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.

It makes me so cross the majority don’t read up enough to realise how incompetent our Government are.

Interesting 2015 modelling study here;

One versus two doses: What is the best use of vaccine in an influenza pandemic?

If the vaccine-induced immunity after the first dose is half as good as that of the full recommended dose (so the primary response level is 50%), then we found some surprising results: If the vaccine is protective against susceptibility only, then our analytical results showed that prepandemic vaccination should be done with the full recommended two doses of vaccine, as this would yield lower attack rates. However, if vaccination occurs after the epidemic has started, then numerical results suggest that the best strategy would be to vaccinate as many people as possible with a single dose. If in addition the vaccine reduces infectiousness or pathogenicity, then numerical results suggest that the one-dose strategy would be better in both cases.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175543651500064X

It's Tucker's Law, innit?

In southern Germany, officials had to send back about 1,000 doses after finding they had been transported in cool boxes typically used for picnics or camping trips that failed to keep the vaccine cold enough.

Not to mention these poor care workers;

In one mishap, eight workers at a care home in Stralsund on the north German coast were injected with five times the recommended dose of the vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech. Four were hospitalised.

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-europe-vaccines/eus-marathon-covid-vaccination-drive-off-to-uneven-start-idUKKBN2921F7

THEY CAN STAY INSIDE as they have been doing thus far. And I count myself among them.

It’s nothing to do with “morals” and to do with public health.

The sheer selfishness of wanting to prioritise a few over the many I just can’t comprehend.

It's a gamble. I think the government should at least hold their hands up and admit that there is no data to support this move - that they hope it will pay off. And they also need to stress that once vaccinated, people still need to shield and take precautions (hand washing, masks etc). This is a short-term 'fix' because of the current crisis in the NHS.

One dose of vaccine may offer more people a little bit of immunity, but if that immunity only lasts 3-6 weeks without a 2nd dose, then people could let their guard down, and rates of infection will continue to rise.

Perhaps immunity will last longer, but we just don't know. I fear they are giving the public a false sense of security by saying one dose is enough (for now).

@IrmaFayLear 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
But the many more are able to safety leave their homes wearing masks and SD , and if the many more get Covid they are very unlikely to be seriously ill or die. This has been done once again to protect the economy. More vulnerable people will now due but the hospitals will be less full with people who would have made a full recovery.
It’s making an 80 year old wait for full protection so a healthy 52 year old gets a vaccine sooner.

So you think Chris Whitty is lying to us?

Well hes got form hasn't he

@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.

I completely agree with you that it would be better to have a 'bit' of immunity for many.

What people are debating is whether that is actually what this will achieve. Because it may provide next to no immunity for many instead. This is the danger - it isn't that people want an unfair advantage.

*now die

@IrmaFayLear it’s not about selfishness. It’s about data. There isn’t robust data to show partial immunity is enough for the vulnerable. They should quite rightly be on the tested schedules which were trialled, not only for them but for our Society as a whole. If we offer them less in the hope it’ll be ok if may not and then we’re right where we are now.

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.

If there was enough vaccine available to give all the CEV, elderly and health care people two doses within a month or so I’d be taking a very different line on this. But the situation we are in is such that we have to either give all “category 1” people one dose or we give half of them two doses. I agree with the decision to give them all one dose.

I don't think people should be so scathing about the government. This is a dynamic situation and therefore there will be constant changes.

@Haffiana

So you think Chris Whitty is lying to us?

What did Chris Whitty tell you then?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/letter-to-the-profession-from-the-uk-chief-medical-officers-on-the-uk-covid-19-vaccination-programmes/letter-to-the-profession-from-the-uk-chief-medical-officers-regarding-the-uk-covid-19-vaccination-programmes

We are confident that based on publicly available data as well as data available to the JCVI, the statutory independent body, that the first dose of either Pfizer or AZ vaccine provides substantial protection within 2-3 weeks of vaccination for clinical disease, and in particular severe COVID disease. The JCVI has issued a new evidence statement today.

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. Not all the CEV and elderly have had any protection. Care home I work in has no idea when they will get the vaccine, DH is 75 with risk factors (BAME, over weight, male, age, disabled) and no idea when he will get it. I would guess the majority of elderly and CEV haven't had the vaccine but I would be interested if anyone has the figures.

@AldiAisleofCrap the JCVI report attached states

Short term vaccine efficacy from the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is calculated at around 90%, short term vaccine efficacy from the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine is calculated at around 70% (efficacy estimates are not directly comparable between the two vaccines)

m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fuwwn2dv4o2d0ena726gf4403f3p2acnu

I agree that this makes lots of sense on a population basis, especially with the high level of community infection in the UK.

This approach was mooted out in an opinion piece by a Harvard epidemiologist in the New York Times just after approval.

www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-doses.html

They refer predominantly to Moderna data:

Moderna reported the initial dose to be 92.1 percent efficacious in preventing Covid-19 starting two weeks after the initial shot, when the immune system effects from the vaccine kick in, before the second injection on the 28th day

This would fit with the graphs shown by a pp from the Pfizer paper.

The second vaccine dose is likely to be very important for duration of protection, and at an appropriate dose interval may further increase vaccine efficacy. In the short term, the additional increase of vaccine efficacy from the second dose is likely to be modest; the great majority of the initial protection from clinical disease is after the first dose of vaccine.

Is it because the idea originally came from Tony Blair?

What is remarkable is that people think that Blair came up with the idea all by himself and without thinking that it was a spontaneously evolving idea that emerged from a number of quarters (notably many within the scientific community) after looking at the Oxford data and how they'd conducted their study (and how other studies / vaccines approved elsewhere in the world had gone).

I think the way that Blair has been credited with the entire idea is bonkers. He just gave a platform to an idea already circulating in professional circles and was based on how the Oxford trial was done in the first place...

This is the Moderna data from the FDA

www.fda.gov/media/144434/download

@IrmaFayLear the they includes my disabled children who have only left the house a handful of times since March to go to very quite countryside.
Why should they and many others not be able to safely leave their homes so other people who are healthy and going to work, school a browse round in the range can be vaccinated sooner.
Why should care home residents have to wait an extra 9 weeks for a social distanced still masked visit with relatives.

I don’t agree OP. I think it’s a very wise decision and should have been made from the outset.
We want the maximum number protected. Whilst one dose doesn’t give full protection the chance of you dying or being seriously ill is hugely reduced. We should be giving that to the most people we can, especially key workers who are ECV (such as teachers).

Aldi which group of people is the second dose being diverted to?

@Hardbackwriter

I think it’s a little bit selfish of people to be annoyed they aren’t getting their second dose when plenty of vulnerable people wouldn’t even be getting their first any time soon if this hadn’t been changed.

I think so too, especially when they're saying that they wanted their second dose so they could 'go back to normal and see their family' (which would still have been illegal if they wanted to do it in a way not allowed in their tier!). People who are themselves low-risk giving up their normality to stop others dying has been the order of the day for the last 10 months, so it's a bit galling to hear that apparently the vulnerable that we've all been protecting weren't expecting this to apply to them, just other people.

Agree with this. I have a lot of sympathy for CEV people who've been basically stuck inside for months, and can understand that they're very frustrated about their promised 'end date' being pushed back even further, while the level of medium-term protection conferred by the first dose remains uncertain. But for most of the past year the constant message has been that it's selfish to put our own interests above protecting other people and stopping NHS services from being overrun, and now that the plan has been changed in an attempt to protect more people and stop NHS services from being overrun, people are complaining because it goes against their own interests. You can't have it both ways!

It's not like the 'extra' first doses are going to random low-risk people so that we can all go to raves, either. They're going to equally vulnerable people who would otherwise be left with no protection at all, by sheer misfortune of which NHS trust they happen to fall under. I don't see why the people who've already had their first dose are any more worthy of protection than these people.

This is better for your disabled children because it is likely to reduce community infection more quickly.

@RedToothBrush as I understand the delayed dosing in the Oxford Trial resulted from the halt they had to make when they were investigated for the Transverse Myelitis case and the second dose was therefore delayed in a small subgroup. Another “accident”.

@cathyandclare there’s no data to support the fact the vaccines are sterilising.

What I don't understand is why move the goalposts at half time?

Perhaps because politicians' focus was on their own future rather than that of the country?
Even with the speed of the vaccine developments you'd think they'd have been able to identify some of these issues and tell the truth about them, but as Oaktree pointed out, since when has there been any transparency or reason for confidence?