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.

@turquoisewaters
So you can have two different type of antibodies depending on whether you've had the vaccine or the infection itself?
I don't understand how it works but here is an extract from an email they sent me

The tests can detect and distinguish between antibodies that develop as a result of natural infection as well as antibodies that develop as a result of vaccination.We will link your records to the national COVID-19 vaccination database managed by Public Health England. We will also work with Public Health England to retrieve and analyse viral genetic data from any positive swab samples.

@KeepWashingThoseHands

Can we get some facts right:

The AZ vaccine was trialled with a 12 week spacer period. This is from their website:

Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%)

Reason for the difference as most now know is an error in dosing some cohorts, which actually turned out to increase efficacy.

The longer dose period came from the fact that the US arm of the trial was suspended temporarily for 12 weeks. The dosage error resulted in increased efficacy where, in a small cohort of volunteers, the first dose was halved by mistake. The government / JCVI chose not to go down that route. I would be interested to know whether there are more trials based on the low dose / high dose pairing.

The half dose results are fascinating.

A lot of it is counterintuitive. Such as a longer gap before the booster in many vaccines gives better immunity.

@juo

I would be interested to know whether there are more trials based on the low dose / high dose pairing

Yes, I hope so. Taking into account it's supposed to have an impact on efficacy but also overall cost going forwards if lower doses are needed

@OldRailer

A lot of it is counterintuitive. Such as a longer gap before the booster in many vaccines gives better immunity.

It isn't really counterintuitive but I'll hazard a guess you aren't an immunologist.

Intuition of a standard person was certainly to be taken as read there..surely you could deduce that with your superior intellect Janina.

I read an article on the half dose situation and it was reassuring, because the thought of them half-dosing by mistake was alarming.

What actually happened (according to the article I read in The Times) is that a batch of vaccine came in with a labelling error. It was labelled as normal strength and also as double strength. They didn't want to scrap the batch altogether and also didn't want to delay the testing, but checking the actual strength of the batch would have taken several days. So they decided to use the batch but obviously didn't want to give double doses. it was therefore diluted to what would be normal strength if one label was to be believed and what would be half strength if the other label was to be believed. So although there was an error along the way, nobody actually got jabbed with the wrong dose by mistake.

@PrincessNutNuts

I wouldn't gamble with British people's lives, or the future if this country. I'd play it safe and vaccinate properly.

I’m pleased you weren’t making the decision then, because the evidence is mounting to show that it was the right one.

[quote PuzzledObserver]@PrincessNutNuts

I wouldn't gamble with British people's lives, or the future if this country. I'd play it safe and vaccinate properly.

I’m pleased you weren’t making the decision then, because the evidence is mounting to show that it was the right one.[/quote]
True

Also the thing we can be very relieved to have is very good scientific experts making decisions.

The same government who gave us the first three lockdowns, and 130,000 funerals?

I can’t imagine those guys making a bad call.

@PrincessNutNuts

The same government who gave us the first three lockdowns, and 130,000 funerals?

I can’t imagine those guys making a bad call.

You are confusing political decisions taken by the government despite scientific advice, and scientific decisions being made and implemented by the MHRA, JCVI, PHE and NHS.

The spacing decision was based on sound extrapolation of evidence, which is a very long way from a guess, and has, as expected, turned out to be the correct one.

@PrincessNutNuts

The same government who gave us the first three lockdowns, and 130,000 funerals?

I can’t imagine those guys making a bad call.

Can you not separate the term scientific experts from the word government?

I am with you @MarshaBradyo on separating the scientific experts from the government, and glad on this matter the experts recommendations have been acted upon.

If only other scientific experts' recommendations had been acted upon immediately by government (March and September come to mind) a lot fewer people would have died.

I think to be fair the vaccine roll out appears to be the one good thing our country has managed during this pandemic.

It doesn't take away from the fact that many people have lost their lives, many people will be living with long covid longer term and perhaps lifelong, etc.

They messed up several other areas with the covid pandemic but I don't think the vaccines have been one of them - fortunately for us all.

I'm cynically thinking the reason for the longer gap is to gloat about how successful the government are being - and worried about the results of ignoring the advice on the gap between the initial dose and the booster.

I'm also concerned that the UK has agreed to a waiver concerning any long-term vaccine effects, which the EU has not.

@KeepWashingThoseHands

Can we get some facts right:

The AZ vaccine was trialled with a 12 week spacer period. This is from their website:

Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%)

Reason for the difference as most now know is an error in dosing some cohorts, which actually turned out to increase efficacy.

Yes, there was no gamble with the AZ spacing. The gamble was whether the same gap would reduce the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine. That was a gamble, albeit an educated one, but fortunately so far the signs are that it will pay off.

Incidentally, a lot of doctors (including me) who were concerned about the Pfizer decision weren't actually worried that it would significantly reduce immunity, but more about the logistics of giving the 2nd vaccines at the right time. Logistically, it's much more complicated if you change the dosing schedule halfway through and I still think it would probably have been better to have given the few thousand 2nd vaccines that were already booked, instead of cancelling them. That would only have had a marginal effect on roll-out, and would have ensured the most vulnerable group who got Pfizer were fully protected quickly. However, the IT we are using has improved quite a bit since the roll-out started, so there is now less concern about the logistics as a whole.

Incidentally, a lot of doctors (including me) who were concerned about the Pfizer decision weren't actually worried that it would significantly reduce immunity, but more about the logistics of giving the 2nd vaccines at the right time. Logistically, it's much more complicated if you change the dosing schedule halfway through and I still think it would probably have been better to have given the few thousand 2nd vaccines that were already booked, instead of cancelling them. That would only have had a marginal effect on roll-out

That’s exactly what happened in my area, when my dad called up to check if his second appointment was cancelled they said they’d decided it was easier to just go ahead with the booked appointments.