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.

The vaccines have been manufactured in large numbers ready for distributing across the world. The U.K. has put in their order but doesn’t have the manpower or vaccines yet to roll it across the U.K..

It isn't up to the manufacturer to decide on vaccine policy but rather the Regulator. Therefore I am doubtful there would be a "claim" given the regime is being updated in line with recommendation of the Regulator.

The whole programme is under Emergency provisions as opposed to standard licencing and so in that sense everyone being vaccinated is part of the extended trial. Part of trial process is tweaking in response to emerging events. eg they responded to anaphylaxis events very cautiously and have now rowed back the guidance on allergies a bit. The guidance on pregnancy is also evolving. The trials didn't include anyone who had prior infection and lots of underlying conditions were excluded but they are not excluded from the vaccine programme etc etc etc.

None of my 3 DC had the same vaccination schedule because things change from year to year in terms of disease prevalence and emerging science. Never occurred to me to sue because my DD1 got different from my DD3.

@Xenia

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 just looked and the patient information, as published on 2 December, says:

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is given after dilution as an injection of 0.3 mL into a muscle of your upper arm.

You will receive 2 injections, given at least 21 days apart.

If you receive one dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2, you should receive a second dose of the same vaccine at least 21 days later to complete the vaccination series. Protection against COVID-19 disease may not be maximally effective until at least 7 days after the second dose.

It doesn't look like anyone was ever promised in writing that they'd be given a second dose after three weeks exactly, although I certainly agree that it was what they were led to expect.

An example:

5 million people at 60 - 70 % effectiveness = 3 - 3.5 million covered enough
2.5 million people at 90% effectiveness = 2.25 million covered enough

Its not ideal, but this is a pure numbers game. Some who get one dose will not be protected and will die under the scheme. But thats still probably less death - and more crucially less hospitalisation - than switching to this 12 week programme.

This still only gives a 12 week window where this makes an impact (because you then have to start doing the second dose).

But that could still could make a significant difference.

I also add, that reducing hospitalisations, has an effect on the number of indirect deaths (all the people who can't get treatment for other things cos doctors and nurses are busy with covid instead). So in reality the numbers for a 1 shot policy are even better than the headline numbers on efficiently protected people would suggest. This is an important factor to add in.

I don't see what the alternative is, given the situation we are currently in.

@MrsMiaWallis

I'm really sad about this. My poor PILS were so excited. They were supposed to have 2nd dose next week.

My extremely clinically vulnerable 82 year old father in Kent in Tier 4 hasn't even heard a word about the first dose. There seems to be a hole in the more rural areas of west Kent/Sussex that doesn’t seem to be included in the programme of vaccination.

@hardbackwriter I personally gave verbal consent to the treatment on the basis of exactly three weeks, in keeping with the evidence basis. This was verbal consent (alongside the written information) but is still legally binding. It seems to have been standard that most people were also given a specific date to agree to for the second dose, before the first was given.

No one could guarantee you'd get the second dose 21 days later. The way the numbers are going there might not be anyone around who is well enough to give you the second dose, you might be unwell, there might be heavy snow fall and you can't get there, you might be dead. I can't believe that anyone would think of suing, what a wonderful waste of money that would be. You were one of the privileged who got first dose early and you show your gratitude for the protection you have by suing who? The NHS, the govt, who? The majority of people who haven't got the protection will be paying you. People are unbelievable.

It doesn't look like anyone was ever promised in writing that they'd be given a second dose after three weeks exactly, although I certainly agree that it was what they were led to expect

But most people got their date for the 2nd vaccination as they were given the first vaccination....which I would argue is a “promise” that they’d have it 21 days later.

[quote glassshoes]@hardbackwriter I personally gave verbal consent to the treatment on the basis of exactly three weeks, in keeping with the evidence basis. This was verbal consent (alongside the written information) but is still legally binding. It seems to have been standard that most people were also given a specific date to agree to for the second dose, before the first was given. [/quote]
Where were you guaranteed that you would receive the booster exactly 3 weeks later? I thought it was 'at least' 3 weeks later, so that has not changed.

I personally gave verbal consent to the treatment on the basis of exactly three weeks, in keeping with the evidence basis. This was verbal consent (alongside the written information) but is still legally binding. It seems to have been standard that most people were also given a specific date to agree to for the second dose, before the first was given. Did you specifically say you were only consenting on the basis that the 2nd dose would be given precisely 21 days later? Any conditions on that, how about you didn't turn up, the injector was ill, the place where you were due to get the vaccination was flood, snowed in? No exceptions just a specific guarantee you'd get it 21 days later. Yes I believe you.

The logic might be that they don't want to potentially expose those in rural Kent/Sussex at vaccination clinics when rates are so high.

Also theres over 3million people over 80 in the UK.

And they also need to priortise younger front line staff.

Priority group 1 is HUGE.

I also add, that reducing hospitalisations, has an effect on the number of indirect deaths (all the people who can't get treatment for other things cos doctors and nurses are busy with covid instead). So in reality the numbers for a 1 shot policy are even better than the headline numbers on efficiently protected people would suggest. This is an important factor to add in.

And the indirect effect is likely to particularly benefit the most vulnerable currently receiving vaccinations. Because people seem to have forgotten that there are causes of death over than Covid they are up in arms about their 87 year old mother not being totally protected against Covid but an 87 year old is highly likely to need the NHS for something else so her personal protection against Covid isn't going to do much good for her if she dies of something else preventable because the NHS is overwhelmed. She'd be better off with a higher personal risk of Covid but a health service that is closer to functioning.

But most people got their date for the 2nd vaccination as they were given the first vaccination....which I would argue is a “promise” that they’d have it 21 days later. Doesn't mean it is legally enforceable though does it. Have you ever had an appointment changed, have you ever changed an appointment? Has anyone ever sued you because you didn't turn up for the 2nd part of a treatment when you "promised" you'd be there when you made the appointment.

@MusicMan65

Heard this an hour ago on the radio news. Here's my 2p worth.

If I were in one of the the vulnerable categories and I had already had the 1st jab and was then told that it was "70% effective" and that my 2nd jab (in order to get 100% protection) was now going to be 3 months away, I wouldn't change my way of living (shielding/isolating) AT ALL!

Why sacrifice almost a year of going without many of the things that make life worthwhile, only to be then struck and possibly killed by the virus after relaxing my regime?

This is what the clever people in charge of all this miss - real people don't run their lives by statistics and numbers. As human beings we are primarily intuitive creatures with a well honed sense of self preservation. A jab that is 70% effective might just as well be 7% effective TBH.

IMO they should focus on the most vulnerable groups first and give all of them them the 2nd jab after 3 weeks. Since those groups are where the most fatalities occur, they would actually save more lives that way, and protect those most likely to catch (and die from) the virus, rather than going for cheap popularity by vaccinating millions of people with a 70% effective jab that will change NOTHING in terms of how people actually live their lives!

If these people are so damn clever, how come they seem to understand nothing about human psychology? Ridiculous!

I know I'm in a minority but I don't care.

There I've said it, feel better now, thanks for listening.

Surely you realise that no one on this thread is listening to anyone else?!

The vaccines have been manufactured in large numbers ready for distributing across the world. The U.K. has put in their order but doesn’t have the manpower or vaccines yet to roll it across the U.K

So despite months of notice we would be getting a vaccine, Johnson didn't get anyone extra trained up to administer it?
Again, told we were the first to get our OxZ order in for 100m doses.

How anyone can't see that have lots of people protected with the first jab is much muchich better than a small amount but ing fully protected... Especially considering there were no hospitalisation reported after one dose... People are just looking for anything to moan about now.... The MHRA has okayed this so it's fine by me!

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

Yes, and the JCVI also receives funds from government, so there goes any "independence"

I don’t think these vaccines are going to work

We simply won't know for a while - though this latest chaos won't have helped - but the issue for me is that perhaps too much faith has been put in them
I get that we all want something to hope for, but as I keep saying it worries me that few seem willing to consider the alternatives. That day may come, but how long it'll take is anyone's guess

@JacobReesMogadishu

It doesn't look like anyone was ever promised in writing that they'd be given a second dose after three weeks exactly, although I certainly agree that it was what they were led to expect

But most people got their date for the 2nd vaccination as they were given the first vaccination....which I would argue is a “promise” that they’d have it 21 days later.

I had a dentist's appointment in April that was cancelled due to the developing covid situation and has yet to be rescheduled. Was I promised that appointment and can I sue for not having it even though it was a decision made centrally to cancel non-essential appointments due to public health need?

My DM in her late 80s had the first dose mid Dec. She feels very lucky because we know many more people who are at greater risk than her and still haven't had anything.

Now we know that the first dose is 90% effective and the second would only boost this by another 5%, it seems much more logical to give 90% protection to a greater number of people. She's quite happy about it.

It's logistically difficult for GP practices because they now have to contact hundreds of people who were due their second jabs next week and cancel the appointments.

@ancientgran

But most people got their date for the 2nd vaccination as they were given the first vaccination....which I would argue is a “promise” that they’d have it 21 days later. Doesn't mean it is legally enforceable though does it. Have you ever had an appointment changed, have you ever changed an appointment? Has anyone ever sued you because you didn't turn up for the 2nd part of a treatment when you "promised" you'd be there when you made the appointment.

Besides this:

Whats the law like on public health emergency exemptions?

Good luck with a legal case because you'd have to get around this particular issue as a defence. Public health emergency exemptions cover A LOT.

Its worth looking up before talking about 'consent' and 'promises'. You may find that the government can very legally do this if its regarded in the public interest.

John Campbell, non political and plain speaking, supporting the single vaccine approach. Worth a listen for anyone wanting reassurance.

In answer to the question who is MHRA accountable to, MHRA is an executive agency of the department of health. It exercises delegated powers on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health, who it is ultimately accountable to.

Pfizer have a commercial interest. Their objective is to sell as much product as possible. I don't exactly trust the government but I don't hold Pfizer up as the paragon of Science. They aren't an impartial observer in all this either.

We've got an appointment card for a second dose on Wednesday but I don't regard it as a legally binding document!

I had first dose of Pfizer vaccine before Christmas and was due 2nd dose 19th Jan...
I'm 'only' 56 , clinically extremely vulnerable ( on immunosuppressant medication for autoimmune disease);and a frontline healthcare worker, with 34 years experience - coincidentally working in clinical research, who is now currently shielding again and working from home...with delay in 2nd dose apparent, I've no idea when I'll be able to return to work to help my colleagues ...totally pissed off with situation tbh and feel like a pawn