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.

Icing on the cake of the UK government response to Covid 19.

Pfizer have said there is no evidence that delaying the second dose results in any more than 3 weeks immunity post first dose, at all. The Government are panicking and risking everyone getting the vaccine (including those of course who are vulnerable) having no sustained effect from it.

The second issue is that of consent from people who have already had the first dose. They consented to a licensed, evidence based treatment weighing up the risks and benefits of treatment- this has now changed mistreatment essentially against their consent.

@Parker231

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.

Yes, and Johnson knew this - so he shouldn't have made another bullshit claim about it all being better by Easter

I just wish they'd be honest and say they are rolling the dice based on an optimistic interpretation of trial data.

I genuinely hope they are right and that dose is actually effective enough to prevent infection in the majority of people and as a bonus (we have no idea on how it actually effects transmission) slows the spread of the disease. It also prevents more serious infection and decreases the hospitalisation rate (I read the Moderna trial report this morning which supports this).

It's the lack of transparency that gets to me. As I mentioned earlier I wouldnt put it past this current administration to have lied about the number of vaccines they have actually procured making this a gamble out of neccessity.

@BBCONEANDTWO

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.

To paraphrase someone on another thread, I would have it injected into my fanny flap surrounded by 1000 gawping med-students, all playing the fiddle badly and out of tune.

I can see why it's disappointing but it seems to be the best decision on a population level for now. Chris Whitty has written to GP's and doctors about it.

The shortage could last months so the U.K. needs to use what they have the most effectively

And remembering that this scenario was never featured in the research, what happens if it ruins whatever effectiveness there was?

mamaduckbone

My extremely vulnerable mum, in her 80s hasn't had her first dose yet and has no appointment scheduled. Would you prefer to swap places and my mum could have two doses and your mum wait, completely unprotected, for as long as it takes, for a few million people to have two doses? Genuine question.

As said above "The second issue is that of consent from people who have already had the first dose. They consented to a licensed, evidence based treatment weighing up the risks and benefits of treatment- this has now changed mistreatment essentially against their consent."

There even be some kind of class action possible over this as in a sense it was trespass to the person to give them a jab on one basis and then change that to something against manufacturer instructions. People accepted the risks (and there are risks to the jab) on the basis they would get the second within 21 days. They may not have consented to jab 1 and the risks of jab 1 without getting the full thing for which they signed up (although I expect the state has done some kind of exclusion of liability thing between members of the public and the NHS over this).

I think people are scared. They'd be promised the miracle cure of the two jabs, after which they could get back to normal.

They were never promised that, a lot of them just decided they'd get that in their own heads. No one official at any point has said that the vaccinated are 100% safe or that they're exempt from the restrictions we're all under. If they want normal then - like the rest of us - what they need is lower case numbers and, particularly, lower hospitalization numbers, and that's exactly what this strategy is hoping for.

I phoned my mum’s GP surgery yesterday (DM is 85 and CEV) and they said they’d be calling very soon to book the 2 appointments, so the second dose will be scheduled in at that point. It all sounded very organised to me.

@TwnklTwnklLittleStarfighter

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.

So, this is interesting. After the first dose, your immunity keeps increasing on its own till it reaches 90%? That would change things, but then, why is pfizer not supporting this?

The second issue is that of consent from people who have already had the first dose. They consented to a licensed, evidence based treatment weighing up the risks and benefits of treatment- this has now changed mistreatment essentially against their consent.

This too, I would have had the vaccine regardless and would have probably chosen to have a single dose if that was the only option but that was my choice to make based on the available information. Now we have essentially been thrown into a clinical trial without consent.

@Eyewhisker and @Motorina thanks for the information. That puts my mind at rest somewhat.
And the poster who said they were surprised those giving the vaccines are agreeing to this-I will be administering the vaccine in mass vaccination clinics from start Feb (Scotland) and as I'm employed by the NHS I'll just have to do do what is asked of me. If I don't agree with it I would need to pull out of the clinics which I'm obviously not going to do. I'll likely not have had my second dose by then too.

[quote Eyewhisker]@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.[/quote]
There should be a rolling program, so as people are getting their 2nd doses, others are getting their 1st doses. It's not either/or, as the companies are continuously manufacturing more vaccine.

I appreciate the urgency of the situation, and nobody knows if this will turn out to be a satisfactory way forward. I hope the gamble pays off. If not - we will have wasted so many doses, and be living under the same restrictions for even longer to come.

@LadyJaye

I wouldn't trust these arseholes to organise an orgy in a brothel.

It's Tucker's Law, innit?

"If some cunt can fuck something up, that cunt will pick the worst possible time to fucking fuck up, because that cunt's a cunt."

Agree!

@trumpisaflump you are very welcome. And thank you for administering. I won't see you there (I'm probably 400 miles away) but some of my colleagues will.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

The shortage could last months so the U.K. needs to use what they have the most effectively

And remembering that this scenario was never featured in the research, what happens if it ruins whatever effectiveness there was?

But the jcvi have said the second dose of both vaccines can be given up to 12 weeks. 3-12 for Pfizer and 4-12 for Oxford. It’s not what was originally planned. I think they were aiming to give second dose at 3 weeks but it’s still just as effective if given at 12 weeks instead

My extremely vulnerable mum, in her 80s hasn't had her first dose yet and has no appointment scheduled. Would you prefer to swap places and my mum could have two doses and your mum wait, completely unprotected, for as long as it takes, for a few million people to have two doses? Genuine question

My Aunt is 93, if one jab gives her protection for 3 months and then it wanes, she is back to sq 1.
So your mum may as well have full protection.

We don't know any of this and neither does the Govt... but i'd rather trust Pfizer than a govt (inc Whitty) who have mishandled this pandemic so badly.
It was only a few months ago we were told we'd be out of this pandemic in a few weeks, have a normal xmas, masks don't work etc etc

IF the govt has millions of OxZ vaccine already manufactured (we were told this too) and uk has 100m ordered, why is there the need to go against Pfizers instructions?

I hope the gamble pays off. If not - we will have wasted so many doses, and be living under the same restrictions for even longer to come

That's what I meant about the need for a Plan B. I wouldn't expect even the "we're all going to diiiiieee" cohort to believe that restrictions can go on indefinitely, so maybe it's time to consider simply living with Covid

@TwnklTwnklLittleStarfighter

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.

That's not what Pfizer said in the Guardian.

Pfizer/BioNTech said that their vaccine was not designed to be used in two shots 12 weeks apart. In a statement, the firms said there was no evidence the first shot continued to work beyond three weeks.

“Data from the phase 3 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%. There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days,” they said.

We still haven’t had our first vaccination. Dh is 84 and has diabetes and prostate cancer. I am 76 ,have severe asthma and have been classified as extremely vulnerable. I will worry about the second dose when everyone has had the first. That must be the priority.

Don’t all come for me with the ⛏🔪🗡 but I don’t think these vaccines are going to work, everyone does realise that don’t they? Hence why the government are stringing us all along, they know the fucker will mutate quickly and what slight immunity it provides will diminish quickly.

Do NOT let you guard down if you take the V, it’s not an invisibility cloak.

[quote Motorina]@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?[/quote]
@Motorina

Can you show me anywhere that there is 91% efficacy at any point after day 21 following one dose? There is literally not one single actual piece of data that demonstrates this. NOT ONE.

It isn't on that chart.

This is what the paper ACTUALLY says - not someone else's extrapolation/interpretation of a line:

Figure 3 shows cases of Covid-19 or severe Covid-19 with onset at any time after the first dose (mITT population) (additional data on severe Covid-19 are available in Table S5). Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose.

There should be a rolling program, so as people are getting their 2nd doses, others are getting their 1st doses. It's not either/or, as the companies are continuously manufacturing more vaccine.

Right, but there isn't the capacity or doses right now so every second dose being given could have gone to give someone their first - that's the choice. I don't think anyone is saying that this would be done if that wasn't the issue. To go back to the food analogy about whether to share meagre resources equally or give some people all the good and others none, your solution is just to stand up and say 'we really ought to have more food on this island so everyone can have enough', which is both true and useless.

IF the govt has millions of OxZ vaccine already manufactured (we were told this too) and uk has 100m ordered, why is there the need to go against Pfizers instructions?

Breaking news: governments lie
Who knew?