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.

@FourTeaFallOut

50% protection - might as well not bother. Almost complete protection from illness and death, but I'll have yours if you can't be arsed

Well, as I live with a highly vulnerable person 50% protection is too.much of a gamble for me. How many '50% protected' people are going to stop adhering to any guidelines, on the grounds that they have had the jab?

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

Not sure - the CMOs do support it. The CMOs' letter says "We recognise that the request to re-schedule second appointments is operationally very difficult, especially at short notice, and will distress patients who were looking forward to being fully immunised," then goes on to explain the thought process. I don't think the letter addresses the 'informed consent' issue expressly.

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

@TrufflyPig

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.

Evidence of the level of protection after one dose.

There are several conflicting accounts of exactly what this is, but all accounts agree it’s >50%, which was the original threshold for efficacy for authorisation.

My mum is a nurse and is getting her second dose within 4 weeks of the first dose. She said something about the second dose only giving you an additional 5% protection (or thereabouts I can’t remember the exact percentage she said now but it was low)

Also, the manufacturers said they don't know how the jab affects transmission- again, we should have given it exactly as specified and monitored transmission in these populations (you should see a dramatic drop in those around them getting covid in enclosed spaces like prisons or care homes if it cuts transmission). Not perfect data, but some clue to what the transmission effect is before you start messing with taking bits out of the dosage or extending it.

The Oxford vaccine dosing is a similar mess, half doses were given by accident and these seemed to be more effective but the regulator said we have to have two full doses, although now we are likely to get one full dose (which is not what the dosing regime was at all which was most effective, which was half dose, followed by full dose 4 weeks later).

If you make the population feel experimented on, and psychologically still unsafe (due to quite low efficacy, really may not even be 70-50% in real world populations such as much older people), fewer will take it up. They needed to do the regime properly to instill public confidence in it, wait three months to see the good effects in those vaccinated, and then think about a modified roll out.

This is a decision that has been recommended by the JCVI.

Amusing to see so many posters on here claiming they know better, or suggesting the decision has been made by the government ignoring the experts.

JCVI membership.

Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)

Professor Wei Shen Lim, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)

Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)

Professor Judith Breuer (University College Hospital)

Dr Peter Elton (Greater Manchester, Lancashire, South Cumbria Strategic Clinical Network)

Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)

Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)

Alison Lawrence (lay member)

Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)

Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)

Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)

Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)

Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)

Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)

Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)

Those with a second jab booked up to 4/1 will have it, any aster will be postponed. I thought it had been changed to cope with the new variant so that a good level of immunity is acquired by many , not a few. Seems sensible it I’m not a doctor.

it’s the fact that 3 weeks ago I don’t think they realised that we’d be back up to the point of 50,000 new cases and nearly 1000 deaths for the last couple of days,

And whose fault is that? Too slow to act when it was getting out of control even before half term and then throw London back in tier 2 when the new variant was already doing the rounds.

It’s the best way forward at population level. Just a pisser on an individual level for the small number of people who have already had the first jab and have to wait for a second.

Yesterday they said first dose gives 70% and second bumps it to 80%.

This guidance is the first proactive, sensible thing to come from government. Thank goodness they are acting in the interests of the country.

Very good information has been gathered and is coming in all the time.

We are on the edge of a national crisis. This is the best way to divert it.

After three weeks the vaccine gives good protection of up to 70%. The top up dose is to give much longer immunity. The immunity from the first dose gradually increases and by 21 days after the first dose gives good protection.

This vaccine will reduce the severity of covid to maybe a heavy cold or a milder flu in the few that get symptoms.

I applaud the government for listening this time. They usually don't seem to listen to scientific advice although they say they do.

This will double the amount of vulnerable protected, and in 12 weeks time the second dose will be given before they start vaccinating the under 50's In the summer.

To my knowledge they have 27 million people to vaccinate in the first round (over 50's and key workers) but a proportion will refuse.

Once the vaccine is distributed this can be done. It will be tight, but it's entirely possible.

This will be a national effort.

@Changi

The problem is that we do not know that 'lives will be saved'. Because there is NO CLINICAL EVIDENCE that this will work

If they haven't tested the efficacy of one dose, how did they know that two were needed?

It doesn't matter if they knew anything at all, although since ALL existing vaccines for CV are based on 2 doses that suggests that immunologically it makes sense. And in fact the government are still aiming for 2 doses, but 12 weeks apart.

However they haven't actually tested one dose and therefore we don't know if one dose works after 21 days. There may be 2 months out of 3 where it is hardly offering any protection.

I am talking about the Pfizer vaccine - the Oxford one may be different.

My parents are in their 80s, dad very frail.

I'd be delighted if our GP surgery would get their fingers out and give them an appointment for the first dose tbh.

[quote leafygarden42]@Mincepiesallyearround

Covid-19: Pfizer vaccine efficacy was 52% after first dose and 95% after second dose, paper shows - published by BMA

That's more than a few per cent.[/quote]
If you measure the efficacy of any vaccine over a short period then it will be low because it takes time for it to work. With COVID you may also be vaccinating people already infected.

The important data is how effective Pfizer and Oxford are after 2 weeks and that was high. The 52% does not apply at this point. The efficacy doesn’t then fall off a cliff.

And both vaccines were always authorised to be used this way. It would be impossible to ensure everyone would get 2nd doses after 3 weeks and vaccinators knew there was a tolerance period beyond 3 weeks.

The BMA are objecting to work involved in cancelling and rebooking people on top of issuing new calls to people. They are also concerned about the hostility practices will face and the confusion it will cause to many people. I suppose people should ask why they are so keen to whip up anger and to scaremonger.

^This is a decision that has been recommended by the JCVI* I work with senior scientists and professors all the time. One area of weakness for them is they are not very good at predicting how people will behave. They tend to think in very logical linear ways and assume people will act like them. This has been the case throughout the pandemic, and they are surprised when people don't act like them (e.g. wear masks). They look at the clinical data and think about clinical outcomes (weighing 50-70% in larger population vs 95% in smaller population) but aren't very good at things like working out whether people will comply, what will undermine confidence and so forth. Just my opinion, scientist aren't to be reified in this situation and I bet all of them in private will tell you whatever we do is a gamble.

After three weeks the vaccine gives good protection of up to 70%. The top up dose is to give much longer immunity. The immunity from the first dose gradually increases and by 21 days after the first dose gives good protection.

There is no evidence that AFTER 21 days that the effectiveness is 70%. There just isn't any.

Seems OK to me but shows how absolutely desperate they are.

The important data is how effective Pfizer and Oxford are after 2 weeks and that was high. The 52% does not apply at this point. The efficacy doesn’t then fall off a cliff.

Can you show any actual evidence that the efficacy does not fall off a cliff after 4 weeks?

With both vaccines when talking about 'protection' are you talking about the level of illness you will have as a result of catching the virus if vaccinated, so a 50% or 70% reduction in the harm the virus causes you personally.
Or is it a case that if you have the vaccine you have a 70% less chance of catching it ? I thought it was the former but could be completely wrong ?

Popping, I must admit your post and Dr jenny harries classic on children sitting side by side facing forwards, does ring true.

Amusing to see so many posters on here claiming they know better, or suggesting the decision has been made by the government ignoring the experts.

Might it have so simply been a case of 'ok experts we've really fucked it here, we can't procure enough vaccines like we promised, give us the best advice you can based on our incompetence'?

@frumpety

With both vaccines when talking about 'protection' are you talking about the level of illness you will have as a result of catching the virus if vaccinated, so a 50% or 70% reduction in the harm the virus causes you personally. Or is it a case that if you have the vaccine you have a 70% less chance of catching it ? I thought it was the former but could be completely wrong ?

Vaccinations dont stop you getting it - they reduce the impact as your body's immune system already knows how to deal with it. So people vaccinated can still "catch" covid but most will not even know they have it as the body's immune system will do it's job to target and neutralise it'seffects.

So much incorrect information on here. It's painful to read. 😭😭😭

It's a good idea although dissapointinb for those expecting their second vaccination and a logistical nightmare for those having to re-organise the appointments.

My parents have had one dose and that will give them 91% effectiveness. That's ok. Two doses would have given them 95% effectiveness.

There are advantages for my parents in giving up their second dose and having more of 'their' community immunised. Their hospitals won't be as overrun and their friends who haven't even received a first dose won't be at risk of dying or becoming very ill.

I think it's the right thing to do.

I think it was a mistake to have not given this more thought when the vaccination program was started.

It hasn’t been tested with a gap of 12 weeks between doses so they can’t possibly argue it’s effective.

If you stop taking antibiotics after 3 days and then take the remaining dose 3 weeks later, will it cure you? No, because it won’t be as effective as the infection has already taken hold.

I know antibiotics aren’t the same thing but as NO RESEARCH have been carried on this basis, they’re rolling a dice and crossing their fingers.

Trust Boris and chums to fuck it up again.

@MintyCedric

My parents are in their 80s, dad very frail.

I'd be delighted if our GP surgery would get their fingers out and give them an appointment for the first dose tbh.

Indeed, our surgery hasn't even started doing them and are still vaguely suggesting mid January to start. But they're always late/hopeless with the flu vaccine too meaning I usually get mine at the chemists who ARE organised and on top of things.