Age-standardised mortality rates for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19), non-COVID-19 deaths and all deaths by vaccination status, broken down by age group.

Flu vaccine uptake (%) in adults aged 65 and over, who received the flu vaccination between 1st September to the end of February as recorded in the GP record. The February collection has been adopted for our end of season figures from 2017 to 2018. All previous data is the same definitions but until the end of January rather than February to consider data returning from outside the practice and later in practice vaccinations.RationaleInfluenza (also known as Flu) is a highly infectious viral illness spread by droplet infection. The flu vaccination is offered to people who are at greater risk of developing serious complications if they catch the flu. The seasonal influenza programme for England is set out in the Annual Flu Letter. Both the flu letter and the flu plan have the support of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Chief Pharmaceutical Officer (CPhO), and Director of Nursing.Vaccination coverage is the best indicator of the level of protection a population will have against vaccine-preventable communicable diseases. Immunisation is one of the most effective healthcare interventions available, and flu vaccines can prevent illness and hospital admissions among these groups of people. Increasing the uptake of the flu vaccine among these high-risk groups should also contribute to easing winter pressure on primary care services and hospital admissions. Coverage is closely related to levels of disease. Monitoring coverage identifies possible drops in immunity before levels of disease rise.The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) will continue to provide expert advice and monitoring of public health, including immunisation. NHS England now has responsibility for commissioning the flu programme, and GPs continue to play a key role. NHS England teams will ensure that robust plans are in place locally and that high vaccination uptake levels are reached in the clinical risk groups. For more information, see the Green Book chapter 19 on Influenza.The Annual Flu Letter sets out the national vaccine uptake ambitions each year. In 2021 to 2022, the national ambition was to achieve at least 85 percent vaccine uptake in those aged 65 and over. Prior to this, the national vaccine uptake ambition was 75 percent, in line with WHO targets.Definition of numeratorNumerator is the number of vaccinations administered during the influenza season between 1st September and the end of February.Definition of denominatorDenominator is the GP registered population on the date of extraction including patients who have been offered the vaccine but refused it, as the uptake rate is measured against the overall eligible population. For more detailed information please see the user guide, available to view and download from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vaccine-uptake#seasonal-flu-vaccine-uptakeCaveatsRead codes are primarily used for data collection purposes to extract vaccine uptake data for patients who fall into one or more of the designated clinical risk groups. The codes identify individuals at risk, and therefore eligible for flu vaccination. However, it is important to note that there may be some individuals with conditions not specified in the recommended risk groups for vaccination, who may be offered influenza vaccine by their GP based on clinical judgement and according to advice contained in the flu letter and Green Book, and thus are likely to fall outside the listed Read codes. Therefore, this data should not be used for GP payment purposes.

Vaccination rates and odds ratios by socio-demographic group among people living in England.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination rates among adults who live in England, including estimates by socio-demographic characteristic and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2020

The number and percentage of Covid-19 fully vaccinated people by age band. Population estimates are based on National Immunisation Management Service counts.

This dataset has been updated to reflect new age bandings and population figures provided in July 2022.

This dataset now includes details of the Autumn Booster programme.

Note on analysis:

This datasets presents the proportion of the eligible population who have received all vaccinations they are entitled to. This is terms as a "Complete Dose". The number of vaccinations required to qualify as a complete dose differs by the age of the individual. The following scale is used to determine this:

- Aged 5 - 15 - Dose 1

- Aged 16 - 24 - Dose 1 & Dose 2

- Aged 35 - 50 - Dose 1, Dose 2 & Booster

- Aged 50+ - Dose1, Dose2, Booster & Autumn Booster

Data is updated weekly.

The 3.5-million-word Victorian Anti-Vaccination Discourse Corpus (hereon VicVaDis) is intended to provide a (freely accessible) historical resource for the investigation of the earliest public concerns and arguments against vaccination in England, which revolved around compulsory vaccination against smallpox in the second half of the 19th century. It consists of 133 anti-vaccination pamphlets and publications gathered from 1854 to 1906, a span of 53 years that loosely coincides with the Victorian era (1837-1901). This timeframe was chosen to capture the period between the 1853 Vaccination Act, which made smallpox vaccination for babies compulsory, and the 1907 Act which effectively ended the mandatory nature of vaccination.

The Quo VaDis project applies the latest techniques for large-scale computer-aided linguistic analysis to discussions about vaccinations in public discourse, and specifically in: social media discussions in English, UK Parliamentary debates and UK national press reports. The goal is to arrive at a better understanding of pro- and anti-vaccination views, as well as undecided views, which will inform future public health campaigns.

The project will be based in the world-renowned ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science (CASS) at Lancaster University, which was awarded a Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education in 2015. An interdisciplinary project team will work in interaction with three main project partners: Public Health England, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) list of top ten global health threats includes 'vaccine hesitancy' - 'a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services'. Vaccination programmes are currently estimated to prevent between 2 and 3 million deaths a year worldwide. However, uptake of vaccinations in 90% of countries has been reported to be affected by vaccine hesitancy. In England, coverage for all routine childhood vaccinations is in decline, resulting in the resurgence of communicable diseases that had previously been eradicated. In August 2019, the UK lost its WHO measles elimination status.

The reasons for vaccine hesitancy are complex, but they need to be understood in order to be addressed effectively. This project focuses on discourse because the ways in which controversial topics such as vaccinations are talked about both reflect and shape beliefs and attitudes, which may in turn influence behaviour. More specifically, vaccinations have been the topic of UK parliamentary debates since before the first Vaccination Act of 1840; they have been increasingly discussed in the UK press since the early 1990s; and anti-vaccination views in particular have been described as part of a complex network of 'anti-public discourses' which, in recent years, are known to be both spread and contested on social media.

This project will involve the analysis of three multi-million-word datasets: (1) English-language contributions to three social media platforms: Mumsnet, Reddit and Twitter since the inception of each platform - respectively, 2000, 2005 and 2006; (2) UK national newspapers since 1990; and (3) UK parliamentary debates since 1830. These datasets will be analysed in a data-driven fashion by means of the computer-aided methods associated with Corpus Linguistics - a branch of Linguistics that involves the construction of large digital collections of naturally-occurring texts (known as 'corpora') and their analysis through tailor-made software. A corpus linguistic approach makes it possible to combine in a principled way the quantitative analysis of corpora containing millions of words with the qualitative analysis of individual texts, patterns and interactions. In this way, we will identify and investigate the different ways in which views about vaccinations are expressed in our data, for example, through patterns in choices of vocabulary, pronouns, negation, evaluation, metaphors, narratives, sources of evidence, and argumentation. We will reveal both differences and similarities in pro- and anti-vaccination views over time and across different groups of people, particularly as they form and interact on social media.

Our findings will make a major contribution to an understanding of views about vaccinations both in the UK (via our parliamentary and news datasets) and internationally (via our social media datasets). Through the involvement of our Project Partners, as well as more general engagement activities, these findings will be used as evidence for the design of future public health campaigns about vaccinations.

All children at age 12 months who have received the complete course (3 doses) of hepatitis B vaccine within each reporting area as a percentage of all the eligible population as defined in the hepatitis B chapter of the immunisation against infectious diseases "Green Book" (have maternal Hep B positive status).RationaleInfants born to hepatitis B virus (HBV) infected mothers are at high risk of acquiring HBV infection themselves. Babies born to infected mothers are given a dose of the hepatitis B vaccine after they are born. This is followed by another two doses (with a month in between each) and a booster dose 12 months later. Around 20% of people with chronic hepatitis B will go on to develop scarring of the liver (cirrhosis), which can take 20 years to develop, and around 1 in 10 people with cirrhosis will develop liver cancer.Vaccination coverage is the best indicator of the level of protection a population will have against vaccine preventable communicable diseases. Coverage is closely correlated with levels of disease. Monitoring coverage identifies possible drops in immunity before levels of disease rise.Since April 2000 it has been recommended that all pregnant women in England and Wales should be offered testing for hepatitis B through screening for HBsAg, and that all babies of HBsAg seropositive women should be immunised (HSC 1998 127). A dose of paediatric hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for all infants born to an HBV infected mother as soon as possible after birth, then at 1 and 2, and 12 months of age ( https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hepatitis-b-guidance-data-and-analysis ). Previous evidence shows that highlighting vaccination programmes encourages improvements in uptake levels may also have relevance for NICE guidance PH21: Reducing differences in the uptake of immunisations (The guidance aims to increase immunisation uptake among those aged under 19 years from groups where uptake is low).Definition of numeratorNumber of children at age 12 months who have received the complete course (3 doses) of hepatitis B vaccine. Numerator counts for local authorities include all people registered with practices in the local authority, and no data are available to provide resident based figures.Definition of denominatorEligible population as defined in the hepatitis B chapter of the immunisation against infectious diseases "Green Book" (have maternal Hep B positive status).Denominators for local authorities include all people registered with practices in the local authority, and no data are available to provide resident based figures.CaveatsThese statistics have been published as ‘experimental statistics’ in the NHS Digital “NHS Immunisation Statistics, England” report. There are a number of issues with the hepatitis B dataset which have either impacted on data quality or have raised potential concerns around the quality of the data. Selective neonatal hepatitis B coverage data are reported by local authority (LA) responsible population for the first time in the 2015 to 2016 publication. Many LAs could not supply complete data on infants born to hepatitis B positive mothers and for a number of other LAs there were data quality issues. It has therefore not been possible to estimate figures for those LAs or describe the quality/completeness of LA data with any accuracy. (see Quality Statement for 2015 to 2016 for more information). Office of Health Improvement and Disparities has also published data for LAs that are co terminus with former PCTs but provided data by PCT rather than LA. These data were not published or validated by NHS Digital.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. The COVID-19 Vaccine Opinions Survey (VOS) is a follow up to the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPN) (held at the UK Data Archive under SN 8635), and questions those specifically who reported hesitancy towards the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine. The survey has been commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to identify changes in attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine, and the factors and interventions that may have influenced initially hesitant people's decision to get a vaccine. Survey content for this study has been developed in consultation with DHSC, Cabinet Office and National Health Service (NHS) England. The survey was carried out using an online survey by the Office for National Statistics. The sample was based on 4,272 adults in England who took part in the OPN (over the period 13 January to 8 August 2021), specifically those who indicated hesitancy or uncertainty towards getting or who had refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine. These respondents had previously provided consent to be re-contacted for future research. The responding sample contained 2,482 individuals, representing a 58 per cent response rate. This is a one-off survey and currently there are no plans to carry out a second wave. Main Topics:

This item has been replaced by the one which can be found at https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/2725 . ## # Abstract # Many livestock and increasingly human vaccines are leaky, blocking symptoms without preventing infection or onward transmission. Leakiness is concerning as it increases vaccination coverage required to prevent disease spread, and can promote evolution of increased pathogen virulence. Despite leakiness, vaccination may reduce pathogen load, affecting disease transmission dynamics. However, the impacts on post-transmission disease development and infectiousness in contact individuals are unknown. Here, we use transmission experiments involving Marek's disease virus in chickens to show that vaccination with a leaky vaccine substantially reduces viral load in both vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated contact individuals they infect. Consequently, contact birds are less likely to develop disease symptoms or die, show less severe symptoms when these are present, and shed less infectious virus themselves, when infected by vaccinated birds. These results highlight that even partial vaccination with a leaky vaccine can have unforeseen positive consequences in controlling the spread and symptoms of disease.

As of May 2, 2023, there were roughly 687 million global cases of COVID-19. Around 660 million people had recovered from the disease, while there had been almost 6.87 million deaths. The United States, India, and Brazil have been among the countries hardest hit by the pandemic.

The various types of human coronavirus The SARS-CoV-2 virus is the seventh known coronavirus to infect humans. Its emergence makes it the third in recent years to cause widespread infectious disease following the viruses responsible for SARS and MERS. A continual problem is that viruses naturally mutate as they attempt to survive. Notable new variants of SARS-CoV-2 were first identified in the UK, South Africa, and Brazil. Variants are of particular interest because they are associated with increased transmission.

Vaccination campaigns Common human coronaviruses typically cause mild symptoms such as a cough or a cold, but the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to more severe respiratory illnesses and deaths worldwide. Several COVID-19 vaccines have now been approved and are being used around the world.

Abstract # Many livestock and increasingly human vaccines are leaky, blocking symptoms without preventing infection or onward transmission. Leakiness is concerning as it increases vaccination coverage required to prevent disease spread, and can promote evolution of increased pathogen virulence. Despite leakiness, vaccination may reduce pathogen load, affecting disease transmission dynamics. However, the impacts on post-transmission disease development and infectiousness in contact individuals are unknown. Here, we use transmission experiments involving Marek's disease virus in chickens to show that vaccination with a leaky vaccine substantially reduces viral load in both vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated contact individuals they infect. Consequently, contact birds are less likely to develop disease symptoms or die, show less severe symptoms when these are present, and shed less infectious virus themselves, when infected by vaccinated birds. These results highlight that even partial vaccination with a leaky vaccine can have unforeseen positive consequences in controlling the spread and symptoms of disease.

Figures on coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine uptake in school pupils aged 12 to 17 years attending state-funded secondary, sixth form and special schools, broken down by demographic and geographic characteristics, using a linked English Schools Census and National Immunisation Management System dataset. Experimental Statistics.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. The UCL COVID-19 Social Study at University College London (UCL) was launched on 21 March 2020. Led by Dr Daisy Fancourt and Professor Andrew Steptoe from the Department of Behavioural Science and Health, the team designed the study to track in real-time the psychological and social impact of the virus across the UK. The study quickly became the largest in the country, growing to over 70,000 participants and providing rare and privileged insight into the effects of the pandemic on people’s daily lives. Through our participants’ remarkable two-year commitment to the study, 1.2 million surveys were collected over 105 weeks, and over 100 scientific papers and 44 public reports were published. During COVID-19, population mental health has been affected both by the intensity of the pandemic (cases and death rates), but also by lockdowns and restrictions themselves. Worsening mental health coincided with higher rates of COVID-19, tighter restrictions, and the weeks leading up to lockdowns. Mental health then generally improved during lockdowns and most people were able to adapt and manage their well-being. However, a significant proportion of the population suffered disproportionately to the rest, and stay-at-home orders harmed those who were already financially, socially, or medically vulnerable. Socioeconomic factors, including low SEP, low income, and low educational attainment, continued to be associated with worse experiences of the pandemic. Outcomes for these groups were worse throughout many measures including mental health and wellbeing; financial struggles;self-harm and suicide risk; risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing long Covid; and vaccine resistance and hesitancy. These inequalities existed before the pandemic and were further exacerbated by COVID-19, and such groups remain particularly vulnerable to the future effects of the pandemic and other national crises.Further information, including reports and publications, can be found on the UCL COVID-19 Social Study website. Main Topics: The study asked baseline questions on the following: Demographics, including year of birth, sex, ethnicity, relationship status, country of dwelling, urban/rural dwelling, type of accommodation, housing tenure, number of adults and children in the household, household income, education, employment status, pet ownership, and personality. Health and health behaviours, including pre-existing physical health conditions, diagnosed mental health conditions, pregnancy, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, caring responsibilities, usual social behaviours, and social network size. It also asked repeated questions at every wave on the following: COVID-19 status, including whether the respondent had had COVID-19, whether they had come into likely contact with COVID-19, current isolation status and motivations for isolation, length of isolation, length of time not leaving the home, length of time not contacting others, trust in government, trust in the health service, adherence to health advice, and experience of adverse events due to COVID-19 (including severe illness within the family, bereavement, redundancy, or financial difficulties). Mental health, including wellbeing, depression, anxiety, which factors were causing stress, sleep quality, loneliness, social isolation, and changes in health behaviours such as smoking, drinking and exercise. How people were spending their time whilst in isolation, including questions on working, functional household activities, care, and schooling of any children in the household, hobbies, and relaxation. Certain waves of the study also included one-off modules on topics including volunteering behaviours, locus of control, frustrations and expectations, coping styles, fear of COVID-19, resilience, arts and creative engagement, life events, weight, gambling behaviours, mental health diagnosis, use of financial support, faith and religion, relationships, neighbourhood satisfaction, healthcare usage, discrimination experiences, life changes, optimism, long COVID and COVID-19 vaccination.

Time Use Survey data show changes in how people spent their time during coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions in March and April 2020, September to October 2020 and March 2021, as well as before the pandemic. It also includes Opinions and Lifestyle Survey data on behaviours following vaccination in Great Britain from 19 May to 13 June 2021.

Additional file 4.

Rationale and objectiveCOVID-19 vaccination is the most effective way to prevent COVID-19. For chronic kidney disease patients on long-term dialysis, there is a lack of evidence on the pros and cons of COVID-19 vaccination. This study was conducted to investigate the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients on dialysis.MethodsPubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systemically searched for cohort, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cross-sectional studies. Data on immunogenicity rate, antibody titer, survival rate, new infection rate, adverse events, type of vaccine, and patient characteristics such as age, sex, dialysis vintage, immunosuppression rate, and prevalence of diabetes were extracted and analyzed using REVMAN 5.4 and Stata software. A random effects meta-analysis was used to perform the study.ResultsWe screened 191 records and included 38 studies regarding 5,628 participants. The overall immunogenicity of dialysis patients was 87% (95% CI, 84-89%). The vaccine response rate was 85.1 in hemodialysis patients (HDPs) (1,201 of 1,412) and 97.4% in healthy controls (862 of 885). The serological positivity rate was 82.9% (777 of 937) in infection-naive individuals and 98.4% (570 of 579) in patients with previous infection. The Standard Mean Difference (SMD) of antibody titers in dialysis patients with or without previous COVID-19 infection was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.68–1.61). Subgroup analysis showed that the immunosuppression rate was an influential factor affecting the immunogenicity rate (P < 0.0001). Nine studies reported safety indices, among which four local adverse events and seven system adverse events were documented.ConclusionsVaccination helped dialysis patients achieve effective humoral immunity, with an overall immune efficiency of 87.5%. Dialysis patients may experience various adverse events after vaccination; however, the incidence of malignant events is very low, and no reports of death or acute renal failure after vaccination are available, indicating that vaccine regimens may be necessary.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42022342565, identifier: CRD42022342565.