any day now, if not already happened!

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

Before you start hanging your hat on that website, you might want to check out their other articles, such as “Why BA refuse to deny pilots died from Covid jab” or the one by the same author claiming PCR testing is a scandal, Sage are part of a mass behavioral experiment and why her child should not wear a face mask.

It’s a loopers website to be honest.

She's definitely no Peter Oborne, I'll grant you that. It's only really the trail and outline of the innova/China story I'm interested in and she at least sources it fairly well from what i can see.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Look, they ran trials of this Innova test in Liverpool and Birmingham last year and the results were dreadful. Up to 60% false positives as reported in the telegraph and elsewhere tallies with what was recorded in Liverpool so the emerging statistics are merely confirming what was hinted at initially and what scientists were warning against. So at what point does unreliability of these tests make them more of a hindrance than a benefit? And nobody ever said LFTs were 100% reliable so stop with the strawman, but some will quite obviously be more accurate than others so quite why they have to continue with this outfit, given what we have learned about them over the past year, just seems bizarre to me. Expect to see them issued another juicy contract extension any day now, if not already happened!

But that’s the thing, none of them have been proven to be reliable, they are just another tool in the box and they have to be treated that way. If you look at what is being used across Europe, there is a whole assortment, all of which seem to originate from somewhere in China.

The thing is, there is no other way of getting a fast indication, so they are being used for indicative purposes only. It’s not ideal, but the view is that it is better than nothing.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

But that’s the thing, none of them have been proven to be reliable, they are just another tool in the box and they have to be treated that way. If you look at what is being used across Europe, there is a whole assortment, all of which seem to originate from somewhere in China.

The thing is, there is no other way of getting a fast indication, so they are being used for indicative purposes only. It’s not ideal, but the view is that it is better than nothing.

This post was reminding me of something and couldn't think what, but then it came to me - Dido "Silver Bullet" Harding and her defence of her rotten test and trace performance by blaming her critics and their infernal negativity for having too high expectations. What do these people think you get for the relative pittance of 30 or 40 billion or whatever (who's even counting anymore)? We seem to think all this is a silver bullet when the smart people like Dido understand that all you can really expect for your billions is "better than nothing." Would work as a decent snappy slogan for current regime, mind.

So I guess the fact Innova were making extravagant claims about the accuracy of their test and only a while ago hancock was dismissing the chances of false positives is neither here nor there. Problem is with people having too high expectations and they really ought to have learned their lesson by now, quite frankly.

Louche Lad

Funny
https://www.indy100.com/news/covid-denier-queen-of-hearts-runcorn-b1873289

Timberrrrrrrr

Louche Lad wrote: »

Funny
https://www.indy100.com/news/covid-denier-queen-of-hearts-runcorn-b1873289

Runcorn lol

It's known over here as "The village of the damned" so yeah, this doesn't surprise me at all :pac:

RobMc59

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Runcorn lol

It's known over here as "The village of the damned" so yeah, this doesn't surprise me at all :pac:

Didn't people from Runcorn sneak into the gene pool when the lifeguard wasn't looking?

MadYaker

I don't know where to find proper figures for the UK. Delta variant is increasing rapidly there, are hospitalisations following suit?

gmisk

That is one huge jump in case numbers in Scotland (biggest daily numbers since pandemic began...almost 4k in last 24 hours)
All that partying after drawing with England...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/covid-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-accused-of-messaging-failure-as-2000-cases-linked-to-euros-3292169

MadYaker

Ye it doesn't look good alright, you'd have to assume most of the people presenting at A&E are vaccinated https://www.scotsman.com/health/covid-scotland-health-boards-warn-of-extreme-pressures-as-staff-self-isolate-3292037

Peregrinus

MadYaker wrote: »

Ye it doesn't look good alright, you'd have to assume most of the people presenting at A&E are vaccinated https://www.scotsman.com/health/covid-scotland-health-boards-warn-of-extreme-pressures-as-staff-self-isolate-3292037

No, you wouldn't. Vaccination is proceeding very well in the UK, but they still have less than half the population fully vaccinated and younger peole are much less likely to be vaccinated than older people. Younger people are also more likely to have gone to pubs, clubs etc to watch football games or to celebrate afterwards.

Having said that, I believe there is some evidence that at least some of the vaccines are less effective against the Delta variant than they have been against other variants. So it may be that vaccination greatly reduces your chances of infection, but still leaves you with a significant chance of becoming infected.

PommieBast

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, you wouldn't. Vaccination is proceeding very well in the UK, but they still have less than half the population fully vaccinated and younger peole are much less likely to be vaccinated than older people.

From what I hear from relatives London has a major problem with below-average vaccine uptake, to the point that some places will jab people even if they refuse to give any form of identity or immigration status.

Having said that, I believe there is some evidence that at least some of the vaccines are less effective against the Delta variant than they have been against other variants. So it may be that vaccination greatly reduces your chances of infection, but still leaves you with a significant chance of becoming infected.

My understanding is that the 90-something-percent figure mentioned of vaccines is the probability that an infection won't do you any real harm. It doesn't make your entire body kryptonie to the virus.

Peregrinus

PommieBast wrote: »

From what I hear from relatives London has a major problem with below-average vaccine uptake, to the point that some places will jab people even if they refuse to give any form of identity or immigration status.

Why would you need to demonstrate identity or immigration status to be vaccinated? Surely the policy is to promote universal vaccination in the community? The risk of infection/transmission you present doesn't depend in any way on your name or migration status.

PommieBast wrote: »

My understanding is that the 90-something-percent figure mentioned of vaccines is the probability that an infection won't do you any real harm. It doesn't make your entire body kryptonie to the virus.

As I understand it, when a vaccine is "90% effective" that means that it avoids 90% of the transmission that would otherwise happen. So if, in an unvaccinated population, you expect 1,000 infections, in a vaccinated but otherwise similar population you'd expect 100 infections.

The vaccine may also reduce the severity of the disease in those who do contract it, but (a) that's not what the 90% figure signifies, and (b) I don't know how much data we have on to what extent various Covid vaccines do this. From a public health point of view its a secondary concern, since even if you are only mildly affected by the disease yourself this may do nothing to reduce your transmission of the disease to other (indeed, it may increase it, if it means you're out and about rather than at home in bed), and the main goal of vaccination is to prevent transmission in the community.

Also worth pointing out that a vaccine may be X% effective against this variant of the vaccine, but Y% effective against that variant.

Lumen

Peregrinus wrote: »

As I understand it, when a vaccine is "90% effective" that means that it avoids 90% of the transmission that would otherwise happen. So if, in an unvaccinated population, you expect 1,000 infections, in a vaccinated but otherwise similar population you'd expect 100 infections

I don't think this is right, otherwise only 100% effective vaccines would be able to induce herd immunity (ignoring immunity acquired by infection).

Effectiveness is measured within a single population by comparing outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-difference-between-efficacy-and-effectiveness

Peregrinus

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think this is right, otherwise only 100% effective vaccines would be able to induce herd immunity (ignoring immunity acquired by infection).

I don't think so. "Herd immunity" does not mean "100% immunity"; it just means a sufficient degree of immunity in the community that even those who are not immune are relatively unlikely to meet with someone infected, and so are substantially protected by the immunity of others.

Lumen wrote: »

Effectiveness is measured within a single population by comparing outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-difference-between-efficacy-and-effectiveness

OK, this clarifies things. But I think perhaps that the "90%" and similar figures that have been quoted for various vaccines are in fact measures of efficacy, rather than of effectiveness.

Lumen

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think so. "Herd immunity" does not mean "100% immunity"; it just means a sufficient degree of immunity in the community that even those who are not immune are relatively unlikely to meet with someone infected, and so are substantially protected by the immunity of others.

Right, but I think your definition suggested otherwise, specifically:

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if, in an unvaccinated population, you expect 1,000 infections, in a vaccinated but otherwise similar population you'd expect 100 infections

Perhaps you meant "cohort" or "sub-population". I'm not trying to be argumentative, just clear.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I think perhaps that the "90%" and similar figures that have been quoted for various vaccines are in fact measures of efficacy, rather than of effectiveness.

I think these numbers are fairly useless for public health advice. I have problems reasoning about them, and I have a higher level of technical education than many people (I'm still a moron).

It is better to talk about vaccines with stories. Like: if you're old, getting vaccinated gives you back the immune response you had 30* years ago; if you're young, getting vaccinated might stop this virus mutating into something much worse. Or whatever.

* I don't know whether this is strictly accurate.

Peregrinus

Lumen wrote: »

Right, but I think your definition suggested otherwise, specifically:



Perhaps you meant "cohort" or "sub-population". I'm not trying to be argumentative, just clear.

You are being both clear and correct. That is what I meant, and what I should have said.

Lumen wrote: »

I think these numbers are fairly useless for public health advice. I have problems reasoning about them, and I have a higher level of technical education than many people (I'm still a moron).

It is better to talk about vaccines with stories. Like: if you're old, getting vaccinated gives you back the immune response you had 30* years ago; if you're young, getting vaccinated might stop this virus mutating into something much worse. Or whatever.

* I don't know whether this is strictly accurate.

It's also terribly vague, since most of us have no way of quantifying what immune response we had 30 years ago. And telling me that getting vaccinated might stop mutations isn't much help, since it implies that it also might not.

But maybe vagueness is more honest - a more accurate representation our present state of knowledge about this. Perhaps honest imprecision is better than a false assurance of certainty.

brickster69

Young people stepping forward in a big way in the UK. 4.2 million had first shot just three weeks after the programme was opened to those in their twenties.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/06/nhs-covid-19-vaccination-programme-jabs-half-of-adults-under-30/

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't know where to find proper figures for the UK. Delta variant is increasing rapidly there, are hospitalisations following suit?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

brickster69

Aegir wrote: »

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Strange how everyone always mentions cases and never tests.

afatbollix

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't know where to find proper figures for the UK. Delta variant is increasing rapidly there, are hospitalisations following suit?

Case numbers are now at the peak they had in November when they went into Lockdown before Christmas. About 25,000 a day being reported.

Deaths were about 450 a day in November. Today with the same amount of cases they are having about 10 to 15 deaths a day.

Hospitals around that time had 17,000 people in them. Today it is 1,700.

Wolf359f

afatbollix wrote: »

Case numbers are now at the peak they had in November when they went into Lockdown before Christmas. About 25,000 a day being reported.

Deaths were about 450 a day in November. Today with the same amount of cases they are having about 10 to 15 deaths a day.

Hospitals around that time had 17,000 people in them. Today it is 1,700.

November was a little out of control and started from a high base.

7 day rolling averages (4 October 2020/22 June 2021)
Cases: (13000/12930)
Admissions: (606/232)
Hospital Patients: (3163/1469)
Deaths: (53/16)
ICU Patients: (384/237)
PCR %: (4.89/3.84)

PommieBast

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would you need to demonstrate identity or immigration status to be vaccinated? Surely the policy is to promote universal vaccination in the community? The risk of infection/transmission you present doesn't depend in any way on your name or migration status.

Having had jabs in both the UK and in Ireland, the checking of id that the Irish are doing ("If you do not bring photo ID, you cannot enter the vaccination centre") stood out like a sore thumb to me. I think this is a major mistake in the making.

Keep in mind that the hostile enviornment in the UK never went away, and Chinese friends of mine in London tell me that distrust of what the government does (even with medical data) is a major cause of vaccine hesitancy. That's why they setup that place in Chinatown where they do not record any details.

Peregrinus

PommieBast wrote: »

Having had jabs in both the UK and in Ireland, the checking of id that the Irish are doing ("If you do not bring photo ID, you cannot enter the vaccination centre") stood out like a sore thumb to me. I think this is a major mistake in the making.

Keep in mind that the hostile enviornment in the UK never went away, and Chinese friends of mine in London tell me that distrust of what the government does (even with medical data) is a major cause of vaccine hesitancy. That's why they setup that place in Chinatown where they do not record any details.

I can see the point that if you're going to issue vaccine certificates or "vaccine passports" then you need to keep track of who it is that you are vaccinating, and when. (That's not a consideration, though, if your policy is not to treat vaccinated and unvaccinated people differently; in that case you don't need vaccine certificates. But not many countries seem to be going that way.)

There's also an issue with hypochondriacs and obsessives who will try to get repeatedly vaccinated, perhaps with different vaccines. There won't be many of them, but there will be some. That's a waste of vaccines, plus it may have advers medical consequences for them. I don't know in practice how big a concern that is, though.

But immigration status? Utterly, utterly irrelevant and very definitely something that should not be connected in any way with vaccination. Anybody who has any idea about making such a link should be rigorously excluded from having any influence at all over public health policy.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

But immigration status? Utterly, utterly irrelevant and very definitely something that should not be connected in any way with vaccination. Anybody who has any idea about making such a link should be rigorously excluded from having any influence at all over public health policy.

no one has made the link, in fact the government has said many times that immigration status is not required and there will be no repercussions for people who register with a GP solely to get a vaccine.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/08/undocumented-uk-migrants-to-be-offered-covid-vaccine-without-any-checks

Lumen

The UK govt needs to sh!t or get off the pot as far as Delta is concerned.

The current approach of trying to flatten the curve with test+trace+isolate is creating enormous disruption in schools and workplaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm_9kx8vpWY

Fears of summer chaos in England’s schools and offices without Covid restrictions
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/03/fears-of-summer-chaos-in-schools-and-offices-as-covid-restrictions-are-swept-away

Dave0301

Lumen wrote: »

The UK govt needs to sh!t or get off the pot as far as Delta is concerned.

The current approach of trying to flatten the curve with test+trace+isolate is creating enormous disruption in schools and workplaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm_9kx8vpWY

Fears of summer chaos in England’s schools and offices without Covid restrictions
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/03/fears-of-summer-chaos-in-schools-and-offices-as-covid-restrictions-are-swept-away

I suspect that will come to an soon as well, and especially before September. You can't have over a quarter of a million kids out of education on a daily basis.

It is time to stop focusing on daily case numbers and only get worried if there is a big jump in hospital admissions, which hopefully there won't be.

Inquitus

PommieBast wrote: »

Having had jabs in both the UK and in Ireland, the checking of id that the Irish are doing ("If you do not bring photo ID, you cannot enter the vaccination centre") stood out like a sore thumb to me. I think this is a major mistake in the making.

This is no mistake, it is a vital step in any future vaccination control required for travel etc. etc. How can you provide a covid vaccination validation certificate for travel if you have no proof the person that turned up for the vaccination is the one now attempting to travel. You already have to provide your Name, Address, PPS # etc. for an appointment, all requiring photo ID at the vaccination center does is make sure noone is trying to cheat or game the system.

The UK also require similar details to book an appointment, this is how they stopped Irish people going to the North to try and get a vaccine when they weren't available here.

PommieBast

Inquitus wrote: »

The UK also require similar details to book an appointment, this is how they stopped Irish people going to the North to try and get a vaccine when they weren't available here.

All I can say is that the vaccination centre I went to in Hertfordshire didn't require any of it.


I was a bit surprised that the Irish jabbing centre were happy to add the details from my NHS appointment card to the system and list me as fully vaccinated.

PommieBast

Woody79 wrote: »

Why have you had jabs in both UK and Ireland?

It was the quickest way to get fully vaccinated. Had to return to Dublin before I could get my 2nd UK jab, and luck would have it my age group opened up in Ireland just after I got back.

matrim

I needed to give my NHS number to book an appointment. When I did go to the center to get my vax I wasn't asked for any proof of ID and just had to give my name.

I'm not sure how the new walk in centers are working but assume it's at least asked for to link it to your health record.

Dante

PommieBast wrote: »

I was a bit surprised that the Irish jabbing centre were happy to add the details from my NHS appointment card to the system and list me as fully vaccinated.

Out of interest, how did you manage this? I had my first jab up North but it would be far more convenient for me now to get my second jab in the South.

I assumed it wasn't possible but it sounds like you had no problems?

A Dub in Glasgo

I am double vaccinated and although my booking was through my NHS number, all I had to show was the letter. No ID or anything like it

Dante

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I am double vaccinated and although my booking was through my NHS number, all I had to show was the letter. No ID or anything like it

I actually didn't even provide my NHS number when I registered as I didn't have it on me at the time. I assumed they would ask at the hospital on the day but they never did, just my photo id.

Based on my experience anybody could have rocked up North and got their jab using a fake NI address. Although in saying that, maybe they could link it up to my record using my name and DOB, no idea tbh.

PommieBast

Dante wrote: »

Out of interest, how did you manage this? I had my first jab up North but it would be far more convenient for me now to get my second jab in the South.

I'm Irish resident (had PPS, Eirecode, etc) so I already ticked whatever boxes the Dublin centre wanted. If anything registering with a GP at my parents' place over in the UK was bending the rules, but guessing I was not a complete unknown so they didn't check closely..

Had the vaccines been different I would have simply kept quiet about my first jabbing.

PommieBast

Dante wrote: »

Based on my experience anybody could have rocked up North and got their jab using a fake NI address. Although in saying that, maybe they could link it up to my record using my name and DOB, no idea tbh.

My guess is that in NI they would have been on the lookout for people chancing it. Over on the mainland jabbing centres were literally dragging random people off the streets in the last hour or so, and being able to jump the priority queue by camping outside around 8pm was hardly a secret.

robinph

Dante wrote: »

I actually didn't even provide my NHS number when I registered as I didn't have it on me at the time. I assumed they would ask at the hospital on the day but they never did, just my photo id.

Based on my experience anybody could have rocked up North and got their jab using a fake NI address. Although in saying that, maybe they could link it up to my record using my name and DOB, no idea tbh.

I'd logged in to check about the moving date of second dose when that was first mentioned just to see what it said, the date was only a week away anyway so was purely curiosity. Didn't have my number on me at the time, and was on a different device to where I'd made the initial booking. Found my booking details no problem with just the post code, date of birth and name.

S.M.B.

I have been managing my booking with just name, post code and DoB too as I don't think I even know my NHS number but I do think somewhere behind the scenes they are linked.

robinph

It's definitely linked to the NHS number, but the chances of someone else in your same postcode, with the same date of birth and name are fairly slim, unless you are a twin still living at your parents and they were not very imaginative with the names and just called you sproglet one and sproglet two.

Don't think they require an NHS number in GB and will just give the jab if you turn up and have a name and address (although that isn't required as they were apparently meant to be doing jabs with homeless people as well). For NI it would make sense for them to require an NHS number just purely to prevent mass vaccine tourism.

It's mainly a case of stick a needle in any arm that gets offered up in front of them though.