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 BMJ article is a short summary of the clinical trial reports. If you want to disagree with the experts on the JVC and MRHA you need to at very least read the original trial data, because you can be damned sure their decisions are based on more than the BMJ’s summary.

@MushMonster exactly there is a huge amount of scientific opinion questioning what they’ve authorised. It’s not transparent or confidence inducing in a time of crisis. It may work it may not it’s a huge gamble with U.K. health/economy.

Or does the 50 or 70% figure relate to the number of people who's immune system kicks in when it comes up against the virus ?

@frumpety, when they say a percentage reduction it means their estimate of how many people in the vaccine group would normally have developed covid but didn't. It has to be an estimate as they obviously don't know for sure how many would have got ill without the vaccine, so they compare to a control group. So say 200 people in the control group got a positive test but only 100 people in the vaccine group, that suggests it's 50% effective.

It doesn't mean that it does nothing for the other 50% though. After the Oxford trial they said that only giving one dose protected all the participants from getting severely ill, which is why they've now changed the plan to give one dose to more people, because as you say the current priority is relieving the pressure on hospitals. The problem is they haven't actually tested how effective the single dose is after twelve weeks, only after three. So they have to weigh up the possibility that the effectiveness might decrease against the benefits of getting more people protected faster.

And you're also right to say that people wouldn't be allowed to ignore the restrictions immediately after getting both doses anyway. In practice though I expect a lot of people would, especially if they're very vulnerable and have been stuck at home for most of the year.

It is much fairer to give more people some immunity, than just a few higher immunity. It's better for individuals, society, and pressure on the NHS.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

What I don't understand is why move the goalposts at half time? People took the first dose on the understanding that they would get the second dose within a specified time. They have now reneged on this. Surely that's not ethical medicine? Why go against the BMA and Pfizer's studies which presumably showed the original timescale? Not to mention the wasted administration time making thousands of cancellation phone calls. If this was such a good idea, why was this not the strategy from the beginning? There are too many unanswered questions

Why isn't Keir Starmer pushing the government harder on this? Is it because the idea originally came from Tony Blair?

The logical thing would be to honour the 2nd dose appointments that have already been booked for Pfizer vaccine, and just implement the new system for does 12 weeks apart for new bookings.

why am I not surprised that the government is messing up the vaccination programme. They have messed everything else up.

@Mincepiesallyearround

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.

The NEJM article actually says 52% protection after first dose, 94.8% 7days after 2nd dose. What Sherborne and others are saying comes, I think, from Fig3 in this paper, where most of the covid cases after the first dose occur before day 12.

Day 12 is when the treated and control groups diverge. Covid has an incubation of 5 days so from this one can say that immunity from the first dose begins to kick in at about 7 days.

The Vaccination Group is arguing, I think, that the cases that should be counted after the first dose to determine efficacy should exclude those in the first 12 days (ie. immunity+incubation). If you do this, you get a much better efficacy figure for the first dose than 52%

However, as the Pfizer investigators said, the trial was not designed to assess efficacy of a single dose, so it is, in a sense, fiddling the figures.

@Sertchgi123 what’s so difficult to understand is there’s ZERO data for Pfizer that the dosing schedule will keep vulnerable out if hospitals etc and v flimsy data for Oxford for vulnerable

If we were all assured that the dosing schedule worked and there was data to show that we wouldn’t be debating!

There’s no data!!! It’s a gamble not based on robust trial evidence.

Daily Mail reporting that some GPs will be giving the 2nd dose after all?

“Doctors say they will defy Government orders to give a second dose of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine to elderly patients who were promised one when they got their first jabs.

A row has broken out over ministers' decision to ration vaccine supplies to get single doses to as many people as they can in a scramble to stem the tide of Covid deaths.

Officials, warning that supply shortages could last until spring, have said patients who already had one dose of the vaccine should have their second one - which they were told they'd get three weeks later - postponed for up to 12 weeks.

But doctors have revolted and said they won't deny vulnerable patients the vaccines they promised them amid concerns the jabs won't work as well with just one dose.”

@BonnieDundee

What I don't understand is why move the goalposts at half time? People took the first dose on the understanding that they would get the second dose within a specified time. They have now reneged on this. Surely that's not ethical medicine? Why go against the BMA and Pfizer's studies which presumably showed the original timescale? Not to mention the wasted administration time making thousands of cancellation phone calls. If this was such a good idea, why was this not the strategy from the beginning? There are too many unanswered questions

It's about reaching more people, to give them some immunity, rather than giving higher immunity to just a few. It's morally and practically the right thing to do.

Scientists are learning about these vaccines and applying what they have learned. You can't expect them to know stuff until they know.

@MarcelineMissouri do you have a link to a reputable source that shows the Pfizer vaccine is more effective than 52% as an average after one dose. Not being sarcastic if I am wrong I would be a lot less anxious.

Why, the best brains in the country? BJ and his famed intellect?
They are the absolute pits.
Way back in February they should have put their egos to bed and worked with all parties to er.......run the country?

[quote Oaktree55]@Sertchgi123 what’s so difficult to understand is there’s ZERO data for Pfizer that the dosing schedule will keep vulnerable out if hospitals etc and v flimsy data for Oxford for vulnerable

If we were all assured that the dosing schedule worked and there was data to show that we wouldn’t be debating!

There’s no data!!! It’s a gamble not based on robust trial evidence.[/quote]
I would rather believe Chris Whitty, than you.

@Sertchgi123 It's about reaching more people, to give them some immunity, rather than giving higher immunity to just a few. It's morally and practically the right thing to do.
But it’s not morally right to give the CEV and elderly population less protection in order to give those who are at very little risk a vaccine sooner.

I would rather believe Chris Whitty, than you.

I would rather believe the trial data.

So you think Chris Whitty is lying to us?

Absolutely @Sertchgi123 .

I am frankly ASTOUNDED and very, very angry at all the selfish f*s on here, wanting full immunity for them/their parents at the expense of quite a bit of immunity for many more.

These people, coupled with those on another thread who say they couldn’t be arsed to get up in the night to go for a vaccine “why should I?”” I need my sleep”/“a taxi costs money”) should be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten turnips.

So you think Chris Whitty is lying to us?

What did Chris Whitty tell you then?

@Sertchgi123 What's so difficult to understand about that? because A the new vaccine schedule is not supported by evidence
And B you are making the CEV and elderly unable to safety leave their homes obviously wearing masks and socially distancing fur another 9 weeks. Just so vaccines can be given to those who are at low risk and can leave their homes send their dc to school etc.

But it’s not morally right to give the CEV and elderly population less protection in order to give those who are at very little risk a vaccine sooner.

Which group do you mean when you say very little risk?

It’s scandalous what’s happening and very few seem to be bothered. I find it amazing. There is far too much trust in our countries response despite broken promise after broken promise. There are so many implications to this (lack of adherence after first dose. How many adults receive 2x dose vaccines?) spacing 3 months apart leads to lots of behaviour issues and consequences ignoring the efficacy issues.

@IrmaFayLear

Absolutely *@Sertchgi123* .

I am frankly ASTOUNDED and very, very angry at all the selfish f*s on here, wanting full immunity for them/their parents at the expense of quite a bit of immunity for many more.

These people, coupled with those on another thread who say they couldn’t be arsed to get up in the night to go for a vaccine “why should I?”” I need my sleep”/“a taxi costs money”) should be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten turnips.

Quite.

Surely, it means that more people are protected from death more quickly - once that's achieved then there is time to fully vaccinate.

Well, I know someone who had the vaccine a week or two before Xmas and has their second one booked for next week.
I'd take all you hear with a pinch of salt tbh.

I think those that have had their first vaccine should have their second one when originally scheduled. That gets them done and dusted and out of the system. That’s what they consented to when they gave their consent.