Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Concerned about delays to second jab

3 replies

2021ishere · 01/01/2021 09:48

I’ve just read that the government in its wisdom has decided to extend the gap between the first and second jab from 3 to 12 weeks, but Pfizer say that this mode of administering the jab has not been tested. Wouldn’t it be better if we stuck to the original plan and kept the gap to 3 weeks, which Pfizer say is proven to provide 95% protection against Covid-19? What do you think?

OP posts:
2021ishere · 01/01/2021 09:49

On a positive note I also read that 1 million people have now had the 1st jab - a great achievement.

OP posts:
Manzanilla55 · 01/01/2021 09:52

Probably yes. However the Oxford one was apparently designed for a 12 week gap. I am concerned about a million a week rollout. It wont be enough to deal with a third wave. Says the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. I have zero faith in the governments ability to arrange a faster rollout. Looking very dicey to me.

Motorina · 01/01/2021 10:02

It depends. We've vaccinated around a million people so far. There are around 6 million people in the top two priority groups (care home residents and staff, 80+, frontline NHS clinicians.) Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55503739

We know that, at the 3 week point, one dose of pfizer gives really good protection. We don't know how long that protection lasts, but it seems unlikely that it would drop off a cliff immediately.

In an ideal world everyone would have two doses, 3 weeks apart. That would absolutely be best.

But we don't have enough vaccine to do that right now.

So should we give our next million doses to those who have already had one dose? They already have really good protection, which a second dose would make better.

Or should we use them to give another million people - who currently have no protection at all - really good protection?

I can see the argument either way. Under normal circumstances, this is a decision noone would never contemplate. Just as we wouldn't close schools, pubs, businesses. We're now in a race against time, and I can see - reluctantly! - that it makes sense to give as many of the most vulnerable as possible good protection, rather than giving half as many superb protection.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page