In the hunger for updates we must always look for the full story

IN a fast-moving and often terrifying pandemic every new piece of information is seized on and served up to a public anxious for updates. So in a matter of a few of days we have heard that the new variant of the virus is likely to be more deadly that the original, that the British Medical Association fears a drop in vaccine efficacy because of the Governmentapproved 12-week delay in administering doses and even that – on some measures – case rates were continuing to rise despite lockdown.

Sometimes, however, it makes sense to wait for a second opinion on some of the more alarming stories about the pandemic or at least for convincing confirmation that the latest piece of bad news stands up to scrutiny.

Yesterday, for example, the suggestion from a few days back that the latest lockdown was failing to suppress cases looks to have been proved incorrect. In the South West – for example – latest figures show the case rate is standing at 281.1, down from 351.1 and the lowest since December 30. Using Public Health England data the national news provider, Press Association suggests the England-wide lockdown introduced on January 5 is having an impact.

In addition the weekend’s frankly alarming warning from the BMA that delays in giving people their second dose of vaccine could prove dangerous was also challenged by a wellinformed source. Professor Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, defended the delayed dosing regime being used in the UK. The Bristol University professor said he expected the immune response to increase in the weeks following a jab, rather than start to decline before a booster shot after 12 weeks, as the BMA warning suggested.

He went on: “I must be careful what I say about the BMA, but I would say that it would be a good idea to really understand the issue.”

Of course the BMA is entitled to make a judgement on the speed at which doses of coronavirus vaccines are administered and we are still, given the nature of this crisis and the rate at which things change, far from certain about a number of aspects of the vaccination programme.

But Prof Finn’s advice is sound. There is enough ill-informed speculation around from people without any qualification to speak on the subject, from the anti-vaxers to those who disbelieve the nightly news reports that hospitals are buckling under the strain of new cases to be fake news.

There is little value in adding to the alarm unless and until there is good reason. In the case of the speed at which vaccines are administered, there is good evidence to the say the UK approach – to give as many people as possible the first dose to widen protection of the most vulnerable – makes sense.

There will be other claims and counter claims to come before this crisis is anywhere near over. But all those making pronouncement should remember that what they say has an impact on the public. Being first with the bad news is important. But being correct and measured is even more valuable.