Not to take a single dose vaccine before trials?

[prowlingbrooms]

That’s it really
I’m not an anti vaxxer - I’ve had every shot I’ve ever needed plus tons more as I lived in tropical climes for years. My kids too. But I’m not taking a single dose / mixed dose shot against the advice of the manufacturer/ without trials (and now against Dr Faucis example, whom I trust more than our rat bag of ad hoc leadership)
I am also incandescent with rage that my parents were given the first shot without informed consent ie on the basis that it was being administered experimentally!
Do you agree - and if not, why not

I’ll have yours. Yes it wrong, but they are trying to spread it out so mor people get a dose. You don’t have to take it.

YANBU; it doesn't inspire much confidence that Pzifer have said there is no evidence that a single dose gives protection.

I will eventually be eligible for a vaccine as I work in the NHS, and would have gladly had it when offered. But as I am personally very low risk from covid, I would prefer my dose to go to someone else who needs it more, like my colleagues who are clinically vulnerable. Most have had their first dose; in my trust the only staff who have been vaccinated so far are people classed as clinically vulnerable, and were looking forward to having their second dose later this month and finally being able to relax and not worry. To be told at the last minute that there is now an extra 2 month wait for their second dose is a kick in the teeth.

I don’t understand why you wouldn’t take it.
You’ll be opting to have no protection at all.

I understand some people are concerned about the efficacy of the vaccine being given at a different timing to what the manufacturer tested it as but surely the e worst that will happen is everyone will need a further booster later on right? It MAY drag out the process of everyone being more fully protected (obviously there is not 100% protection with these vaccines anyway) if it turns outthat leaving a longer gap between doses does have an effect on how lasting the immunity it but the way your post is written it’s like you think there is a risk of serious harm by only having one dose.

I’m finding it hard to express what I mean but basically why are you happy to have two doses but “incandescent with rage” that you are pet of an “experiment” with only one dose? You would still get some degree of protection. That’s better than none. Even with both doses distancing and mask wearing will be important for a fair few months since we don’t know if having the vaccine stops your ability to spread the disease so it’s not like you would be able to live your life vastly differently if you had both doses in a shorter time scale.

I think my rage is for my parents who did not give informed consent for an untested regime which is therefore classed as experimental. If the manufacturer is against it because they question its efficacy, then it’s hard to have faith myself. I’m also concerned at the notion of mixing vaccines when one is a very novel type of vaccine AND the regime has never been tested.

I’ll take yours.

Which members of the JCVI or the Chief Medical Officers, who have all recommended this approach, do you consider a rat bag?

Also their crushing disappointment.it’s more than disappointment really - these over eighties have been sheltering in place for months - and then to be given hope and to have it pulled away seems incredibly cruel.

@HolyMilkBoobiesBatman

OP is "incandescent with rage" because her parents (who I'm guessing are over 80 and therefore high risk) have already had their first dose, and are now being told it will be an extra few months before they have their second, which is against the advice of the vaccine manufacturer and unproven to work.

I'd be a bit miffed too.

I can't get my head around the current situation at all. The vaccine is licensed at a particular interval, you can't just decide to give it at an unlicensed interval without informed consent!

As for the idea of "mix and matching" two different vaccines for doses, it's absolute madness!

YANBU.

DH and his colleagues, all scientists, are horrified that the government are pushing ahead with this. As reported in the New York Times today:

“There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. "Officials in Britain seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.”'

www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR3RB1C8iBMi_Ikm-Sr4knxUTtSwEMPKUIp2vVUdykmENbCSS1Dpu4LhbVA

I don't understand the Q. Is there some single shot version of the vaccine being touted? Is this something about the 2.5m delay between 1st and 2nd vaccine? Or just about the rushed job being done on this vaccine. I heard a govt rep speak about it on R4 and she seemed to be saying that the benefits outweighed the risks given the scale of the problem....yeah but what about on an individual basis? I'm not antivaxx either have had them all as have dc

@AlrightTreacle I get that it’s disappointing, honestly I’m not trying to be obtuse here, but they’re already in a better position than they were a few weeks ago. They already have some degree of protection. That’s great. I get that it’s disappointing to have the goal posts moved but surely one dose is better than none? Some protection is better than none.

Spreading out the doses gives more people some protection rather than a few people being more fully protected.

I know that shielding has been tough. I have vulnerable family members too. But I’m also a person who is not vulnerable myself but have spent the best part of the past year losing income, my children have missed out on proper schooling. We’ve missed out on life experiences and opportunities, weddings, time together etc etc to help protect vulnerable people.
I don’t begrudge anyone for the sacrifices we have collectively made here, but I do take issue with this foot stamping “it’s not fair” attitude. The sooner this is all over the better, and spreading out the vaccines across a wider proportion of the population may help us reach a semblance of normality sooner.

My DH, as I already said is a scientist, says it makes no sense whatsoever. Statistically 100 doses given to 100 people has very little advantage over 100 doses given to 50 people, given that we know 1 dose has 50% efficiacy and 2 has 95%. We have no idea what the impact of delaying the second dose or mixing vaccines will have. So we risk fucking up the entire vaccination programme long term for a pretty insignificant gain in the short term. Which is par of the course for this govermnt.

I think you are an Antivaxer OP.

Refusing to take a single dose is cutting off your nose to spite your face though! It's not going to somehow be less safe although it might be less effective it will still be somewhat effective. It obviously makes sense to have a single dose.

Mix and match I'd have more misgivings. The vaccines have different mechanisms. I'd not be so sure that is safe. I might refuse to have that.

It's a gamble to do the single dose. For individuals like OPs parents who have missed out on the 2nd they are worse off but for all those who would never even get one dose and now can it's fantastic news.
Single dose is the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Utilitarian ethics innit.

We are beggars compared to the US so we can't be choosers. We literally do not have the option of vaccinating all those who need it with Pfizer. We cannot buy enough doses. We are not in the same position as the US. I'm sure their strategy is best but we can't emulate it as we don't have the supplies.
We have to make the most of what we've got.

It's not single dose. You will get the second after 3 months.

I don’t know any over-80s who have been offered any vaccine at all yet, so I think your parents are lucky to have had one dose. However, I do think that those who have had one dose, with a booked-in second dose, should have the second to get them out of the system.

@FatCatThinCat where is your evidence that they’re going to mix the different types (manufacturers of) of the vaccine?

Totally anecdotal but when DC had the chicken pox vaccine I was told the first does was 70% protection and they needed to have the booster within 3 months to take that to over 90% and when I enquired to book the booster I had to wait a bit as they were having trouble getting hold of the brand DC had originally had. So listening to the changes about the vaccination programme I took that the 3 months and not mixing brands is pretty universal - could be wrong.

@FatCatThinCat

My DH, as I already said is a scientist, says it makes no sense whatsoever. Statistically 100 doses given to 100 people has very little advantage over 100 doses given to 50 people, given that we know 1 dose has 50% efficiacy and 2 has 95%. We have no idea what the impact of delaying the second dose or mixing vaccines will have. So we risk fucking up the entire vaccination programme long term for a pretty insignificant gain in the short term. Which is par of the course for this govermnt.

This is incorrect. The 52% figure is an average of the protection from the day of vaccination to 3 weeks. In fact the immunity kicks in at around 11 days, so immunity goes from 0 to around 90%. The second dose increases it to 95%. So giving first doses to lots of people does make sense statistically.

I understand that there are questions, particularly over whether immunity sustains until the later booster. Knowledge with other vaccines (and with the moderna vaccine) suggests that it will.

I can see your point OP, but even if this government's pathetic approach reduces the efficacy of the vaccination program, it is extremely unlikely to cause active harm on a per-person basis. Terms like 'experiment' and 'guinea pig' are very emotive and not helpful, your parents aren't being injected with some unknown vial and then fingers crossed, the safety profiles etc are still known.

Don't think mix and match is expected to be the norm, though, it's only if the original type given is unavailable at the time the second shot is due? So for most people this won't be an issue.

@HolyMilkBoobiesBatman

There is no evidence to show that a single dose gives any form of protection.

It is not just "unfair" to give someone a single dose, when they have consented to the first on the basis that they would have their second a few weeks later. It's also unethical. People have already had their first dose should at least have their second dose appointment honoured.

The majority of my colleagues who are vulnerable are no longer shielding; they are back at work looking after patients.

This shows the way the placebo and vaccine arms diverge after around 11 days. It's a bit like saying if I have no money and Bill Gates has a billion, we've on average got half a billion.

What @cathyandclare said. Plus also that 1 dose will likely give protection against severe disease in almost everyone. So (around) 100 people protected against severe disease makes much more sense from a public health point of view than 50 people who won't get sick at all than 50 protected completely and 50 who might get really sick.

[quote AlrightTreacle]@HolyMilkBoobiesBatman

There is no evidence to show that a single dose gives any form of protection.

It is not just "unfair" to give someone a single dose, when they have consented to the first on the basis that they would have their second a few weeks later. It's also unethical. People have already had their first dose should at least have their second dose appointment honoured.

The majority of my colleagues who are vulnerable are no longer shielding; they are back at work looking after patients.[/quote]
Look at the chart, one dose does give some protection. We just don't know how long it lasts, although it would be unusual if it doesn't last until the booster at 4-12 weeks.

As I said on your other thread you've started in the same topic.

Yes, I will take the vaccine as soon as it is offered to me.
I'm cv but working in overcrowded classrooms daily with no protection. I've had covid and still struggling with the effects 3 months on. There is no guarantee I can't get it again - hopefully the chances are low - and I now have another health concern putting me in the cv category again (already was cv before covid) so yes, I'd rather have the 2 doses spread out over 12 weeks, than no doses.