The point in bold in your post is what I'm kind of warning against. It's not a race between the UK and the rest of the world. I really would like not to go in the "us vs Europe" debate because it was done at the beginning of the pandemic (remember the articles "why Britain is better prepared than XYZ?" and look where we are now). There isn't a prize for doing it quickly, there's a prize for doing it rightly: and, sure, at present the UK is doing well - but it's still got a long, long road ahead and plenty of chances for the government to cock it up. If, and I say if, this continues to go well and the government hits its targets and so on I'll be the first to applaud whoever has done it and insist they get a knighthood, a CBE, a what-have-you. But right now...

I don't think they'll hit mid Feb. Not all vaccinations centres are yet online. And if they were, supplies would likely be a problem. 145k does look like a good start though, and barring disaster it will only go up with each passing week.

And the Canary Island also. Beloved employer has said they have no objection to me taking a working holiday somewhere nice, warm and dry.

I agree, it is not a race as such. But as I said, if you believe the vaccine is the way out then getting more people vaccinated quicker is clearly better than doing it slowly and taking longer - you would agree with that? The latter clearly means more infections, more deaths, more hospitalisations, and restrictions lasting longer. I would not be very happy if I lived in France or Belgium right now. I am sure if we were in their position and the vaccination rates were appallingly low there are many on this thread who would have quite rightly lambasted the UK performance. So yes it isn't a race, but yes it is relevant to compare how we are progressing here compared to other places.

If we are judging how the UK is progressing with vaccination - we have compared all other aspects of our handling with other countries previously - then based on absolute numbers and numbers per 100k we seem to be doing very well so far. This is one thing that the UK does seem to be doing well, there any many things during the pandemic where we don't seem to have done so well compared to our near neighbours.

There certainly is a lot of criticism directed at the French government in France in relation to the slowness of the vaccination programme.

For every aspect of handling the pandemic I am glad I am living in Germany now instead of the UK, except for the vaccination. I have to recognize that UK is handling that well, with the exception of going off-RCT by extending the timing between dosage.

The problem for the Europe is the EMA. They weren't even going to meet up, before Christmas, until Spain demanded it. Germany has finally broken ranks and I wouldn't be surprised if others follow. Quite simply, we're in the middle of a year long emergency. Once a vaccine is proved safe and over fifty percent effective, it should receive emergency approval. We have three vaccines that have crossed this line. Also, I'm surprised at apparent the lack of cooperation. The European, US and British agencies should be talking, and sharing, constantly.

So, every aspect apart from the one that provides the only hope of ending this. Got it. :)

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that whilst you may get some immunity from a COVID infection, it would more likely be against the specific strain of the virus you get infected with, and probably does not give you immunity against other strains. Whereas the vaccine will give you immunity against the broader properties of the virus and most or all strains.

Note that there are many variations of the virus, although the media generally refer to just the 'original', the 'UK' and the 'SA' strains, there are many variants within these broad groups and there are plenty of examples of people getting COVID twice at times when the spectre of strains hadn't cropped up.

​​​So whilst some people might be able to avoid being ill a second time from their own immunity from a prior infection, it is probably strain dependent, and it may not also prevent you from transmitting the second infection even though you are asymptomatic.

I also am concerned at the extended period between doses - and am surprised how little negative public reaction there is against it. I fully understand that it helps to achieve herd immunity for the population faster, which is now the explicit aim, but it doesn't provide the best support for any individual. It's putting the interests of the state ahead of the interests of its citizens, which is a deeply disturbing concept.

Having said that, I would give the Government 10/10 for vaccine purchases and about 7/10 so far for vaccine delivery. How I'd love to increase that score but, from what I've heard from elderly relatives to date, there's far too much NHS bureaucracy and lack of empathy to be confident that it will get any better.

I am not entirely without disquiet at this development, although I understand that the issue is not black and white and that there can be reasonable disagreement on it, but I found your characterisation of the issue ("interest of the state vs interests of its citizens" ) rather odd: one can perhaps argue that it it putting the collective interests of the UK population as a whole (i.e. all citizens) over the interest of a sub-section of that population (i.e. some citizens) (and even that is debatable) but that is not the same thing as putting the interest of "the state" over the interests of "citizens".

This is a bit childish. Let us not forget that we are top of the league in terms of number of deaths in Europe so a touch of humility would not go amiss. Yes, let us be pleased about the way the vaccination programme seems to be going in the UK but any kind of jingoism here would be rather misplaced and in bad taste, imo..

The scientists made the call on the prolonged time between doses didn't they? I've also heard some decent medical opinions that it could improve the performance of the Oxford vaccine.

My main concern is that the Oxford vaccine has a 62% efficacy with two full doses and 90% with a half dose followed by a full dose. Are we just going to give up all of this performance and settle for 62%? I wish the journalists would ask useful questions like this rather than repeat stupid questions to get a headline about whether Boris regrets something.

How many people are really being infected a second time? Its often shouted about when it happens yet we rarely ever hear it mentioned. I know many many people that have had covid, but not a single person who has had it twice, or that knows anyone that has.

It is rarely mentioned because it is rarely looked into and reported. Actually there are no field in the stats reported to Public Health Authority for reinfection. Anecdotally (and yes this is weak) there are a fait bit of doctors who see them, they report them on social media.
A handful of countries have more of a system to report them and in between those 4-5 countries there were nearly 1000 recorded in October.
Then there is the case of Manaus....

The point I was making is that the immunity you might get from having had COVID is not considered to be a good level of immunity for ongoing protection from the virus because it's probably very specific to the strain you encountered, and the vaccine gives broader protection.

I agree that the incidence of people getting COVID twice is low but there definitely are cases, and hence the needed for a vaccine because the immunity you might have from a first infection is too narrow and limited.