Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am a bit concerned about Andrew Pollard's rather brief dismissal of a possible link between the vaccine trials and the SA and Brazil variants. The question doesn't take into account the other sites of the trials - the UK and the USA - where worrying mutations have also arisen - 4 sites strikes one as more than a coincidence. And also the timing of the trials and the emergence of the mutations seems to fit rather.
To say that not enough people were in the trials to have an effect is surely a bit misleading - it would only take one to act as "ground zero". I believe this needs much more investigation. If there is a link, it would show that transmission is not stopped by vaccination and long term would perhaps indicate that the vaccinated may be at an ever increasing risk.
Re: Covid-19: What new variants are emerging and how are they being investigated?
Dear Editor,
I am a bit concerned about Andrew Pollard's rather brief dismissal of a possible link between the vaccine trials and the SA and Brazil variants. The question doesn't take into account the other sites of the trials - the UK and the USA - where worrying mutations have also arisen - 4 sites strikes one as more than a coincidence. And also the timing of the trials and the emergence of the mutations seems to fit rather.
To say that not enough people were in the trials to have an effect is surely a bit misleading - it would only take one to act as "ground zero". I believe this needs much more investigation. If there is a link, it would show that transmission is not stopped by vaccination and long term would perhaps indicate that the vaccinated may be at an ever increasing risk.
Competing interests: No competing interests