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.

I think you are wrong - this is entirely within Oxford Vaccine guidelines, and also Pfizer (in the small print). Let more people have more 1st doses sooner so they are partly protected. Then a second dose a little later.

All above board, all within the rules of the vaccine.

@Mincepiesallyearround

Covid-19: Pfizer vaccine efficacy was 52% after first dose and 95% after second dose, paper shows - published by BMA

That's more than a few per cent.

*BMJ not BMA

Ah my mistake, this is the piece I was thinking off: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/health/covid-vaccine-pfizer.amp.html

There can be no sudden quick fix to this covid situation.
There were bound to be some hiccups at the start.
I am waiting for this first round of vaccinations to take place
and then I will see

Actually it was this reporting (but in an American paper, can’t find the piece now) which mentions a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine study had reported the first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to have 91% efficacy, compared with 95% for two doses. That’s what I was thinking of when I said only a few % more efficacy. But I haven’t read the study and it’s early days/ just one paper-journal.

Journal study mentioned here: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/23/more-data-needed-before-second-vaccine-dose-diverted-to-first-timers-says-covid-adviser

[quote boredsolicitor]It's supported by medical advice to increase protection scope more quickly. I think it's a good move for the reasons given

Covid: 12-week vaccine gap defended by UK medical chiefs www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55503739[/quote]
It's not supported by those who developed the vaccine or those giving the vaccines.

Sadly another mess caused by over promising from the PM.

It is not within the Pfizer guidelines.

it’s the fact that 3 weeks ago I don’t think they realised that we’d be back up to the point of 50,000 new cases and nearly 1000 deaths for the last couple of days, whilst the NHS continues to battle with covid and non covid related admissions; with many hospital declaring major incidents and patients being transferred out of their area to receive treatment.

They did have some info about this three weeks ago - they were being warned to lockdown when it was apparent tiers weren't working.

Clinically it’s a good decision. You get the majority of protection from the first dose and relatively small top up from the second. It makes far more sense to partially vaccinate millions more people and protect them (especially medical staff etc). Have you read the evidence?

If it is such a good decision they would have made it originally. This is a change of plan.

My issue is yet again the bullshitting PM promised vaccines on X schedule and now they've got to wind back.

This constant over-promising and then failing to deliver is really pissing people off.

"The United Kingdom’s emergency approval of a COVID-19 vaccine ... [is a move that] could reduce access for poorer nations for months or even years." (National Geographic). Many countries won't vaccinate at all until there is a WHO approved vaccine, they were supposed to have complete a review on Tuesday but I haven't seen an update. I have family overseas and the recent news is that they won't have to pay for it when it is finally distributed. What a different world we live in in the UK.

There are pros and cons to this.

But I am nervous. I saw one scientist state - if you were going to design an approach to encourage vaccine escape then this is it. But also I understand getting protection out to as many people as possible is also important.

What I strongly disagree with is cancelling second doses. It overrides informed consent. It confuses older people who may struggle with the logistics of this. And it reduces overall confidence with the vaccination scheme particularly among those who need it most.

I knew something like this would happen. It always does

I've noticed the governing have talked about the fact that the first dose cuts your risk of backing very poorly(hospital admission) almost completely. So maybe that was there way of preparing people that they won't be getting the second dose? Ffs

@Napqueen1234

Clinically it’s a good decision. You get the majority of protection from the first dose and relatively small top up from the second. It makes far more sense to partially vaccinate millions more people and protect them (especially medical staff etc). Have you read the evidence?

We don't know how long protection will last with just one dose, what happens if it gives just 3 or 4 months protection? which is what natural CV appears to give the person infected.

We also do not know what happens if you have the first dose with Pfizer and then the 2nd with OxZen.

This new approach appears to be based on this govt being able to get the 2nd dose out within 3 months, given what they ve achieved so far, thats not a given.

I think we might be better listening to Pfizer if they have doubts, if OxZ say its ok, then fine.

It strikes me as a panic measure because of the combination of the late or no decisions about restrictions over the last three months, and the unwillingness to have enforcement measures over and above peer pressure and saying 'please' on occasions.

It is definitely a panic measure.

The situation is out of control.

The Conservative government's natural 'don't worry about it' approach has really come home to roost this time

The risk of mutation was always there, it is why epidemiologists said to go after cases systematically.

Government gambled

It's a good decision that is being considered in lots of other countries. With one shot offering such comprehensive protection from illness and death it's a brilliant way to shield more people. Honestly. I'm so sick of whingers.

People are already getting second doses. Mine is booked for next week I'm not worried.

I have no medical knowledge at all but I would personally take the word of the BMA over the lying charlatan that is our PM any day.

Are you suggesting the pm organised the vaccine regimen?

I think the govt have messed most things up. However I don’t think on balance this is a terrible approach. People are right that it is a risk that the jab will be less effective. But the other risk is the hospitals being overwhelmed, that the jab could mitigate.

Personally I would do a mixture of approaches and collect data - so that they can make earlier decisions to proceed faster with single or double roll-out. I would do double roll-out to healthcare/care workers and most vulnerable, then collect data on people with single roll-out (and delayed follow-up jab).

I would think the use of dexamethasone for covid was off-label, so sometimes if you do not try things (in a controlled, measured way), you won’t have new discoveries.

@20viona

People are already getting second doses. Mine is booked for next week I'm not worried.

I know someone who has had a call saying her 2nd dose next week will likely be cancelled. It’s due at 3pm, they’ve said if she hasn’t heard from them by 1pm on the day it will go ahead but they could cancel as late as 2 hours notice. Hope you get yours.

My elderly frail dad has had his first dose and now been told his second dose, due next week, is to be delayed.

He lives alone and has been self isolating since March . He now won't know if he will have any benefit at all from his semi administered vaccine. Does he risk it, start to live his life again, only to find he catches Covid because he's not properly immune ? How will he know ? Or can he go about his life potentially spreading Covid under a false assumption he is ' vaccinated' ?

He's taken on the risk of being the first to have the vaccine but without any credible benefit.

I'm furious. This government is a joke. It's all about how many people they can say are 'vaccinated'. Bloody pointless waste of time and money if it's not effectively administered.