Can anyone sum up what’s going on with vaccines for me?

[Cornettoninja]

I don’t understand why this has emerged as the next problem.

So the government are saying that there are problems with supply; this makes no sense to me regarding the AZ one. It’s been reported for months that this has been in manufacturing throughout trials with the understanding it would all be binned off it didn’t work. The Pfizer one... I’m not sure about the supply issues with this one if I’m honest. I’ve read reports from both companies this morning that there is no issue their end with supply.

Secondly how is it possible that despite months of vaccines being ‘imminent’ (to be clear I’m using that term loosely) now there are issues with staffing a vaccine programme? Health settings have had protocols in place for months at the behest of the government so they could be ready to go.

Lastly, what the hell is this sudden redesigning of dosing regimes about? Pfizer have publicly distanced themselves from the UK’s plan to extend time between doses. Do it properly or not at all!

I would be incredibly pleased to hear that this isn’t just the latest balls up of our incompetent government thinking they know better than experts and gambling with our best chance out of this absolute nightmare. Unfortunately I suspect that is the case given their track record throughout that leaves the majority of the country saying WTF.

[quote canigooutyet]Did I dream that Tony Blair was ridiculed a few days before this was announced, for suggesting one dose?

For those interested in more details about the Pfizer trial this is an interesting read.

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting
December 10, 2020
www.fda.gov/media/144245/download[/quote]
Is there anything in that VERY long link you kindly posted canigetoutyet that you could draw our attention to? I've neither the wit nor the wherewithal to trawl through a long medical doc at the moment unfortunately!!!

Depends what you want to know?

It mentions hypersensitivity-related adverse events which I believe is used in relation to anaphylaxis. Which if that is the case it was known about in November which was the cut off date the FDA had given.

More background info on the testers rather than Pfizer and their percentage of one country.

It's the most in depth online source of info I have found about the vaccine. If anyone has any more I would love a link.

They have information given to them by experts that says that the drugs are safe and efficacious in these circumstances. Full stop.

The MHRA, JCVI and the CHM are the experts, and they have access to the data. I don’t understand why you’re presiding in spreading misinformation.

No, this is not ideal, and yes, it’s a compromise. But we are where we are. The choice now is a larger gap between doses the evidence for which has been assessed by people who actually understand vaccines and vaccines licensing and vaccinating more people to give them pretty good protection, or vaccinating half the number of people. It’s no good saying the government should have done more to facilitate the roll out (they definitely should), because they didn’t. This is where we are, and this is what we have to do.

Am I saying I trust our independent regulators and scrutinisers more than I do Pfizer? Yes. Yes I am.

*persisting.

@canigooutyet

Isn't "hypersensitivity-related adverse events" another name for anaphylaxis?

They include anaphylaxis, but all hypersensitivity reactions are not anaphylaxis, if you see what I mean.

The MHRA, JCVI and the CHM are the experts, and they have access to the data. I don’t understand why you’re presiding in spreading misinformation.

Can you please point out any 'misinformation' spread by anyone? You are welcome to state that it means anyone who disagrees with your personal opinion.

@Haffiana

The MHRA, JCVI and the CHM are the experts, and they have access to the data. I don’t understand why you’re presiding in spreading misinformation.

Can you please point out any 'misinformation' spread by anyone? You are welcome to state that it means anyone who disagrees with your personal opinion.

The misinformation was from another poster who insists the regulators do not have the trial data. This is a lie.

The misinformation was from another poster who insists the regulators do not have the trial data. This is a lie.

I cannot see anyone stating this?

@Moondust001

I find it interesting how often the JCVI and the CMO's opinions are being rolled out as verifiable fact. These people are certainly experts in some fields. There are just two small problems with that. Experts can be wrong. And whatever else they may be experts in they did not undertake any part in the vaccine development and trials, and their opinions are based on no scientific facts. So they have no direct factual evidence or experience upon which to base their opinions. That isn't science. It's bullshit.

My concerns are twofold really - the first being that they have guessed wrong and this will lead to reduced efficacy (probably a bigger risk than reduced safety, which I don't think is a big concern, but there's always a risk) and not have the intended impact of bringing down numbers.

The other one is that we are potentially wasting all the doses. By lengthening the period between doses we cannot be certain that the entire impact of the first dose will not have worn off by the time the second is received, and that the second dose then also wears off quickly. The fact is that not even the developers can swear that the effects of the vaccine as trialled will last even a year. Why not? Because not a single volunteer for the trials anywhere in the world has got to the one year mark! We have absolutely no idea how long the vaccine, when used as recommended, will work for. We won't know that for a long time. So if the changes reduce the efficacy, we could literally be throwing them all down the pan for nothing.

This was the post bordering on misinformation, or at least misunderstanding.

The Pfizer is 52% effective after one dose, and 95% after the second. I reckon this one dose scheme is going to ultimately drag this out much longer and cost more money when people need to be vaccinated again. It’s embarrassing. Given that some of the greatest scientific advances have been made in this country, the government certainly treats the field with contempt.

@Haffiana

The misinformation was from another poster who insists the regulators do not have the trial data. This is a lie.

I cannot see anyone stating this?

Moondust said:

“I find it interesting how often the JCVI and the CMO's opinions are being rolled out as verifiable fact. These people are certainly experts in some fields. There are just two small problems with that. Experts can be wrong. And whatever else they may be experts in they did not undertake any part in the vaccine development and trials, and their opinions are based on no scientific facts. So they have no direct factual evidence or experience upon which to base their opinions. That isn't science. It's bullshit.”

Which is ...er, bullshit.

The misinformation was from another poster who insists the regulators do not have the trial data. This is a lie.

They do NOT have trial data based on one dose of the vaccine. It was not a lie.

You appear to have misinterpreted what the poster was saying. They can't make an informed decision as they have no clinical trial data to base using just one dose of the vaccine on! She was absolutely correct in what she said.

@MsPeachh

The Pfizer is 52% effective after one dose, and 95% after the second. I reckon this one dose scheme is going to ultimately drag this out much longer and cost more money when people need to be vaccinated again. It’s embarrassing. Given that some of the greatest scientific advances have been made in this country, the government certainly treats the field with contempt.

What you are quoting is completely wrong and in a way that could cause harm.

The figure of 52% reflects the efficacy over 3 weeks. It’s not 52% in the first 7 days. It’s much less than that. The efficacy builds day by day and week by week. It’s completely different on day 1 (a lot lower than 52%) and day 21 (a lot higher than 52%).

The figure of 52% reflects the efficacy over 3 weeks. It’s not 52% in the first 7 days. It’s much less than that. The efficacy builds day by day and week by week. It’s completely different on day 1 (a lot lower than 52%) and day 21 (a lot higher than 52%).

And we don't know what it is after 3 months with no second dose. That's the point some of us are making.

From the Pfizer perspective there are multiple reasons why it would be in their interest to discourage this, financial and reputational

This is perfectly true - but then equally, governments have every reason to cover up for what may or may not have been their own incompetence

As ever with "experts", it can also be worth looking where their funding's coming from and what impetus may lie behind whatever the latest announcement is

@ObliviouslyIgnorant

You appear to have misinterpreted what the poster was saying. They can't make an informed decision as they have no clinical trial data to base using just one dose of the vaccine on! She was absolutely correct in what she said.

No, that is not what she said. She has insisted all along that the regulator does not have access to the trial data that Pfizer generated. That is wrong.

This was the post bordering on misinformation, or at least misunderstanding.

It isn't misinformation though, is it? There is a big difference between data and interpretation of data which is what this poster was stating. Data is data, and interpretation of data beyond a certain very basic point is opinion.

Furthermore there is extrapolation based on data, and there is also extrapolation based on opinion. This poster was pointing out that extremely important fact. The JCVI are giving advice based on extrapolation of opinion. It isn't based on data, because there is no actual data that supports their advice - this is a fact. There isn't any data because no-one has had time or opportunity to produce any. There is only (valid and scientific) opinion.

In this particular situation there is (valid and scientific) opinion that agrees with JCVI and CMO and there is (valid and scientific) opinion that disagrees with it. This is normal in scientific debate.

So it isn't a case of anyone lying, it is a case of people, up to and including the best scientific minds in the World, having different opinions based on exactly the same data.

Many of us find that having the actual facts helps them to cope with a situation because then they can understand better and cope with the risks.

Others want to believe anything that apparently comes from authority that makes them feel better/hopeful/safe/whatever because they cannot bear the anxiety of feeling at risk.

Generally MN is made up of those two apparently opposing voices who cannot understand each other.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

This is the vaccine calculator

www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

I thought they were doing the rest of the population to age 16/18 after vulnerable groups?

This calculator isn't necessarily at all accurate. It's based on a set of assumptions about the vaccination order which are accurate. It will then have other assumptions about population ages and workforce numbers which are likely to be accurate. So your approximate order in the queue is likely to be about right.

BUT the entire calculator then depends for timing on the vaccination run rate - how many people we vaccinate in a week. They have clearly changed the basis for this recently (1mil a week with a 3 month vaccine interval currently, you can change this in advance mode) which will impact the date you get vaccinated enormously.

Neither the government nor the NHS have ever said that they will only vaccinate one million people a week: if it was two million it would impact the timing enormously.

The separating the two doses will also have impacted this, because if they work as the MHRA and JCVI expects then actually you would be protected from 2 weeks after your FIRST vaccination. But you won't have had your full vaccination for another 2.5 months after that.

The figure of 52% reflects the efficacy over 3 weeks. It’s not 52% in the first 7 days. It’s much less than that. The efficacy builds day by day and week by week. It’s completely different on day 1 (a lot lower than 52%) and day 21 (a lot higher than 52%).

Actually it is more accurate to say that the efficacy changes day by day...

In terms of staffing, I am a HCP and very part time so I applied to do a session to help in early December.
On NYE I got this:
www.nhsprofessionals.nhs.uk/-/media/99bf44fb5cb24cf2b2d2de78dd040dd2.ashx
It will take me ages to do all that CPD, especially if schools close! All for the princely sum of £16 per hour. Same CPD for the vaccinator role but that pays £10 per hour.
I know I should be motivated but I have done loads of CPD this year and much is irrelevant- preventing radicalisation- really?!

The JCVI are giving advice based on extrapolation of opinion. It isn't based on data, because there is no actual data that supports their advice - this is a fact. There isn't any data because no-one has had time or opportunity to produce any. There is only (valid and scientific) opinion.

The JCVI are basing their opinion on extrapolation of data, not opinion. And in any case, scientific opinion is evidence-based.

I don’t disagree that this whole approach is less solid than it could be, but it is pragmatic and reasonable under the circumstances.

Many of us find that having the actual facts helps them to cope with a situation because then they can understand better and cope with the risks.

Others want to believe anything that apparently comes from authority that makes them feel better/hopeful/safe/whatever because they cannot bear the anxiety of feeling at risk.
Generally MN is made up of those two apparently opposing voices who cannot understand each other.

Well quite, but I think we’d disagree about which group I am in.

@Haffiana

The figure of 52% reflects the efficacy over 3 weeks. It’s not 52% in the first 7 days. It’s much less than that. The efficacy builds day by day and week by week. It’s completely different on day 1 (a lot lower than 52%) and day 21 (a lot higher than 52%).

Actually it is more accurate to say that the efficacy changes day by day...

Actually it's pretty binary rather than a gradual day-by-day change. The curve shows that up to around day 11 the placebo and vaccine groups have the same level of infection/immunity then at day 11 they diverge, with the vaccine group flattening off.

This is interesting from The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/12/virus-mutation-catastrophe/617531/