Clearing the controversy on the efficacy of Covishield vaccine and the gap between the two doses following this, the Central government on Friday submitted an affidavit in the Kerala High Court that the duration of 84 days between 1st and 2nd doses of Covishield vaccine is providing the best protection against coronavirus.
The Central government filed an affidavit while replying to a writ petition by Kitex Garments Ltd, Kochi, looking for a directive to the State Government to allow it to administer the second dose of Covishield vaccine to its workers before the completion of the 84-day gap.
The affidavit of the Centre stated, “India’s National COVID Vaccination Program was built on scientific and epidemiological evidence, World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and global best practices.”
The dose of the interval between the two doses of the Covishield vaccine under the COVID-19 vaccination drive had underwent a series of revisions based on the available and emerging scientific proofs mentioned above with the overall guidance of the National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for COVID-19 (NEGVAC), the affidavit further stated.
“Based on the recommendations by NEGVAC, the schedule of the Covishield vaccine under the National Covid-19 Vaccination Programme is to administer the second dose at 12-16 weeks interval after administration of the first dose. This is based on the technical opinion that the duration of 84 days between 1st and 2nd doses of Covishield is providing the best protection against COVID-19,” the affidavit stated.
Decision to increase dose interval based on scientific evidence
“To provide full vaccination coverage and facilitate international travel for genuine reasons, it was decided to allow the second dose before the prescribed time period of 12-16 weeks. As per the evidence available, the immunity provided by two doses of the Covishield vaccine with intervals less than 12-16 weeks would be better than partial vaccination. The decision to increase the dose interval of the Covishield vaccine was based on scientific evidence and expert opinion as per available efficacy data,” it further stated.
“No fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner were infringed by the same. The grounds advanced by the petitioner in the writ petition were false and frivolous, hence deserves to be dismissed. The petition was totally misconceived/devoid of merits and deserved to be dismissed in the interest of justice,” the affidavit added
