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.

So was anything decided on this thread?

Was the 'must give second shot as planned' posters won round to the 'first shot for as many as possible as fast as possible' argument or vice versa?

Apparently we have enough vaccine just not the work force to use it.
I dont mind if a vet, dentist, pharmacist stabs me in the arm. 🤬

Me neither, in fact I'll happily inject myself if they'd let me.

We should add a voting button after both parts have given their reasoning.
On winning though..... the goverment has decided 12 weeks between doses, so that is what we have. Like it or not.

Interesting interview with Sir John Bell of Oxford Uni on Times Radio.

twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1345695150165663745?s=20

Talking about possibility of mutations evading current vaccine (SA variant in particular) but more of a general likelihood. Worth noting that he believes vaccines can be redesigned quickly. Follows similar comments from Pfizer couple of weeks back. Lots of issues arise from this:

1. vaccines could decline in efficacy as mismatches with mutations increase
2. zero Covid looks less likely
3. vaccination looks more likely to be annual
4. if vaccination is annual and incompletely matched then 2nd dose imperative looks questionable (?)
5. concentrating vaccination efforts on most vulnerable looks to have higher utility than vaccinating to maximum coverage(?)

Regarding the initial roll out of the flu and chicken pox vaccines, those were quite well known viruses at the time the vaccine came along. This virus, though we do know quite a few other corona virus, I have to confess that scares me.
What worries me is that instead of evolving to be softer in the infection, which is the natural way, it becomes more dangerous to children with future variants.
2 to 3 months till data on transmission effects come in, and we know more about how the vaccination is helping with the spread.
Now, for me is to keep an eye on the data in children, and wait.

Well just heard that the half dose was only tested on higher teen age bracket and showed that it worked better. Never tested on older bracket so don't even know if it was just the fact that, that age just have a better immune system.
The more I learn the less I want to know.

What scares me (maybe I'm thick) if its like taking half your antibiotics and the bacteria gets immune to drug. What if the same applies to a virus.
MY HEAD HURTS🤯

Don't have enough vaccine (someone just informed me)
Nothing to do with getting it out there.
Like I said my head hurts. Going to put it back in the sand

@Ddot

Well just heard that the half dose was only tested on higher teen age bracket and showed that it worked better. Never tested on older bracket so don't even know if it was just the fact that, that age just have a better immune system. The more I learn the less I want to know.

There was a placebo arm, so that’s not as convening as it might be.

Ddot, vaccines and antibiotics operate under fundamentally different biological processes - antibiotics attack the bacteria itself, meaning any that escape may have an advantage. It’s why over prescription and in particular unfinished courses of antibiotics are such an issue.

Vaccinations are about training our immune systems and are used prophylactically - which is given as one hypothesis for vaccine resistance being so rare, as the viruses have less ability to evolve if they are not multiplying rapidly.

This is a good article on why vaccine resistance is rare compared to drug resistance.

All this underlines the importance of reducing opportunities for a pathogen to multiply, because it is when it is multiplying in large numbers that you get the potential for new strains to emerge.

So a widespread vaccine programme is likely to result in fewer opportunities for a virus to mutate, because there will be far fewer multiplications of that virus.

Ta x

The BMJ are not happy with this. It's only 52% effective with one dose. What about the people who are testing positive after receiving their vaccine. Doesn't this then put those around them who can't have it at risk. It's one great big bloody farce, as expected. Moving goal posts as expected. What trials were done on this spacing for efficacy? Where's the data. Or is it assumption, just like the great idea of mixing up different vaccines and it will still be okay. I want to see data from a reputable source, not just told that it's fine. Sometime I wish I didn't read official websites for studies and trials. I'd be much more relaxed and trusting the more ignorant I was.

A link helps but it allows you to research for yourself via a special Covid 19 link for data on the tops left hand bar. Very interesting stuff and most of the pandemic data is free to read while we are struggling with the outbreak. www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

@QuestionEverythingOrBeASheep

The BMJ are not happy with this. It's only 52% effective with one dose. What about the people who are testing positive after receiving their vaccine. Doesn't this then put those around them who can't have it at risk. It's one great big bloody farce, as expected. Moving goal posts as expected. What trials were done on this spacing for efficacy? Where's the data. Or is it assumption, just like the great idea of mixing up different vaccines and it will still be okay. I want to see data from a reputable source, not just told that it's fine. Sometime I wish I didn't read official websites for studies and trials. I'd be much more relaxed and trusting the more ignorant I was.

52% is better than the average flu jab and in this dangerous situation it's better than nothing. We're in the middle of the most infections virus for years the more people get the jab the better IMO.

Perhaps it would be wise for the government to take steps to limit spread whilst we roll out the vaccine then

@QuestionEverythingOrBeASheep

The BMJ are not happy with this. It's only 52% effective with one dose. What about the people who are testing positive after receiving their vaccine. Doesn't this then put those around them who can't have it at risk. It's one great big bloody farce, as expected. Moving goal posts as expected. What trials were done on this spacing for efficacy? Where's the data. Or is it assumption, just like the great idea of mixing up different vaccines and it will still be okay. I want to see data from a reputable source, not just told that it's fine. Sometime I wish I didn't read official websites for studies and trials. I'd be much more relaxed and trusting the more ignorant I was.

This is not entirely accurate. The 52% relates to the whole of the period from first vaccination until the second. The data show, as you would expect, no efficacy at all in the first few days, then a marked switch to excellent efficacy after about day 10.

The JCVI has issued a statement about this. www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAttachment.aspx?Attachment_id=103741

Dinna good post - in other words as we all knew from the start - like flu which is regarded as a kind killer of the elderly every year - you are lucky if flu kills you off as is nicer than dementia and much else although of course the effects of CV19 can be much worse. Each year we pick the most likely flu strain to be rampant and give the vaxx to the old and sick who choose to have it. It will be the same with CV19. We cannot afford to keep shutting down the whole country however.

I agree with the post above too - that until about 21 days the vaxx does not protect you so any average is in a sense from 0 protection on day 2 to much higher than 50% (for most strains of the virus) on later days.

“Whydoelephants

I actually think this is a rare wise decision. I think those who have had the first dose are very very lucky compared to the extremely vulnerable older people and frontline staff who are risking their lives every day caring for Covid patients who haven’t yet had a dose. Surely it’s much better for those to have a bit of protection too rather than a very small group having total protection and others having none?“

Agree.

I'd give mine to my mam

I've just listened to a very interesting and informative programme on R4 "Vaccinating the world" 4th Jan. 10 am. Presumably it will be available on iplayer. Highly recommended.

"Epidemiologists don’t often hang out with rock stars, and not many of them can say they’ve played a part in eradicating a disease as deadly as smallpox. But Larry Brilliant isn’t your run of the mill public health official. He’s been warning about the dangers of a pandemic for years, and now that one is upon us, Tim Harford sat down to talk with him about how the world has handled the pandemic of 2020 and what we can hope for in 2021".

thatwastheriver yes I thought the programme was really interesting. Especially about the need to develop a covid vaccine that can be used post-exposure to the virus.
I didn't realise that was how smallpox was eliminated, by focusing on contacts of infected people, rather than blanket immunisation of whole population.

Germany is looking to do the same and space out the second dose. It seems like a pragmatic decision from what I've read.

@Ddot

I'd give mine to my mam

Well if she needs two she can have mine poor bugger is 91