FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Vaccine new idea
Vaccine new idea
Jump to: Newest in thread
Well a few weeks ago, a vaccine was rolled out as a 'game changer' and the scientists said the first injection followed by a second injection THREE WEEKS later and the recipient would be covered a week or so later and so it duly started and albeit slow, lots were hailing it as something to get us back to normality or something akin to that. It stated it was critical that the second injection was 3 weeks after the first.
The government announced who will get the vaccine in priority.
After this, lots are shouting certain groups should take priority because of reasons they held, irrespective if it was a higher or lower priority than others abd so arguments ensued.
A lot were concentrated on pro and anti vaxxers
Anyway, this is what was going to happen.
Now, apparently we can go THREE MONTHS between injections.
Seems strange that the period has been extended by nine weeks.
Has some scientific evidence changed or has the penny dropped just how big the task is.
I haven't got the current figures but I'm sure someone will have but the previous rate was around 14,000 a day. The target was ONE MILLION per week so that meant they'd have to up the rate by around TEN TIMES the rate
If course, to achieve that, they'd have to inject 1 million for the first 3 weeks and then 2 million thereafter.
We can all say get a million injected a week but has they any idea how big that is? Logistically a nightmare.
Then think twice that number.
So, the scientists who said it HAD to be 3 weeks later for the 2nd injection are not right then or why have the intervening period now been extended 4 fold? Yes, yes, to get more people injected but is this now as effective and if it is, why wasn't that said in the first place or is it still being trialled.
I am not a pro or anti vaxxer so please no abusive messages or replies having a go at me.
It's a simple question.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm guessing their must be some reliable data from the Pfizer suggesting it will still work.
If not then its a shit show and could waste a huge amount of money leaving it to long for the vaccine to be effective still.
Really interested to see the data is anyone can find it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"1 in 10 people who had received the first shot had to be hospitalized
I hadn't heard this. No wonder there is such a surge in hospital admissions"
I mean that the efficacy of receiving just the first jab is high so they decided to give as many people as possible the initial shot. Its brilliant news  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"The Oxford University jab is 3 months between each shot... the Pfizer one is 3 weeks between..."
That's right. They discovered that just the first shot of the Oxford vaccine still gives you a high resistance to the virus. The second shot is then administered later to give you long term immunity |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Oxford University jab is 3 months between each shot... the Pfizer one is 3 weeks between..."
Apparently it's now extended to 3 months for the Pfizer vaccine. That's according to the news but hey ho, why believe that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Oxford University jab is 3 months between each shot... the Pfizer one is 3 weeks between...
That's right. They discovered that just the first shot of the Oxford vaccine still gives you a high resistance to the virus. The second shot is then administered later to give you long term immunity "
I'm talking about the Pfizer vaccine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"The Oxford University jab is 3 months between each shot... the Pfizer one is 3 weeks between...
That's right. They discovered that just the first shot of the Oxford vaccine still gives you a high resistance to the virus. The second shot is then administered later to give you long term immunity
I'm talking about the Pfizer vaccine "
They may have found that the same applies to the Pfizer vaccine
Also I think because of the ease of distribution with the Oxford vaccine this will be the one that most of us will receive |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
West Yorkshire and Harrogate districts (and probably others) are continuing to give the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine three weeks apart until 11th January as it would be too time consuming to change the thousands of appointments already made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"West Yorkshire and Harrogate districts (and probably others) are continuing to give the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine three weeks apart until 11th January as it would be too time consuming to change the thousands of appointments already made. "
They’ve managed to find the time to cancel millions of appointments in the last year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Is the key question - is there new science upon vaccine 2nd dose timing and efficacy? I was left a little unclear.
The trial results were given to the regulator and I don't think new research evidence has been produced. I don't think that they used dose intervals as a variable - but may be wrong.
I sense that the government has taken this decision based on the hopes that having more people having had 1 dose will reduce infections causing serious disease symptoms and deaths, albeit not quite as much as if they'd had 2 doses.
I don't think there's robust evidence from the data to support their strategy, it's more of a wing and a prayer but I've not studied the data in detail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In answer to the OP, it’s perfectly simple to understand why, the trials followed a set protocol (three weeks) and hence Pfizer backs up its three week recommendation because it has the trial data to support it.
Practical and lab test experience by governments since the trials were setup show the effectiveness of the vaccine after one dose.
So you have the completely reasonable situation that:
1) Pfizer want to stick by their recommendations because that is what they have tested and know the data for, re product liability etc.
2) The government has calculated that in practice they can protect more people quicker by prioritising first shots |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal. "
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“"
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And to add insult in to injury...
https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/02/mixing-covid-vaccines-not-recommended-say-public-health-england-13837103/
No data to show this would or what would happen but "it would be reasonable" said the government. You go first then!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They are just trying to get as many vaccinated as possible but there is no data with the first injection to say how effective this new space between injection will work as trials were done at a faster rate
My only concerns are
if people still have to goto hospital even after first injection then this will still lead to people dying and that is not what the objective is!
And vaccinations work by teaching your immune system to fight virus but not sure this will work if you have poor immune systems due to other factors like chemo etc
People need to self distance more and wash hands more until virus has almost been eradicated by immunisation - injections and face masks gives false sense of security !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too. "
It’s nonsense because you’re suggesting it’s criminal behaviour not to follow the three week protocol. I am saying Pfizer are reluctant because their trials were done ONLY on the three week protocol.
In practice it’s a bit like Goodyear saying you can use our tyre on a 1.3 Fiesta cos we’ve tested that but don’t you dare try using it on a 1.4 litre Micra.
The government has simply stepped in and said we’ve looked at the data, applied some common sense, and we can protect more people more quickly this way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
My only concerns are
if people still have to goto hospital even after first injection then this will still lead to people dying and that is not what the objective is!
"
Where is the evidence that says one in ten of people who had the first vaccine ended up in hospital ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal. "
Well said. It needs better explanation than it has at the moment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too.
It’s nonsense because you’re suggesting it’s criminal behaviour not to follow the three week protocol. I am saying Pfizer are reluctant because their trials were done ONLY on the three week protocol.
In practice it’s a bit like Goodyear saying you can use our tyre on a 1.3 Fiesta cos we’ve tested that but don’t you dare try using it on a 1.4 litre Micra.
The government has simply stepped in and said we’ve looked at the data, applied some common sense, and we can protect more people more quickly this way."
My wording criminal can be used in many different ways, maybe colloquial to my part of the world I'm not suggesting criminal as in law. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too.
It’s nonsense because you’re suggesting it’s criminal behaviour not to follow the three week protocol. I am saying Pfizer are reluctant because their trials were done ONLY on the three week protocol.
In practice it’s a bit like Goodyear saying you can use our tyre on a 1.3 Fiesta cos we’ve tested that but don’t you dare try using it on a 1.4 litre Micra.
The government has simply stepped in and said we’ve looked at the data, applied some common sense, and we can protect more people more quickly this way."
You also the government have simply stepped in yet the scientific community and the people who made it have said we do not advice it, so why is our government with their current track record doing their own thing when they've spent billions on investigation of the time frame of the vaccine. They are trying something and I believe it will back fire, I hope it don't but I feel it will. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too.
It’s nonsense because you’re suggesting it’s criminal behaviour not to follow the three week protocol. I am saying Pfizer are reluctant because their trials were done ONLY on the three week protocol.
In practice it’s a bit like Goodyear saying you can use our tyre on a 1.3 Fiesta cos we’ve tested that but don’t you dare try using it on a 1.4 litre Micra.
The government has simply stepped in and said we’ve looked at the data, applied some common sense, and we can protect more people more quickly this way.
You also the government have simply stepped in yet the scientific community and the people who made it have said we do not advice it, so why is our government with their current track record doing their own thing when they've spent billions on investigation of the time frame of the vaccine. They are trying something and I believe it will back fire, I hope it don't but I feel it will."
Don’t have the vaccine then, wait until Karen on Facebook says it’s ok. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too.
It’s nonsense because you’re suggesting it’s criminal behaviour not to follow the three week protocol. I am saying Pfizer are reluctant because their trials were done ONLY on the three week protocol.
In practice it’s a bit like Goodyear saying you can use our tyre on a 1.3 Fiesta cos we’ve tested that but don’t you dare try using it on a 1.4 litre Micra.
The government has simply stepped in and said we’ve looked at the data, applied some common sense, and we can protect more people more quickly this way.
You also the government have simply stepped in yet the scientific community and the people who made it have said we do not advice it, so why is our government with their current track record doing their own thing when they've spent billions on investigation of the time frame of the vaccine. They are trying something and I believe it will back fire, I hope it don't but I feel it will.
Don’t have the vaccine then, wait until Karen on Facebook says it’s ok. "
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pipe up with this "don't have it then" "wait for Karen". You make me laugh, instead of a good discussion you spout this rubbish. Not once have I advocated people don't have the vaccine, not once have I questioned the vaccine and it's ability to end this pandemic, I'm giving facts stated by the company that makes the vaccine but don't let evidence get in the way.
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In answer to the OP, it’s perfectly simple to understand why, the trials followed a set protocol (three weeks) and hence Pfizer backs up its three week recommendation because it has the trial data to support it.
Practical and lab test experience by governments since the trials were setup show the effectiveness of the vaccine after one dose.
So you have the completely reasonable situation that:
1) Pfizer want to stick by their recommendations because that is what they have tested and know the data for, re product liability etc.
2) The government has calculated that in practice they can protect more people quicker by prioritising first shots"
 Simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too. "
i run my pill packets together, its the combined pill where i should take 21 tablets then a 7 day break but instead i just go straight to the next packet as it helps me manage my migraines , its called tricycling and was recommended by a specialist and ive been doing it for about 16 years with no ill effects
however when i try to get a prescription and sometimes get a standard gp, i am told this os not a licensed use pf the product in the uk , the pharma companies don’t recommend it bla bla bla , they wont give me enough tablets and i just have to return to see another doctor sooner
the point being, the licensed, tested and recommended use by the pharma company is not always the only way a drug can be administered its just all they have data on... why would it be different for a vaccine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too.
i run my pill packets together, its the combined pill where i should take 21 tablets then a 7 day break but instead i just go straight to the next packet as it helps me manage my migraines , its called tricycling and was recommended by a specialist and ive been doing it for about 16 years with no ill effects
however when i try to get a prescription and sometimes get a standard gp, i am told this os not a licensed use pf the product in the uk , the pharma companies don’t recommend it bla bla bla , they wont give me enough tablets and i just have to return to see another doctor sooner
the point being, the licensed, tested and recommended use by the pharma company is not always the only way a drug can be administered its just all they have data on... why would it be different for a vaccine "
Obviously I don't know the full ins and outs of your medicine and I agree on most part I also take meds where I'm not meant to do this or that but I think we all do to a degree, I think the issue on this is the fact that it hasn't been given full approval yet only emergency use and changing things when there's not enough evidence could be detrimental, none of us really know on here we're all being speculative, we can only take what we read and make our own informed decision. I look forward to the day I can have the vaccine I would however be more comfortable of it was administered in accordance with the people who have made it and allowed the world to see their findings. As I said before I hope it works |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm guessing their must be some reliable data from the Pfizer suggesting it will still work.
If not then its a shit show and could waste a huge amount of money leaving it to long for the vaccine to be effective still.
Really interested to see the data is anyone can find it"
Pfizer themselves, have said they are, sticking by the original process of a, gap between 3,to 4 weeks, between doses,. They said there is no data to go on for longer between times dosage. we, are, the only country taking this new, course. They also said the 2, doses, should not be mixed ie. 1st dose Pfizer vaccine and 2nd dose Oxford one. They must both be the same type of vaccine as, they are both made up of entirely different ingredients. This country could get itself in a right mess if its not careful. A, record needs to be kept of which one people are having |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too.
It’s nonsense because you’re suggesting it’s criminal behaviour not to follow the three week protocol. I am saying Pfizer are reluctant because their trials were done ONLY on the three week protocol.
In practice it’s a bit like Goodyear saying you can use our tyre on a 1.3 Fiesta cos we’ve tested that but don’t you dare try using it on a 1.4 litre Micra.
The government has simply stepped in and said we’ve looked at the data, applied some common sense, and we can protect more people more quickly this way.
You also the government have simply stepped in yet the scientific community and the people who made it have said we do not advice it, so why is our government with their current track record doing their own thing when they've spent billions on investigation of the time frame of the vaccine. They are trying something and I believe it will back fire, I hope it don't but I feel it will.
Don’t have the vaccine then, wait until Karen on Facebook says it’s ok.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pipe up with this "don't have it then" "wait for Karen". You make me laugh, instead of a good discussion you spout this rubbish. Not once have I advocated people don't have the vaccine, not once have I questioned the vaccine and it's ability to end this pandemic, I'm giving facts stated by the company that makes the vaccine but don't let evidence get in the way.
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear."
But you’re not looking at all the facts.
I’m sure Pfizer are a great company etc etc but at the end of the day they are a commercial organisation and their job (indeed legal obligation) is to protect themselves and their shareholders.
By all means read what Pfizer say, with the commercial aspect in mind, then read what the medical experts at JCVI say in addition and in response. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
My only concerns are
if people still have to goto hospital even after first injection then this will still lead to people dying and that is not what the objective is!
Where is the evidence that says one in ten of people who had the first vaccine ended up in hospital ?"
That was a miscommunication by the OP What I think was meant is for those who had 1 dose and later caught Cov19, they where 90% less likely to be hospitalised than those who caught Cov19 and had not had a dose of vaccine. If 1 dose is sufficient to reduce cov19 demand on hospitals by 90% it will be a great thing. My understanding is with most vaccines the second dose is usually administered to produce a longer lasting immune response. I am not sure how clear the science is on the optimum interval between primer and booster doses for any vaccine, let alone these very new ones |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
That is nonsense. There is unpublished data supporting the plan, and in practice in volume we are likely talking about the Oxford vaccine anyway:
“At a briefing on Wednesday, the JCVI's chair for COVID-19 immunization, Wei Shen Lim, said the vaccine studies show that after a first dose people gained a “high level of protection” and that the decision to prioritize the first dose “will protect the greatest number of lives.”
Referring specifically to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, Lim referred to unpublished results in a subgroup of patients indicating efficacy of 70 percent, 21 days after the first dose.“
How is this nonsense ? Have i mentioned the Oxford astrazeneca vaccine ? No.
My 2 pennies worth was talking purely about Pfizer. The two vaccines are completely different and yes professor Lim did say the AZ vaccine would potentially give 70% protection after the first dose but as I have said the BMJ and Pfizer have very clearly stated 52.4% efficacy after the first dose and no data shows that the first dose would still work if the second dose isn't administered within 3 weeks. Pfizer have NOT agreed to this being administered in this way and therefore our government is deciding to go another route, Pfizer have spent billions of pounds researching this vaccine and our government have chosen to ignore the science and do their own thing. This is all over the news, in the BMJ and the Lancet too.
It’s nonsense because you’re suggesting it’s criminal behaviour not to follow the three week protocol. I am saying Pfizer are reluctant because their trials were done ONLY on the three week protocol.
In practice it’s a bit like Goodyear saying you can use our tyre on a 1.3 Fiesta cos we’ve tested that but don’t you dare try using it on a 1.4 litre Micra.
The government has simply stepped in and said we’ve looked at the data, applied some common sense, and we can protect more people more quickly this way.
You also the government have simply stepped in yet the scientific community and the people who made it have said we do not advice it, so why is our government with their current track record doing their own thing when they've spent billions on investigation of the time frame of the vaccine. They are trying something and I believe it will back fire, I hope it don't but I feel it will.
Don’t have the vaccine then, wait until Karen on Facebook says it’s ok.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pipe up with this "don't have it then" "wait for Karen". You make me laugh, instead of a good discussion you spout this rubbish. Not once have I advocated people don't have the vaccine, not once have I questioned the vaccine and it's ability to end this pandemic, I'm giving facts stated by the company that makes the vaccine but don't let evidence get in the way.
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear."
It’s you that escalated it by using words like “criminal and unacceptable” when the reality, if you leave the politicians out of it, is that hundreds of the cleverest most educated scientists in the world are working day and night to come up with the best treatments as quickly as possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal. "
Well it appears that we are test subjects. Even this morning one scientist couldn't give a definitive answer why the vaccine timescale has moved |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In answer to the OP, it’s perfectly simple to understand why, the trials followed a set protocol (three weeks) and hence Pfizer backs up its three week recommendation because it has the trial data to support it.
Practical and lab test experience by governments since the trials were setup show the effectiveness of the vaccine after one dose.
So you have the completely reasonable situation that:
1) Pfizer want to stick by their recommendations because that is what they have tested and know the data for, re product liability etc.
2) The government has calculated that in practice they can protect more people quicker by prioritising first shots"
And the government is more knowledgable than the Pfizer group?
Why would the government ever consult scientists then.
Let's accept that Pfizer are correct, after all they did develop the vaccine, and the government are wrong. Are they now putting more lives in danger because some will think they're protected |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *j48Man
over a year ago
Wigan |
"Only 1 in 10 people who had received the first shot had to be hospitalized so it seems logical to give as many people the first jab as is possible in the initial roll out "
Only one in 10 so vaccinating a million a week will mean how many people will need hospitalisation?
Well still be were we are now by next Christmas |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"In answer to the OP, it’s perfectly simple to understand why, the trials followed a set protocol (three weeks) and hence Pfizer backs up its three week recommendation because it has the trial data to support it.
Practical and lab test experience by governments since the trials were setup show the effectiveness of the vaccine after one dose.
So you have the completely reasonable situation that:
1) Pfizer want to stick by their recommendations because that is what they have tested and know the data for, re product liability etc.
2) The government has calculated that in practice they can protect more people quicker by prioritising first shots
And the government is more knowledgable than the Pfizer group?
Why would the government ever consult scientists then.
Let's accept that Pfizer are correct, after all they did develop the vaccine, and the government are wrong. Are they now putting more lives in danger because some will think they're protected "
The government makes these decisions based on advice from some of the world's leading experts on vaccination. It's not just something that they've plucked out of thin air |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"Only 1 in 10 people who had received the first shot had to be hospitalized so it seems logical to give as many people the first jab as is possible in the initial roll out
Only one in 10 so vaccinating a million a week will mean how many people will need hospitalisation?
Well still be were we are now by next Christmas "
A lot less people who had received only the first shot needed hospitalization after catching covid because it gives you some immunity. The second shot will give you long term immunity |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In answer to the OP, it’s perfectly simple to understand why, the trials followed a set protocol (three weeks) and hence Pfizer backs up its three week recommendation because it has the trial data to support it.
Practical and lab test experience by governments since the trials were setup show the effectiveness of the vaccine after one dose.
So you have the completely reasonable situation that:
1) Pfizer want to stick by their recommendations because that is what they have tested and know the data for, re product liability etc.
2) The government has calculated that in practice they can protect more people quicker by prioritising first shots
And the government is more knowledgable than the Pfizer group?
Why would the government ever consult scientists then.
Let's accept that Pfizer are correct, after all they did develop the vaccine, and the government are wrong. Are they now putting more lives in danger because some will think they're protected "
When I said government in this case that is the JCVI composed of scientists. I’ve explained why Pfizer have said what they’ve said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ljamMan
over a year ago
Edinburgh |
"
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear.
I agree with this statement 110 per cent "
As an aside, I see this as complete nonsense. You can have any opinion you want and as is proven by the myriad of posts and comments on here, you are perfectly free to express them. Other people are free to challenge them.
When people complain about not being able to have an opinion I suspect on some level they know they're talking out their arse, but hate being called on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear.
I agree with this statement 110 per cent
As an aside, I see this as complete nonsense. You can have any opinion you want and as is proven by the myriad of posts and comments on here, you are perfectly free to express them. Other people are free to challenge them.
When people complain about not being able to have an opinion I suspect on some level they know they're talking out their arse, but hate being called on it."
I often think when folk claim you can't have an opinion it because they don't 100% agree with what they are saying. That said to many folk will claim your the devil's spawn for deviation from what they deem the correct opinion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
Well it appears that we are test subjects. Even this morning one scientist couldn't give a definitive answer why the vaccine timescale has moved"
So that twice as many people can get some level of protection quicker, it’s really very simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
Well it appears that we are test subjects. Even this morning one scientist couldn't give a definitive answer why the vaccine timescale has moved
So that twice as many people can get some level of protection quicker, it’s really very simple."
Simple and very good news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oggoneMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear.
I agree with this statement 110 per cent
As an aside, I see this as complete nonsense. You can have any opinion you want and as is proven by the myriad of posts and comments on here, you are perfectly free to express them. Other people are free to challenge them.
When people complain about not being able to have an opinion I suspect on some level they know they're talking out their arse, but hate being called on it."
Yep I'm tired of telling people their opinions does not equate to fact. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aralewisCouple
over a year ago
South Yorkshire |
I just think they’ve not done enough testing on it and rolling it out with doing all the test
Vaccine usually takes 8-10 years not 10 month
Even the so called scientists don’t agree
But never accountable for their wrong forecasts on death and infection |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I just think they’ve not done enough testing on it and rolling it out with doing all the test
Vaccine usually takes 8-10 years not 10 month
Even the so called scientists don’t agree
But never accountable for their wrong forecasts on death and infection "
If you had terminal Cancer would you be saying ‘After all the years they have been researching it and the many billions of pounds spent on it why have they not found a cure”? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I just think they’ve not done enough testing on it and rolling it out with doing all the test
Vaccine usually takes 8-10 years not 10 month
Even the so called scientists don’t agree
But never accountable for their wrong forecasts on death and infection "
Love the phrase “so called scientists” lol.
Don’t have the vaccine then nae bother. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In answer to the OP, it’s perfectly simple to understand why, the trials followed a set protocol (three weeks) and hence Pfizer backs up its three week recommendation because it has the trial data to support it.
Practical and lab test experience by governments since the trials were setup show the effectiveness of the vaccine after one dose.
So you have the completely reasonable situation that:
1) Pfizer want to stick by their recommendations because that is what they have tested and know the data for, re product liability etc.
2) The government has calculated that in practice they can protect more people quicker by prioritising first shots
And the government is more knowledgable than the Pfizer group?
Why would the government ever consult scientists then.
Let's accept that Pfizer are correct, after all they did develop the vaccine, and the government are wrong. Are they now putting more lives in danger because some will think they're protected
The government makes these decisions based on advice from some of the world's leading experts on vaccination. It's not just something that they've plucked out of thin air "
I understand what they say but the government were hailing it as a breakthrough and one injection then will be 3 WEEKS after the initial injection to get the 2nd then a week before fully protected, well that is that you can still get it and still pass it on. Pfizer don't agree with the 3 MONTH gap.
Perhaps someone realised that the logistical problems associated with trying to get 1 MILLION people injected per week.
What's the betting they move it again?
So, if the world leading experts on vaccinations say it's ok, how come they waited until 3/4 weeks after the first roll out?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In answer to the OP, it’s perfectly simple to understand why, the trials followed a set protocol (three weeks) and hence Pfizer backs up its three week recommendation because it has the trial data to support it.
Practical and lab test experience by governments since the trials were setup show the effectiveness of the vaccine after one dose.
So you have the completely reasonable situation that:
1) Pfizer want to stick by their recommendations because that is what they have tested and know the data for, re product liability etc.
2) The government has calculated that in practice they can protect more people quicker by prioritising first shots
And the government is more knowledgable than the Pfizer group?
Why would the government ever consult scientists then.
Let's accept that Pfizer are correct, after all they did develop the vaccine, and the government are wrong. Are they now putting more lives in danger because some will think they're protected
When I said government in this case that is the JCVI composed of scientists. I’ve explained why Pfizer have said what they’ve said. "
So JCVI now say they're right. You're part of the JCVI group then as you're so knowledgeable what they say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear.
I agree with this statement 110 per cent
As an aside, I see this as complete nonsense. You can have any opinion you want and as is proven by the myriad of posts and comments on here, you are perfectly free to express them. Other people are free to challenge them.
When people complain about not being able to have an opinion I suspect on some level they know they're talking out their arse, but hate being called on it."
However, that appears to be your opinion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
Well it appears that we are test subjects. Even this morning one scientist couldn't give a definitive answer why the vaccine timescale has moved
So that twice as many people can get some level of protection quicker, it’s really very simple."
Actually four times as many by simple mathematics but are the government taking full responsibility for changing what the manufacturers say and recommended? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear.
I agree with this statement 110 per cent
As an aside, I see this as complete nonsense. You can have any opinion you want and as is proven by the myriad of posts and comments on here, you are perfectly free to express them. Other people are free to challenge them.
When people complain about not being able to have an opinion I suspect on some level they know they're talking out their arse, but hate being called on it.
Yep I'm tired of telling people their opinions does not equate to fact. "
Absolutely. You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Our biggest problem is we haven’t stockpiled the Oxford vaccine ready for distribution like say India has done, they have already 50 million doses ready to go.
Compared to the wastage on PPE, test and trace as well as Furlough, the cost of mass producing the vaccine ready is a drop in the ocean.
For Whitty to say we will be on rations of vaccines for the months ahead is not good enough.
But that’s just my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oggoneMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"Our biggest problem is we haven’t stockpiled the Oxford vaccine ready for distribution like say India has done, they have already 50 million doses ready to go.
Compared to the wastage on PPE, test and trace as well as Furlough, the cost of mass producing the vaccine ready is a drop in the ocean.
For Whitty to say we will be on rations of vaccines for the months ahead is not good enough.
But that’s just my opinion."
India has a very substantial drug manufacturing base. That helps a lot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Only 1 in 10 people who had received the first shot had to be hospitalized so it seems logical to give as many people the first jab as is possible in the initial roll out
Only one in 10 so vaccinating a million a week will mean how many people will need hospitalisation?
Well still be were we are now by next Christmas "
That’s 1 in 10 of people who had the jab and then caught COVID , meaning 90% of those didn’t have to go to hospital .
It’s not based on one in ten of the entire population. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"1 in 10 people who had received the first shot had to be hospitalized
I hadn't heard this. No wonder there is such a surge in hospital admissions"
Me neither..oh NHS nurse here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ljamMan
over a year ago
Edinburgh |
"
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear.
I agree with this statement 110 per cent
As an aside, I see this as complete nonsense. You can have any opinion you want and as is proven by the myriad of posts and comments on here, you are perfectly free to express them. Other people are free to challenge them.
When people complain about not being able to have an opinion I suspect on some level they know they're talking out their arse, but hate being called on it.
However, that appears to be your opinion "
I think I make that pretty clear... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Honestly your not allowed to have an opinion on the forums unless they are the opinion of what people only want to hear.
I agree with this statement 110 per cent
As an aside, I see this as complete nonsense. You can have any opinion you want and as is proven by the myriad of posts and comments on here, you are perfectly free to express them. Other people are free to challenge them.
When people complain about not being able to have an opinion I suspect on some level they know they're talking out their arse, but hate being called on it.
However, that appears to be your opinion
I think I make that pretty clear..."
You did. It's your opinion not fact |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dsindyTV/TS
over a year ago
East Lancashire |
So let me see if I have this straight.....re the Pfizer vaccine ONLY.
People who developed it say 3 to 4 weeks apart.
Was authorized on that basis.
Was rolled out on that basis.
Now gvmt and JCVI say their data is ok but they think 12 weeks between is good enough (strangely, an idea touted by Tony Blair for which he received some ridicule).
Pfizer come back and say.....no, 3 to 4 weeks apart is what we recommend as that's all the development data we have currently.
Now, who are we to believe? Those who developed it, worked on it, tested it and are ultimately staking their reputation on it.
Or a gvmt which first said it was following the science, then said it was taking note of the science, then said the science was key to defeating this again, then realised that a 3 week timeframe was untenable.
Now, you are all entitled to believe what you will but it seems pretty clear that disregarding the developer's data on timing can be construed as a "bad decision" and if issues do arise from this, BoJo and his chums could find themselves in a bit of a pickle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Our biggest problem is we haven’t stockpiled the Oxford vaccine ready for distribution like say India has done, they have already 50 million doses ready to go.
Compared to the wastage on PPE, test and trace as well as Furlough, the cost of mass producing the vaccine ready is a drop in the ocean.
For Whitty to say we will be on rations of vaccines for the months ahead is not good enough.
But that’s just my opinion.
India has a very substantial drug manufacturing base. That helps a lot. "
So do we in Keele and Wrexham. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So let me see if I have this straight.....re the Pfizer vaccine ONLY.
People who developed it say 3 to 4 weeks apart.
Was authorized on that basis.
Was rolled out on that basis.
Now gvmt and JCVI say their data is ok but they think 12 weeks between is good enough (strangely, an idea touted by Tony Blair for which he received some ridicule).
Pfizer come back and say.....no, 3 to 4 weeks apart is what we recommend as that's all the development data we have currently.
Now, who are we to believe? Those who developed it, worked on it, tested it and are ultimately staking their reputation on it.
Or a gvmt which first said it was following the science, then said it was taking note of the science, then said the science was key to defeating this again, then realised that a 3 week timeframe was untenable.
Now, you are all entitled to believe what you will but it seems pretty clear that disregarding the developer's data on timing can be construed as a "bad decision" and if issues do arise from this, BoJo and his chums could find themselves in a bit of a pickle."
Well just to be accurate, the manufacturer said 3 weeks between the first and second injection and then after a week, then it's to the percentage they said.
I'm hardly surprised that Tony Blair was ridiculed after his time as Prime Minister and the good he did and still, weirdly, thinks people will respect what he says. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
a gvmt which first said it was following the science, then said it was taking note of the science, then said the science was key to defeating this again
"
It was interesting on Andrew Marr this morning that Boris didn't once say he was following the science. He kept saying he was following Public Health Safety Advice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So let me see if I have this straight.....re the Pfizer vaccine ONLY.
People who developed it say 3 to 4 weeks apart.
Was authorized on that basis.
Was rolled out on that basis.
Now gvmt and JCVI say their data is ok but they think 12 weeks between is good enough (strangely, an idea touted by Tony Blair for which he received some ridicule).
Pfizer come back and say.....no, 3 to 4 weeks apart is what we recommend as that's all the development data we have currently.
Now, who are we to believe? Those who developed it, worked on it, tested it and are ultimately staking their reputation on it.
Or a gvmt which first said it was following the science, then said it was taking note of the science, then said the science was key to defeating this again, then realised that a 3 week timeframe was untenable.
Now, you are all entitled to believe what you will but it seems pretty clear that disregarding the developer's data on timing can be construed as a "bad decision" and if issues do arise from this, BoJo and his chums could find themselves in a bit of a pickle."
Exactly my thoughts, but also the mixing of the 2 vaccines could also be an issue down the line, not to mention in 3 months the first vaccine may not be in your system to have the booster and you could be back to square one not being covered at all but you just won't know it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dsindyTV/TS
over a year ago
East Lancashire |
"
a gvmt which first said it was following the science, then said it was taking note of the science, then said the science was key to defeating this again
It was interesting on Andrew Marr this morning that Boris didn't once say he was following the science. He kept saying he was following Public Health Safety Advice. "
BORIS may not have said it but the GOVERNMENT certainly did.....it was one of their catch phrases...following the science was said countless times, until they changed it to taking note of the science. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
Well it appears that we are test subjects. Even this morning one scientist couldn't give a definitive answer why the vaccine timescale has moved
So that twice as many people can get some level of protection quicker, it’s really very simple.
Actually four times as many by simple mathematics but are the government taking full responsibility for changing what the manufacturers say and recommended?"
Four times? Just run that simple maths by me again lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
Well it appears that we are test subjects. Even this morning one scientist couldn't give a definitive answer why the vaccine timescale has moved
So that twice as many people can get some level of protection quicker, it’s really very simple.
Actually four times as many by simple mathematics but are the government taking full responsibility for changing what the manufacturers say and recommended?
Four times? Just run that simple maths by me again lol "
Originally 2 jabs in THREE WEEKS. Now suggesting 2 jabs in TWELVE WEEKS. 12 ÷ 3 = 4 or have maths changed under Covid? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
Given that they are still collecting even more data on the effectiveness of the vaccines there is probably evidence of a longer protection from the first dose giving more time to produce more stocks and so would make sense to vaccinate as many as possible before rolling out the second doses |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given that they are still collecting even more data on the effectiveness of the vaccines there is probably evidence of a longer protection from the first dose giving more time to produce more stocks and so would make sense to vaccinate as many as possible before rolling out the second doses "
So what you are saying is that it's trial and error.. Probable evidence isn't evidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pfizer vaccine has been clearly documented in BMJ and by Pfizer themselves that the first jab only offers protection up to 52.4% and in their many thousands of case studies it give patients 95% after the second shot was given 3 weeks apart, in some cases apparently it can be a as high as 91% but there's not enough data to suggest this is the case for the vast amount, Pfizer have also clearly stated that the vaccine should be given 3 weeks apart because they have zero data on whether even works past the 3 week mark so the second shot 12 weeks apart might not work. The WHO have said and every other country that has authorised the Pfizer vaccine it has to be given 3 weeks apart because that's how Pfizer want it to be done, we have ignored the science (something apparently we don't do) and chose a completely different route.....Why ? We are not test subjects, it's unacceptable and criminal.
Well it appears that we are test subjects. Even this morning one scientist couldn't give a definitive answer why the vaccine timescale has moved
So that twice as many people can get some level of protection quicker, it’s really very simple.
Actually four times as many by simple mathematics but are the government taking full responsibility for changing what the manufacturers say and recommended?
Four times? Just run that simple maths by me again lol
Originally 2 jabs in THREE WEEKS. Now suggesting 2 jabs in TWELVE WEEKS. 12 ÷ 3 = 4 or have maths changed under Covid? "
I didn’t realise you’d assumed that there is no constraint on vaccine production rather than administering it.
In reality there isn’t the vaccine supply to allow that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Pfizer BioNTech report that the first jab provides 91% protection so I imagine its a case of both tbh"
Unfortunately, that’s not quite right. It’s more like early 50s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think some are forgetting what these vaccines are targeted at doing they ain't cures they are targeting infection rates to further herd immunity.
So the govt seems to be taking the line of 4 times as many folk with over 50% to possibly cutting down the rate of transmission more than gaining the high cover rate quicker |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"4 times as many ?
Why question?
Was 3 weeks apart now 12 weeks apart "
I’ve told you the constraint is vaccine supply. One person can only ever get two doses. You can’t do four times as many people, only double.
We’ve discussed this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"4 times as many ?
Why question?
Was 3 weeks apart now 12 weeks apart
I’ve told you the constraint is vaccine supply. One person can only ever get two doses. You can’t do four times as many people, only double.
We’ve discussed this."
Discussed with whom? You haven't discussed it with me.
If one person can only ever receive 2 doses then why are they saying it might need a booster 3 to 6 months later or is it absolutely guaranteed only to have the 2 injections?
Without fudging and speaking to me like I'm something you stepped in, you explain in detail how you can take an injection say on week 1 and week 12 , how will you only get twice as many?
My thoughts and obviously you consider me an imbecile are that if you can inject 1 million per week every week for 3 weeks, that equates to 3 million, yes? If you inject the same amount of people (1 million) per week for 12 weeks, that equates to 12 million, yes? Now, when I went to school and obviously it may be different now but 3 times 4 equals 12. The 4 being 4 times more than the original 3. 3 × 4 = 12.
If there's a new modern way of calculating it, please tell me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
should have added that you always had 12 weeks in both scenarios , just that some people had to have their second jab sooner within it, thats where your maths fell down you were working it out on 3 weeks then stop vs 12 weeks then stop which wasn’t comparing like with like |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
"
That’s what I said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
"
1 A
2 B
3 C
4 D
5 E
6 F
7 G
8 H
9. I
10 J
11 K
12 L
13 M - A
14 N - B
13 O - C
14 P - D
15 Q - E
16 R - F
17 S - G
18 T - H
Etc to the end
You have put after D that A gets 2nd injection but A won't get the 2nd injection till week 13. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
so explain to me how we were able to double capacity in week 13 please?
it doesn’t work like that... in week 13 you have to go back to A and you don’t have this double capacity to also do M
yea this is simplistic and in reality some of the groups may slightly overlap each other depending on which appointment suit people but the logisitcs and number able to be reached remain the same |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
1 A
2 B
3 C
4 D
5 E
6 F
7 G
8 H
9. I
10 J
11 K
12 L
13 M - A
14 N - B
13 O - C
14 P - D
15 Q - E
16 R - F
17 S - G
18 T - H
Etc to the end
You have put after D that A gets 2nd injection but A won't get the 2nd injection till week 13. "
there are 2 columns of information (not easily displayed in a forum post) the first column was based on the 3 week 2nd jab scenario and the second column is if we wait for 12 weeks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"4 times as many ?
Why question?
Was 3 weeks apart now 12 weeks apart
I’ve told you the constraint is vaccine supply. One person can only ever get two doses. You can’t do four times as many people, only double.
We’ve discussed this."
there's multiple vaccines which is another problem we and other developed countries around the world are buying around 5 times our population leaving very little for less developed countries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
"
your illustration is administering second dose at week 3 there's your issue it's not administered till week 12 at the earliest therefore there's 4 times as many got one dose before secon doses start by which time a surplus of vaccine has been accumulated |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
your illustration is administering second dose at week 3 there's your issue it's not administered till week 12 at the earliest therefore there's 4 times as many got one dose before secon doses start by which time a surplus of vaccine has been accumulated"
Thank you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
1 A
2 B
3 C
4 D
5 E
6 F
7 G
8 H
9. I
10 J
11 K
12 L
13 M - A
14 N - B
13 O - C
14 P - D
15 Q - E
16 R - F
17 S - G
18 T - H
Etc to the end
You have put after D that A gets 2nd injection but A won't get the 2nd injection till week 13.
there are 2 columns of information (not easily displayed in a forum post) the first column was based on the 3 week 2nd jab scenario and the second column is if we wait for 12 weeks "
The original illustration is doing 3 weeks apart |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
your illustration is administering second dose at week 3 there's your issue it's not administered till week 12 at the earliest therefore there's 4 times as many got one dose before secon doses start by which time a surplus of vaccine has been accumulated"
ive already explain in multiple earlier posts that example shows both administer after 3 weeks and administer after 12 , its just typing on a forum doesn’t allow it to be displayed all that clearly
its not just stock of the vaccine that is stopping us , the capacity to actually vaccinate people is also a limiting factor... throw all the stock and brands of vaccine you want at it and push it to 60 week wait if you like, but by trimming people to one dose now one dose later you only ever double the number that can be met by postponing the second the doses , for every 1 person that does not yet take the second dose, 1 more person can have the first ... 1+ 1 = 2
its like these daft maths questions they put in exams or that get spun around on facebook where there are extra rogue bits of information in there to lead you astray from what is actually a very simple calculation
yes capacity can be further increased by additional staff which is when extra vaccine stock will also come into play but that wasn’t the discussion taking place or the question asked
anyway why we arguing about 4 or 2 anyway when i guess the overall point was more people reached faster can only be a good thing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
your illustration is administering second dose at week 3 there's your issue it's not administered till week 12 at the earliest therefore there's 4 times as many got one dose before secon doses start by which time a surplus of vaccine has been accumulated
ive already explain in multiple earlier posts that example shows both administer after 3 weeks and administer after 12 , its just typing on a forum doesn’t allow it to be displayed all that clearly
its not just stock of the vaccine that is stopping us , the capacity to actually vaccinate people is also a limiting factor... throw all the stock and brands of vaccine you want at it and push it to 60 week wait if you like, but by trimming people to one dose now one dose later you only ever double the number that can be met by postponing the second the doses , for every 1 person that does not yet take the second dose, 1 more person can have the first ... 1+ 1 = 2
its like these daft maths questions they put in exams or that get spun around on facebook where there are extra rogue bits of information in there to lead you astray from what is actually a very simple calculation
yes capacity can be further increased by additional staff which is when extra vaccine stock will also come into play but that wasn’t the discussion taking place or the question asked
anyway why we arguing about 4 or 2 anyway when i guess the overall point was more people reached faster can only be a good thing "
folks problem is effectiveness one dose over 50% effectiveness 2 doses 97% so some are wanting large numbers at over 50 while others want smaller numbers at 97 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The vaccine wont give permanent immunity, so someone taking it might have to do it 4 times a year or more, how long immunity do you think it will give?"
that hasn’t been determined yet shag
it was the only bit of testing that couldn’t be sped up and overlapped ... the how long it lasts ... for all we know so far it could be lifetime |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
your illustration is administering second dose at week 3 there's your issue it's not administered till week 12 at the earliest therefore there's 4 times as many got one dose before secon doses start by which time a surplus of vaccine has been accumulated
ive already explain in multiple earlier posts that example shows both administer after 3 weeks and administer after 12 , its just typing on a forum doesn’t allow it to be displayed all that clearly
its not just stock of the vaccine that is stopping us , the capacity to actually vaccinate people is also a limiting factor... throw all the stock and brands of vaccine you want at it and push it to 60 week wait if you like, but by trimming people to one dose now one dose later you only ever double the number that can be met by postponing the second the doses , for every 1 person that does not yet take the second dose, 1 more person can have the first ... 1+ 1 = 2
its like these daft maths questions they put in exams or that get spun around on facebook where there are extra rogue bits of information in there to lead you astray from what is actually a very simple calculation
yes capacity can be further increased by additional staff which is when extra vaccine stock will also come into play but that wasn’t the discussion taking place or the question asked
anyway why we arguing about 4 or 2 anyway when i guess the overall point was more people reached faster can only be a good thing folks problem is effectiveness one dose over 50% effectiveness 2 doses 97% so some are wanting large numbers at over 50 while others want smaller numbers at 97 "
The one dose effectiveness isn’t known but intuitively it will be more than 50%.
It’s like the difference between going to the gym once or twice a week. The big benefit is likely to be from the first visit, bonus exercises with curls for the girls on the second visit. But the second visit won’t double your fitness level. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The vaccine wont give permanent immunity, so someone taking it might have to do it 4 times a year or more, how long immunity do you think it will give?
that hasn’t been determined yet shag
it was the only bit of testing that couldn’t be sped up and overlapped ... the how long it lasts ... for all we know so far it could be lifetime "
they said at one point 3 4 months but the hope is it will leave t-cells that remember the sequencing for the antibodies that work (patients that had sars have these) against covid unfortunately those who take the vaccine will be the test subjects on this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
1 A
2 B
3 C
4 D
5 E
6 F
7 G
8 H
9. I
10 J
11 K
12 L
13 M - A
14 N - B
13 O - C
14 P - D
15 Q - E
16 R - F
17 S - G
18 T - H
Etc to the end
You have put after D that A gets 2nd injection but A won't get the 2nd injection till week 13.
there are 2 columns of information (not easily displayed in a forum post) the first column was based on the 3 week 2nd jab scenario and the second column is if we wait for 12 weeks
The original illustration is doing 3 weeks apart "
I’ve thought of a better way of explaining your fallacy -
Your calculation only works if in that 12 week period the oldest people who were going to get a repeat injection after 3 weeks then also get another two injections after that - eg at 6 and 9 weeks. In that case, yes, not giving them any repeats would free up four times as many slots.
But they aren’t, those “three weekers” were out of the equation after week 3. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
1 A
2 B
3 C
4 D
5 E
6 F
7 G
8 H
9. I
10 J
11 K
12 L
13 M - A
14 N - B
13 O - C
14 P - D
15 Q - E
16 R - F
17 S - G
18 T - H
Etc to the end
You have put after D that A gets 2nd injection but A won't get the 2nd injection till week 13.
there are 2 columns of information (not easily displayed in a forum post) the first column was based on the 3 week 2nd jab scenario and the second column is if we wait for 12 weeks
The original illustration is doing 3 weeks apart
I’ve thought of a better way of explaining your fallacy -
Your calculation only works if in that 12 week period the oldest people who were going to get a repeat injection after 3 weeks then also get another two injections after that - eg at 6 and 9 weeks. In that case, yes, not giving them any repeats would free up four times as many slots.
But they aren’t, those “three weekers” were out of the equation after week 3. "
i think we are actually making the same point (its twice as many) and the way i tried to type it out just wasnt clear... i tried to then explain in words and that hasnt worked either ... will try one last way
scenario 1- original plan of 2nd vaccination after 3 weeks :
1 - A
2 - B
3 - C
4 - A
5 - B
6 - C
7 - D
8 - E
9 - F
10 - D
11 - E
12 - F
6 groups vaccinated in 12 weeks
scenario 2 : same amount of vaccine and same capacity to give then out
1 - A
2 - B
3 - C
4 - D
5 - E
6 - F
7 - G
8 - H
9 - I
10 - J
11 - K
12 - L
12 groups vaccinated
12 = 6*2 so the reach was doubled |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"because you are giving out the second dose to a second set of people that lets you double output not quadruple it
time line vs group in 3 wk scenario vs group in 12 week scenario as follows
wk 1 - A - A
2 - B - B
3 - C - C
4 - A - D
5 - B - E
6 - C - F
7 - D - G
8 - E - H
9 - F - I
10 - D - J
11 - E - K
12 - F - L
in scenario one you reached 6 groups of people with 2 dose of vaccine, in scenario 2 with the same vaccine number and injecting capacity you can reach 12 groups ... thats twice as many not 4 times
1 A
2 B
3 C
4 D
5 E
6 F
7 G
8 H
9. I
10 J
11 K
12 L
13 M - A
14 N - B
13 O - C
14 P - D
15 Q - E
16 R - F
17 S - G
18 T - H
Etc to the end
You have put after D that A gets 2nd injection but A won't get the 2nd injection till week 13.
there are 2 columns of information (not easily displayed in a forum post) the first column was based on the 3 week 2nd jab scenario and the second column is if we wait for 12 weeks
The original illustration is doing 3 weeks apart
I’ve thought of a better way of explaining your fallacy -
Your calculation only works if in that 12 week period the oldest people who were going to get a repeat injection after 3 weeks then also get another two injections after that - eg at 6 and 9 weeks. In that case, yes, not giving them any repeats would free up four times as many slots.
But they aren’t, those “three weekers” were out of the equation after week 3.
i think we are actually making the same point (its twice as many) and the way i tried to type it out just wasnt clear... i tried to then explain in words and that hasnt worked either ... will try one last way
scenario 1- original plan of 2nd vaccination after 3 weeks :
1 - A
2 - B
3 - C
4 - A
5 - B
6 - C
7 - D
8 - E
9 - F
10 - D
11 - E
12 - F
6 groups vaccinated in 12 weeks
scenario 2 : same amount of vaccine and same capacity to give then out
1 - A
2 - B
3 - C
4 - D
5 - E
6 - F
7 - G
8 - H
9 - I
10 - J
11 - K
12 - L
12 groups vaccinated
12 = 6*2 so the reach was doubled "
Fudge figures much like statisticians |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The deferred strategy very much sounds like a short term herd immunity to reduce the effects of infection. It makes little scientific sense to ignore the vaccine trials and dosing and then claim anything else.
My worry is that using an mRNA vaccine that may then need multiple injections, may render the side effects much more common. I guess it’s a case of taking a hit in order to protect your neighbour/at risk relative etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Given that they are still collecting even more data on the effectiveness of the vaccines there is probably evidence of a longer protection from the first dose giving more time to produce more stocks and so would make sense to vaccinate as many as possible before rolling out the second doses
So what you are saying is that it's trial and error.. Probable evidence isn't evidence. "
No I’m not saying trial and error I’m saying that research is not ended it’s an ever rolling process and new figures come out as more and more are tested and retested.
Just because it’s been authorised they don’t stop checking and rechecking |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *reyyaMan
over a year ago
North Yorkshire |
"Well a few weeks ago, a vaccine was rolled out as a 'game changer' and the scientists said the first injection followed by a second injection THREE WEEKS later and the recipient would be covered a week or so later and so it duly started and albeit slow, lots were hailing it as something to get us back to normality or something akin to that. It stated it was critical that the second injection was 3 weeks after the first.
The government announced who will get the vaccine in priority.
After this, lots are shouting certain groups should take priority because of reasons they held, irrespective if it was a higher or lower priority than others abd so arguments ensued.
A lot were concentrated on pro and anti vaxxers
Anyway, this is what was going to happen.
Now, apparently we can go THREE MONTHS between injections.
Seems strange that the period has been extended by nine weeks.
Has some scientific evidence changed or has the penny dropped just how big the task is.
I haven't got the current figures but I'm sure someone will have but the previous rate was around 14,000 a day. The target was ONE MILLION per week so that meant they'd have to up the rate by around TEN TIMES the rate
If course, to achieve that, they'd have to inject 1 million for the first 3 weeks and then 2 million thereafter.
We can all say get a million injected a week but has they any idea how big that is? Logistically a nightmare.
Then think twice that number.
So, the scientists who said it HAD to be 3 weeks later for the 2nd injection are not right then or why have the intervening period now been extended 4 fold? Yes, yes, to get more people injected but is this now as effective and if it is, why wasn't that said in the first place or is it still being trialled.
I am not a pro or anti vaxxer so please no abusive messages or replies having a go at me.
It's a simple question.
"
What makes you think anything is going to change after the vaccine? Has government made an announcement about this? More likely it will be the next item in their agenda.
The school kids. 10 years or so of schooling. They have lost two years. 20 per cent. They will never catch up. Is it intentional? Dumbing down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well a few weeks ago, a vaccine was rolled out as a 'game changer' and the scientists said the first injection followed by a second injection THREE WEEKS later and the recipient would be covered a week or so later and so it duly started and albeit slow, lots were hailing it as something to get us back to normality or something akin to that. It stated it was critical that the second injection was 3 weeks after the first.
The government announced who will get the vaccine in priority.
After this, lots are shouting certain groups should take priority because of reasons they held, irrespective if it was a higher or lower priority than others abd so arguments ensued.
A lot were concentrated on pro and anti vaxxers
Anyway, this is what was going to happen.
Now, apparently we can go THREE MONTHS between injections.
Seems strange that the period has been extended by nine weeks.
Has some scientific evidence changed or has the penny dropped just how big the task is.
I haven't got the current figures but I'm sure someone will have but the previous rate was around 14,000 a day. The target was ONE MILLION per week so that meant they'd have to up the rate by around TEN TIMES the rate
If course, to achieve that, they'd have to inject 1 million for the first 3 weeks and then 2 million thereafter.
We can all say get a million injected a week but has they any idea how big that is? Logistically a nightmare.
Then think twice that number.
So, the scientists who said it HAD to be 3 weeks later for the 2nd injection are not right then or why have the intervening period now been extended 4 fold? Yes, yes, to get more people injected but is this now as effective and if it is, why wasn't that said in the first place or is it still being trialled.
I am not a pro or anti vaxxer so please no abusive messages or replies having a go at me.
It's a simple question.
What makes you think anything is going to change after the vaccine? Has government made an announcement about this? More likely it will be the next item in their agenda.
The school kids. 10 years or so of schooling. They have lost two years. 20 per cent. They will never catch up. Is it intentional? Dumbing down. "
they obviously missed less school than you ... in the uk the MINIMUM schooling you have is 11 years with many doing 13 before college
of that they have so far lost less than 1 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
