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.

For now we are using quite severe restrictions to manage and control it whilst we roll out imperfect vaccinations and treatments ...

Absolutely, yes - but I don't imagine even the most risk-averse believe these can continue for ever, and as said it then becomes a question of what to do if the vaccines don't work

Track & Trace appears to be out since government aren't capable of organising it; ditto quarantine, especially as they're unwilling to close borders, so except for the vaccines it seems we're running out of options

@Puzzledandpissedoff

WiseUpJanetWeiss the same's been asked so many times, and FWIW "living with it" looks pretty ghastly to me in terms of the consequences ... it's just that I'm not convinced they look any worse than those of what's being done now

Of course we have to give the vaccines a try, and if they work that's wonderful; however some of us are thinking ahead to if they don't

Ah. We’re pretty much in agreement then.

Just wow to some of those responses. It’s like you don’t understand that the 1st dose is pointless without the 2nd dose. And some failure that couldn’t even finish school without his daddy paying for it clearly can’t make an informed decision over riding a contingent of scientists! There is a reason for the gap being 2 weeks not 1 not 8 not 12 but 2. And they don’t even know if you can have the other vaccine after the Pfizer one as no trials or tests have been done, that’s all just theory so far and even then they theorise 12 months in between at least.

@FourTeaFallOut

Ofgs. I'm sure people are just fleshing out their persecution complex at this point. I'm out.

Good, because you're clearly a pompous know-it-all with an unwarranted belief in your self worth. You've been putting people down all over the place; they're as entitled to their beliefs and worries as you are. Hope you really have gone now.

Some GP’s are going to honour their promise if they can.

@Iseestupidpeople

Just wow to some of those responses. It’s like you don’t understand that the 1st dose is pointless without the 2nd dose. And some failure that couldn’t even finish school without his daddy paying for it clearly can’t make an informed decision over riding a contingent of scientists! There is a reason for the gap being 2 weeks not 1 not 8 not 12 but 2. And they don’t even know if you can have the other vaccine after the Pfizer one as no trials or tests have been done, that’s all just theory so far and even then they theorise 12 months in between at least.

There are so many errors in this, it's difficult to know where to start.

It's a 3 (Pfizer) or 4 week gap (Oxford, although they had better results with a longer gap) not 2.
The contingent of scientist made the decision.
The first dose has an effect without the second ( >90% after 11 days then boosted to 95% with the second) we just don't know the longevity because it has not been tested. However, evidence from other vaccines and moderna suggest it lasts until the 12 week booster, in fact a longer gap can often be beneficial.

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 ...

I happen to agree, but that's not the choice which has been made - and the choice, as so many have said, is clearly based on panic about vaccine availability rather than testing

Which is one of the reasons (others are efficacy in the very aged and duration of protection) why I raised what happens if they don't work

Who could have guessed that they would make a complete balls up of the vaccine programme. We had no clue!

In our area, if you had the first jab before Dec 31st, your second will be 3 weeks later as scheduled. If you have your first jab after Jan 1st, the second may be later. I read today that with the Pfizer jab, 1 shot gives around 90% protection and the second increases protection to 95 %. The flu jab gives around 50% protection. The first public person I read of to suggest delaying the second jab was Tony Blair.

Couldnt organize a sock drawer

Where’s that bloke in charge of the vaccine rollout...Nadhim Zahawi? He was never off TV, spouting forth on just about everything. Now, he’s disappeared.

Where’s that bloke in charge of the vaccine rollout...Nadhim Zahawi?

Funny you should ask that as he was mentioned on another thread last night

In view of his history, I pointed out that he's probably busy creating dubious expenses claims so doesn't have time for this ...

It's a 3 (Pfizer) or 4 week gap (Oxford, although they had better results with a longer gap) not 2
The contingent of scientist made the decision
The first dose has an effect without the second ( >90% after 11 days then boosted to 95% with the second) we just don't know the longevity because it has not been tested. However, evidence from other vaccines and moderna suggest it lasts until the 12 week booster, in fact a longer gap can often be beneficial

Neither company called the 2nd dose a "booster" and if they got 90%, they'd not needed a 2nd at all, WTO effectiveness for a vaccine is 50%.
These are brand new vaccines, rushed through (rightly) on emergency approval because of the situation the world is in, the comparison someone in Govt made with a tetanus vacc having a booster 10years later is rubbish science.

I think sticking to what the manufacture is saying is the wise choice, if for no other reason then this shower is not capable of organising the follow up inside 12 weeks.

Personally, i think they are doing this for cost reasons.

I really don’t understand this view at all. You seem to think the aim of the vaccine is to allow vaccinated people to return to a normal life. It really isn’t. It is to reduce hospitalisations (and deaths) so that the whole population can return to normal.

If vaccination just results in vulnerable people deciding to stop shielding/sd, this is totally counterproductive. People continuing to be careful is what we need. I’m really shocked that after non-vulnerable people have had their lives turned upside down for months to protect the vulnerable, there are people who think that as soon as vulnerable people are fully vaccinated they should just go back to normal and never mind about everyone else.

wp.technologyreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/PFIZER_CHART_NEW.png?w=1800

Oops. I was responding to @numberoneson post. (Can we not quote a post with a quote?)

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.

With you on this. And very well put.

Sorry - just posted a graph without a comment! This shows the placebo vs treatment lines for the Pfizer vaccine.
Enormously effective after about 9 days. The evidence is evolving but it seems that the vast majority of protection comes after 9 days of the first dose... With that in mind, I see the logic of giving more people one dose....

even if you get two doses you should not be returning to “normal”, you should still follow the rules until everyone is vaccinated. you can still pass the virus even if you don’t get sick.

it’s understandable to discuss and try to understand the risks of delaying the second dose, and of course it should be questioned. but it’s totally unreasonable to be upset because one can’t go back to normal earlier than others, hence there’s nothing to do with human psychology.

@atta2006

Sorry - just posted a graph without a comment! This shows the placebo vs treatment lines for the Pfizer vaccine. Enormously effective after about 9 days. The evidence is evolving but it seems that the vast majority of protection comes after 9 days of the first dose... With that in mind, I see the logic of giving more people one dose....

The issue is that this graph shows what happens with 2 doses. So at Day 21, people in the trial got the booster dose, which shows that the efficacy is maintained. What we don't know, is what the graph would look like if people only got one dose - and that's the issue. We don't know what happens to immunity after 21 days with just a single dose, as that wasn't evaluated in the trial.

People are keeping their fingers crossed that the immunity will continue to prevent severe infection, but we just don't know for sure if that's the case. The experts in the UK think it should be fine, so let's hope they're right.

Not bollocks - science, and has now been approved by MRHA. A friend works in this field and says a longer gap does not render the vaccine ineffective - far from it as vaccine research supports this approach and no reason to think Covid vaccine is different in this respect. The first jab delivers immunity - 70--90% within three weeks. If you do catch the virus after receiving the first dose it’s only likely to cause mild symptoms and you are much less infectious. The second jab is important for long term immunity so we can afford to wait longer before giving it, therefore allowing more people to receive the first dose, ultimately slowing and eventually stopping the spread. Given the virulent nature of the new strain, it seems a sensible approach.

I think the news that the two different vaccines should not be mixed is more a cause for concern, given that the government was saying the opposite only a couple of days ago. Accurate records need to be kept to keep track of the first dose so that the same vaccine is used for the second part. Rather than breaking our necks to get the second dose, I think it will be more important to be clear on which vaccine we are getting in the first place. The government are saying that in exceptional circumstances a different second dose is better than none at all if supply is a problem, but that this should be a rare occurrence - I don’t think I trust this approach given their shambolic handling from the start.

The issue is that this graph shows what happens with 2 doses. So at Day 21, people in the trial got the booster dose, which shows that the efficacy is maintained. What we don't know, is what the graph would look like if people only got one dose - and that's the issue. We don't know what happens to immunity after 21 days with just a single dose, as that wasn't evaluated in the trial. People are keeping their fingers crossed that the immunity will continue to prevent severe infection, but we just don't know for sure if that's the case. The experts in the UK think it should be fine, so let's hope they're right

I guess we are about to find out...
look out everyone, we are about to enter a big experiment

CoolKitKat - fair point.
Everything is new and so a best guess by a consensus of experts is the only thing to go by...
Let’s hope that things get better with the path that has been chosen 😊

Apparently the hospital where my husband works haven't even kept a proper record of who they have vaccinated so far. The Astra Zeneca vaccine is much cheaper so that's why they are moving across to using it instead.

Uh no....that's not what it says.

The 2nd type of vaccine (The Oxford vaccine) can be taken as the 2nd dose to the Pfizer vaccine, 12 weeks after the 1st shot. They work well together to provide a more potent defense. You're already 55% covered already. Calm down.

It is a much better idea to vaccinate the population as quickly as possible. So I do not agree with OP. Statistically everyone is far more protected if everyone is vaccinated.