Please don't let it be true that one dose of Pfizer jab is only 33% effectuve

[Calmandmeasured1]

www.thesun.co.uk/news/13795481/one-dose-vaccine-only-33-effective-israeli-experts-claim/

But no one knows what 12 weeks will do, we have to hope the 95% efficacy remains, but that too is a gamble.

Also Pfizer didn’t change their data, they said over 90% efficacy, then they were asked to be more specific by the FDA, and gave the exact figure of 95%.

This Govt. are trying to cull the population. I’m sure of it 🤦‍♀️

Pfizer has said from the beginning that one dose is only marginally effective, that two doses are needed for 95% protection. This is not new, and it is true.

Listen to Patrick valence on sky you tube he tells you .... and also he said science will get us out of this and I feel better after hearing him

@TatianaBis

It’s astonishing that this government are pushing ahead with a strategy for which there is no scientific data at all

Other 'governments' have not ruled out this strategy either (including the US) due to the uncertainty around availability of vaccines, It's not just the UK

www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2021/01/experts-debate-half-doses-and-delayed-boosters-for-covid-vaccines/

@supercatpowers

I can't think this can be true. NHS frontline staff (proper frontline staff treating hundreds of Covid patients every shift) were given Pfizer. They PPE is crap in relation to the massive viral loads on general Covid wards (not ICU) - paper masks, plastic pinny. They are walking around in clouds of virus everyday. I think we'd know if 70% of them developed Covid after the first dose. Some of them did certainly, but not 70%.

you don't understand anything do you...

ONE dose of the Pfizer vaccine is only 33 per cent effective, Israeli experts claim

Hmm. So this is coming from the Israeli experts, the ones who have their own new vaccine which has just come out? Convenient.

[quote trulydelicious]@TatianaBis

It’s astonishing that this government are pushing ahead with a strategy for which there is no scientific data at all

Other 'governments' have not ruled out this strategy either (including the US) due to the uncertainty around availability of vaccines, It's not just the UK

www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2021/01/experts-debate-half-doses-and-delayed-boosters-for-covid-vaccines/[/quote]
I think its the UK that is actually carrying out this strategy.

the US is going to work with Moderna to explore a single dose program.

For now, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rejected the idea of halving the doses. In a statement released last week, the agency said that while changing the dosage is worth future clinical exploration, “at this time, suggesting changes to the FDA-authorized dosing or schedules of these vaccines is premature and not rooted solidly in the available evidence"

This was posted on Facebook today by Dr Tom Fardon, an NHS consultant respiratory physician working with Covid patients:

Lots of concerns going around about the data that's come out of Israel, reported in the news this week: amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/19/single-covid-vaccine-dose-in-israel-less-effective-than-we-hoped?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true

The first thing to say is that this data hasn't been published, so hasn't been held up to any peer review as yet. The information I have read is that the figures quoted of "less than 50% protection" are based on rates of infection at 14 days. Similar to the Pfizer data quoting 52% for the first dose, counting those first 14 days isn't a very fair comparison, as it takes anything between 10 and 21 days for any vaccine to generate an immune response. So far, then, we have the comments of the Israel COVID Tsar, and we need to see the data.

That's not to say that we shouldn't look at the real life data - we absolutely should, but it should go through the same rigorous peer review as prospective studies. So, early days.

It's worth remembering that the aim is for everyone to have 2 vaccination shots, eventually, and it's not until we have population coverage that Raes will be persistently suppressed, and we get back to normality - post vaccine, 1 shot or 2, our behaviour should stay the same: face, space, good grace.

Another thing causing worry is whether the vaccines will cover the novel, more infective strains of COVID. Here's some evidence in the pre-publish website BioRx. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.18.426984v1

The Pfizer vaccine appears to give decent coverage against the newer variants, in this study. Again, only one study, and it's in vitro, so more data required. Good news a regards variants is that both the Pfizer and AZ vaccine platforms mean that they vaccines can be modified fairly quickly to adapt to changes in the virus proteins.

Other news in the last couple of weeks has been the results of the studies into convalescent plasma use for acute COVID. The theory goes that people who have had COVID will have high levels of anti-COVID antibodies circulating in the plasma - if we take that from patients, by plasma donation, and transfuse it into patients with acute, severe COVID, they would get better more quickly.

This trial carried out in Argentina with 300+ patients showed no benefit in 30 day outcomes: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2031304

The this trial, also from Argentina, with 160 patients showed some benefits, if the plasma was given within the first 72 hours, to older people. www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2033700

Thousands of units of plasma have been given, in America particularly, on a compassionate basis, mostly based on early pre-trial data.

RECOVERY - the very large randomised prospective study carried out in the UK - had a convalescent plasma arm. It reported last week that they have stopped that arm of the study due to futility. www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-recovery-trial-chief-investigators-15-january-2021-recovery-trial-closes-recruitment-to-convalescent-plasma-treatment-for-patients-hospitalised-with-covid-19 . This study had > 10,000 patients receive convalescent plasma, and showed no benefit.

This shows how early studies can be misleading, particularly if they have small numbers of patients, and large datasets, large studies, are worth waiting for.

The vaccination program is progressing very quickly now - amazing feat of organisation by NHS Boards across Scotland. The Louisa Jordan Hospital vaccinated 5,000 people in one day last week! twitter.com/NHSLouisaJordan/status/1350420938718916610

Stay safe everyone.

@AwaAnBileYerHeid

ONE dose of the Pfizer vaccine is only 33 per cent effective, Israeli experts claim

Hmm. So this is coming from the Israeli experts, the ones who have their own new vaccine which has just come out? Convenient.

They have brought at great expense enough Pfizer vaccine to vaccinate there entire population and are using that.

What on earth are you talking about?

It is all a none story though because they haven't given it enough time for antibodies to build up.

They have been saying all along that immunity isn't immediate after the vaccine and starts to build properly from day 10, reaching 90% ish at day 21. This was recently confirmed by Patrick Vallance.

Israel started vaccinating on 19 December, so a lot of people have only had the jab a few days ago and wouldn't have built up much immunity, if any.

Having reached about 90% immunity at day 21, that is when they gave the second injection in trials. They don't know what effect a longer gap will have because they didn't try it.

It would be incredibly unusual (unknown, even) for immunity to peak on a particular day and then plummet to zero in a day or two, so the UK is working on the assumption that the larger gap won't have too bad an effect, if any. The argument is that it is better to get (rising to, over 21 days) 90% protection (possibly falling slightly among some) among as many as possible, rather than 95% among half as many people and zero for the others.

The argument about susceptability to mutations is that because the more infections, the more likely a mutation is to occur, the greater the proportion of the population with some immunity, the less likely a mutation. Some scientists are worried that incomplete immunity may allow immunity resistant mutations (like not finishing a course of antibiotics), but the two arguments have to be weighed up and the UK government, listening to the advice of their scientists, has come down in favour of more immune individuals being more useful.

On all reports I can find, Prof Balicer is quoted as saying:
"We saw that there was no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated until day 14 post-vaccination. But on day 14 post-vaccination, a drop of 33 per cent in positivity was witnessed in the vaccinated group and not in the unvaccinated.”
Note that he says on day 14 and I can't find any further data or analysis anywhere that says what results he is seeing after day 14.

If we put some numbers to this statement and assume that on days 1-13 there were 30 cases per day in the vaccinated and 30 cases per day in the unvaccinated. On day 14 there were 30 cases unvaccinated and 20 cases from the vaccinated - giving a 33% drop in positivity.

How many cases were there on day 15? and day 16? and day 20? We may assume there were still 30 cases per day in the unvaccinated, but were there still 20 from the vaccinated, or had this fallen to 10 (66% drop) or even to 6 cases (80%) or maybe 3 (90%)? We need this data before we can make real sense of this.

@Oly4

Patrick Vallance was on Sky this morning and explained that the study didn’t look at the crucial bit. He said from 10 days after having your first dose (which is when immunity starts to kick in) to day 21 is about 90%. They don’t expect that to wane much in the time it takes to get the second booster jab

Apparently there is a nejm paper with the moderna vaccine showing antibodies decrease rapidly after first dose, go back up after second dose but drop significantly by four months post second dose. However it is important to remember you will have generated memory B cells and memory T cells. These can restart antibody protection and destroy virally infected cells. This means you may still get reinfected when antibodies are low but your immunity will quickly kick in and illness will be mild.

[quote Calmandmeasured1]**@User133847

We always knew two doses were needed anyway?
We were told the Pfizer jab was 90% effective with one dose and 95% effective after the two doses.

If only 33% with one dose and we are then going to wait 12 weeks rather than 3 for the second dose that the manufacturer recommends, how effective will it be after that 2nd dose?[/quote]
You need a name change.

I'd suggest a few but I'd probably get banned.
Do some reading & stir your brain cells BEFORE posting utter tripe.

''what does it matter''
Pretty sure it matters to all the healthcare professionals who will vaccinating the masses, only having the first jab 1/2hour, to one week before administering vaccines to the masses. And, to all the keyworkers, whatever professional background, who have the jab, but still work day in day out in close contact with people. None have the vaccine, then time off until the second and proposed 'immunity', whenever that occurs. The Covid lottery stakes remain high whatever.

www.bbc.com/news/health-55734257

This is all more of the same that posters have explained but it's neat and concise.

The vaccine is not designed to stop you getting covid. It's designed to stop you getting really ill from it.

I had my first dose this week. 2nd dose booked for 10 weeks.

Many colleagues had their first dose pre Christmas. Their 2nd dose has now been cancelled. Apparently to allow more people to have a first dose : so these colleagues their second dose is now been given to someone else, as a first dose.

In 3 local hospitals I know staff tell me:

1)Loads of vaccines have been thrown away because not stored properly.

2)Loads of vaccines not being used. because many people have not turned up for their appointments. Nurses have been Running around hospital like headless chickens grabbing anyone they can, offering the vaccine to them. I know 25 people who have had a vaccine from these 3 hospitals, when they shouldn't have. 3 of them are plumbers/electricians/maintenance men, who were there working, and approached and asked if they wanted the vaccine, because people hadn't turned up.

Doesn't inspire confidence does it?

@Oblomov20

Loads of vaccines have been thrown away because not stored properly

From the beginning it was evident that the storage issue and potential for wastage due to the large batch sizes was going to be problematic

Pfizer should have devised better alternatives for this