Anyone who law quite alarmed by the 12 week rule?

[glassbrightly]

I get the politics. Gov can say it vaccinated 24 million by Easter.

BUT The trial on a longer gap for the Astra Zeneca vaccine was very small and there was no trial at all for Pfizer. So how can they now think this will work?

Or is it just a gamble ? If it is, can we at least be clear on this ?

None of the trials seem to have been on the ECV so I am pretty worried that we will be giving something which turns out to be ineffective and it will be too late before we realise.

I get that people keep saying that no one on the trial required hospitalisation who caught C19, but again they were not ECV - and only a few hundred actually caught C19.

I guess what's alarming me is that the gov seems to have kept to this idea, without there being any science to back it up.

I assume there is science to back it up.

There is science to back it up. If you look at the scientific review of the Oxford vaccine, very few participants got there second jab in less than 6 weeks. Those with a longer gap before the booster had a better response.

secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/getSharedSiteSession?rc=1&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelancet.com%2Fjournals%2Flancet%2Farticle%2FPIIS0140-6736%2820%2932661-1%2Ffulltext

@Eyewhisker can't get the link to work.

There is no evidence on the Pfizer vaccine at all. On the Astra Zeneca, the Lancet seems to suggest this was a tiny part of the programme.

My mum has just had her appt for the Pfizer and her second dose is booked in for Jan 21st - is it just the Oxford that they are planning to roll out as widely as possible with the first dose I wonder?