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.

@bitheby

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.

But they have their pre orders, they'll sell the uk 40m doses as that is what we have ordered, whether we vaccinate 40m or 20m is down to us.

@Forgetmenot157

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!

Quite. If one jab protects against severe covid, then this is sufficient. You might get covid, just very mildly.

If you can't / won't isolate in those circumstances then thats pretty darn selfish - especially if they are vulnerable themselves and understand the implications of this.

Dp said this morning it might be like taking half a course of antibiotics, dangerous in letting the virus escape the vaccine.

Neither of us are from a science background so it was speculation. This isn't possible is it?

Given they don’t know yet for sure if this virus will mutate further to the point of vaccine evasion, they need to urgently vaccinate as many people with one dose as possible as that will most likely protect the most people and not overwhelm the NHS.

Secondly, I fully understand the disappointment of people waiting for their second dose. But until a large amount of the population is vaccinated the most vulnerable really need to continue to be really careful, in any event.

@bitheby

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.

Demand way outstrips supply - Pfizer could easily sell 10 times as many vaccines as they currently produce. I don't think they have a commercial motivation, though perhaps a legal one? If they have only tested the vaccine for a certain dosage regime, they can't be seen to recommend a different, untested, one?

Those suggesting the professionals on the JCVI and MHRA opinion are somewhat tainted because their bodies are funded out of taxpayer funds is an outrageous slur on their integrity. These are all medics and scientists who are regulated by various professional bodies including the GMC. They give their recommendations and the government chooses if to follow them.

For balance I am having my 2nd early next week. Not saying it's going to be the norm but prob best to not be hysterical at everything on/in the news/media.

Thread by Deepti Gurdasani Senior Lecturer at QMUL Epidemiology.
twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1344727730701672449

[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]
The NHS constantly break their "promises" whether it's for routine appts, tests/scans or even treatments. Are you really saying that because someone has received an appt letter for, say, a scan, it's some kind of legally binding agreement? Everyone knows that things change all the time, especially in the NHS.

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

You beat me to it, RedToothBrush - and that's before we even consider the various exemptions from prosecution which have been arranged all along the way

I'll ask yet again, though I've about given up on expecting a reply ... just how long do folk think it'll take before realisation dawns that there may be no alternative to learning to live with this?

Just came on to add that thread @RedToothBrush but you beat me to it! I thought it was really interesting/balanced.

The appointment was made for my FILs second jab when he had his first.

@ancientgran

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.

Wow - people are actually thinking of suing - I'm DISGUSTED absolutely DISGUSTED.

People who try that should be named and shamed.

I am surprised they didn’t consider this approach of a 12 week delay while they were doing their research. It was always going to make more sense to give an initial jab to as many people as possible even before the new variant.

DH is a GP and now has to spend next week contacting patients he gave the first vaccine to, to let them know that their second vaccine isn’t now taking place.

@ittakes2

I am surprised they didn’t consider this approach of a 12 week delay while they were doing their research. It was always going to make more sense to give an initial jab to as many people as possible even before the new variant.

I guess they wanted to get it authorised as quickly as possible, so having a 3 month gap between doses would have taken too long.

@GoldGreen

Those suggesting the professionals on the JCVI and MHRA opinion are somewhat tainted because their bodies are funded out of taxpayer funds is an outrageous slur on their integrity. These are all medics and scientists who are regulated by various professional bodies including the GMC. They give their recommendations and the government chooses if to follow them.

I hope this isn’t in reference to my post. I’m just clarifying the legal basis for MHRA’s powers.

However, if you think politics never features in decision-making such as this then you’re quite mistaken.

There’s so many comments here that aren’t based on facts. There is NO data relating to 3 months gap for Pfizer dosing (and v scant for vulnerable for Oxford).

NOBODY can purport to know what’ll happen if Pfizer trial data is departed from. We have no idea how delaying the second dose affects immunity. It’s a gamble. We are gambling.

It may work out equally (as many virologists have cautioned) it could lead to lesser protection and possible disastrous vaccine escape through partial protection.

Another one to chalk up from the “amazing” U.K. Pandemic Response!!

Anyone seen anything on how they are deciding who is getting Pfizer versus Oxford? One advantage of both now being 2 doses 12 weeks apart is that population level efficacy can be judged side by side.

It seems odd to be quibbling about interpretation of trial results because in both cases there were less than 200 cases of symptomatic Covid in the placebo arms none of which resulted in death afaik. The trial was not conducted in those most at risk and so only time will tell how effective the vaccine is in the real World.

It makes sense to give a single injection to as many people as possible while infection rates are high and still increasing.

People will still get their second jabs and these will be due from April onward.

A longer gap (up to 12 weeks) between the first and second jab was shown to increase the vaccine's effectiveness.
Good explanation from

Oaktree all of what you say applies equally even if the 21 day initial schedule were applied.

DH is a GP and now has to spend next week contacting patients he gave the first vaccine to, to let them know that their second vaccine isn’t now taking place.

Are all his nurses and receptionists off sick?

IcedPurple I think you are correct. Read somewhere that 21 day spacing was to find minimum period between 2 doses to stop them cancelling out rather than optimal or even whether 2nd was efficacious.

@thegreylady

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.

Exactly. Our GP surgery are making vague suggestions that they may start the vaccinations around mid January. It's crazy (and typical NHS mismanagement) that some people will have had their second dose but identical people won't have even had their first dose, due simply to which GP surgery they are signed up for.

@MarinPrime - they have two receptionists - both are off work with Covid and the practice nurse is now working at a local hospital in A&E.