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.

A lot of things with all the vaccines is may or might. There's no guarantee of the length of protection from a two dose regiment delivered quickly.

Wasn't it Tony Blair who suggested this a couple of weeks ago? He's never liked this country or the people in it has he?

@Cam77

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.

This is only partly true. The dosing schedule etc are defined in the marketing authorisation, granted by the MHRA. These vaccines do not have full marketing authorisations so the details are subject to change. And medicines are used off-label all the time.

This decision has been taken jointly by the MHRA, the CSM and the JCVI. I don’t see any reason to question their scientific or ethical rigour. Pfizer has a commercial interest.

All I am saying is this is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is, and risk/benefit decisions will have had to have been made. We will see the detail when the Public Access Report is issued. I am particularly interested to hear Indie Sage’s view. I may well change my opinion as more facts become available.

Who do the MRHA report to? Is it their job to advise government or do they actually make the decisions?

They report to the world. They aren't waiting for Boris to run a red pen over their work.

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

Ah bless :) I disagree with a lot of their decisions, but that's not how it works.

"Well yes, but many in that category still haven't had their first dose".

All the more reason to focus on those people most likely to die from Covid, surely?

We already know that until the vaccine has reached large numbers of the most vulnerable groups nothing can really change in terms of lockdowns etc. We also know that the new variant, whilst more contagious than the first variant, is far less likely to kill.

Therefore, vaccinating millions of the less vulnerable against a variant that is very unlikely to kill them makes far less sense than focusing on ensuring 100% immunity for the most vulnerable. Everyone else, myself included, can wait, and will just have to continue isolating.

I would rather wait 6 months for a jab, or not get one, than be given a jab myself at the same time that the most vulnerable are having to wait 3 months for the 2nd one, or indeed the 1st one. The morality of that bothers me.

I'm in group 7 on the list, and I don't want to get a jab until everyone in groups 1-6 have been given 100% protection. I have family who are in groups 2 and 4. That's just how I feel about it, however illogical that may seem.

@Pyewhacket

You’re the one talking bollocks. People are already getting their second dose.

Yes, but from 4 Jan they will be rescheduled

Snag is, that unless we double the capacity for giving shots, at the 12 week point when it switches over to giving second shots, there will be a major drop in the number getting first shots.

I think that's the bit we're not meant to have noticed

@BonnieDundee

Who do the MRHA report to? Is it their job to advise government or do they actually make the decisions?

They make the decisions.

@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.

Sorry @NiceGerbil but you need to read the details and not just react to media headlines.

Are you just anti-government anyway and looking to land a shot at any opportunity?

For a start, the news means that many more people can be vaccinated sooner. This gives a LOT of protection both to the individual and the overall population. The 2nd dose gives only marginally more protection. This is the same for many vaccines given to people both as children and if they travel overseas.

Even a single dose will cut the rates of death and needing to be in hospital (so allowing the NHS to function and look after other people who have cancer and non -Covid diseases.

And it's not the case that the 'government knows better than the scientists who made it'.

The decision has been taken BY scientists, JVT (Jon Van Tam) for example is a medical professor.

The fact the Pfeizer says the trials were done within certain timescales, does not mean the same as one dose is not effective. It means what they say- that they did research within those timelines.

It means that one dose may give (example) 90% immunity and the 2nd dose ups that to 95%.

You need to read the details and not jump in with poorly thought out knee-jerk reactions!

It strikes me as a panic measure because of the combination of the late or no decisions about restrictions over the last three months, and the unwillingness to have enforcement measures over and above peer pressure and saying 'please' on occasions

And also a consequence of their obsession with grabbing a "British first" tabloid headline for a vaccine developed and manufactured outside of the UK.

I'm concerned about the change, I the data isn't strong enough to support a significant change in schedule (esp the Pfizer vaccine). We don't know if delaying the second jab will require additional vaccinations to retain effectiveness. It goes against informed consent and its common experience in vaccine programmes that failure to return rises with delayed intervals. We don't even know if vaccinated people cease to be vectors. We don't know the patterns across the different vaccines.

If the first dose of both (and other) vaccines gives a high percentage resistence which persists and stops the vaccinated from spreading covid then rolling out first doses to get greater immunity across the population makes sense. But lets be honest and say we are experimenting with a bunch of unknowns in the hope of getting better results rather than pretending this is clearly "supported by the science".

Of course if the government would stop over promising and under delivering we could have a more rational debate. Every time they jump the gun then have to step back it undermines confidence in a vaccine programme.

Currently they are promising "normality" by Easter but I have a 90yr old CEV relative who not only hasn't been called for vaccination but neither her GP practice nor her cancer centre have a clue when their area is likely to get supplies, let alone which vaccine it will be. A bit more transparency in planning and simplicity in communication and expectations management would go along way to create trust.

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

Here's the letter from the CMOs.

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

This decision has been taken jointly by the MHRA, the CSM and the JCVI. I don’t see any reason to question their scientific or ethical rigour. Pfizer has a commercial interest.

Pfizer have advised against using it in a manner that they haven't tested. Unless these organisations have been conducting their own clinical trial then they quite simply don't know if their gamble will pay off or not.

As I said earlier anyone like myself who has had a single dose is now part of a new unofficial clinical trial.

I'm hoping for the best, I'm hoping they are right and it makes no difference. But Pfizer are not wrong to say 'you are working blind here and we don't aprove'

@pursuedbyablackdog

Wasn't it Tony Blair who suggested this a couple of weeks ago? He's never liked this country or the people in it has he?

This level of political comment is up there with they're injecting us with microchips and Covid is caused by 5G.

Yes, yes it makes perfect sense that people become MPs and ministers because they actively despise their country and it's citizens.

@MissMarpletheMurderer

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

Epidemiologists on Twitter have been speculating about this, saying there’s a notional risk that having a semi-vaccinated section of population in a pandemic could create the right conditions for a new vaccine-dodging variant.

I'm concerned about the change, I the data isn't strong enough to support a significant change in schedule (esp the Pfizer vaccine). We don't know if delaying the second jab will require additional vaccinations to retain effectiveness. It goes against informed consent and its common experience in vaccine programmes that failure to return rises with delayed intervals. We don't even know if vaccinated people cease to be vectors. We don't know the patterns across the different vaccines.

This may be true, BUT we can't wait for the answers when the virus is out of control and the reality - which we do know- is that many more people will die without some kind of vaccination programme asap.

The answers to all your questions will become clearin time. They can't halt the vaccine programme meanwhile. They also admit very clearly that they do not know if vaccinated people can still carry and infect others.

They have said this- did you not watch the press conference when JVT stated that very clearly? He said it didn't mean those vaccinated could behave with wild abandon and shoot off to bingo halls.

There is a lot that's unknown BUT the alternative- waiting- is far worse.

Like you however I have a 90+ relative still not vaccinated or called up whereas their 80 yr old friends have been. We suspect very old people are bottom of the list despite the criteria being 'old age first'.

Pfizer have advised against using it in a manner that they haven't tested. Unless these organisations have been conducting their own clinical trial then they quite simply don't know if their gamble will pay off or not.

Of course they have, it's called covering your arse. Even if they are certain it's fine, they won't say so without a plethora of data, research, reports etc just on the miniscule off chance even one person it doesn't work for and they stand to get sued. They are also a business, they aren't doing this as a philanthropic effort, they dont see the need to invest money into further research on this.

@TrufflyPig

This decision has been taken jointly by the MHRA, the CSM and the JCVI. I don’t see any reason to question their scientific or ethical rigour. Pfizer has a commercial interest.

Pfizer have advised against using it in a manner that they haven't tested. Unless these organisations have been conducting their own clinical trial then they quite simply don't know if their gamble will pay off or not.

As I said earlier anyone like myself who has had a single dose is now part of a new unofficial clinical trial.

I'm hoping for the best, I'm hoping they are right and it makes no difference. But Pfizer are not wrong to say 'you are working blind here and we don't aprove'

Once again, the trials and the results are scrutinised by the regulator. They have seen evidence you haven’t seen. Pfizer has a commercial interest.

I agree that second vaccination appointments probably should not have been postponed for ethical reasons. I suspect this last decision was the political one.

Ah bless smile I disagree with a lot of their decisions, but that's not how it works.

No need to patronise, I obviously wasn't being serious about it just being those two deciding. But collectively those in charge at large have been ignoring SAGE advice or acting upon it too late. It doesn't matter how many of them are in the room, they have time and time again made the wrong decisions to the detriment of the public. They need holding to account.

Belgium and Quebec are also considering this

I think it certainly makes sense with Oxford Vaccine to get as many people done as quickly as possible. It is better to have more people done

I think those who had already been scheduled for the booster jab should have gone ahead and got it on the schedule they signed up for. However, I can see the logic behind the new policy, although it is something of a gamble for sure.

DuchessofDerbyshire said:

"The 2nd dose gives only marginally more protection".

My response:

Are you put numbers on that? If it's not 70%/30%, then what are the actual numbers? And would you take a gamble with your own life after getting the 1st jab and being told that you were now only 70% protected?

Also, if the numbers for the 2 jabs are 90%/100% and not 70%/100% then why has the 70/100 been widely reported in the media this morning?

Again I come back to the psychology of all this. In the human mind, the difference between a 30% risk and a 10% risk is actually huge!

Economists make similar calculations, and so do all of us - in the shops for example. 10% off? Meh. 50% off? Gimme gimme gimme...

BTW Duchess, are you actually in Derbyshire? I'm near Bakewell, home of the famous PUDDING of course (note for non-Derbyshire people, it's NOT a Tart it's a PUDDING!) LOL...

Pfizer have advised against using it in a manner that they haven't tested. Unless these organisations have been conducting their own clinical trial then they quite simply don't know if their gamble will pay off or not.

But have they actually said that? I can't see anywhere showing they advised against it- they have said they have not researched effectiveness with that time delay in doses.

Not quite the same thing.

They have seen evidence you haven’t seen

How could they have possibly seen evidence that doesn't exist? Pfizer trialled the vaccine using this time gap between doses. They did not collect data for a longer gap.

Pfizer in general are arseholes but they aren't wrong here.