Do you agree with the UKs vaccination approach?

[LoveHeartHug]

The vaccine trials were trialed on a 2 injections spaced apart over a few weeks. Itt's common for some side effects to occur from some doses of the vaccine especially after second dose of vaccine.

My worry is if someone contracts the virus after receiving one dose of the vaccine and what would happen. If a serious illness occurs.

I was also watching TV earlier in the week and someone on a show was saying the UK is at 24% vaccinated. I felt watching it that it wasn't true. There's 24% partially vaccinated.

I think it was absolutely the right roll of the dice given the situation we were in late December / early Jan. Giving a higher proportion of the population some protection seems like a sensible idea compared to a smaller proportion getting an increased level of protection sooner.

Also, the AZ vaccine is licensed for a 12 week gap.

However, I do take your point about '24% vaccinated'. You are right, those people are partially vaccinated.

Yes

My cousin was on the Oxford trial and had the jabs 14 weeks apart.

I was skeptical at the time because it was a complete roll of the dice, the data was not available to suggest if it would work or not.

Thankfully it appears to be paying off and the early data from Israel suggests a single dose is enough to reduce hospital admissions in at risk groups.

Yes. Whilst the media has given the impression that it’s Boris Johnson up there at the helm singlehandedly making all the decisions about vaccination schedules and fucking it up, the approach has obviously been sanctioned by actual real scientists and virologists who know that it will be safe and effective - and indeed, other countries have followed suit or are considering doing so. Considering the situation we were in at the end of last year, a large percentage of people having a relatively high percentage of immunity is ultimately better than a very small percentage of people having slightly higher immunity.

I think now there is evidence that the AZ Oxford jab is actually more effective with the longer gap. So yes right call.

And the one jab is effective against severe disease and hospitalisation. The second dose boosts it a small percentage but most protection is with the first jab.

Hell yes . To be fair to the critics, it was a gamble when they made the decision but the scientific evidence since has 100% supported it. You might call it a very lucky guess.

I agree with it. Far better to get as many people the first jab which gives the majority of the protection than to only be able to vaccinate a minority with both doses. Trials have now shown it’s better to have a longer gap with Oxford anyway.

I'm happier that my mother in her 50s has begun vaccination than my European 98yo MiL might be getting hers next week...

Apparently a third of adults in my county have now had a vaccination.
After a couple of weeks, having a significant proportion of the adult population with partial immunity is great progress.

Yes, I do agree with it.

Even if 24% had had both vaccines, they still wouldn’t be 100% protected. In your eyes surely the 24% would still only be partially vaccinated since we don’t have a vaccine that is 100% effective.

I'll reserve judgement. At the moment it depends which head I have on. With my academic immunologist head the approach is reasonable and there's some evidence that supports it and considering the situation in December and January it was a no brainer. With my 20 years in the pharma industry head on it's 'WTAF, there is no data to support this, there is no way I'm putting my name to this approach until I have robust data to support this'. Which is what Pfizer's reaction was.

Yes

I think it was a bold but sensible decision - better than a lucky guess as pp described it, because it was based on the years of experience and technical understanding of a pool of experts.

Now there is data coming to support it. We have clearly saved lives by doing it this way.

Partially vaccinated, yes.... but partially is not half. In this case it is considerably more than half. And they will all be offered the second dose, so I do wish people would stop carping about that.

Yes I think it was 100% the right thing to do. The first dose gives most of the protection, the second dose gives a little bit more protection but mainly functions to prolong the effect over a longer period of time. This way we protected as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Of course it would be preferable to keep the doses closer together but if we had done that 50% of the people who now have some protection against covid would have none at all.

Yes. And "partial" doesn't convey that the first dose is the far, far greater proportion of the protection.

I think people are coming round to the idea that it might actually be the right thing to do and research is beginning to back it up

twitter.com/bopanc/status/1362750749164384256?s=21

Yes.

It was the right thing to do given the situation we were in. It seems the "roll of the dice" was the right move too.

AZ is actually more effective with a 12 week gap

Pfizer is 85% effective, 3 weeks after 1st dose. Can't link but there was a news article about it this morning. WAAAY better than the flu jab.

It was the right call

The flu vaccine is routinely only ever 55-60% effective. Sometimes it's completely the wrong one (hence the high flu deaths in 2018) but no one ever questions that.

The Oxford vaccine has been proven to be more effective at 12 weeks apart. The Pfizer one has also been proven to be 85% effective after one dose (according to the BBC this morning).

So can we please stop fucking complaining? The evidence shows that it was the right decision.

Part of the twitter thread I linked to above

Absolutely

Yes, totally agree with the government.

I am coming from a slightly biased point of view as I'm group 6 and got my jab this week. If the govt. had gone with the 3 week gap i would still be waiting and my child would (potentially) be going back to school in March with 2 CV parents with zero protection.

On the other hand, both my parents would now have had both their jabs so maximum protection (one NHS, one CEV)

Its a tough one and I'm glad it wasn't my decision to make

I disagree with most of your OP. When we get a vaccine, we are vaccinated.
In the case of Covid, we get a follow-up injection that gives an estimated 5-8% further protection.
I think the UK's vaccine strategy has been

1. World-class
2. Well coordinated
3. Rolled out faster than we could have dreamed back in September.

You are clearly interested in this subject, so you can't have missed the recent, relevant data from Israel.
Glass half empty OP? I have friends and relatives in Europe. They'd wonder what was wrong with you.

I agree will the larger gap providing gov dont say everyone vaxxed and open up leading to huge infection in unvaxxed or partially.

• Over 80s have a high chance of dying of natural causes hence thousands of 2 doses would be wasted on people who then died
• Over 68 are retired and many are able to shield at home even those without other underlying.
• So we wouldnt now be down to to people more likely to catch and spread and therefore die the younger have more life lost, have young kids. Many of these shielded are expected to still send kids to school and once out of lockdown would be probably back at schools/offices etc.

If 1 dose were to be enough to slow spread/reduce r
If 1 dose were to protect enough to prevent long covid. Which is going to be hugely expensive to the country. Obviously younger people the cost will be longer.

Also if vaxxed people just stop symptoms but could still spread we would have some fulled protected 80yo adding to the asymptomatic spread infecting more of the vulnerable younger groups.

• And giving to for eg hcp when other countries are saying only 1 dose needed if youve had covid would again be sort of wasting vaxs , applies to anyone else who might have had it already