Ross Clark

Just how strong an immunity do Covid patients develop after they have acquired the infection and how long does it last? The question is vital to the likely future passage of the pandemic, and to how well vaccines will protect us in the long term. Several studies have suggested there is a sharp decline in antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 over time – a paper from Imperial College’s React study in October, for example, revealed that the proportion of the population showing antibodies to the virus declined from 6 per cent in June to 4.4 per cent in September. The researchers were at pains to emphasise that the presence of antibodies does not indicate immunity to Covid-19, but many people have taken it as an indication that immunity to the disease quickly declines after infection.

Yesterday, the news was dominated by Imperial College’s React study which suggested – in contrast to the fall in recorded new infections – that the prevalence of Covid-19 in the general population was either static during the first ten days of lockdown (between 6 and 15 January), or could even have risen slightly. This morning, however, we have a second opinion in the form of the ONS infection survey, which like React is based on testing a randomised sample of the population. It suggests that the prevalence of Covid-19 did indeed fall in the first half of January – but not by all that much. Between 9 and 16 January, the ONS estimates, 1.024 million people in England and Wales were infected, the equivalent to 1 in 55 of the population.

Not for the first time, people could be excused for feeling a bit confused by conflicting data on Covid-19. This morning, many news outlets reported claims from the latest React study that levels of Covid-19 infections are no longer falling and may, in fact, be rising. This is somewhat at odds with government data that shows cases have peaked since the beginning of the third English lockdown. For days, the figure for new infections, as detected by NHS Test and Trace, and published on the government’s Covid-19 dashboard, have been falling. In the past seven days, the number of new infections recorded across the UK was 294,172 — 21.5 per cent down on the previous seven day period. What's going on?

The UK’s decision to lengthen the gap between first and second doses of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines has been criticised by some. But what if we had a vaccine which only needed one dose, and had been tested on that basis? A vaccination programme could progress far more quickly and without the complication of having to ask people to come back to a clinic a second time. In particular, it would simplify the distribution of vaccines in countries with less-well developed public health systems. That is the promise of the latest vaccine candidate for which results have been reported: the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is based on an existing Ebola jab.

The World Health Organisation’s appeal to stop naming variants of Covid-19 after geographical locations evidently cut no ice with the Prime Minister, who warned MPs yesterday about a new Brazilian mutation of the Sars-Cov2-virus. Chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance later suggested to ITV News that the changes identified in the new variant ‘might make a change to the way the immune system recognises it but we don’t know. Those experiments are underway.’ According to Pfizer last week, its vaccine still offers protection against the newly-identified Kent and South African variants of the Sars-CoV-2 virus. But should we now be worrying that the Brazilian variant will creep through our defences?

Today begins the second phase of the Covid-19 vaccine programme, with the first members of the public receiving doses of the easier to use Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. But will the effort be thwarted by the emergence of two new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the Kentish strain and the South African strain? Yesterday, Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at the University of Oxford, gave his opinion. The Kentish strain, he said, does not greatly worry him. Although it has mutations that appear to make it more transmissible, they should not, he says, interfere with the working of any of the vaccines.

Given that I know about as much about Lewis Hamilton’s tax affairs as I do about Formula One motor racing it would be unwise for me to be churlish about his knighthood, announced in the New Year Honours list. For all I know, he could be making generous voluntary donations to HMRC. A few weeks ago, it was reported that his tax status was being vetted by the Palace, and it doesn’t appear to have prevented his name appearing on the honours list. Then again, it is hard to escape a suspicion that the big attraction for his decision to live in Monaco might just possibly have been the modesty of its fiscal demands upon its residents – in which case it is not hard to wonder whether a more appropriate honour might have been the Ordre du Merite Culturel, bestowed by Albert II.

It is easy to be offended by the idea of the super-rich trying to buy their place in the queue for the Covid-19 vaccine ahead of your granny, and easy to feel a warm glow of satisfaction that they are being rebuffed – all supplies are being held on such a tight rein by the NHS that private clinics can’t get a look in. But would it really be such a bad idea if a handful of very wealthy individuals were allowed to have the vaccine ahead of schedule and raise some very useful cash for the NHS in the process? If we are going to vaccinate our way out of the Covid-19 crisis we are very shortly going to have to be administering millions of doses a week.