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've chose some international papers in case Bonnie thinks Boris is running news rooms too.

Yes - booksAreNonessential - I think it would be simpler to administer 2nd doses to those who already have had 1 from the consent point of view. But going forward I think it would be valid to vaccinate some with single dose and delayed 2nd dose.

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.

@Cam77

The safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design," Pfizer said.

So much for following the science.... Seriously what the fuck are they doing?

Don’t forget Pfizer has a commercial interest here. They will also be following the advice of their lawyers until the new conditions of authorisation are published.

How is it a difficult decision? Following the painstaking research we KNOW the vaccines work when properly administered. We DON'T KNOW what the fuck happens when administers 3 months apart. Where is the difficult???

@WiseUpJanetWeiss
And? One method has been rigorously tested. The other not at all. Why are you defending injecting people with vaccines in a method that has not been tested at all?

@butterpuffed

I think it must have been a very difficult decision ~ administer the first dose to as many as they can as soon as possible or deliver the second before giving others the first. We don't have an endless stream of people able to administer the vaccine especially when hospitals are overrun.

We have had months to organise & train teams around the country to administer vaccine but did little with this time.

Why weren't we training up people in october/nov/dec/ ?

@Namenic

Yes - booksAreNonessential - I think it would be simpler to administer 2nd doses to those who already have had 1 from the consent point of view. But going forward I think it would be valid to vaccinate some with single dose and delayed 2nd dose.

That would be far less of an ethical minefield but if it proves ineffective after one dose we’re screwed. I also worry about take up as I don’t think I’d go for this, but I’m a long way down the list so maybe if my risk profile was different I’d decide differently. If it affects take up in a significant way again we’re screwed but at least people would be consenting properly.

[quote Cam77]@WiseUpJanetWeiss
And? One method has been rigorously tested. The other not at all. Why are you defending injecting people with vaccines in a method that has not been tested at all?[/quote]
Possibly because I understand more about clinical trials and medicines regulation than you do.

As I said, I’m on the fence.

IMO they should focus on the most vulnerable groups first and give all of them them the 2nd jab after 3 weeks.

Well yes, but many in that category still haven't had their first dose. Giving more people some level of protection when numbers are spiralling makes more sense, I agree that they should remain cautious, but they will get the second jab, and more people will have had both. The Pfizer jab is slow to produce, a lot of the world also has orders, and is a logistical nightmare in terms of storage and transportation etc; they took a 'gamble' as we didn't know if the Oxford jab would be approved and when, and are responding to the current situation given the sharp increase in numbers.

I feel like I've unwittingly been enrolled in a clinical trial by the government here.

I've had the first dose but it's looking unlikely I'll get the second within the time frame that it has been clinically tested. I'm hoping it won't make too much difference and that an eventual second dose will still be effective.

Deep down I knew this shambles of a government would cock up the administration though so I don't know why I'm remotely surprised.

www.ft.com/content/d97c72c5-ed23-4c2b-bf1c-9cc10b21f007

Pfizer has criticised the UK’s decision to lengthen the gap between doses of its Covid-19 vaccine, saying the “safety and efficacy” of the new schedule had not been evaluated, as infections and hospitalisations continued to soar across the UK."

We have had months to organise & train teams around the country to administer vaccine but did little with this time.

Why weren't we training up people in october/nov/dec/?

This is a very fine question.

Sounds like a decision made by a bunch of politicians worried about the economy.

You take drugs as directed by the manufacturer. We all knew this by age 10.
You don't take them according to the hopes of some politicians with economic and history degrees.

Words fail.

Could only having one dose make it easier for the virus to mutate so that the vaccine becomes ineffective?

had reported the first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to have 91% efficacy, compared with 95% for two doses

Yes I had heard this. Seems pretty sensible to get the first dose rolled out to more people.

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!

Good. Because it was never meant to be 'have the vaccine then go back to normal'.

Could only having one dose make it easier for the virus to mutate so that the vaccine becomes ineffective?

No.

So who takes the final decision to change the administration process once it's been started?

Sounds like a decision made by a bunch of politicians worried about the economy

And the health care service. Although do you think it's just been Boris and Matt Hancock sat around a table going yeah cool that'll be fine.

The MHRA.

It’s going to be a logistical nightmare for the surgeries and vaccination centres to implement this. They’re going to have to contact all those with appointments to cancel them which will take days then rebook everyone else in. Lots of spaces are going to be wasted because there’s inevitably going to be an overlap.

DS2 has had his first dose because he’s a nurse in A&E. he’s, also, asthmatic. I honestly don’t know what to think but I’m not surprised. In every article about the pros and cons of giving one shot instead of two it’s all may and might because at the end of the day no one knows.

Why weren't we training up people in october/nov/dec/

God knows. I emailed my Tory mp back in September saying this needed doing as a matter of urgency. That working out the logistics and getting the teams in place/on standby, but trained and ready to go should be done now.....not to wait until vaccine approval. Got a waffle reply saying everything was in hand. 🤷‍♀️

Well it wasn’t. Because if it was I’d be working in a vaccination centre today injecting people. Instead I’m off for a bike ride while I contemplate if I can be arsed doing the 30 hours of e-learning and sorting references out. Big hint....I probably won’t bother!

"Sounds like a decision made by a bunch of politicians worried about the economy."

I am not sure - the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recommended the general policy (don't know whether they have focused on the specific issue of people who have already had first Pfizer) - and all four CMOs have written a letter supporting it. I don't know if their letter refers to the informed consent issue for those who have already had it - haven't (yet!) read it.

Although do you think it's just been Boris and Matt Hancock sat around a table going yeah cool that'll be fine.

Yes I do actually. They've been ignoring expert advice since March so why would this be any different?