Gonorrhoea vaccine becomes available at sexual health clinics in England
The vaccination programme is expected to save the NHS £7.9 million over the next decade and combat increasing levels of antibiotic-resistant strains of the disease.
The move aims to tackle rising levels of the sexually transmitted infection (STI) after cases in England topped 85,000 in 2023, the highest since records began in 1918.
The free jab will be on offer from Monday to patients at the highest risk of the sexually transmitted infection, including gay and bisexual men with a recent history of multiple sexual partners or a bacterial STI.
The vaccine is an existing jab, known as 4CMenB, that is currently used to protect people against the meningococcal B disease, a serious bacterial infection that can cause meningitis and sepsis.
It is used in the routine childhood programme and given to babies at eight weeks, 16 weeks and one year.
The programme is targeted to those most at risk and could prevent up to 100,000 cases.
Gonorrhoea disproportionately impacts specific communities, such as those in deprived areas, people of black Caribbean ethnicity, and gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, according to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).
Patients getting the gonorrhoea vaccine will also be offered jabs for mpox, human papillomavirus (HPV), and hepatitis A and B at their appointment.
Ashley Dalton, the minister for public health and prevention, said: 'Rolling out this world-leading gonorrhoea vaccination programme in sexual health clinics in England represents a major breakthrough in preventing an infection that has reached record levels.
'This government's world-first vaccination programme will help turn the tide on infections, as well as tackling head-on the growing threat of antibiotic resistance.
'I strongly encourage anyone who is eligible to come forward for vaccination, to protect not only yourselves but also your sexual partners.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Disgruntled doctors should stop wasting their time striking
Like many NHS doctors, I have seriously considered moving abroad in search of better working conditions. It was therefore no surprise to read the recent report from the General Medical Council (GMC), highlighting that 43 per cent of UK doctors have explored career opportunities overseas. Reportedly, 15 per cent of these doctors have taken 'hard steps' towards leaving UK practice. I have taken these very steps – attending interviews in Australia, visiting schools for my children, and exploring different neighbourhoods. For the time being, family commitments have led me to remain in the UK. According to the GMC report, one in eight (12 per cent) of doctors are considering leaving the UK to work abroad, with nearly one in five (19 per cent) said to be considering quitting the profession altogether. Of course, there is always a gulf between stated intentions and ultimate actions. But the question still remains: why are UK medics so unhappy? Hot on the heels of recent junior doctor strike action, these statistics are yet another reminder of the precarious state of the nation's health service. Many doctors find their working conditions unsustainable and are disillusioned by the substandard care they are forced to deliver to patients. So much so many will choose to leave friends and loved ones, moving ten thousand miles across the globe, in order to work in better resourced hospitals and GP surgeries (where they also receive better pay). Australia – the main beneficiary of the NHS's failure to retain its medical trainees – naturally welcomes British doctors: with streamlined pathways for GPs to relocate, and recruitment agents advertising at picket lines outside NHS hospitals. The exodus of UK doctors from the NHS has been celebrated by Nicole Higgins, the president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. She has stated: 'They've made a huge difference to rural and regional Australia… to our workforce as a whole.' I have been told by friends that in some Australian hospitals, at least half of the doctors in the emergency departments are British-trained, NHS escapees. The 'brain drain' of doctors leaving the NHS is estimated to cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds annually; it is a symptom of a health service on its knees. It goes without saying that Streeting and Starmer need to get a grip on the retention of the UK's medical workforce. However, ongoing disputes between the government and the British Medical Association suggest there is no treaty on the horizon. The irony is that many of the doctors who choose to emigrate to Australia continue to support the founding principles of the NHS; despite finding the conditions in the UK intolerable, and preferring to work in a mixed public-private health care system that is primarily funded through health insurance. Arguably, disgruntled British doctors should stop wasting their time striking for higher pay and start demanding root and branch reform of the NHS. International comparisons suggest they would be able to deliver higher quality healthcare while potentially standing to benefit from better pay and conditions. Yet the ideological hold the NHS has on the population, successive governments, and doctors past and present, means that these arguments rarely gain any traction. Instead British doctors lament the 'underfunding' of the NHS while complaining about poor pay and unsafe patient care. The Labour Government find themselves struggling to square the circle of providing a universal, state-funded healthcare system which does not bankrupt the public finances. Meanwhile, the Australians look on in bemusement and rub their hands in glee.
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Weight-loss drugs, characteristic compassion and bus stop battles
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. KT (MetroTalk, Thu) complains at their taxes paying for other people's weight-loss treatments – but it actually makes sound economic sense. Healthier people are able to work longer, thus contributing more in taxes themselves, while obese people are more likely to suffer weight-related illnesses, which are themselves a drain on NHS resources. There is no call to vilify those carrying extra weight. Anybody can fall into bad habits and we all make unwise choices from time to time. So long as the people treated are able to make the lifestyle changes required to remain healthy afterwards, this represents a net gain. The drugs quite literally pay for themselves. Julian Self, Wolverton What a closed-minded question KT posed. By that logic, we might as well ask why should my taxes pay for NHS services for people with drug addictions, for NHS costs relating to alcohol-fuelled driving accidents or for NHS treatment of other people's anxiety and depression? Are you among those who believe that anxiety and depression exist simply due to a lack of willpower? Public services are not self-interested and lacking in empathy. Mike, Manchester Adrian (MetroTalk, Wed) asks why Gaza children are being brought into 'destitute' Britain for NHS treatment when they 'should be sent to oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia'. Who told him the UK is destitute? We are far wealthier and more powerful than Saudi Arabia in every respect. Also, we are ceaselessly proclaiming how generous, welcoming, tolerant and compassionate we are. Perhaps this characteristic of Britishness is rapidly being destroyed by the utterly distorted and deceitful malevolence of some politicians and their altogether too-keen followers – and being replaced by spitefulness, bigotry,intolerance and fanaticism. Saif Deen, Luton Richard (MetroTalk, Wed) would like to bring back queuing at bus stops. Personally, I don't miss queues and prefer to wait away from the road, anyway. In the 1970s it was not uncommon for buses to become full so you couldn't get on. This rarely happens nowadays, which shows how much better the bus services are. If the bus isn't going to be full, does it matter who gets on first? Nick, London I totally agree with Agatha (MetroTalk, Wed) that anti-social, selfish viewers without headsets on public transport are a menace. I don't bother trying to reason with them and just stand over their shoulder and comment on what they're watching. Seems to work. Tony, Bognor Regis I loved the Nigel Farage cartoon (Metro, Thu), picturing him saying 'Get me an AI company, I'd never have to go to Clacton again'. To which a colleague replies 'Again?' It's a struggle these days to know where to start in Metro: cartoon, MetroTalk jokes or Rush Hour Crush. All quality Staines It is now 80 years since the two atomic bombings of Japan (Metro, Thu) and we should remember the consequences. On a recent trip to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and park, it was so easy to see how horrible the bombing was for everyone. It is an event that should never happen again and yet Vladimir Putin has mentioned the possibility of a nuclear attack and the bombs are still ready to go. As the saying goes, 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it' – and those that ignore it and make threats are evil. Dennis Fitzgerald, by email I have worked in the NHS for 24 years now. I cut my head quite badly last week, which needed some stitches. Put off by a five-hour wait, I did not bother. More Trending Meanwhile, my dog cut its pad quite badly two weeks ago. I was in and out of the vet's in less than an hour and it only cost £70. I would gladly have paid this to have my head stitched. This implies animals get a better service. More on from this, my other dog had an aggressive mast-cell tumour a few years back. This was diagnosed and operated on in just three days. The NHS would never match this… Anon, by email MORE: The Metro daily cartoon by Guy Venables MORE: New Look's Jacquemus-inspired dress looks just like its designer alternative – for £1088 less MORE: CrossFit-approved: Meet the gym shoe that'll take you from barbell to brunch
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Jersey women forced to travel for abortion face no financial help unless it is 'medically necessary'
Campaigners have hit out at Jersey's government as it was revealed that while proposed changes to the island's abortion law will allow longer for terminations, women will have to travel off-island for treatment after 13 weeks and pay for it themselves unless it is deemed "medically necessary". Those seeking an abortion from 13 weeks to 21 weeks and six days, which is the suggested new limit for most terminations, would have to foot the bill for the procedure, as well as travel to the UK and accommodation. The draft law states this is because abortions can only be performed in Jersey before 13 weeks due to "workforce constraints and the need to provide safe services" - there is an exception for urgent medical situations. Rachael Clarke from the UK's leading abortion care charity, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, says Jersey lags behind other British Islands. She explains: "Unfortunately, Jersey seems to have made this decision that they don't want to help those women, even though their abortions would be legal if there were someone on island who could provide them. "That's an incredibly different position from what's in place in Guernsey and the Isle of Man, where if a woman needs an abortion that she can't access locally, she's funded to travel to England. "That's exactly what happens with all other forms of healthcare ... so the decision not to fund abortions seems to be specific and only because women's choices are being judged. "What we really need is government to step up and take responsibility." Ms Clarke says aspects of the proposed changes, such as legislating for women to access abortions later, are positive, but they only work if they can be put into practice. She adds: "In essence, it's completely pointless to change the law for women if you're not going to enable them to access the services that the law allows. "We're talking about such a small number but for those women, the impact on their lives of having to continue a pregnancy and raise a child that they really would have preferred not to is incredibly difficult." Ms Clarke says private abortions can cost up to £1,500 in the UK, without factoring in travel and accommodation, as the Government has confirmed that Jersey residents are not entitled to free NHS terminations. Abortions under 13 weeks can be carried out in Jersey and cost £185 for women who have lived in the island for at least six months. Some can also receive this on-island treatment for free, such as those on income support, aged under 18, in full-time education, or pregnant as a result of rape or incest. However, these groups are not covered after 13 weeks and would face the same travel and treatment fees, unless there is a medical exemption. In response to concerns over the draft law, Deputy Andy Howell, Jersey's Assistant Health Minister, says: "I'm really sorry but we just can't pay for everything, but we want people to know that if you go early then it's much less traumatic and we've got a really lovely councillor who can help you and is there at all times. "Try to go early, try to recognise that you might be pregnant early and then seek help." Deputy Howell adds: "I understand the concerns some islanders may have, however, very few Jersey residents have non-medically necessary terminations in the UK. "In 2022, the last available data, fewer than five Jersey residents had terminations in the UK, which includes women having medically necessary terminations. "Women are, instead, opting for earlier stage terminations in Jersey, which are lower risk than later-stage terminations, so our priority is to support access to those terminations." The proposition is expected to be brought to the States for debate by the end of the year.
