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.

Delaying the second dose is better for the population as a whole, which is why most of the decisions are taken now. Lockdown? Benefits the population as a whole. Same with vaccines. Tough if people who don’t understand statistics have to wait a bit.

If vaccine efficacy wanes due to mutation then we may end up in an annual vaccine cycle situation like the flu. If that happens is it more likely that 2nd dose will be dropped altogether? Waiting 12 weeks to see the impact of 1st dose regime on community transmission etc may turn out to be better long term option?

[quote SuperbGorgonzola]The BMA appears to object on the grounds of logistics and causing upset to people expecting their second dose, not on the grounds that giving one dose only renders it ineffective.

I also think that the decision is a good one.

www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-says-decision-to-delay-follow-up-dose-of-pfizer-vaccine-grossly-unfair-to-thousands-of-at-risk-patients-in-england-as-appointments-are-rescheduled[/quote]
Please don’t allow facts to interfere with wild eyed doom mongering

@ancientgran

My Mum had a phone call from her GP yesterday afternoon cancelling the appointment tomorrow for the second dose. Zero respect from the government for her and for the GP staff having to spend their day making the phone calls and no doubt dealing with stressed, upset, angry people. Do you feel any sympathy for the elderly and vulnerable who haven't had the first dose yet and might get some protection earlier. Do you have any respect for the frontline NHS and care staff who haven't managed to get the first dose yet?

As that includes members of my family, yes, of course. They are getting the vaccine next week, as was already booked before xmas.

Yep - I'm livid too. My 88yo mum had her first dose yesterday and was told that her second appointment which should have been on Jan 21st is now cancelled and she might have to wait up to 3 months. How is that helpful? Bloody hopeless.

@CoolKitkat But giving all the first cohort a second dose would mean vaccinating half as many people and cost lives. That would be a million less vulnerable people protected.

It is helpful as your mum is already bloody protected!!!! I’m sure she would not want to deprive anyone else of the same protection.

This thread just shows how keen some posters are to scream “it’s shit, blame the government “ when in reality this is a sensible move. If they’d paused and actually read some things first they’d see that but it’s easier to just rant

It's the right decision. Getting the first dose into as many people as possible has to be the expedient choice. It may not be ideal, but then nothing about this situation is ideal.

It's not what people consented to when they had the first dose. I'm shocked that medical personnel giving the jab are going along with this.

Agree more people with 1 dose works better individually and societally.

If twice as many people are vaccinated a vaccinated person is half as likely to meet someone with active infection. This is a bigger "win" than the incremental increase in the likelihood of the vaccine having worked enough in any individual.

I think people are scared. They'd be promised the miracle cure of the two jabs, after which they could get back to normal. I get taht it feels like a bait and switch, and I get why anger naturally follows on from that.

That doesn't stop me thinking that, given how rapidly the disease is spreading, it's probably the right decision. Better two million have good protection than one million have superb protection. There are six million in those first two priority groups (care homes and carers, 80+, NHS clinicians) in need of vaccinating.

But, yes, it's a gamble.

I think it is because of the increasing infection rate that they have changed the goal posts and in a sense misrepresented things to people. Someone might have wanted the first dose only if they had the second soon after and without that would never have consented to the first dose.

Anyway we are where we are and most of us posting will not be getting any kind of dose any time soon as we are not old.

It is not the government decision but the MHRA!!

You might want to look into who funds the MHRA. Granted the DHSC provide the money for regulating devices and the pharma industry cover medicines, but as long as any funding's coming from government I'd have thought it obvious that this creates a willingness to fall in line

As said so often we may all hope the vaccines help, but it could be wise to focus on Plan B for if they don't

It's a very sensible idea.

This is not a good idea.

1. Nobody knows the efficacy of P. vacc after 3 weeks as it was never part of the clinical trial protocol

IF:

• all that got the first vacc would be closely monitored to see efficacy changes over time than this could be a potential idea. But it's not set up that way.

1. This is the perfect breeding ground for mutations.

MHRA is not an independent body. No gov funded are really.

The sole purpose of this whole shitshow is to be able to say in headline news that "UK has vaccinated more than any other country" Pure PR stunt that has the potential to cost lives not just here but globally.

@mamaduckbone

Yep - I'm livid too. My 88yo mum had her first dose yesterday and was told that her second appointment which should have been on Jan 21st is now cancelled and she might have to wait up to 3 months. How is that helpful? Bloody hopeless.

It's helpful because it means someone else's 78-year-old mum can get their first dose sooner without actually affecting your mum's immunity level. That's all explained in the news article.

Also this is a blatant breach of contract with those who got the first dose of the vacc.
Than again, what do we expect from a gov who actually tried to make it a law that they will be breaching int'l law.

I'm shocked that medical personnel giving the jab are going along with this

Errr - they're mostly employed by the state so don't actually have any choice short of resigning

My mum is due her second dose next week. I'd like her to have it and I was annoyed when I heard it is likely to be delayed. However, reading about the reasons for the strategy I now understand why they are making this change and it makes sense.

If she hadn't already had her first dose I would want someone to delay their second jab so she could be protected too. As it happens it's her that can protect someone else by having her appointment changed and I know she will agree that without hesitation.

She lives in a village - she'll quite likely know most of the people who will be able to have their first jab sooner now. Potentially she could be saving a friend's life.

I confess I only read to page 5, so apologise if this has been said already.

There needs to be a better campaign of educating people of the reasoning behind these decisions.

Within a week of being administered, the Pfizer vaccine is about 50% effective. But it takes time after vaccination for the body to build up immunity. So 6 weeks after the initial jab there is approximately 90% immunity. Having the second vaccination at 6 weeks raises that immunity from about 90% to about 95%.

The thinking is that for every 100 doses of the vaccine it’s better to have 100 people 90% immune, than 50 people 95% immune.

And for the people saying they can’t start to live their lives again until they’ve had their second dose, I’m really sorry but you shouldn’t have been expecting to anyway. Until sufficient numbers are vaccinated the same precautions still need to be taken.

There is a global shortage of vaccines (it’s not just the U.K. which needs it). The shortage could last months so the U.K. needs to use what they have the most effectively.

Antibiotic resistance happens in bacteria, which mutate and replicate at very high rates (look how quickly a bacterial infection gets out of control if you dont take antibiotics, it rare to clear them yourself). Viruses are much simpler and have a lower background mutation rate, this virus in particular, so I don't think this is a factor.

Viral epidemiology is complex though and any changes we make eg staying indoors, vaccinations, exert selection pressure of some kind and must affect the course of the pandemic. My main worry is that once all the over 50s are vaccinated, many vulnerable people have already died and most shcoolkids have had it asymptomatically, the pool of hosts will be much smaller for the virus and as a non-vaccinated under 50 with zero covid antibodies I feel like I'll be a bit of a sitting duck next October/November! I'd be very pleased to have been able to receive one dose of the vaccine and therefore have some/a lot of covid antibodies (70% protection will be an average, many will be fully protected) rather than moaning about it and fully support the one dose for more people approach - it's the best way to surpress the virus in the shortest time possible, before the summer kicks in and does it naturally, and will stop more people dying.

What if you haven't had the vaccine yet and were told that you would get it but have to wait longer than originally told for the second dose - would you still take the first dose.

Bloody right I would.

The problem is that the manufacturer is not supporting of this movement.
It is designed to achieve a high % of protection with two doses, spaced 21-28 days. Also, it is not a regular vaccine, with a booster (second dose for longer term immunity). If the manufacturer is not agrreable with this 3 months gap, it must be because there is the risk to reduce drastically its efficiency of protection, or worst, end up being ineffective.
If it was possible for pfizer to extend the period between the doses, or to do a single dose, they would have gone for this. One single dose would have been the best outcome, specially in a pandemic. Surely they tested this. And found that 2 doses at short interval is needed.
I have to say, I have not read the reasons UK goverment is going ahead with extending the period between doses.
Spain has started with health care and care workers. I know this because I have family there. So far, second dose is scheduled 21 days later. The doses are sent to their place of work and administered there.
I have not heard of any country changing how to administer it.
Also, the % of protection after the first dose is not bad, but offer no assurances either, around the 60%.
Only time will tell us whether this strategy works or not.
But it is unnerving indeed.