Government now allowing mixing and matching of different vaccines

[Em777]

From the New York Times:

Amid a sputtering vaccine rollout and fears of a new and potentially more transmissible variant of the coronavirus, Britain has quietly updated its vaccination playbook to allow for a mix-and-match vaccine regimen. If a second dose of the vaccine a patient originally received isn’t available, or if the manufacturer of the first shot isn’t known, another vaccine may be substituted, health officials said.

The new guidance contradicts guidelines in the United States, where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has noted that the authorized Covid-19 vaccines “are not interchangeable,” and that “the safety and efficacy of a mixed-product series have not been evaluated. Both doses of the series should be completed with the same product.”

Some scientists say Britain is gambling with its new guidance. “There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.”

www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html

This seems super risky to me.

Big Pharma profit motives

I can smell the weed from here.

Are you okay?

@LimitIsUp what mRNA vaccines are given to children?

Never before have mRNA vaccines — such as the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines been approved for use in any disease.

Nobody knows what will happen yet, nobody.

@Em777 I also think you are being disingenuous.

The New York Times is notoriously anti-British and I would take any of their articles on Britain with a pinch of salt.

This particular article is totally misleading.

The Green Book clearly states that vaccination should be completed with the same vaccine for both prime and booster doses.

Only in exceptional circumstances, where there is no alternative, should a different vaccine be given as booster, as a better alternative to none at all.

[quote TheNighthawk]**@Em777 I also think you are being disingenuous.

The New York Times is notoriously anti-British and I would take any of their articles on Britain with a pinch of salt.

This particular article is totally misleading.

The Green Book clearly states that vaccination should be completed with the same vaccine for both prime and booster doses.

Only in exceptional circumstances, where there is no alternative, should a different vaccine be given as booster, as a better alternative to none at all.[/quote]
Think what you like. But not everything is a conspiracy. The NYT is my go to paper for coronavirus because it’s critical of everything (and the CV articles are made freely available). I do not believe it is inherently anti-British. They recently ran an (excellent) expose on the disastrous government response in Bergamo. Are they anti-Italian, too?

You don't have to look very hard to find evidence of the NYT's 'subjectivity'
unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/

[quote LimitIsUp]You don't have to look very hard to find evidence of the NYT's 'subjectivity'
unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/[/quote]
That’s laughable given UnHerd is a notoriously right-wing, flag-waving cesspit!

Nope - don't see why it is laughable, but then I make a point of not existing in a partisan echo chamber. Yes its coming from a right wing perspective (and for the record I am left of centre), but that doesn't negate some of the factual points made in this article.

The NYT has a political bias (in the same way as UnHerd does, or the Spectator which wrote a similar piece)

Surely we should acknowledge these prejudices in interpreting news articles. The proposal to give a second differing vaccine in extenuating and limited circumstances is not nearly as controversial as suggested in the NYT piece which is full of hyperbole

@LimitIsUp

Nope - don't see why it is laughable, but then I make a point of not existing in a partisan echo chamber. Yes its coming from a right wing perspective (and for the record I am left of centre), but that doesn't negate some of the factual points made in this article.

The NYT has a political bias (in the same way as UnHerd does, or the Spectator which wrote a similar piece)

Surely we should acknowledge these prejudices in interpreting news articles. The proposal to give a second differing vaccine in extenuating and limited circumstances is not nearly as controversial as suggested in the NYT piece which is full of hyperbole

Personally I don’t think it’s appropriate that these vaccines ever be mixed without a trial, given how different they are, so government guidance that where one isn’t available the other should be given worries me. We all know there are going to be shortages of one or the other in the coming months. And the government has conceded it’s close to actively recommending mixing for everybody once they’ve got more evidence. (Which is fine, if the evidence bears it out, but shouldn’t we hold off mixing in the meantime?)

As for media bias, that’s a rabbit hole we could go down and argue about all night long. Of course they all have their particular bents. But citing a right-wing website funded by a wealthy Brexiteer when trying to condemn the NYT is sketchy. The NYT doesn’t like Trump, so yes it probably doesn’t love Boris or the Tories by association. But their coverage of C19 is typically excellent and I don’t believe they are inherently hostile to the UK.

@Moondust001 and @CoolKitkat

Just to set the record straight, my comment was not 'racist' (did the OP say what race she/he is?) or 'xenophobic'

To draw a parallel, if you were invited into someone's house and started mocking / criticizing the owners' behaviour repeatedly, it would be considered distasteful and poor form.

It's obviously fine to express one's view, but the non-stop attacks are distasteful and upsetting

Unfortunately some people are quick to report and get deleted all views that do not agree with their own

[quote trulydelicious]**@Moondust001* and @CoolKitkat*

Just to set the record straight, my comment was not 'racist' (did the OP say what race she/he is?) or 'xenophobic'

To draw a parallel, if you were invited into someone's house and started mocking / criticizing the owners' behaviour repeatedly, it would be considered distasteful and poor form.

It's obviously fine to express one's view, but the non-stop attacks are distasteful and upsetting

Unfortunately some people are quick to report and get deleted all views that do not agree with their own[/quote]
What attacks? I started a thread based on a NYT article stating this sounds super risky. Someone (you?) dragged the fact I mentioned I was not born here into this thread and used it to personally attack me. I note that there is another thread on this exact same topic that actually takes the most sensationalist line from the NYT as it’s title and nobody has attacked that OP. So yes I find your behaviour xenophobic.

I’ve lived in the UK for many years. I am not a guest, I am a permanent resident and I pay a LOT of tax, so please don’t tell I’m not allowed to have opinions.

To keep it generic, anyone who forces their off-topic political views on several scientific discussions is likely to have an agenda

Also, to make fun of others' mishaps to generate division is not acceptable and is not bound to be received well

@trulydelicious

To keep it generic, anyone who forces their off-topic political views on several scientific discussions is likely to have an agenda

Also, to make fun of others' mishaps to generate division is not acceptable and is not bound to be received well

People on these boards often quote things that they've seen online, from newspaper, Twitter or other sources - to have a discussion or make people aware of what else is going on in the world. People quote The Sun, The Daily Mail and other newspapers on a regular basis - what's wrong with a paper from the US? Are we not allowed to discuss global issues, or global viewpoints?

In this instance, I don't think there was anything distasteful about the OP or subsequent posts. There are literally hundreds of Twitter posts from UK-born residents, scientists and doctors, asking the same questions about the validity of the vaccine strategy.

There was absolutely no need to question where the OP was from, or where he/she was born. That kind of question doesn't cross my mind when I'm reading messages on a forum.

So perhaps not racist, but I do wonder why those are the types of thoughts that enter your head when you disagree with something a poster has written?

There are many, many people who disagree with the government strategy for many, many things - just look at the number of threads about school closures! Why are you not angry about those people's agendas, and up in arms about them being 'invited into someone's house and mocking / criticizing the owners' behaviour repeatedly'?

Mixing and matching vaccines is not clinically licenced.
Therefore independent ethical review is vital to ensure that participant safety is at the centre of this research.

Or did we kick out ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, with Brexit?

Once we remove ethics from medicine, where do we stop?

Mrs P, seconding your comments. What they intend to do is not correct medically or ethically. no vaccines have been tested to be used this way. This on top of all the problems we have had, the promise of a vaccine to get us back to normal and then picking and choosing when, how and what vaccine to give is lunacy by the government. They are not qualified to make such decisions, ignoring the instructions of the manufacturers is not within their remit and opens up a can of worms with regard to parliamentary authority.

PHE have clarified that they will not recommend mixing vaccines.

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-mixing-coronavirus-vaccines-is-not-recommended-health-agency-warns-12177320

After questions were raised about the risks, Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisations at PHE, told Sky News that mixing is not recommended and should only happen on rare occasions

I would think that if a second dose of the same is not available they should start again with a different vaccine and get two doses of that. Although that's not been tested either.

I think that what they haven't done is considered the ramifications. For the government to say, manufacturer instructions don't matter. One dose is really good. Mix and match. I worry that

A. It undermines the message that we all learn from young. Finish the course. Take it at this time of day. Bring your children exactly at these weeks and note in red book etc etc. Always follow the instructions. They've kind of undermined that completely and I don't think they've realised what the consequences might be

B. Anti vaxxers are v active. Making people worry. The message is out that 1 dose is pretty good. Won't that mean that many people who are a bit scared will think well I'll have 1 and that is a balance between fear and safety?

I just think what they're doing and the messages they are giving are incredibly reckless. Not much of a surprise from this government but still.

@StatisticalSense

Given the only 2 vaccines approved so far are completely different types of vaccine that work in completely different ways this is illogical. The only way in which this could make any sense was if the country was expecting the approval of and a large number of doses of the Sputnik vaccine in the extremely near future (but I don't think that the Sputnik vaccine has even submitted any data to UK regulators) as there is reason to believe that the Oxford and Sputnik vaccines could be reasonably interchangeable, or even that the slightly different formulation will give even stronger immunity if the doses are split between the Oxford and Sputnik vaccines.

They don’t really work in different ways. They both cause the cells to produce the spike protein. One via mRNA and one via the adenoviral dna which is then converted into rna and then both rnas code for the spike protein. I don’t think many people realise this when they say they prefer the more “traditional “ Oxford vaccine.

@CoolKitkat

Why are you not angry about those people's agendas

I ask myself the same question now that you mention it. I don't know, something might have stood out.

Perhaps it was the cumulative effect of various hurtful, biased, and insidious posts coupled with finger pointing and an extremely derisive tone.

Anyway, I've tried to explain why I find in general this kind of behaviour harmful. I'll try to move on and stick to the topic of this thread going forward

I’m glad the authorities have clarified that this will be reserved for extreme circumstances. Not sure whether to be miffed at the NYT or not for misrepresentation, as the NHS green book said what they printed.

For anyone interested, they are starting a proper trial on mixing the vaccines this month, per the Telegraph:

“In a separate move, a trial to establish whether mixing and matching the Covid vaccines gives better protection than two doses of the same one is set to begin this month.

Those who take part in the trial will get one dose of AstraZeneca's vaccine and one of the Pfizer injection. A vaccine from the US biotech firm Moderna will also be included if it receives approval.

The idea behind the study is to combine the two drugs to establish whether they help the body's immune system to respond more powerfully to Covid-19.

Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chairman of the Government's joint committee on vaccination and immunisations, said: "Our current advice is to use the same vaccine for both doses.

"However, we have studies ongoing to look at mixing vaccines. When we see the data for those and are secure about the data, then we may be recommending mixed vaccines."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/02/mixing-matching-covid-vaccines-would-last-resort-say-health/

What a fucking mess.

I haven’t read the full thread so I hope I’m not putting my foot in it; but have they tested giving both vaccinations to see that there isn’t any nasty side affects or interactions between the two?

That’s laughable given UnHerd is a notoriously right-wing, flag-waving cesspit!

I thought you were getting an unnecessarily hard time till you came out with this tosh.

Unherd’s writers are from across the political spectrum. Paul Embery is a Lexiteer who used to be on the NE of the Fire Brigade Union, for starters and calling Julie Bindel (working class feminist known for campaigning for women in prison) is just laughable.

unherd.com/writers/

Wow, this really doesn't sit right with me. I'd be happy to get the 2 spaced out doses of either vaccine, but this seems reckless. I'm unlikely to get offered it until 2022 so I'm not worried about me, but I know quite a few people who have had the first dose and must be worried about the next one now.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042

I've no idea if the BMJ has a particular political stance, but I guess they know about medical matters.