Is now my only chance to have the vaccine?

[Maddimoo]

I’ve had my first dose of AZ but have decided against my second dose.

I don’t want to remain partially vaccinated but am aware mixing vaccines is not yet approved (UK)
If it were I would happily accept a different one.

Does anyone know where this leaves me? Will I always just have to remain partially vaccinated?

What about if there’s boosters, will I not qualify because I’ve only had one dose?

In France if you’ve previously had covid then you only need one ‘booster’ dose and then you are considered fully vaccinated. Who is to know what is right when there is so much conflicting information. And furthermore I noted this morning that they finally recognise that natural immunity and immunity after a previous infection do in fact exist as per every other viral reaction. First they said 3 months because that’s all they could count, now it is up to 10 months. Considering that swine flu immunity is currently listed as at least 17 years (because that’s how long it has existed and is an extremely similar virus) then I can’t see why post infection immunity can’t be recognised either.

I have had headaches and shortness of breath since my first AZ vaccine six weeks ago. I am not having my second. I will wait until I can get a different vaccine privately if necessary.

Where is your source for 18 blood clots events after the second dose? My source was a House of Commons briefing paper (note that the HoC is independent from Government), altho it’s dated 19 May so it’s possible there may have been a small number of further clots after 19 May.

Even 18 blood clots is still an incredibly small number. I think you really have a skewed idea of risk - I’m pretty certain you are more at risk of death from crossing the road.

Personally I dislike the term 'partially vaccinated'.

You might dislike it, but that’s precisely what it is. The vaccination is designed and licensed as a two dose course. If you choose to only complete half that course then you’re only partially vaccinated.

@Wigeon

Where is your source for 18 blood clots events after the second dose? My source was a House of Commons briefing paper (note that the HoC is independent from Government), altho it’s dated 19 May so it’s possible there may have been a small number of further clots after 19 May.

Even 18 blood clots is still an incredibly small number. I think you really have a skewed idea of risk - I’m pretty certain you are more at risk of death from crossing the road.

@Wigeon

www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

@CrunchyCarrot

I don't know exactly where it leaves you, OP. My DP is in a similar position (but probably not identical as he has also had Covid previously). He doesn't want a second dose of AZ, but would like either Pfizer or Moderna. My understanding is at this point it's not possible unless you've had a bad reaction to your first dose of AZ.

As for boosters, depends which vaccine it is. I know Pfizer is developing a booster, so it may well be that. If the current trials on vaccine mixing are favourable, then by autumn you may be able to get a Pfizer booster. But that's a lot of 'ifs' and 'maybes'.

Personally I dislike the term 'partially vaccinated'. You've been vaccinated and hopefully that will have given you a good level of immunity. Perhaps talk it over with your GP?

Partially-vaccinated is the correct terminology though as the full vaccine is two doses (which most of them are, apart from the J&J one which is just one dose).

And it has been shown that both AZ and Pfizer are only around 33% effective after one dose against the Indian variant (which is now the dominant form in the UK).

In France if you’ve previously had covid then you only need one ‘booster’ dose and then you are considered fully vaccinated. Who is to know what is right when there is so much conflicting information. And furthermore I noted this morning that they finally recognise that natural immunity and immunity after a previous infection do in fact exist as per every other viral reaction. First they said 3 months because that’s all they could count, now it is up to 10 months. Considering that swine flu immunity is currently listed as at least 17 years (because that’s how long it has existed and is an extremely similar virus) then I can’t see why post infection immunity can’t be recognised either.

This all makes so much sense. And this is why I will not be vaccinated. However irrational that appears to others. We are being lied to at worst and at best not given the full information.

For something as big as this I need the full facts before being vaccinated.

I had my first AZ dose recently, the nurse said I'd be around 30% protected after 3 weeks. Protection goes to 60%+ after 2nd dose. Without the 2nd dose the first one seems like pretty limited value.

What is putting you off the 2nd dose?

@hemhem

I had my first AZ dose recently, the nurse said I'd be around 30% protected after 3 weeks. Protection goes to 60%+ after 2nd dose. Without the 2nd dose the first one seems like pretty limited value.

What is putting you off the 2nd dose?

@hemhem OP said it is because of the risk of blood clots. It is rubbish for those under 40 who had the first dose yet now been told it shouldn't be given to under 40.

@namechangerforthisconfessionn

OP said it is because of the risk of blood clots. It is rubbish for those under 40 who had the first dose yet now been told it shouldn't be given to under 40

Yes, this exactly. It is rubbish.

I know a lot of people in RL who feel the same
way I do.

[quote Maddimoo]@namechangerforthisconfessionn

OP said it is because of the risk of blood clots. It is rubbish for those under 40 who had the first dose yet now been told it shouldn't be given to under 40

Yes, this exactly. It is rubbish.

I know a lot of people in RL who feel the same
way I do.[/quote]
@Maddimoo I'm in the same situation, only carer for my children so if something happened to me they'd have nobody, and according to that Oxford risk analysis my chance of dying from Covid is 1 in 200'000 so it seems ridiculous to have the second dose.

I also had Covid right at the start so if I was in another country I would be classed as fully immunised with the natural immunity and 1 jab 🤷‍♀️

Watching Newsnight in the week a SAGE scientists said it was now necessary for people to catch the virus to boost the immunity of the population. I took it that this was as good as or better than being vaccinated in terms of personal protection and herd immunity.

How are people confidently saying that two does will protect against new variants? From what i understand, the scientists are holding their breath as odds are a variant will emerge for which the vaccine will have no affect.

It's really important that people do try and get both vaccines (though I do understand people's concerns and worries.)

Even if the first vaccine offers some protection from serious illness, it still offers you up as a potential host within which the virus can mutate - thus causing new variants that potentially could become vaccine resistant. Having a 'full' defence against the virus - offers more chance that we stop it from mutating.

We might be able to mix vaccines in future - but those studies are still ongoing.

But right now it really is a race against the delta variant and getting as many people doubly vaccinated as possible.

Question in my mind is: had we left the population to catch this virus without introducing vaccines ... would variants have occurred?

@Dustyboots yes variants would have occurred. Viruses always mutate. It’s what they do. It’s their job. :)

Thank you @JingsMahBucket

I have a feeling we’re making this whole situation worse by interfering with nature. That’s all.

I can’t shake this feeling that those who’ve had Covid will ultimately be the better protected and that those who’ve been vaccinated will be more vulnerable as their natural immune system has been compromised by these vaccines.

@Dustyboots

Question in my mind is: had we left the population to catch this virus without introducing vaccines ... would variants have occurred?

Yes. Viruses always mutate. Hence the variants we already have seeded across the world. Some changes are spontaneous (driven by chance and purely a numbers game), others by physical things the virus comes up against that allows it to change (eg immune compromised people who in the process of not fighting it off properly - give it a place to replicate and mutate.)

We are not 'safe' until the whole world is vaccinated. That's why this is an international problem.

@Dustyboots. The immune response from the vaccine and the 'natural' immunity from having covid are the same mechanism - they aren't two separate systems.

@Wigeon

Where is your source for 18 blood clots events after the second dose? My source was a House of Commons briefing paper (note that the HoC is independent from Government), altho it’s dated 19 May so it’s possible there may have been a small number of further clots after 19 May.

Even 18 blood clots is still an incredibly small number. I think you really have a skewed idea of risk - I’m pretty certain you are more at risk of death from crossing the road.

That's true, but no-one can live life without crossing the road. Or, realistically, driving.

You can live life without the vaccine.

There's a big difference!

I hope this thread is a wind up. People simply cannot be this dim or selfish

@Dustyboots

Thank you *@JingsMahBucket*

I have a feeling we’re making this whole situation worse by interfering with nature. That’s all.

I can’t shake this feeling that those who’ve had Covid will ultimately be the better protected and that those who’ve been vaccinated will be more vulnerable as their natural immune system has been compromised by these vaccines.

Apart from the ones who are dead, of course.

@MrsFrisbyMouse I think the natural immune response and the response prompted by the vaccine are in fact different. The vaccine is built around recognition of the spike protein on the virus but I’ve seen some doctors suggest that a different type of approach might be better, one that stimulates other parts of the immune system like the T cell system which is is what is most likely deployed with natural infection.

[quote Lostinacloud]@MrsFrisbyMouse I think the natural immune response and the response prompted by the vaccine are in fact different. The vaccine is built around recognition of the spike protein on the virus but I’ve seen some doctors suggest that a different type of approach might be better, one that stimulates other parts of the immune system like the T cell system which is is what is most likely deployed with natural infection.[/quote]
I was probably very badly oversimplifiying it.

It's generally accepted that vaccines produce a better immune response than natural infection.

This explains it better than me.

www.immunology.org/news/immunity-and-covid-19-what-do-we-know-so-far

(I book marked this back in Feb, there may be more data by now)

It's generally accepted that vaccines produce a better immune response than natural infection.

This is not true at all! Where do you get this idea from?