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.

@DryHeave

Let’s not forget a key aspect of the vaccine isn’t to prevent the disease, it’s to prevent the disease resulting in serious illness/hospitalisation.

Even with 1 dose of the Oxford vaccine no one had to be hospitalised with Covid. That is the goal at the moment. Not disease eradication.

A very sensible comment!

Sorry- it's not laid out properly but I've posted 3 links not 2.

If there was a worldwide shortage of paracetamol and a lot of people in pain I would suck it up and be glad I was able to access any pain relief at all. And pain (though awful) will not take up limited ITU beds.
Again, someone before has said- it's not about immunity, it's about reducing disease severity. It's not the same as the vaccines we have as children.

I’m not going to engage with you any more. You’re completely irrational.

I haven’t said that I do and ranting and raving for people’s names and wanting to interrogate them in a court of law.

In that case, since you know fuck all either, perhaps you should not insult me for questioning this decision.

Ok, so perhaps just one dose of the vaccine got FDA or whatever it's called approval?

Sorry I misread your comment. Taking 4 paracetamol would not treat your pain any more effectively when balanced with the harm it could cause. Doses are based on therapeutic effect vs side effects. More of a medicine might actually work better but side effects increase and the therapeutic benefit becomes 'not worth it'. Chemotherapy is toxic and has nasty side effects but it is given because on balance the alternative is worse than the side effects.

So do we know that just one dose does not cause harm? It hasn't been trialled with just one dose?

At the centre giving the first dose l attended, people were definitely told they were not properly protected until a week after the second jab.
The people giving out that information are going to feel pretty stupid now -- not their fault

We don't know what effect just one dose has, as that has been trialed!

Has not been trialed.

So essentially (assuming no negative effects), at best your immunity is slightly increased?

A couple of months ago we didn’t even have a vaccine

Now we have two, the country is in the shit even more than had been anticipated with cases rising, we have a means approved by the CMOs of trying to improve things and people still can do nothing but fucking moan.

I do apologise for moaning but.......... what has this government got right? Nothing.

I feel sorry for the guinea pigs who took this vaccine and are now largely (or actually we don't know anything) no better off!

@ObliviouslyIgnorant

Ok, so perhaps just one dose of the vaccine got FDA or whatever it's called approval?

MHRA. It’s the MHRA in the UK.

The manufacturers submit evidence, the MHRA assesses the evidence, and the authorisations are agreed after referral to the CHM.

In the case of Covid vaccines these are temporary authorisations subject to conditions which may change as additional information is received.

In the case of the Pfizer vaccine, the MHRA, CHM and JCVI jointly assessed that the new dosing regime is safe and sufficiently effective. These are public bodies but they are not government bodies, and they are medicines and vaccines experts. They will publish their rationale in a Public Access Report soon.

It appears that some health authorities are continuing with previously booked 2nd doses, whilst others are rescheduling.

The evidence suggests there is some level of protection from 1st dose and the authorities have decided better to get this level of protection to more people, than a higher level of protection to fewer.

On a population level, this is sensible and will reduce pressure on the health service to enable them to treat the sickest and maintain some level of other operation.

On an individual level, those who have had 1st dose and will now be delayed in receiving 2nd, they will be in a riskier position. However, only for another couple of months and during this time, restrictions will still apply. Plus if they have already received 1 dose, they are more likely than most to have other health needs and so more likely than most to need the NHS not to be overwhelmed in order to offer them some level of treatment. So they will also benefit from others receiving some level of protection too.

The vaccine approval for Pfizer was amended to allow the delayed 2nd dose so there is no need to wail about FDA approval.

Pfizer have stated that the vaccine hasn't been tested in this way, they are correct, it hasn't. The BMJ concerns were around logistical rescheduling rather than disagreeing with the science.

Perhaps it is a bit of a gamble, but it's not an illogical one and isn't based on unsound science.

@ObliviouslyIgnorant

I feel sorry for the guinea pigs who took this vaccine and are now largely (or actually we don't know anything) no better off!

No. The evidence all points to >50% effectiveness for a single dose (possibly much more), with a significant reduction in disease severity for those who do still catch it. This is good. The original threshold for licensing a vaccine was >50% effectiveness.

No, you are not immune. Your risk of developing serious disease if you catch COVID is significantly reduced after 1 dose (considering you're starting from zero reduction). The second dose boosts this response, but doesn't double it. You're not getting half a dose by only having 1 injection.
The advice given at the appointment is correct, but probably also intended to make sure people don't go out and get on a plane or have a party, when they could still carry the disease.
It's my day off and I don't want to spend it analysing trial data but it will have been and will continue to be actively and carefully monitored for safety. The MHRA encourage reporting of side effects for all newly marketed medications and I expect this one will be scrutinised very closely. Trials will never reproduce large scale use, they would never guarantee that they have identified all adverse effects until it has been in use for longer and for more people. Trusting the experts is necessary whenever you engage with medical professionals. Informed consent is important, but there will always need be an element of trust that people are not trying to do anything but protect us all.

This is an interesting New York Times article suggesting single dosing.

www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-doses.html

@ObliviouslyIgnorant

I feel sorry for the guinea pigs who took this vaccine and are now largely (or actually we don't know anything) no better off!

No actually 'we' seem to know quite a lot. A large number of people and experts have chosen to inform themselves so please don't speak for the majority and scare monger. If people didn't want to be guinea pigs then they could have refused the vaccine- oddly enough not many people seem to be doing that...

Ok, so half treat us all then I suppose.

If people didn't want to be guinea pigs then they could have refused the vaccine- oddly enough not many people seem to be doing that...

Oddly enough, they were told that they'd be given 2 shots. That's what they agreed to.

So will you refuse a single dose vaccine unless you can have the other at 21 days?

And encourage your relatives to do the same?

can you not use the word scaremonger when someone is making reasonable points?

this is a discussion board