Covid-19: Vaccination Prioritisation

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton Excerpts
Wednesday 25th November 2020

(4 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton Portrait Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
- Hansard - -

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that high-risk adults under the age of 65 are prioritised for access to any Covid-19 vaccination ahead of adults less at risk who are over the age of 65.

Lord Bethell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has found that mortality increases exponentially with age and has published interim advice accordingly. An age-based programme captures many with underlying conditions. None the less, the sub-committee is reviewing evidence on clinical risk factors, including the clinically extremely vulnerable, and the committee will update its advice if necessary after review.

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton Portrait Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for his Answer. As someone who has been shielding since early March, I celebrate those involved in producing the vaccines in such a short time. However, I am concerned to learn that those under 65 in the clinically high-risk categories have been given a lower priority for the vaccine, knowing that 59% of people who have died from the coronavirus have been high-risk disabled people. Can the Minister please provide the JCVI’s evidence that informed the Government’s decision that those in high-risk categories under 65 are less vulnerable to the virus? Disabled people tell me that they have not felt shielded or protected throughout this pandemic, and this priority decision seems to confirm that belief. I urge the Government to think again.

Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I reassure the noble Baroness that no final decisions have been made; this is only interim advice. I point out in particular that the behaviours of individual vaccines might be quite different for different groups of people. It is only when we have the final phase 3 data on the vaccines that we will be able to make the decisions that she alludes to. We are considering the extremely vulnerable carefully. As I mentioned, a review is under way to see whether clinical factors should play a greater role in prioritisation.