Are 2nd doses of Pfizer vaccine being cancelled?

[UntamedWisteria]

Has anyone got any authoritative information on this? A link to a reliable source?

I think Matt Hancock mentioned this, and have seen stuff on Twitter about it. But nothing rock solid.

My parents (in their 80s) were due to get their 2nd dose next week. They will be devastated if it's cancelled. I know they have said they will start by only giving the Oxford vaccines as a single dose, but it's not clear what happens to those who've already had their first Pfizer dose.

Thanks.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9099049/amp/Questions-Britains-decision-drop-two-dose-vaccine-regimen.html
A link to another article where Pfizer state their vaccine isn't meant to be given at 12 weeks apart.

I am not usually critical of the Govt but if Pfizer say it hasn't been tested at 12 weeks apart and our Govt changes the regimen and it fails to protect us, then the Govt will have much to answer for. I don't agree with them doing this.

Can someone point me in the direction of sound evidence that the PfizerBiontech is effective at the rate of 90% after the first dose as opposed to the widely reported and respected articles that have the figure at 52%?

The final efficacy of the Oxford jab was 80 % after the final dose at 12 weeks based on the most recent study.

So where is this magic 90% after the first dose appearing from? I’m very sceptical.

It's all crazy anyway my GP asked me if it was okay after they had had the second jab to start doing their own weekly shop again as they barely leave their house. I said no I don't think so but then I will still have to do it and I am tier 4 they border me in a tier 3 area. So is it safer for them to shop or me to shop for them. It's all so bloody confusing.

@NameChange84

Can someone point me in the direction of sound evidence that the PfizerBiontech is effective at the rate of 90% after the first dose as opposed to the widely reported and respected articles that have the figure at 52%?

The final efficacy of the Oxford jab was 80 % after the final dose at 12 weeks based on the most recent study.

So where is this magic 90% after the first dose appearing from? I’m very sceptical.

Eyewhisker's post at 9.42 seems to say this?

@ProudAuntie76 thank you for that and the explanation, I must admit I don't really understand it all, but I feel worried, that df might not be protected long term.
Can the government really do that if Pfizer say the don't have data to show it will work? Surely we should be up in arms over this? Or am I missing something?

We currently are honouring existing appointments but booking new ones for twelve weeks. We also don’t have the Oxford vaccine in stock yet...

So it depends on where they are having it done.

It makes sense to cover more people by 90%, instead of less people by 95%. Less people should be hospitalised and die overall. I’d be gutted too though.

It's such a tricky one - I don't have much sympathy for this government, but I do think this is one where people will be furious whatever they do. They'll be furious if they/their relative have had a first dose and will be left less protected than they were told they would be for nine weeks; they'll also be furious if they/their relatives are slower to get a first dose and so are left totally unprotected for longer while others get second doses. And in both cases the fury is completely understandable but without limitless doses and capacity to give them you have to pick one or the other.

Eyewhisker's post at 9.42 seems to say this

I have read the article. There is nothing to suggest 90% efficacy after just one dose. That graph includes all people in the trial who had two doses, not one. It’s “after the first dose” yes but not “after ONLY one dose”.

Plus the maximum example of efficacy in the range was 90% but that’s not the average! The average is mid 60s.

We are not splitting hairs here between 90 and 95 %.

There is far more evidence than one badly interpreted graph for 52.5% vs 95% than 90% vs 95% which does appear to have been plucked out of thin air when it comes to PfizerBiontech.

I am keeping absolutely everything crossed that my dad's second dose goes ahead on Jan 6th. Not because I dont want him to have to wait longer - that would be a pain but not the end of the world - but because there is NO evidence that the pfizer vacine works when given more than 21 days apart. It is a massive gamble if you ask me. I understand the need to cover as many people as possible, but if it turns out that prolonging the gap of the pfizer one decreases its efficacy then that is a massive waste and disastrous news.

@NameChange84

Can someone point me in the direction of sound evidence that the PfizerBiontech is effective at the rate of 90% after the first dose as opposed to the widely reported and respected articles that have the figure at 52%?

The final efficacy of the Oxford jab was 80 % after the final dose at 12 weeks based on the most recent study.

So where is this magic 90% after the first dose appearing from? I’m very sceptical.

Pfizer themselves say:

'Data from the phase three study demonstrated that, although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95 per cent,' Pfizer said in a statement.

'There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.'

If one instead looks at the day 10 to day 22 period one instead gets an efficacy value of 86% (there will be confidence intervals around that).
mobile.twitter.com/theosanderson/status/1344347380917940226

The big question is what the efficacy against severe COVID is in days 21-90.

(As Pfizer point out they have no data for that as giving two doses 12 weeks apart has not been trialled.)

Cant give you any evidence about the efficacy of it.
But where I work people's second appointments for the vaccine are being rescheduled

So I think there is evidence from that graph of Good Protection from 12 days after being vaccinated to 21 days after from one dose. (The rate of increase of people getting covid decreases significantly from that point onwards. I wouldn't put money on 90% exactly but it is clearly more significant than 50% which is the average of the 21 days of data.

What we don't have is evidence of its efficacy at one dose from 21 days + as there is no one who got just one dose - as far as I am aware.

So if it were the case that the protection holds up then the 12 week gap would be okay. But we don't yet have evidence of that.

I think the graph referenced up thread comes from here: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 where they actually quite the 52% in the results section - but what the graph actually shows us is that that is essentially no protection for the first week or so, some protection in the second week and very good in the third, because we can see the new infections dropping off. I wouldn't put a figure on it though, not without digging through the detailed data. I think the 90% has come from Tony Blair's recommendation on this, which he made in accordance with discussions with David Salisbury. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55410349

Could we stop with the "they will damned if they do or don't"?
They are gov. They are not a friend who is deciding how to please their group of friends. They don't have to be liked.*

Western governments are acting as parents afraid of their own tantruming children.

It is purely a political decision to delay P. vacc2 to 12 weeks. There is no evidence pro/contra that it works or doesn't.
Meaning that they are basically playing russian roulette -again, I might add- with lives. Solely for the sake of gaining political capital that can be used as tear inducing narrative in the next elections.

I think many could be easily persuaded that this will work IF:

• had a feasibility study published where you show option A and B and do a proper comparison
• instead of unilaterally deciding 12 wks instead of 4 go to P. ask them for cooperation AND actually treat this like a clinical trial.

ATM we will be left with god knows how many ppl who nobody is looking at scientifically and we have fingers crossed that they will live through it, won't get into hospital, etc. At one point maybe there will be some data aggregation, maybe not. That is negligent.

*My kid said it reminded him of the Appease, where UK would bend over backwards for nothing and forgot they had a backbone and a brain. his words, not mine...

@NameChange84

Can someone point me in the direction of sound evidence that the PfizerBiontech is effective at the rate of 90% after the first dose as opposed to the widely reported and respected articles that have the figure at 52%?

The final efficacy of the Oxford jab was 80 % after the final dose at 12 weeks based on the most recent study.

So where is this magic 90% after the first dose appearing from? I’m very sceptical.

There isn't any. Eyewhisker is referring to a conclusion that some have drawn from the existing trial data, however there is no actual data because this (one dose only) was not a parameter during the trial. Therefore there is NO EVIDENCE that one dose is 90% effective after day 21.

It may be correct, but equally it may not. No-one knows.

The manufacturer has not stated that the evidence shows 90% efficacy after one dose. This is a political decision not a scientific one.

MiL has her second dose of Pfizer booked and yes she’ll be very upset if that changes. At least she’s had the first dose though.

God, I can't believe this shower are taking a risk like this! If one dose of the Pfizer vaccine behaves in a way other than the most optimistic predictions then we will have more or less wasted all the doses that have been given so far. My 89 year old mother's second dose was due on 11th January and I was looking forward to being able to visit her again. What should I think now?

I received this text today. I am in scotland and have received first dose. I am a non care care home worker.

^^NHSGGC COVIDVaccination: You are receiving this text as you had booked to receive your 2nd COVID Vaccination dose.

This appointment has been CANCELLED.

Please DO NOT ATTEND the appointment.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has recommended that as many people as possible on the JCVI priority list should be offered a first vaccine dose before administering second doses.

The JCVI have advised that the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may be given between 3 to 12 weeks following the first dose.

You will be contacted in February to make another appointment.

www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/264483/292-core-brief-30-december-2020-daily-update-2.pdf

Just when you think this can’t get any worse.
They are prepared to gamble even this now.

I have a second dose appt booked on 21 Jan. I’ve been told today that it will go ahead as booked.

It seems to depend on your local health authority then.

I've said it before & I'll say it again. It's a shit show.

The logical thing to do would be to honour all the previously booked 2nd appointments and start with the new interval for new patients.

Why isn't Keir Starmer pushing the government harder on this? Or whoever the shadow health minister is?

They really are gambling aren't they? So they opt for half protecting more people so that they can double the amount of people half-protected? And Pfizer doesn't even know if you're half protected after 21 days? What the fuck are they doing? Whose call was this?

Who in The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) made this fucking recommendation? I want their fucking name!!!

My second dose appt on 6th January (28 days after the first jab) was postponed yesterday.

Here’s the link to the public health Wales information: phw.nhs.wales/topics/immunisation-and-vaccines/covid-19-vaccination-information/patient-information/why-do-i-have-to-wait/

I had tears in my eyes watching NZ celebrate NYE yesterday with NO CV cases. None.

Here we fucking are with a bunch a turds in a trough fucking making up their own fucking rules on clinical trials? Surely it's breaking whatever statutory implement authorised the fucking vaccine? It's like a doctor going renegade and advising a patient half the dose recommended by the manufacturer?
Surely they should fucking withdraw the authorisation of this vaccine if it's not being administered in line with what was approved??

@ObliviouslyIgnorant

They really are gambling aren't they? So they opt for half protecting more people so that they can double the amount of people half-protected? And Pfizer doesn't even know if you're half protected after 21 days? What the fuck are they doing? Whose call was this?

Who in The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) made this fucking recommendation? I want their fucking name!!!

And what will you do with that information?

Does it not cross your mind that the people making the decision might know more than you?