FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Covid: Gap between Pfizer vaccine doses should be halved, doctors say

Covid: Gap between Pfizer vaccine doses should be halved, doctors say

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-23/covid-gap-between-pfizer-vaccine-doses-should-be-halved-doctors-say

In brief Pfizer, the who, and a hell of a lot of doctors are advising that a 6 week limit in between jabs should be the maximum time. And then only in exceptional circumstances.

My question is have we stopped listening to the science?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *sGivesWoodWoman over a year ago

ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL

Yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt."

I thought Pfizer warned against it as soon as they announced the 12 week gap?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt."

The science never said it was fine to do. We just made it up, unlike any other country

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

Our Government was advised bySage that 12 weeks was fine. Sage was our Science at that time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-23/covid-gap-between-pfizer-vaccine-doses-should-be-halved-doctors-say

In brief Pfizer, the who, and a hell of a lot of doctors are advising that a 6 week limit in between jabs should be the maximum time. And then only in exceptional circumstances.

My question is have we stopped listening to the science?"

There's not only one version of "the science" though is there?

"science" and all the various flavours of it are one of the inputs into the decision making process.

Not defending the decisions by the way. But just saying thee isn't only one true science or scientist or scientific board.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The JCVI said: “Given data indicating high efficacy from the first dose of both Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines, the committee advises that delivery of the first dose to as many eligible individuals as possible should be initially prioritised over delivery of a second vaccine dose. This should maximise the short-term impact of the programme.

“The second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may be given between three to 12 weeks following the first dose. The second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine may be given between four to 12 weeks following the first dose.”

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrista BellendWoman over a year ago

surrounded by twinkly lights

We are trying to push the science as far as we can and see what happens, this is how docs found the different drugs that they were confident experimenting with to helps alleviate symptoms

We need to find a middle ground that helps us make new discoveries whilst providing adequate protection to as many as possible

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Pfizer say 2-3 weeks.

WHO & BMA say 6 weeks.

SAGE say 12 weeks.

Who is right?

My view is that we just don't have the data yet to back up any of them.

Is it better to give a higher % of the population some protection. Or is it better to give a lower % of the population more protection?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dsindyTV/TS over a year ago

East Lancashire

The science of extension to 12 weeks is based NOT on hard data BUT on EXTRAPOLATION of data....2 very different things.

Not many (if indeed any) other countries are extending the gap between shots so far, and the BMA is saying that 12 weeks is difficult to justify and are calling for a maximum 6 weeks.

Who is right, who is wrong? I dont know....but all the people having a 12 week gap between shots have just become government guinea pigs, whether they like it or not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-23/covid-gap-between-pfizer-vaccine-doses-should-be-halved-doctors-say

In brief Pfizer, the who, and a hell of a lot of doctors are advising that a 6 week limit in between jabs should be the maximum time. And then only in exceptional circumstances.

My question is have we stopped listening to the science?

There's not only one version of "the science" though is there?

"science" and all the various flavours of it are one of the inputs into the decision making process.

Not defending the decisions by the way. But just saying thee isn't only one true science or scientist or scientific board. "

Should we not have just listened to the scientists that made the vaccine and had gone all the clinical trials on it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ig1gaz1Man over a year ago

bradford

over at bmj

Revisiting the UK’s strategy for delaying the second dose of the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine

The UK’s strategy to delay the second dose of both the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines is so that more people can be vaccinated with their first dose rather than giving a smaller number of people both doses. The hope is that this will save more lives. There are also supply and delivery pressures with the vaccine rollout, although this has not been disclosed as a reason for the dosing delay.

its where government ignore the science and only vaccine the rich population.

whilst the rest get a single vacination

already seen the vaccine transfered to the south area

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I'm not sure we've listened to the science at all yet

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tace 309TV/TS over a year ago

durham

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

The science never said it was fine to do. We just made it up, unlike any other country"
e actly we, Re the only country following a 12 week route. The idea was to get a first dose into as many as possible with the theory that some protection is better than none. It's a big gamble this country is taking. Why do our scientists think they know better or different than anyone elses

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

The science never said it was fine to do. We just made it up, unlike any other country"

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atnip make me purrWoman over a year ago

Reading

I didn't but the government listen only to the science that suits their narrative. All over 80s should have a timely second jab. I am happy to wait to protect the most vulnerable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lirty-CoupleCouple over a year ago

Bexley

There's always doctors and scientists on one side of the argument and others who vehemently disagree with them. The rest of us are left in the middle as always try to decide whom to believe.

One thing is certain - pharma companies, scientists and medics aren't immune from making big mistakes as we all know.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ig1gaz1Man over a year ago

bradford

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

The science never said it was fine to do. We just made it up, unlike any other countrye actly we, Re the only country following a 12 week route. The idea was to get a first dose into as many as possible with the theory that some protection is better than none. It's a big gamble this country is taking. Why do our scientists think they know better or different than anyone elses"

its not our scientists its the government who has changed the recomendations all to be precieved as doing something more

to vaccine more people with one jab yet can cost lives in others

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove2pleaseseukMan over a year ago

Hastings

Is this not more about %

1st vaccine jab and your 70% protected

Second jab

At 3 to 4 weeks 95% protection

At 12 weeks 85%

But we will have lots more people with 70% protection

So a lot less getting really sick and needing hospital intervention.

I might be completely wrong but it's how I read it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"Is this not more about %

1st vaccine jab and your 70% protected

Second jab

At 3 to 4 weeks 95% protection

At 12 weeks 85%

But we will have lots more people with 70% protection

So a lot less getting really sick and needing hospital intervention.

I might be completely wrong but it's how I read it."

Indeed. The current flu vaccine is at 45% efficacy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

The Israeli data says the first dose gives less than 40% protection

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"The Israeli data says the first dose gives less than 40% protection"

That was just in the first three weeks rising to 60 or 90 after 14

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-23/covid-gap-between-pfizer-vaccine-doses-should-be-halved-doctors-say

In brief Pfizer, the who, and a hell of a lot of doctors are advising that a 6 week limit in between jabs should be the maximum time. And then only in exceptional circumstances.

My question is have we stopped listening to the science?

There's not only one version of "the science" though is there?

"science" and all the various flavours of it are one of the inputs into the decision making process.

Not defending the decisions by the way. But just saying thee isn't only one true science or scientist or scientific board.

Should we not have just listened to the scientists that made the vaccine and had gone all the clinical trials on it?"

I don't know. I have none of the training and very few of the facts. I do know that scientists are fallible, rarely agree and do not always have perfect answers. Somehow they have been placed centre stage of everything here in place of leadership. Unfair to them but they are happy to take the lights for now.

The science so far has got us to policies of, wash your hands more, stay away from other people, and if youre ill stay at home. Pretty sure my gran told me that when I was 5. That sounds like I'm attacking scientists. I'm really not. I'm saying we need to stop treating every utterance as true and universally applicable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

"The Israeli data says the first dose gives less than 40% protection

That was just in the first three weeks rising to 60 or 90 after 14"

But everyone vaccinated in Israel was given a second dose after 3 weeks so there are no figures from Israel of efficacy of one dose at 12 or 14 weeks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If my memory serves me right they were hoping for 50-60 percent efficacy when they first started looking into vaccines.

The fact they got 95% seems to have given everybody nosebleeds.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The Israeli data says the first dose gives less than 40% protection

That was just in the first three weeks rising to 60 or 90 after 14"

Is that a assumption as Israel have not been vaccinating anywhere near that long yet?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"Meanwhile, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Stephen Evans said, “The UK will soon have its own data showing efficacy after the first dose for the different vaccines currently in use and any policy changes should await more robust data. If, for example, efficacy after one dose was 33% but efficacy after two doses was 60%, the UK policy would still be justified. Similar arguments apply in relation to efficacy against serious disease.”

BMJ Published 22 January 2021

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *usybee73Man over a year ago

in the sticks

"Pfizer say 2-3 weeks.

WHO & BMA say 6 weeks.

SAGE say 12 weeks.

Who is right?

My view is that we just don't have the data yet to back up any of them.

Is it better to give a higher % of the population some protection. Or is it better to give a lower % of the population more protection?"

it would be like ford telling you to change your oil at every 20k and a mechanic down the road saying 40k is fine .... who would you follow for advice?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"The Israeli data says the first dose gives less than 40% protection

That was just in the first three weeks rising to 60 or 90 after 14

Is that a assumption as Israel have not been vaccinating anywhere near that long yet?"

Go read the data: Can't post those links here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

Is that a assumption as Israel have not been vaccinating anywhere near that long yet?"

Israel started vaccinating on 19 December

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Is that a assumption as Israel have not been vaccinating anywhere near that long yet?

Israel started vaccinating on 19 December"

Yep I thought around then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"If my memory serves me right they were hoping for 50-60 percent efficacy when they first started looking into vaccines.

The fact they got 95% seems to have given everybody nosebleeds."

It's one of the side effects

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"The data that is being discussed now: Is because Israel said the efficacy rate was lower than expected in their experience at 33%

Many Doctors around the world have said that the data does not have a proper context to make those extrapolations."

vis-a-vi:

BMJ Published 22 January 2021

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *usybee73Man over a year ago

in the sticks

""The data that is being discussed now: Is because Israel said the efficacy rate was lower than expected in their experience at 33%

Many Doctors around the world have said that the data does not have a proper context to make those extrapolations."

vis-a-vi:

BMJ Published 22 January 2021

would of thought all of this would of been sorted out before passing it safe ... just saying

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

would of thought all of this would of been sorted out before passing it safe ... just saying"

If we could have waited ten years or more for a vaccine as we usually do then perhaps it would have been. What we have is what we have.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

What we have is what we have."

But we aren't following the manufacturers instructions

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *usybee73Man over a year ago

in the sticks

would of thought all of this would of been sorted out before passing it safe ... just saying

If we could have waited ten years or more for a vaccine as we usually do then perhaps it would have been. What we have is what we have."

might be out of lockdown by then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oubleswing2019Man over a year ago

Colchester

"it would be like ford telling you to change your oil at every 20k and a mechanic down the road saying 40k is fine .... who would you follow for advice?"

I'd always go in line with the manufacturer's recommendations.

They have the resources to have tested their recommendation and have the data to back it up. They also see the "bigger picture" in terms of performance, wear and tear, and affects on other systems.

Mechanic down the road may have an opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. Mechanic would need to provide counter-evidence that Ford's claim is untrue. The onus is on the mechanic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"it would be like ford telling you to change your oil at every 20k and a mechanic down the road saying 40k is fine .... who would you follow for advice?

I'd always go in line with the manufacturer's recommendations.

They have the resources to have tested their recommendation and have the data to back it up. They also see the "bigger picture" in terms of performance, wear and tear, and affects on other systems.

Mechanic down the road may have an opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. Mechanic would need to provide counter-evidence that Ford's claim is untrue. The onus is on the mechanic.

Do you think dealers make more money from more regular service intervals and selling the manufacturers spare parts? Not all that glistens is gold.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *usybee73Man over a year ago

in the sticks

"it would be like ford telling you to change your oil at every 20k and a mechanic down the road saying 40k is fine .... who would you follow for advice?

I'd always go in line with the manufacturer's recommendations.

They have the resources to have tested their recommendation and have the data to back it up. They also see the "bigger picture" in terms of performance, wear and tear, and affects on other systems.

Mechanic down the road may have an opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. Mechanic would need to provide counter-evidence that Ford's claim is untrue. The onus is on the mechanic.

quite so, but sage and the rest think other wise, im sure some one will take them to court ... oh no you cant as no liability and they wonder why people are dubious

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"it would be like ford telling you to change your oil at every 20k and a mechanic down the road saying 40k is fine .... who would you follow for advice?

I'd always go in line with the manufacturer's recommendations.

They have the resources to have tested their recommendation and have the data to back it up. They also see the "bigger picture" in terms of performance, wear and tear, and affects on other systems.

Mechanic down the road may have an opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. Mechanic would need to provide counter-evidence that Ford's claim is untrue. The onus is on the mechanic.

Do you think dealers make more money from more regular service intervals and selling the manufacturers spare parts? Not all that glistens is gold. "

But back to topic...as the dealership on this one will get the same amount of money whether I be 3 or 12 week intervals. So I dont know what the dealership would get out of this...do you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"it would be like ford telling you to change your oil at every 20k and a mechanic down the road saying 40k is fine .... who would you follow for advice?

I'd always go in line with the manufacturer's recommendations.

They have the resources to have tested their recommendation and have the data to back it up. They also see the "bigger picture" in terms of performance, wear and tear, and affects on other systems.

Mechanic down the road may have an opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. Mechanic would need to provide counter-evidence that Ford's claim is untrue. The onus is on the mechanic.

quite so, but sage and the rest think other wise, im sure some one will take them to court ... oh no you cant as no liability and they wonder why people are dubious "

I wonder if Pfizer would stop supplying us as we are going against their instructions of use and self medicating.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

I wonder if Pfizer would stop supplying us as we are going against their instructions of use and self medicating. "

No.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Yes. We only paid lip service to it, if it supported what we were going to do or if we could get it to shoulder all of the blame. We shuffle between the scientists and the public for blame purposes, ensuring that none accrues in Westminster.

The over 80s especially, who have the highest risk of severe illness and death should have this 12 weeks delay reduced close to the evidence from the research trials evidence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt."

No it wasn't. There's never been any science to delay the Pfizer one. No unpublished data. Chris Whitty's answer to this question on last night's briefing was utterly evasive and I believe this has been an entirely political decision, so Boris can willy wave at the EU and say we've done more vaccinations.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset."

Actually . . . the science said . . .

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"Is this not more about %

1st vaccine jab and your 70% protected

Second jab

At 3 to 4 weeks 95% protection

At 12 weeks 85%

But we will have lots more people with 70% protection

So a lot less getting really sick and needing hospital intervention.

I might be completely wrong but it's how I read it."

I think you're referring to the Oxford-AZ one. Most people here are discussing the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which has a different set of recommendations (and efficacy rate).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset.

Actually . . . the science said . . .

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice."

The JCVI have never produced any data to support delaying the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Pfizer-BioNTech have said it's not the right thing. Huge numbers of doctors, virologists and others have said the same. Data from Israel shows lower efficacy 14 days after 1 dose than Pfizer's study (Pfizer data was 52% efficacy 14 days after 1 dose, Israel's real world data is 33% 14 days after 1 dose).

I believe the JCVI has been pressurised into that recommendation.

Chris Whitty could not explain it, he could not cite specific data for it. No-one has published any evidence whatsoever that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can be delayed so much and retain its efficacy overall.

All I have written is about the Pfizer vaccine. Not the Oxford-AZ one, for which there IS some data about longer intervals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

"Is this not more about %

1st vaccine jab and your 70% protected

Second jab

At 3 to 4 weeks 95% protection

At 12 weeks 85%

But we will have lots more people with 70% protection

So a lot less getting really sick and needing hospital intervention.

I might be completely wrong but it's how I read it."

What you are saying makes sense, provided those percentages are accurate. Thing is, we still don’t know yet with all the different data coming from different scientists.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset."

Exactly right, our government went against the science, wrongly increased the time gap, to get more first doses in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ornLordMan over a year ago

Wiltshire and London

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset.

Exactly right, our government went against the science, wrongly increased the time gap, to get more first doses in."

Yep, a short-termist attempt at boosting the stats to make the UK look "world-beating", at the cost of a risk of a higher death toll.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset.

Actually . . . the science said . . .

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice.

I believe the JCVI has been pressurised into that recommendation.

All I have written is about the Pfizer vaccine. Not the Oxford-AZ one, for which there IS some data about longer intervals."

"The data that is being discussed now: Is because Israel said the efficacy rate was lower than expected in their experience at 33%

Many Doctors around the world have said that the data does not have a proper context to make those extrapolations."

vis-a-vi:

BMJ Published 22 January 2021

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

1st vaccine jab and your 70% protected

Where do you get this figure of 70% from ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Can anyone answer my question above?

I'd love to know what you all think.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset.

Actually . . . the science said . . .

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice.

I believe the JCVI has been pressurised into that recommendation.

All I have written is about the Pfizer vaccine. Not the Oxford-AZ one, for which there IS some data about longer intervals.

"The data that is being discussed now: Is because Israel said the efficacy rate was lower than expected in their experience at 33%

Many Doctors around the world have said that the data does not have a proper context to make those extrapolations."

vis-a-vi:

BMJ Published 22 January 2021"

The Imperial College REACT study, latest data up to 15th Jan, shows prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 has continued to increase. Prevalence more than doubled in those aged 65 and above to 0.94% in the period of the study, which is awaiting peer review.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine started to be rolled out in the UK before Christmas yet we're seeing no good evidence of a drop in infections in the age group most likely to be vaccinated.

More on the REACT study, including link to the pre-print:

Alford, J (2021) Coronavirus infections are not falling in England, latest REACT findings show; Imperial College London [ONLINE]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"Can anyone answer my question above?

I'd love to know what you all think."

****Is it better to give a higher % of the population some protection. Or is it better to give a lower % of the population more protection?****

This one?

Hazard a guess at give a smaller dose and protect more the population.

2 Reasons:

1. We can always add a second dose later.

2. Flu vaccination efficacy often sits between 40/60% each year and seems to do a pretty good job of covering those that have it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"Can anyone answer my question above?

I'd love to know what you all think.

****Is it better to give a higher % of the population some protection. Or is it better to give a lower % of the population more protection?****

This one?

Hazard a guess at give a smaller dose and protect more the population.

2 Reasons:

1. We can always add a second dose later.

2. Flu vaccination efficacy often sits between 40/60% each year and seems to do a pretty good job of covering those that have it.

1. The benefits of the first dose might not be sustained long enough for the second dose to make a significant benefit in people who make a weaker immune response. Like the over 80s. The Pfizer study only included a tiny number of people over 75. We have no evidence these people will be adequately covered by such a gap.

2. The seasonal flu jab is an entirely different thing. It's a different virus, different design of vaccine and a totally different set of parameters to measure effectiveness. We cannot extrapolate from one to the other.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset.

Actually . . . the science said . . .

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice.

I believe the JCVI has been pressurised into that recommendation.

All I have written is about the Pfizer vaccine. Not the Oxford-AZ one, for which there IS some data about longer intervals.

"The data that is being discussed now: Is because Israel said the efficacy rate was lower than expected in their experience at 33%

Many Doctors around the world have said that the data does not have a proper context to make those extrapolations."

vis-a-vi:

BMJ Published 22 January 2021

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine started to be rolled out in the UK before Christmas yet we're seeing no good evidence of a drop in infections in the age group most likely to be vaccinated.

More on the REACT study, including link to the pre-print:

Alford, J (2021) Coronavirus infections are not falling in England, latest REACT findings show; Imperial College London [ONLINE]"

I seen a owner of a care home group on tv the other night,calling for the second dose to be brought forward as there was a outbreak amongst residents and staff in the homes 3 weeks after receiving their first jabs.

I'm no scientist and dont need to trail the internet to see what is happening is totally wrong and against the science.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

Also read a story of a care home where half the staff refused to get vaccinated when it was offered.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Also read a story of a care home where half the staff refused to get vaccinated when it was offered."

Totally different story as this one all had it. I honestly cant see why you keep deflecting and cant accept that this is proven to be the wrong way to do it when all the evidence is against it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset.

Actually . . . the science said . . .

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice.

I believe the JCVI has been pressurised into that recommendation.

All I have written is about the Pfizer vaccine. Not the Oxford-AZ one, for which there IS some data about longer intervals.

"The data that is being discussed now: Is because Israel said the efficacy rate was lower than expected in their experience at 33%

Many Doctors around the world have said that the data does not have a proper context to make those extrapolations."

vis-a-vi:

BMJ Published 22 January 2021

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine started to be rolled out in the UK before Christmas yet we're seeing no good evidence of a drop in infections in the age group most likely to be vaccinated.

More on the REACT study, including link to the pre-print:

Alford, J (2021) Coronavirus infections are not falling in England, latest REACT findings show; Imperial College London [ONLINE]

I'm no scientist and dont need to trail the internet to see what is happening is totally wrong and against the science. "

I guess we will see with the hospital admissions.

In theory they should drastically go down now with the oldest and most vulnerable

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"Also read a story of a care home where half the staff refused to get vaccinated when it was offered.

Totally different story as this one all had it. I honestly cant see why you keep deflecting and cant accept that this is proven to be the wrong way to do it when all the evidence is against it."

But actually all the evidence does not yet point that this is the wrong way to do it. As shown clearly above. It is the scientific opinion of many many different scientists all at different stages of understanding and experience.

Pointing that out is NOT deflecting.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Also read a story of a care home where half the staff refused to get vaccinated when it was offered.

Totally different story as this one all had it. I honestly cant see why you keep deflecting and cant accept that this is proven to be the wrong way to do it when all the evidence is against it.

Pointing that out is NOT deflecting. "

Shouting doesn't win a debate...I'll leave you get on with it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"Also read a story of a care home where half the staff refused to get vaccinated when it was offered.

Totally different story as this one all had it. I honestly cant see why you keep deflecting and cant accept that this is proven to be the wrong way to do it when all the evidence is against it.

Pointing that out is NOT deflecting.

Shouting doesn't win a debate...I'll leave you get on with it."

Trying to win a debate or delivering factual diverse information against an opinion?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Also read a story of a care home where half the staff refused to get vaccinated when it was offered.

Totally different story as this one all had it. I honestly cant see why you keep deflecting and cant accept that this is proven to be the wrong way to do it when all the evidence is against it.

Pointing that out is NOT deflecting.

Shouting doesn't win a debate...I'll leave you get on with it.

Trying to win a debate or delivering factual diverse information against an opinion?"

Last time I'm out with you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *addyBabygirl2020Couple over a year ago

norwich

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

Factcheck is not an independent website. It was set up and is run by the tory party.

They have been called out on national news for trying to disguise the website as something other than there own website pusning thier own agenda.

That's fact

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-23/covid-gap-between-pfizer-vaccine-doses-should-be-halved-doctors-say

In brief Pfizer, the who, and a hell of a lot of doctors are advising that a 6 week limit in between jabs should be the maximum time. And then only in exceptional circumstances.

My question is have we stopped listening to the science?

There's not only one version of "the science" though is there?

"science" and all the various flavours of it are one of the inputs into the decision making process.

Not defending the decisions by the way. But just saying thee isn't only one true science or scientist or scientific board. "

As I keep reminding those who say I only listen to science, what they are really saying is they listen to an interpretation of science. Science doesn't change but knowledge of it does. This mean there can be different interpretations and understandings of science.

Many overlook this or don't understand this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

Factcheck is not an independent website. It was set up and is run by the tory party.

They have been called out on national news for trying to disguise the website as something other than there own website pusning thier own agenda.

That's fact"

The data can still be found in exactly the same form at BMJ and other news outlets.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

Factcheck is not an independent website. It was set up and is run by the tory party.

They have been called out on national news for trying to disguise the website as something other than there own website pusning thier own agenda.

That's fact"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck.org

Doesn't seem to agree with you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

Factcheck is not an independent website. It was set up and is run by the tory party.

They have been called out on national news for trying to disguise the website as something other than there own website pusning thier own agenda.

That's fact

The data can still be found in exactly the same form at BMJ and other news outlets. "

There's not one piece of actual data (i.e numbers) that show delaying Pfizer by 12 weeks (or in fact anything over 3 weeks) is appropriate. Especially in the oldest age group who have the weakest immune systems and will respond sub-optimally anyway. Pfizer included 780-odd over 75s in cohorts of 20,000 people, so there's exceptionally limited data to begin with about the robustness of the over 75s immune response.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

They did set a fake one up which,I think fact check is the genuine one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

Factcheck is not an independent website. It was set up and is run by the tory party.

They have been called out on national news for trying to disguise the website as something other than there own website pusning thier own agenda.

That's fact

The data can still be found in exactly the same form at BMJ and other news outlets.

I could be wrong, but this seems like an uncontrolled experiment on the most at risk people. Completely unethical in my lay view.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

"They did set a fake one up which,I think fact check is the genuine one."

Seems that was ‘factcheckUK’.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

Factcheck is not an independent website. It was set up and is run by the tory party.

They have been called out on national news for trying to disguise the website as something other than there own website pusning thier own agenda.

That's fact"

Same as these other so called factcheckers like snopes.

They are highly dubious, very biased, not independent, pushing an agenda/narrative

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *addyBabygirl2020Couple over a year ago

norwich

"They did set a fake one up which,I think fact check is the genuine one.

Seems that was ‘factcheckUK’.

Ah yes. Just looked that up. Seems the Torys rebranded their twitter feed to FactcheckUK to attempt to seem like it was part of factcheck.org

Thanks for pointing that out

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *addyBabygirl2020Couple over a year ago

norwich

There in some interesting data coming out of Israel.

They currently have the best vaccination programme.

The rate of those still get ill after the first jab are pretty high but massively drop after the second jab.

They are probably the country to watch for in terms of vaccination outcomes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtyd468Man over a year ago

North

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

The science never said it was fine to do. We just made it up, unlike any other country"

Is that we you are referring to the goverment by any chance ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ady LickWoman over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

Not sure if anyone has posted similar but this is rather alarming. It came up on my news ap on my phone....

Sage scientists say delaying the second Covid vaccine dose increases the risk of a vaccine-resistant strain emerging. A report published Friday says there is “increased risk under partial immunity after one dose than after two doses” and warned that vaccine efficacy after one dose should be carefully monitored. This comes as the British Medical Association has called on the UK's chief medical officer to halve the wait time between doses to six weeks.

That's all we need

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Not sure if anyone has posted similar but this is rather alarming. It came up on my news ap on my phone....

That's all we need

Yes, I've heard this

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

It was never scientifically valid to delay the Pfizer one beyond three weeks and multiple medical professional bodies said this from the outset.

Actually . . . the science said . . .

Actually the science said it was okay to do . . . again.

From FACTCHECK: 6 Jan 2021

But a week ago, the independent experts who sit on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) gave the government radically different advice.

The four UK chief medical officers have agreed to follow the JCVI advice.

I believe the JCVI has been pressurised into that recommendation.

All I have written is about the Pfizer vaccine. Not the Oxford-AZ one, for which there IS some data about longer intervals.

"The data that is being discussed now: Is because Israel said the efficacy rate was lower than expected in their experience at 33%

Many Doctors around the world have said that the data does not have a proper context to make those extrapolations."

vis-a-vi:

BMJ Published 22 January 2021

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine started to be rolled out in the UK before Christmas yet we're seeing no good evidence of a drop in infections in the age group most likely to be vaccinated.

More on the REACT study, including link to the pre-print:

Alford, J (2021) Coronavirus infections are not falling in England, latest REACT findings show; Imperial College London [ONLINE]"

The react study is in complete contrast to the daily government figures and the king’s college Zoe survey. The king’s college survey is indicated the cases started to fall at the beginning of January.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS over a year ago

Stockport

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt."

The science has never been that a twelve week gap would be okay. Pfizer trials established a three week gap as being optimum according to their results, and the vaccine was certified for use according to the guidelines issued by Pfizer. The 12 week gap was suggested by a non-scientist, and was placed as policy by this government as a political decision hiding behind a statement from the politically appointed chief medical officer - who as we have seen on any number of occasions over the past year, says exactly what the ruling clique tell him to say. Pfizer were immediate in their disagreement with the decision.

A medical recommendation should not be overridden by politicians, whose argument was that "I'm not a doctor but it seems sensible to me that we could...".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"No. Because the science at the time was that it was fine to do that - as new science comes along then we can reevaluate and adapt.

A medical recommendation should not be overridden by politicians, whose argument was that "I'm not a doctor but it seems sensible to me that we could..."."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS over a year ago

Stockport

"Not sure if anyone has posted similar but this is rather alarming. It came up on my news ap on my phone....

That's all we need

Yes, there is every chance that deliberately ignoring the instructions of the people that developed the vaccine will lead to a catastrophic failure of some kind or other.

The entire history of the covid response in the United Kingdom has been the highest echalons of the government giving orders to the supposedly independent advisory committees, telling them what they must report under threat of being dismissed, and the government then saying "but we were only following the science" when time after time it has all gone wrong. This government has not been following the science, it has been dictating to the scientists what they must say.

If the manufacturer of the vaccine said "12 weeks? No we didn't test it like that, but we GUESS it might be okay, why don't you just do it any way you like, it's only a few million people, if they die, then they die, not our responsibility" there would be national condemnation. Bojo says it and people actually defend him?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The reality is the science doesn’t really back up the vaccines efficacy as complete long term trials could not have been completed in such a short time. So whilst the vaccine is safe but the level of protection it gives or for how long is unknown it may be correct to get as many to have the first vaccine as fast as possible to give the vulnerable some protection. Using many established vaccines for other diseases if the timeframes are stretched they are ineffective so the vaccination program has to restart. With this in mind, they should really give a third jab 3 weeks after the 2nd jab if a 12 week gap is followed. This would be a logistical nightmare, made worse by the multiple vaccines based on different science and technology. Just got to hope it helps some people and saves lives until they have tweaked the vaccine and made it fully effective

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ob198XaMan over a year ago

teleford

"Pfizer say 2-3 weeks.

WHO & BMA say 6 weeks.

SAGE say 12 weeks.

Who is right?

My view is that we just don't have the data yet to back up any of them.

Is it better to give a higher % of the population some protection. Or is it better to give a lower % of the population more protection?"

More people some protection. That will reduce the amount of virus in circulation the most which in turn will give more protection to all..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There in some interesting data coming out of Israel.

They currently have the best vaccination programme.

The rate of those still get ill after the first jab are pretty high but massively drop after the second jab.

They are probably the country to watch for in terms of vaccination outcomes."

The latest from them a few days ago is a bit worrying on the effectiveness of the vaccine. They are challenging Pfizers flames and suggest it's far less effective than claimed.

No mention if the strain is the same as here or a different strain of it.

Maybe the Phizer second vaccine is needed earlier than previously thought. I'm guessing the WHO is keeping a close eye on this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Pfizer say 2-3 weeks.

WHO & BMA say 6 weeks.

SAGE say 12 weeks.

Who is right?

My view is that we just don't have the data yet to back up any of them.

Is it better to give a higher % of the population some protection. Or is it better to give a lower % of the population more protection?

More people some protection. That will reduce the amount of virus in circulation the most which in turn will give more protection to all.."

Or more time for it to mutate in the host and the second become not as effective as it should?

The vaccine doesn't kill the virus, it reduces it's serious effects upon the host. I've no doubt it'll still be circulating in years to come, much like the flu.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

From the official protocol for the administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine:

"A two-dose course should be administered consisting of 30micrograms in 0.3ml followed by a second dose of 30micrograms in 0.3ml after an interval of at least 21 days.

For operational purposes the second dose may be given between 3 to 12 weeks following the first dose or in accordance with official guidance at the time.

If an interval longer than the recommended interval is left between doses, the second dose should still be given (using the same vaccine as was given for the first dose if possible, see Additional Information). The course does not need to be restarted."

Note the phrase "for operational reasons". That's not "for valid medical/scientific reasons" or "for maximal efficacy of the vaccine". There are multiple references within the protocol, supporting various steps, but no references attached to this statement.

I stand by my assertion that the decision to delay the Pfizer-BioNTech has been a political decision and has no basis in scientific fact.

The protocol can be downloaded here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-protocol-for-covid-19-mrna-vaccine-bnt162b2-pfizerbiontech

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

"Also read a story of a care home where half the staff refused to get vaccinated when it was offered.

Totally different story as this one all had it. I honestly cant see why you keep deflecting and cant accept that this is proven to be the wrong way to do it when all the evidence is against it.

Pointing that out is NOT deflecting. "

“......... But actually all the evidence does not yet point that this is the wrong way to do it.....”

—————————

Nor does any evidence point that this is the right way to do it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I keep hearing that the vaccines *may* reduce transmission, we just haven't tested for it yet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Not sure if anyone has posted similar but this is rather alarming. It came up on my news ap on my phone....

That's all we need

Yes, there is every chance that deliberately ignoring the instructions of the people that developed the vaccine will lead to a catastrophic failure of some kind or other.

Scientists have had differing views on this you do realise, even the different advisory group members will have had differing views. Some of the things are unknowns and they're putting the puzzle together all the time with the pictures and data they are being fed. So it's not as clear cut in saying Science says.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atEvolutionCouple over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

Depends on where you look and who you choose to believe. What is sure is that nobody is quite sure.

"Both Covid vaccines likely to be ‘more effective’ at 12-week intervals, say Government experts

delayed dose

06 January 2021

The Oxford Covid vaccine is more effective when the second dose is delayed, according to the UK medicines regulator, with the Government’s expert vaccine committee adding that this is likely to also be the case for the Pfizer vaccine.

Regulatory documents filed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said there was ‘more certainty’ of the efficacy of Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine if the second dose is delayed by eight to 12 weeks after the first.

And documents published by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) this afternoon added that there was ‘no strong reason’ to believe the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine would be any different.

The MHRA has authorised the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine to be given as two doses, separated by four to 12 weeks, and the Pfizer one at two doses between three to 12 weeks."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andAukCouple over a year ago

leeds

This is an easy answer, just follow the guidelines of the folk who make it.

You change the cambelt on your car as per the manufacturers guidelines, as you know if it breaks the engine is dead!!

Simples really.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS over a year ago

Stockport

"This is an easy answer, just follow the guidelines of the folk who make it.

You change the cambelt on your car as per the manufacturers guidelines, as you know if it breaks the engine is dead!!

Simples really. "

Exactly. If you don't do it the way the manufacturer says, and somebody dies as a consequence, then who is at fault?

If the members of the MRHA committee are confident enough to give their personal guarantee of safety, staking their own lives on it if things go wrong, then fine. If not - bloody well follow the instruction leaflet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"Depends on where you look and who you choose to believe. What is sure is that nobody is quite sure.

"Both Covid vaccines likely to be ‘more effective’ at 12-week intervals, say Government experts

delayed dose

06 January 2021

The MHRA has authorised the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine to be given as two doses, separated by four to 12 weeks, and the Pfizer one at two doses between three to 12 weeks."

Still no actual data to delay the Pfizer-BioNTech one. Just "we think it should be ok because it's ok with the Oxford one". Great. Really scientific.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Depends on where you look and who you choose to believe. What is sure is that nobody is quite sure.

"Both Covid vaccines likely to be ‘more effective’ at 12-week intervals, say Government experts

delayed dose

06 January 2021

The MHRA has authorised the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine to be given as two doses, separated by four to 12 weeks, and the Pfizer one at two doses between three to 12 weeks."

Still no actual data to delay the Pfizer-BioNTech one. Just "we think it should be ok because it's ok with the Oxford one". Great. Really scientific."

Par for the fucking course.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Depends on where you look and who you choose to believe. What is sure is that nobody is quite sure.

"Both Covid vaccines likely to be ‘more effective’ at 12-week intervals, say Government experts

delayed dose

06 January 2021

The MHRA has authorised the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine to be given as two doses, separated by four to 12 weeks, and the Pfizer one at two doses between three to 12 weeks."

Still no actual data to delay the Pfizer-BioNTech one. Just "we think it should be ok because it's ok with the Oxford one". Great. Really scientific."

The thing is it's not ok its bloody frightening the way they are just making things up ad-hoc and not listening to the advice...bloody scary

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

The thing is it's not ok its bloody frightening the way they are just making things up ad-hoc and not listening to the advice...bloody scary "

It's incredibly scary. Our lives are in their hands and

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"Depends on where you look and who you choose to believe. What is sure is that nobody is quite sure.

"Both Covid vaccines likely to be ‘more effective’ at 12-week intervals, say Government experts

delayed dose

06 January 2021

The MHRA has authorised the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine to be given as two doses, separated by four to 12 weeks, and the Pfizer one at two doses between three to 12 weeks."

Still no actual data to delay the Pfizer-BioNTech one. Just "we think it should be ok because it's ok with the Oxford one". Great. Really scientific.

The thing is it's not ok its bloody frightening the way they are just making things up ad-hoc and not listening to the advice...bloody scary "

Quite. I maintain it's political, to allow Boris to trumpet that he's vaccinated more people than Macron or Merkel or whoever. Doesn't seem to matter if they're actually fully vaccinated or just a half arsed job.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

The Sunday People reports today that care home residents have died of Covid despite receiving the first vaccination.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The Sunday People reports today that care home residents have died of Covid despite receiving the first vaccination. "

They of all people should have had the 2 vaccines in the 3 week intervals. If it was AstraZeneca fair enough...but Pfizer should have been given as per instructions. Otherwise it makes the look as Guinea pigs while they are the most vulnerable in our society.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

I agree. I think everyone who has had a Pfizer vaccination should still have the second one after three weeks. Joan Bakewell is very concerned about this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I agree. I think everyone who has had a Pfizer vaccination should still have the second one after three weeks. Joan Bakewell is very concerned about this. "

Just had a look and I think this is the same story

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/24/dozens-of-care-home-residents-died-with-covid-after-first-jab-13956611/

I wish the would stop trying to break "false" records and just do the bloody job in the safest way...unlike what they are doing with these care homes.

Have they not learnt fuck all from last spring ffs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I agree. I think everyone who has had a Pfizer vaccination should still have the second one after three weeks. Joan Bakewell is very concerned about this.

Just had a look and I think this is the same story

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/24/dozens-of-care-home-residents-died-with-covid-after-first-jab-13956611/

I wish the would stop trying to break "false" records and just do the bloody job in the safest way...unlike what they are doing with these care homes.

Have they not learnt fuck all from last spring ffs"

Less participation trophies (yes I got them, yes adults, we knew they were bullshit), more actual progress.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

It seems these care home residents had their vaccination in December, which gives time for the antibodies to "kick in" after three weeks. But obviously the level of immunity wasn't enough to protect them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"I agree. I think everyone who has had a Pfizer vaccination should still have the second one after three weeks. Joan Bakewell is very concerned about this.

Just had a look and I think this is the same story

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/24/dozens-of-care-home-residents-died-with-covid-after-first-jab-13956611/

I wish the would stop trying to break "false" records and just do the bloody job in the safest way...unlike what they are doing with these care homes.

Have they not learnt fuck all from last spring ffs"

I haven't read the story so these points may already be addressed, but to be devils advocate...

Does anyway seriously expect the 'vaccine' to provide instant protection to care home residents and prevent them dying?

1) we know it takes something like 4 weeks from date of injection to provide protection.... (I'd guess longer in over 80s as their immune systems are slower and less efficient but stand to be corrected)

2) we know that they aren't being tested before being vaccinated so may have already been infected.

3) we know the vaccine does not prevent infections but provides a stronger immune response after 4 weeks

4) we know that not all carers / care home staff are choosing to have the vaccination

5) we know that old people die

So.. I'm not entirely surprised that some of them have died even though they have had the vaccine.

I guess the question would be.. Did it make any difference to how or when they died?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I agree. I think everyone who has had a Pfizer vaccination should still have the second one after three weeks. Joan Bakewell is very concerned about this.

Just had a look and I think this is the same story

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/24/dozens-of-care-home-residents-died-with-covid-after-first-jab-13956611/

I wish the would stop trying to break "false" records and just do the bloody job in the safest way...unlike what they are doing with these care homes.

Have they not learnt fuck all from last spring ffs

I haven't read the story so these points may already be addressed, but to be devils advocate...

Does anyway seriously expect the 'vaccine' to provide instant protection to care home residents and prevent them dying?

2) we know that they aren't being tested before being vaccinated so may have already been infected.

3) we know the vaccine does not prevent infections but provides a stronger immune response after 4 weeks

4) we know that not all carers / care home staff are choosing to have the vaccination

5) we know that old people die

So.. I'm not entirely surprised that some of them have died even though they have had the vaccine.

I guess the question would be.. Did it make any difference to how or when they died? "

I expect people to follow the damn instructions given with the medical intervention

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

People who have been given a Pfizer vaccination and told to wait twelve weeks for the next dose are now part of an unregulated, unlicensed trial.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"People who have been given a Pfizer vaccination and told to wait twelve weeks for the next dose are now part of an unregulated, unlicensed trial. "

I suspect that none of the requirements for a mass human trial - ethics, consent, adequate documentation, etc - are being followed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"I agree. I think everyone who has had a Pfizer vaccination should still have the second one after three weeks. Joan Bakewell is very concerned about this.

Just had a look and I think this is the same story

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/24/dozens-of-care-home-residents-died-with-covid-after-first-jab-13956611/

I wish the would stop trying to break "false" records and just do the bloody job in the safest way...unlike what they are doing with these care homes.

Have they not learnt fuck all from last spring ffs

I haven't read the story so these points may already be addressed, but to be devils advocate...

Does anyway seriously expect the 'vaccine' to provide instant protection to care home residents and prevent them dying?

2) we know that they aren't being tested before being vaccinated so may have already been infected.

3) we know the vaccine does not prevent infections but provides a stronger immune response after 4 weeks

4) we know that not all carers / care home staff are choosing to have the vaccination

5) we know that old people die

So.. I'm not entirely surprised that some of them have died even though they have had the vaccine.

I guess the question would be.. Did it make any difference to how or when they died?

I expect people to follow the damn instructions given with the medical intervention

Do we know that in the cases of those that sadly died, instructions were not followed?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I agree. I think everyone who has had a Pfizer vaccination should still have the second one after three weeks. Joan Bakewell is very concerned about this.

Just had a look and I think this is the same story

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/24/dozens-of-care-home-residents-died-with-covid-after-first-jab-13956611/

I wish the would stop trying to break "false" records and just do the bloody job in the safest way...unlike what they are doing with these care homes.

Have they not learnt fuck all from last spring ffs

I haven't read the story so these points may already be addressed, but to be devils advocate...

Does anyway seriously expect the 'vaccine' to provide instant protection to care home residents and prevent them dying?

2) we know that they aren't being tested before being vaccinated so may have already been infected.

3) we know the vaccine does not prevent infections but provides a stronger immune response after 4 weeks

4) we know that not all carers / care home staff are choosing to have the vaccination

5) we know that old people die

So.. I'm not entirely surprised that some of them have died even though they have had the vaccine.

I guess the question would be.. Did it make any difference to how or when they died?

I expect people to follow the damn instructions given with the medical intervention

Do we know that in the cases of those that sadly died, instructions were not followed? "

I don't. I'm making a general comment. I do know that Pfizer have publicly come out against this 12 week business.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"I agree. I think everyone who has had a Pfizer vaccination should still have the second one after three weeks. Joan Bakewell is very concerned about this.

Just had a look and I think this is the same story

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/24/dozens-of-care-home-residents-died-with-covid-after-first-jab-13956611/

I wish the would stop trying to break "false" records and just do the bloody job in the safest way...unlike what they are doing with these care homes.

Have they not learnt fuck all from last spring ffs

I haven't read the story so these points may already be addressed, but to be devils advocate...

Does anyway seriously expect the 'vaccine' to provide instant protection to care home residents and prevent them dying?

2) we know that they aren't being tested before being vaccinated so may have already been infected.

3) we know the vaccine does not prevent infections but provides a stronger immune response after 4 weeks

4) we know that not all carers / care home staff are choosing to have the vaccination

5) we know that old people die

So.. I'm not entirely surprised that some of them have died even though they have had the vaccine.

I guess the question would be.. Did it make any difference to how or when they died?

I expect people to follow the damn instructions given with the medical intervention

Do we know that in the cases of those that sadly died, instructions were not followed?

I don't. I'm making a general comment. I do know that Pfizer have publicly come out against this 12 week business."

I get that... But if you think that we are only on 23 Jan now... And they didn't start care homes (locally) until last week.....whatever their intentions were... We aren't past the 4 weeks or whatever the number was depending upon which scientist you listen to of weeks.

So I get that but some of the outrage seems to be whatever we do they get slagged off. I don't read enough of the science to have a strong opinion. But I'd have thought that in the race against the clokc to slow infections, hospitalisation and deaths, getting more people vaccinated makes sense. And they've done much better at that than I ever thought they would.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"whatever scientist?"

I mean a thing was just approved with clear data and instructions a hot minute ago. Three weeks.

In the middle of a crisis is not the time to play silly buggers with the recommendations.

I don't know who died or how or why, but I don't decide to ignore my doctor's advice because I know better. The study has been done for three weeks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

there are reports today that there is evidence from Israel which appears to condradict the governments idealogical stance over the vaccine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"there are reports today that there is evidence from Israel which appears to condradict the governments idealogical stance over the vaccine."

I've heard bits about this too.

The government are determined to make this a steaming fetid pile of bullshit though, so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

""whatever scientist?"

I mean a thing was just approved with clear data and instructions a hot minute ago. Three weeks.

In the middle of a crisis is not the time to play silly buggers with the recommendations.

I don't know who died or how or why, but I don't decide to ignore my doctor's advice because I know better. The study has been done for three weeks. "

Yes agree with that. Which is why it would be helpful for those interested to understand how the different protocol was arrived at.

I'm far from a scientist and I kind of look at it this way.

If they said to me.... Here's 2 doses. You can have one and get 65 %protection and then another in 4 weeks and get 90 %... Or you can have one and get 65% and give the other to your son and he will get 65%...if I had the choice I'd choose the latter.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail."

Yes!

This is completely unethical and inappropriate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail."

Was that not always the case? Given they stated up front they needed to wait to see how much and how long protection would last, what impact it had on transmission and probably more. I think your point probably references moving away from the previously publicised delivery protocol? I don't know enough to say whether hitting 10m people with one dose is more efficacious on the demographic than 5m people twice.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail.

A trial was done that said "this does xyz in this population" which involved informed consent of people who knew they'd signed up to a clinical trial, appropriate follow up, human ethics boards, appropriate statistical analysis, peer reviewed literature, and a bunch of other stuff.

It was approved on the basis of three weeks.

To immediately turn around and make up some other shit does not pass the high standards we require in human trials because (insert all the bullshit that's gone on in the history of medicine).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

it seems dangerous that the most vulnerable are unwittingly being subject to the new trial.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"it seems dangerous that the most vulnerable are unwittingly being subject to the new trial."

I've seen several NHS staff saying that they emphatically did not consent to this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail.

It was approved on the basis of three weeks.

To immediately turn around and make up some other shit does not pass the high standards we require in human trials because (insert all the bullshit that's gone on in the history of medicine)."

I defer to your greater experience / knowledge. I don't see a problem personally but I guess it will all come out soon enough. I just know if I were vulnerable I'd rather have a jab now than in 2 months time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail.

It was approved on the basis of three weeks.

To immediately turn around and make up some other shit does not pass the high standards we require in human trials because (insert all the bullshit that's gone on in the history of medicine).

I'd rather take the medicine as licenced and approved

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail.

It was approved on the basis of three weeks.

To immediately turn around and make up some other shit does not pass the high standards we require in human trials because (insert all the bullshit that's gone on in the history of medicine).

I'd rather take the medicine as licenced and approved

And if it wasn't a global crisis I'd agree. I'll just say... Sadly my mum didn't make it. But had she been offered one jab sooner, there's a good chance we would nt be having her funeral. As a layman that's what's informing my thought process. So for others in that situation I'm simply thinking... If they can get it sooner.... Let's do it and save some misery.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I know, I understand, and I'm genuinely sorry.

I understand your thought processes, I just think the government is being irresponsible (again).

I'm doing all I can: encourage those eligible to be vaccinated (I'm in a position to do so), and hiding as much as I can so I'm not a disease vector myself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iobhan123Woman over a year ago

Deal

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail.

It was approved on the basis of three weeks.

To immediately turn around and make up some other shit does not pass the high standards we require in human trials because (insert all the bullshit that's gone on in the history of medicine)."

We had CCG sign off to do the first group again at 3 weeks, so we did, absolutely not signed off to do so again. This includes lots of staff, not happy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail.

It was approved on the basis of three weeks.

To immediately turn around and make up some other shit does not pass the high standards we require in human trials because (insert all the bullshit that's gone on in the history of medicine).

We had CCG sign off to do the first group again at 3 weeks, so we did, absolutely not signed off to do so again. This includes lots of staff, not happy

I consider this something for which you haven't consented. I'd be fucking furious

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

The BBC website today said some GPs are refusing to deliver the Pfizer vaccine now because of the delay for second dose against manufacturers guidelines

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The BBC website today said some GPs are refusing to deliver the Pfizer vaccine now because of the delay for second dose against manufacturers guidelines "

I should be getting a offer of a vaccine in the next 3 weeks. Tbh if it's the Pfizer one I'll wait until I can get a offer of the AstraZeneca one.

Caution: I'm not advising this to anyone else...that's my own choice unless they sort the timescales out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *amissCouple over a year ago

chelmsford

"The BBC website today said some GPs are refusing to deliver the Pfizer vaccine now because of the delay for second dose against manufacturers guidelines

I should be getting a offer of a vaccine in the next 3 weeks. Tbh if it's the Pfizer one I'll wait until I can get a offer of the AstraZeneca one.

Caution: I'm not advising this to anyone else...that's my own choice unless they sort the timescales out."

My dad had his jab yesterday and it was the AstraZeneca one, which I was pleased about

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The BBC website today said some GPs are refusing to deliver the Pfizer vaccine now because of the delay for second dose against manufacturers guidelines

I should be getting a offer of a vaccine in the next 3 weeks. Tbh if it's the Pfizer one I'll wait until I can get a offer of the AstraZeneca one.

Caution: I'm not advising this to anyone else...that's my own choice unless they sort the timescales out.

My dad had his jab yesterday and it was the AstraZeneca one, which I was pleased about

Good news Sami

hows he coping?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iobhan123Woman over a year ago

Deal

"it seems people are becomming part of a new vaccination trail without even being told that they are becomming part of a new vaccination trail.

It was approved on the basis of three weeks.

To immediately turn around and make up some other shit does not pass the high standards we require in human trials because (insert all the bullshit that's gone on in the history of medicine).

We had CCG sign off to do the first group again at 3 weeks, so we did, absolutely not signed off to do so again. This includes lots of staff, not happy

I consider this something for which you haven't consented. I'd be fucking furious "

We are , as you can imagine.

On the positive side, we haveade the news today for the rollout down here, we are all working our arses off to get this done, already on the 70-74 age group now, 2400 yesterday and a 4 day clinic next week, weekends are a thing of the past!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Thank you for what you're doing, and I'm sorry.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *amissCouple over a year ago

chelmsford

"The BBC website today said some GPs are refusing to deliver the Pfizer vaccine now because of the delay for second dose against manufacturers guidelines

I should be getting a offer of a vaccine in the next 3 weeks. Tbh if it's the Pfizer one I'll wait until I can get a offer of the AstraZeneca one.

Caution: I'm not advising this to anyone else...that's my own choice unless they sort the timescales out.

My dad had his jab yesterday and it was the AstraZeneca one, which I was pleased about

Good news Sami

hows he coping?"

Very well thank you, lovely. He's a bit fed up having to stay in, but he understands why

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The BBC website today said some GPs are refusing to deliver the Pfizer vaccine now because of the delay for second dose against manufacturers guidelines

I should be getting a offer of a vaccine in the next 3 weeks. Tbh if it's the Pfizer one I'll wait until I can get a offer of the AstraZeneca one.

Caution: I'm not advising this to anyone else...that's my own choice unless they sort the timescales out.

My dad had his jab yesterday and it was the AstraZeneca one, which I was pleased about

Good news Sami

hows he coping?

Very well thank you, lovely. He's a bit fed up having to stay in, but he understands why

Good...hopefully he will be able to get back out in 3 or so months time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *amissCouple over a year ago

chelmsford

"The BBC website today said some GPs are refusing to deliver the Pfizer vaccine now because of the delay for second dose against manufacturers guidelines

I should be getting a offer of a vaccine in the next 3 weeks. Tbh if it's the Pfizer one I'll wait until I can get a offer of the AstraZeneca one.

Caution: I'm not advising this to anyone else...that's my own choice unless they sort the timescales out.

My dad had his jab yesterday and it was the AstraZeneca one, which I was pleased about

Good news Sami

hows he coping?

Very well thank you, lovely. He's a bit fed up having to stay in, but he understands why

Good...hopefully he will be able to get back out in 3 or so months time

Oh I hope so! X

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *edandLouCouple over a year ago

Liverpool

They stopped listening to the science once Cummings was caught out and Prof JVT said the lockdown rules applied to everyone. From the day after the scientists were absent from the podium on the daily briefings until lockdown 2.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"They stopped listening to the science once Cummings was caught out and Prof JVT said the lockdown rules applied to everyone. From the day after the scientists were absent from the podium on the daily briefings until lockdown 2."

I've been ignoring the government for that long. (I'm in excess of requirements and will remain so)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

I should be getting a offer of a vaccine in the next 3 weeks. Tbh if it's the Pfizer one I'll wait until I can get a offer of the AstraZeneca one.

Caution: I'm not advising this to anyone else...that's my own choice unless they sort the timescales out."

This is what I have been thinking too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I will take what I'm given, although I'm quite low risk.

I'm incandescent that the very most vulnerable people in my care are part of this ridiculous experiment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If it's not advisable why are both Germany and Denmark considering following the UKs approach with delaying the second vaccine? I'm not saying it is it isn't, I'm just pointing out others including German are considering doing this for the same reasons the UK have said.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"If it's not advisable why are both Germany and Denmark considering following the UKs approach with delaying the second vaccine? I'm not saying it is it isn't, I'm just pointing out others including German are considering doing this for the same reasons the UK have said."

Possibly also for political reasons?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

Because they are waiting for results from the British Guinea pigs before they make the decision ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obka3Couple over a year ago

bournemouth

I wonder what those against it would say if it was their elderly relative wasnt given one dose do it could be given as a second dose to someone else, at the moment there is only so much to go around

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

But the elderly are the priority so they would get their second dose before a 50 or 60 year old got their first

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I wonder what those against it would say if it was their elderly relative wasnt given one dose do it could be given as a second dose to someone else, at the moment there is only so much to go around"

I'd say Nan stay at home, let's do this right for all of us.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

Isn't it better for all the vulnerable to be protected properly rather than 5 million only being a little bit protected ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

I'd say Nan stay at home, let's do this right for all of us."

My 82 year old mum thinks she can stay at home but key workers can't, so feels they should have been given it before her.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I'd say Nan stay at home, let's do this right for all of us.

My 82 year old mum thinks she can stay at home but key workers can't, so feels they should have been given it before her. "

The older people I help think similarly. I tell them they've paid their societal dues and it's our turn to care for them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obka3Couple over a year ago

bournemouth

"Isn't it better for all the vulnerable to be protected properly rather than 5 million only being a little bit protected ? "

There is no evidence to say they are only a little bit protected, in fact the report I saw said that the highest levels of response from the oxford vaccine was after two doses 12 wks apart. Of course every person's immune system will respond slightly differently,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

Because they're experiencing delays with the vaccine delivery via the EU central delivery mechanism and are under (political?) pressure to get on and vaccinate their populace. If we had a significant delay on deliveries like the EU has, it might be the best of a very bad situation, but we are not in that situation and we made that decision before any such issues (delivery delays) became apparent. We initially said we'd follow the 3wk interval (see JCVI minutes from early December when the vaccine was first approved). After that, someone (in Government) picked a number out of their arse for vaccinating X people a week/by February and so someone else realised that this would only be do-able by spacing out the doses further.

There's not an issue (as much) for the Oxford-AZ one, at least they have some (albeit limited) data. But even now after all this belly-aching, no-one, not Pfizer, BioNTech, the Dept of Health, the JCVI, the MHRA, the Germans, the Danes, the Pope, Wayne Rooney or his Granny have provided a single scrap of actual data to support the move to delay the Pfizer-BioNTech to 12wks. Surely if the data existed, it would now be in the public domain to shut us up? It would be provided to the BMA and the WHO and all the other bodies who state that they've seen zilch evidence and who do not recommend it.

The reason they've seen no evidence is because there isn't any. The JCVI stated that "There is currently no strong evidence to expect that the immune response from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine would differ substantially from the AstraZeneca [and Moderna] vaccines."

That's it. That's their rationale. I've heard better rationale from my 3yo daughter for eating cake for breakfast.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

I know what I've said that my 89yo Grandad's first dose wasn't even offered to him until my Dad (in another part of the NW) had already had two doses AND all the over 80s and many over 70s have already had one dose here in my locale. Too late though, he's got Covid instead. Unfortunately some parts of the country got left behind without any vaccine clinics until the end of last week (Friday was the first opportunity he'd been offered).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

Sorry to hear about your grandad. So was he contagious when he went to the vaccination clinic ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"Sorry to hear about your grandad. So was he contagious when he went to the vaccination clinic ? "

He never got to the vaccine clinic. He was booked in on the day he was ambulanced into hospital.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

How upset and frustrated you must be. Wishing him well in his recovery.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"How upset and frustrated you must be. Wishing him well in his recovery. "

Oh yes. Recovery is something we hope for but cannot guarantee.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

And that's exactly my point. And the situation with my dear old mum. Who caught it the week before vaccine was offered to her...and sadly passed. Im no Dr but I'd like to think she'd have had a better chance with one shot. Irrelevant for her now but it is still finding its way into care homes and the more who get one shot there I'd have thought the better.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

“Considering” usually means examining the evidence and rationale.

For now the U.K. is conducting an unauthorised and potentially illegal medical trial that has not been approved vaccine manufacturer.

The worst case scenario of this action is that tens of millions of partially immune people will be exposed again to the live virus giving it the opportunity to mutate. The knock on effect to the country and the world would set us back another year.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obka3Couple over a year ago

bournemouth

“Considering” usually means examining the evidence and rationale.

For now the U.K. is conducting an unauthorised and potentially illegal medical trial that has not been approved vaccine manufacturer.

Sorry but you are another one who obviously doesnt understand how and why viruses mutate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

Sorry but you are another one who obviously doesnt understand how and why viruses mutate.

Please could you explain it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Sorry but you are another one who obviously doesnt understand how and why viruses mutate.

Please could you explain it. "

Yeah it looks pretty good to me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Possibly also for political reasons?"

Or from a logistical and practical purpose.

To try and get the masses started and the herd immunity on the roll. 70% protection and kicking in the hosts antibodies with twice as many people as quickly as possible makes sense.

If it was only a small group then I agree.

Someone gave an analogy of changing the timing belt as per manufacturers instructions..... Could you imagine if every vehicle suddenly needed the timing belt changed at the same time?

I wonder what the approach would be? Wonder how many would park up until the garage called them in for their service slot or would they carry on driving untill they got the call?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

“Considering” usually means examining the evidence and rationale.

For now the U.K. is conducting an unauthorised and potentially illegal medical trial that has not been approved vaccine manufacturer.

Sorry but you are another one who obviously doesnt understand how and why viruses mutate.

How do they mutate? we all await to be enlightened.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Possibly also for political reasons?

Or from a logistical and practical purpose.

To try and get the masses started and the herd immunity on the roll. 70% protection and kicking in the hosts antibodies with twice as many people as quickly as possible makes sense.

If it was only a small group then I agree.

Someone gave an analogy of changing the timing belt as per manufacturers instructions..... Could you imagine if every vehicle suddenly needed the timing belt changed at the same time?

I wonder what the approach would be? Wonder how many would park up until the garage called them in for their service slot or would they carry on driving untill they got the call?

You'd do it in order of priority. And you'd suggest people lower down the list find other ways to manage.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I wonder what those against it would say if it was their elderly relative wasnt given one dose do it could be given as a second dose to someone else, at the moment there is only so much to go around

You can think, Boris,Tony Blair and I can think.

But this isn't about all us lay people having a opinion. Its as my op asked...are we going against the science on the Pfizer vaccine.

Through this thread I've seen all the usual ones defending what seems a bloody political decision as if they have got to tow a party line.

This is about safety and not party politics. I would call this one out as wrong no matter which party was running the country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I wonder what those against it would say if it was their elderly relative wasnt given one dose do it could be given as a second dose to someone else, at the moment there is only so much to go around

You can think, Boris,Tony Blair and I can think.

But this isn't about all us lay people having a opinion. Its as my op asked...are we going against the science on the Pfizer vaccine.

Through this thread I've seen all the usual ones defending what seems a bloody political decision as if they have got to tow a party line.

This is about safety and not party politics. I would call this one out as wrong no matter which party was running the country."

Same.

In March/April I swallowed my instincts and said we have to listen to the Tories

I have some access to the science now and that unhappy situation has been resolved. Although I'd prefer if I could say "listen to the science (and the government are doing a good job, so listen to them too)"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obka3Couple over a year ago

bournemouth

Sorry but you are another one who obviously doesnt understand how and why viruses mutate.

Please could you explain it. "

Yes, every time a virus replicates it potentially mutates, if you look it up studies show that it can vary between one in 1000 to one in a million(iirc) of replication result in a change, many result in that change making the virus non viable, occasionally one occurs that dominates others in the same body and become established and is transmitted to others this we see in the various new ones that have become known as the English/SA and Brazil variants. The vaccine has been developed to get the body to produce antibodies which attack certain proteins on the virus, sometimes when given a vaccine peoples immune system doesnt produce this response which is why most vaccines are given twice, sometimes a long time apart, the (pretty small) chance of this happening is the risk of stretching the gap in this case, however the oxford vaccine has been shown to have a higher antibody level after two doses 12 weeks apart rather than closer, however I assume that the government advisors have access to figures that show that getting double the number covered is better for the whole population with a small risk to a few having to wait for a second, I'm assuming that is very some very vulnerable are still having a second dose quickly as their immune system is less likely to produce a good response.

I think some are confused between vaccines and antibiotics and how they kill bacterial infections.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

Someone gave an analogy of changing the timing belt as per manufacturers instructions..... Could you imagine if every vehicle suddenly needed the timing belt changed at the same time?

I wonder what the approach would be? Wonder how many would park up until the garage called them in for their service slot or would they carry on driving untill they got the call?

You'd do it in order of priority. And you'd suggest people lower down the list find other ways to manage."

My priority would be changing the timing belts of ambulances, fire engines and policecars, supermarket delivery lorries, buses. People who were able to stay at home could have their timing belts changed later.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Someone gave an analogy of changing the timing belt as per manufacturers instructions..... Could you imagine if every vehicle suddenly needed the timing belt changed at the same time?

I wonder what the approach would be? Wonder how many would park up until the garage called them in for their service slot or would they carry on driving untill they got the call?

You'd do it in order of priority. And you'd suggest people lower down the list find other ways to manage.

Yes. Exactly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Sorry but you are another one who obviously doesnt understand how and why viruses mutate.

Please could you explain it.

I think some are confused between vaccines and antibiotics and how they kill bacterial infections."

I don't see how this invalidates the concern about the vaccine being evaded. At all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Someone gave an analogy of changing the timing belt as per manufacturers instructions..... Could you imagine if every vehicle suddenly needed the timing belt changed at the same time?

I wonder what the approach would be? Wonder how many would park up until the garage called them in for their service slot or would they carry on driving untill they got the call?

You'd do it in order of priority. And you'd suggest people lower down the list find other ways to manage.

Yes indeed and that's currently what they ha. Do you know how many vehicles on the road use aftermarket party including fan belts and not original parts and no one thinks twice.

The second vaccine is only adding 20% maximum protection to what the first gives.

What I see is people just looking to find fault at whatever decisions are made. This has been the course of so many for the past 10 months.

One question I'd ask anyone on here about their stance.... Will it change anything? If not why argue and keep arguing about something you have no control or anyway of changing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Someone gave an analogy of changing the timing belt as per manufacturers instructions..... Could you imagine if every vehicle suddenly needed the timing belt changed at the same time?

I wonder what the approach would be? Wonder how many would park up until the garage called them in for their service slot or would they carry on driving untill they got the call?

You'd do it in order of priority. And you'd suggest people lower down the list find other ways to manage.

Yes indeed and that's currently what they ha. Do you know how many vehicles on the road use aftermarket party including fan belts and not original parts and no one thinks twice.

The second vaccine is only adding 20% maximum protection to what the first gives.

What I see is people just looking to find fault at whatever decisions are made. This has been the course of so many for the past 10 months.

One question I'd ask anyone on here about their stance.... Will it change anything? If not why argue and keep arguing about something you have no control or anyway of changing? "

The same could be said for those supporting the government. They're doing what they want. You agree. Why argue?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

My comments re: the science would be identical whether we had a Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem or Monster Raving Loony Government, for the record. I've been critical of every Government that's sat since I was old enough to understand and am a "floating voter".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Someone gave an analogy of changing the timing belt as per manufacturers instructions..... Could you imagine if every vehicle suddenly needed the timing belt changed at the same time?

I wonder what the approach would be? Wonder how many would park up until the garage called them in for their service slot or would they carry on driving untill they got the call?

You'd do it in order of priority. And you'd suggest people lower down the list find other ways to manage.

Yes indeed and that's currently what they ha. Do you know how many vehicles on the road use aftermarket party including fan belts and not original parts and no one thinks twice.

The second vaccine is only adding 20% maximum protection to what the first gives.

What I see is people just looking to find fault at whatever decisions are made. This has been the course of so many for the past 10 months.

One question I'd ask anyone on here about their stance.... Will it change anything? If not why argue and keep arguing about something you have no control or anyway of changing? "

Because there is not one jot of scientific evidence to support this craziness that is happening.

No other country anywhere in the world is doing this. Are you happy putting up the most vulnerable in our country as Guinea pigs? I know I am not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Your input has been brilliant

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)