I fucking knew it. Second vaccine dose.

[NiceGerbil]

News is that people who have had first dose are only getting second 3 months later. Against the guidelines of the org who made the vaccine.

I said this rush to push it out would result in, how are they going to follow up and make sure they get the second?

And here we go. Second dose not organised. UK govt say this is AOK.

FFS. I'd rather they took the time to do it properly. But hey. Pissup in a brewery situation again.

I said a few days ago to DH. Are they properly tracking this to make sure the follow up jab isn't missed?

I was too optimistic. Govt have decided second jab isn't that important.

FFS.

Johnson and co have failed us massively on their management of covid, their hands are dripping in blood, but on the vaccine roll out, I can't fault them. Well done.

The second dose of the vaccine increases from 90-95% - from a public health perspective getting double the amount of people to 90% is a wise choice. My parents are in their 70's and this means they are likely to get their vaccine sooner

@Kendodd

My (extremely vulnerable) mum, in her 80s, hasn't even had her first dose yet. If those who think delaying the second does is such a bad idea, would they rather my mum had two doses and your (also extremely vulnerable) mum had none? Personally, I'd rather they both had one dose.

Yep - and this is what it is all about - people who have ALREADY had their first dose are angry - but people who haven't even had one dose are probably really happy with this decision. I 100% agree with the government on this new strategy.

@movingonup20

The second dose of the vaccine increases from 90-95% - from a public health perspective getting double the amount of people to 90% is a wise choice. My parents are in their 70's and this means they are likely to get their vaccine sooner

This is incorrect. Have you looked at the data?

Every time we give a second dose right now, we are holding that back from someone who is likely - if they get coronavirus - to die and much more likely to die than somebody who has already had a single dose.

This is so obvious you would think it would hardly need stating.

Yanbu. Pfizer say it’s not tested and there is no indication that the protection from a single first dose will continue. It’s a shitshow.

I think it’s a little bit selfish of people to be annoyed they aren’t getting their second dose when plenty of vulnerable people wouldn’t even be getting their first any time soon if this hadn’t been changed.

I think so too, especially when they're saying that they wanted their second dose so they could 'go back to normal and see their family' (which would still have been illegal if they wanted to do it in a way not allowed in their tier!). People who are themselves low-risk giving up their normality to stop others dying has been the order of the day for the last 10 months, so it's a bit galling to hear that apparently the vulnerable that we've all been protecting weren't expecting this to apply to them, just other people.

Haven’t RTFT but can any science bids advise- is there a risk of the virus building a resistance to the vaccine if enough people haven’t had their second dose and therefore have a less strong/effective immunisation. Like antibiotic resistance developing from people not finishing their course, and bacteria fighting back against the less strong/effective antibiotic response.
I have no idea if these situations are comparable but that would be my main concern with this revised plan.

@Haffiana people have gone through the data on here several times already. Most recently me, in some detail, on the previous page.

If you disagree with our interpretation, based on the published research, it would be helpful if you could explain why. Yes, we have looked at the data. Have you?

Not an easy decision and there is quite a bit of disagreement amongst scientists on this. The same debate is being had in the US. I think there is quite a strong case in favour made here:
mobile.twitter.com/sandyddouglas/status/1344949258483621888

But also worth reading what those who are opposed or undecided have to say. eg:
mobile.twitter.com/Dereklowe/status/1344644935186833414

Where I work (NHS) we've been told that all staff second vaccine appointments are cancelled and not to turn up and that they'll be releasing more first appointments soon instead.

This is figure 3 from the Pfizer study.

The chart shows the number of infections in the vaccine and control group from the first dose. For the first 11 days, the rates are almost identical, so the two line are together.

After 11 days the vaccine clicks in like a switch. There are next to no new infections in the vaccine group, while the control group continues as before. This is an extraordinarily amazing result.

The paper does not provide the % efficacy for the period from 11 days to 21 days after the first dose but it is clearly visible on the chart. As said above, given the time taken for the vaccine to kick in, the 91% efficacy 7 days after the second dose is just showing the efficacy of the single dose.

With this evidence, it is clear the right thing to do in this emergency is to give as many vulnerable people as possible the first dose. It means we can protect twice as many people quicker.

@ManWithARash

This was Tony Blair's idea, wasn't it, to give as many people as possible one dose.

He did discuss it a couple of times but it's not like he invented the concept. It's already been considered in other countries as well.

[quote CoffeeandCroissant]Not an easy decision and there is quite a bit of disagreement amongst scientists on this. The same debate is being had in the US. I think there is quite a strong case in favour made here:
mobile.twitter.com/sandyddouglas/status/1344949258483621888

But also worth reading what those who are opposed or undecided have to say. eg:
mobile.twitter.com/Dereklowe/status/1344644935186833414[/quote]
Both of these are really helpful, thank you. I don't think Derek Lowe is so much oppossed as saying it's a gamble which goes ahead of the evidence, but which may be justified because we're in the shit. Which I think is basically where I am on it.

I really can understand the anger and frustration on all sides though.

@Haffiana yes, my friend who is head of public health for my county sent it to me last week and said they had requested a variance to delay the second dose (this is Pfizer not Az) I have a particular academic interest in public health.

@CoolKitkat

I really hope the strategy works, but there is a danger that we'll end up going round in circles. Whack-a-mole: you immunise people whose immunity drops after a few weeks, so their risk increases while you immunise another bunch, whose immunity starts to fall while you head back to the first bunch etc etc.

Nice analogy about the food, although if everyone gets a tiny bit, they'll soon be hungry again. If you adequately feed a good number who can go and get more food for others, you can sustain that supply. Just an alternative picture.

Noone is receiving a 'tiny amount' though, they will be receiving half, with the second half given later.

@lovelemoncurd

Calm down dear! It's going to be given. It's better for us all to get more people vaccinated. Or do you want to keep socially isolating and mask wearing forever?

Just highlighting: the vaccine is to prevents serious illness, it's not proven to stop transmission.

So even if someone is vaccinated they still would be highly advised to wear a mask and sd.

@CoolKitkat

I really hope the strategy works, but there is a danger that we'll end up going round in circles. Whack-a-mole: you immunise people whose immunity drops after a few weeks, so their risk increases while you immunise another bunch, whose immunity starts to fall while you head back to the first bunch etc etc.

Nice analogy about the food, although if everyone gets a tiny bit, they'll soon be hungry again. If you adequately feed a good number who can go and get more food for others, you can sustain that supply. Just an alternative picture.

I now have an image of you sending double-jabbed 90 year olds out into the wild forest, to hunt the vaccination beast, and bring it back to the unvaccinated tribe.

I agree there's a danger. The question is is it less than a danger than leaving a bunch of other people with no protection at all.

Do you think they are trying for short term mass herd immunity, hoping by having a wall of vaccinated people in the millions they can stop C19 and then mass immunization around a break out?

Nice analogy about the food, although if everyone gets a tiny bit, they'll soon be hungry again. If you adequately feed a good number who can go and get more food for others, you can sustain that supply. Just an alternative picture.

I can't really work out what you mean by this at all. It might make sense of we were vaccinating all frontline medical professionals first, as giving them the best protection possible would help to safeguard the service they provide. I can't really work out what the majority of people we're actually giving the vaccine to (very elderly) are supposed to or expected to 'give back' to others if they get the highest possible level of protection while others get none?

The MHRA recommended that the second dose would be given 4-12 weeks after first. I watched the press conference they gave. It is not the government decision but the MHRA!!

It's a gamble, that's all we can say at this stage. I hope it works out, because I really want life to get back to normal as soon as possible.

I still think anyone who had a 2nd jab already booked, should have received it rather than cancelling. It would have been a nice way to follow outcomes of those that got the recommended regime vs. the new longer schedule.

This was Tony Blair's idea, wasn't it, to give as many people as possible one dose

He did discuss it a couple of times but it's not like he invented the concept. It's already been considered in other countries as well

His foundation came up with the idea before anyone else... it was instantly dismissed by the Govt.

If it's such a fab idea why has the BMA strongly advised against it?

Indeed; strange how some respect the BMA's views only when they suit, and strange too that some apparently didn't expect this to happen

Never mind though; at least giving even one jab allows for fiddling of the figures, which after all is the important thing ...

@Whydoelephants

I actually think this is a rare wise decision. I think those who have had the first dose are very very lucky compared to the extremely vulnerable older people and frontline staff who are risking their lives every day caring for Covid patients who haven’t yet had a dose. Surely it’s much better for those to have a bit of protection too rather than a very small group having total protection and others having none?

Agree with this. Think it’s important to get more and more people vaccinated with at least one dose so they have some protection at least. Also they were saying something about how it’s better to leave up to 3 months as it means it works better.