When can we start to see the vaccine saving lives?

[notevenat20]

We are told 88% of covid deaths come from groups 1-4. Already 11 million of those have been vaccinated and pretty much all of them will have been done in a weeks time. Full protection comes in about 21 days after vaccination but there is some protection from about day 14. This is all to say, should we expect deaths to plummet this month? I am really hoping so.

@Motorina

I believe we started vaccinating on December the 5th.

The peak was later in the over 80s.

But yes, as I think I said, we're waiting to see if this one dose gamble with our lives produces the same effects as Israel is seeing by vaccinating properly.

@Blessex

Oh gosh it’s *@PrincessNutNuts* again. Coming in with her selective titbits and what her ‘auntie’ was told.

My anecdata is as good as anyone else's, surely?

@Brunt0n

Well, I for one, think that a poster called ‘Princess NutNuts’ is sure to be an intelligent and educated person to be trusted and believed 😂

Sense of humour is correlated with intelligence.

@PrincessNutNuts But yes, as I think I said, we're waiting to see if this one dose gamble with our lives produces the same effects as Israel is seeing by vaccinating properly.

You just refuse to listen to the experts don’t you. You just want your narrative.

@PrincessNutNuts no your anecdotes are not as good as Professor Sarah Gilbert’s no.

[quote Blessex]**@PrincessNutNuts* But yes, as I think I said, we're waiting to see if this one dose gamble with our lives produces the same effects as Israel is seeing by vaccinating properly.*

You just refuse to listen to the experts don’t you. You just want your narrative.[/quote]
I don't know what you mean.

But both strategies are a "gamble with lives" in a way aren't they? When you have finite resources you either take the chance of leaving a longer gap reducing potentially reducing efficacy in the short term (but vaccinating more people more quickly) or you follow the approved strategy but you take the chance of leaving a much larger number of people with no protection at all. The second option has the ability to impact on lives too as far as I can see.

It's a risk/benefit analysis. Both options probably have pros and cons. Based on the data and expert opinions out there I can certainly see why the U.K. have opted for the delayed second dose strategy. Seems perfectly logical.

@Sunshinegirl82

But both strategies are a "gamble with lives" in a way aren't they? When you have finite resources you either take the chance of leaving a longer gap reducing potentially reducing efficacy in the short term (but vaccinating more people more quickly) or you follow the approved strategy but you take the chance of leaving a much larger number of people with no protection at all. The second option has the ability to impact on lives too as far as I can see.

It's a risk/benefit analysis. Both options probably have pros and cons. Based on the data and expert opinions out there I can certainly see why the U.K. have opted for the delayed second dose strategy. Seems perfectly logical.

And yet oddly, no one else is doing it.

So? Doing something differently doesn't mean it's wrong?

The U.K. are giving out two vaccines AZ and Pfizer. AZ have said that their vaccine appears to actually work better with a 12 week gap so all fine there. Pfizer haven't conducted trials with a 12 week gap (so don't have firm data) but those with experience in dealing with this have taken the view that immunity created by the Pfizer vaccine is unlikely to fall off a cliff after 3 weeks and a longer gap has advantages.

It's a judgement call. Clearly you'd prefer they'd gone with a different decision but there is very unlikely to be a "right" and a "wrong" approach here, more likely that all approaches will have things that go better than others and things that go worse. It's not black and white.

If we change strategy then which group do we make wait longer for any protection? Some of the people in that group will almost certainly die because they had to wait.

@Sunshinegirl82 exactly.

Given the choice of both parents given 89% cover (Pfizer) or one dose and no risk of serious disease hospitalisation or death (AZ) OR one parent given 91% or two doses and no risk of serious disease hospitalisation or death - then what would you choose.

It’s amazing when people are given that stark choice they realise that by giving doses 3 weeks apart we are exposing a huge number of people.

Maybe @PrincessNutNuts would like to mull that one over and understand who we would leave completely unprotected.

@Sunshinegirl82 cross posts. This is exactly what Professor Sarah Gilbert said this morning.

But there is no reasoning with @PrincessNutNuts.

I would like to understand who she would like to leave completely unprotected as she is busy giving her relatives 2 doses. I am very happy for my parents to have one dose each and then somebody else’s parents have the other dose. They are protected enough in the meantime according to the data from the trials - plus the new data coming out at population level.

I find some people so selfish to not look at the overall population protection data..

@PrincessNutNuts My anecdata is as good as anyone else's, surely?

I didn't post anecdata. I posted data. And gave my sources. There's a difference.

Israel’s access to vaccines is the result of a unique situation - they are able, and in fact forced, to do the 3 week gap without compromising rollout to the full population, because of their deal with Pfizer.

The UK has a large but not limitless supply, and a raging outbreak and are free to decide what strategy to use. Even if the gap in protection were significant, so people were left at eg 75% protection for weeks 3-12 after vaccination instead of 90%, then it would probably still be the better choice in the situation we’re in.

I don't know what you mean.

And that is the problem 🤦‍♀️

A quote from Jonathan Van Tam:

He said: 'But what none of these (who ask reasonable questions) will tell me is: who on the at-risk list should suffer slower access to their first dose so that someone else who's already had one dose (and therefore most of the protection) can get a second?'

*So first PNN tell us how many elderly or vulnerable relatives you have.

Now tell us which half you will have vaccinated and which half you would leave with zero protection????

Apparently you would rather have 6 million people protected from serious illness and hospitalisation with a slightly higher protection from getting covid

Whereas us lot and the government scientists and experts would rather have 12 million people protected from serious illness and hospitalisation with a slightly higher risk of catching covid*

What interests me is how Pfizer landed on 3 weeks as the dosing interval. Why not 2 weeks? Why not 6? Why not try several different dosing intervals and compare the results?

I suspect the answer may be that they needed to crack on with the trial in order to get a vaccine to market as quickly as possible, and three weeks was a good first guess, based on their knowledge of the immune system and their vaccine. Or maybe there was more to it than that.

What I do know is that, in an emergency situation, decisions need to be made quickly. There wasn’t time to wait longer to compare 3, 6 and 12 week dosing intervals. So we are going ahead with a longer interval - and in the process, providing a good level of protection to more people more quickly. If it turns out not to be good enough, we can give them extra doses at a later date.

@PuzzledObserver I have thought the same. I mean in the end they had to take a guess. So chose 3 weeks. To make the trials quick. AZ did the same. But I read that AZ were originally going to make theirs a one dose but then saw the extra efficacy to have a booster so managed to get data also at a longer interval. And now with even more data they have proven that a 12 week interval actually gives more efficacy. They are all moving so quickly.

@PuzzledObserver

What interests me is how Pfizer landed on 3 weeks as the dosing interval. Why not 2 weeks? Why not 6? Why not try several different dosing intervals and compare the results?

I suspect the answer may be that they needed to crack on with the trial in order to get a vaccine to market as quickly as possible, and three weeks was a good first guess, based on their knowledge of the immune system and their vaccine. Or maybe there was more to it than that.

What I do know is that, in an emergency situation, decisions need to be made quickly. There wasn’t time to wait longer to compare 3, 6 and 12 week dosing intervals. So we are going ahead with a longer interval - and in the process, providing a good level of protection to more people more quickly. If it turns out not to be good enough, we can give them extra doses at a later date.

I think this is exactly right. And actually, Israel's programme tells us nothing about the efficacy of a single dose really because the second dose is being given there right at the point you would be expecting the full effect of the first dose.

[quote Blessex]@PuzzledObserver I have thought the same. I mean in the end they had to take a guess. So chose 3 weeks. To make the trials quick. AZ did the same. But I read that AZ were originally going to make theirs a one dose but then saw the extra efficacy to have a booster so managed to get data also at a longer interval. And now with even more data they have proven that a 12 week interval actually gives more efficacy. They are all moving so quickly.[/quote]
This is correct too- several of my colleagues were on the Oxford trial and the boosting came in as an amendment a little while after the trial started.

For avoidance of doubt, I should like to point out that I am noting the difference between one shot (partial) coverage, the even better full course (two shots) and the need for caution in interpreting data (especially that which is explicitly caveated as more needed). And how those aspects interplay with the question in the title of the thread - ie when we might see differences.

Nothing whatsoever about rescheduling in any way.

@Northernsoulgirl45 have you tried the online link? I booked through that and I'm group 4

I suppose my question to @NiceViper is, do you think we would have seen deaths coming down sooner if we had followed the 3-week strategy?

https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/02/07/news/katebinghamminterviewvaccinesscovidastrazenecaaukcoronavirussjohnson-286384093/

Interesting article here with Kate Bingham

@Sunshinegirl82

So? Doing something differently doesn't mean it's wrong?

The U.K. are giving out two vaccines AZ and Pfizer. AZ have said that their vaccine appears to actually work better with a 12 week gap so all fine there. Pfizer haven't conducted trials with a 12 week gap (so don't have firm data) but those with experience in dealing with this have taken the view that immunity created by the Pfizer vaccine is unlikely to fall off a cliff after 3 weeks and a longer gap has advantages.

It's a judgement call. Clearly you'd prefer they'd gone with a different decision but there is very unlikely to be a "right" and a "wrong" approach here, more likely that all approaches will have things that go better than others and things that go worse. It's not black and white.

If we change strategy then which group do we make wait longer for any protection? Some of the people in that group will almost certainly die because they had to wait.

You, and several others that posted after you, are the voices of reason. It was actually a pleasure to read