The Vaccine Thread

[dazzer6666]

Erm

That’s The Telegraph

I would rather believe Karen off Facebook to be honest

“Readily available”. Brilliant slip sliding. Lol

Can you share a link that explains the supply problems/timeline ?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Can you share a link that explains the supply problems/timeline ?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gps-rebel-over-order-to-delay-second-jabs-xsg6qxzcp

Also

Pfizer warned yesterday there is 'no data' to show a single dose of its coronavirus vaccine provides long-term protection after the UK scrapped its original jab rollout plan.

The UK medical regulator is now recommending Covid jabs are given in two doses three months apart, rather than four weeks apart, to allow millions more people to be immunised over a shorter time period.

The strategy will apply to both Pfizer/BioNTech's vaccine and the newly approved jab by Oxford/AstraZeneca, despite limited data around the effectiveness of the initial doses.

It is a direct response to spiking Covid cases and hospitalisations across the UK that are being driven by a new, highly infectious strain that emerged in the South East of England in September.

Virtually the whole of England is facing brutal lockdown until the spring, with Covid vaccines the only hope of ending the devastation.

Health bosses now want to give as many people as possible an initial dose, rather than holding back the second doses, so more of the population can enjoy at least some protection.

AstraZeneca praised the move and revealed it had tested the three-month strategy on a small sub-group of trialists in its studies.

But Pfizer said there was 'no data' in its studies to show its vaccine protects against Covid when taken 12 weeks apart.

In a thinly-veiled swipe at the UK, the US firm warned that any 'alternative' dosing regimens should be closely monitored by health authorities.

'Data from the phase three study demonstrated that, although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95 per cent,' Pfizer said in a statement.

'There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.'

 

[Bodian]

Link ? Why do you keep peddling fake news ?

1 million available Monday and a further 2m by the middle of Jan, with a total of 19-20m readily available.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ly-approved-oxford-vaccine-will-ready-monday/

Behind a paywall, so not sure exactly what it says - but reports in other papers do seem to talk about a shortage. The Mirror says 530,000 available on 30 December

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/covid-19-vaccine-shortages-reality-23247355

 

[dazzer6666]

Behind a paywall, so not sure exactly what it says - but reports in other papers do seem to talk about a shortage. The Mirror says 530,000 available on 30 December

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/covid-19-vaccine-shortages-reality-23247355

Tks - had read that article as well. Even that says ‘millions by beginning of Feb’ (although it’s quoting Hancockwomble so possibly unreliable [emoji849]). Whitty’s reference to shortages do seem to be in a global context though - if there’s one thing the government have done well it seems to be procurement of vaccines......guess we’ll find out pretty quickly.

 

[Bodian]

Tks - had read that article as well. Even that says ‘millions by beginning of Feb’ (although it’s quoting Hancockwomble so possibly unreliable [emoji849]). Whitty’s reference to shortages do seem to be in a global context though - if there’s one think the government have done well it seems to be procurement of vaccines......guess we’ll find out pretty quickly.

I agree. Not been impressed with a lot of what they have done, but they have been ahead of the curve with this.

 

[dsr-burnley]

'There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.'

Fortunately there soon will be.

There are also no data to say that 21 days is the optimum period, incidentally. 21 is the only number that has been tested.

 

[studio150]

Fortunately there soon will be.

There are also no data to say that 21 days is the optimum period, incidentally. 21 is the only number that has been tested.

But 21 days works from the data.

I just wonder if this change by the Government to go to 12 weeks, is nothing more than looking to be towards the top of international tables for the number of people vaccinated, as by going to 12 weeks they immediately double the number. Thereby being able to say look how good we are, and hoping no one looks behind the headlines.

The fact that if the 12 weeks is found to be useless if the effects of the first jab fall away after 21 days, the UK second jab rather than giving the 95% protection will in effect be the 1st jab, thereby needing another jab within 21 days.

Let's hope this is wrong, otherwise the UK will have lost 12 weeks in fighting back against the virus and the increased number of deaths will be solely down to the Government.

To me it just seems to be a big gamble by a gambler trying to recover his losses.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Fortunately there soon will be.

There are also no data to say that 21 days is the optimum period, incidentally. 21 is the only number that has been tested.

It seems a rather risky road to take, that’s a lot of wasted vaccines.

 

[dsr-burnley]

But 21 days works from the data.

I just wonder if this change by the Government to go to 12 weeks, is nothing more than looking to be towards the top of international tables for the number of people vaccinated, as by going to 12 weeks they immediately double the number. Thereby being able to say look how good we are, and hoping no one looks behind the headlines.

The fact that if the 12 weeks is found to be useless if the effects of the first jab fall away after 21 days, the UK second jab rather than giving the 95% protection will in effect be the 1st jab, thereby needing another jab within 21 days.

Let's hope this is wrong, otherwise the UK will have lost 12 weeks in fighting back against the virus and the increased number of deaths will be solely down to the Government.

To me it just seems to be a big gamble by a gambler trying to recover his losses.

You're assuming that this decision is set in stone and cannot possibly be changed. You're wrong. By mid-January they will have a good idea of the effectiveness of a single jab, and by the end of January they will know whether that effectiveness wears off after 3 weeks.

The government has perhaps been a bit brave, it's true. As you suggest, the "safe" thing to do is to do the three week jab regardless of results, because that's what's written down and any extra deaths that result will be someone else's fault. But if the government chose to govern on the basis of avoiding blame rather than saving lives, it would be worse than if they follow their medical advice that there is another way and this other way is probably better.

They will keep records day by day. If the single-jab vaccine ceases to work on day 22, they will know that by the end of January.

 

[dsr-burnley]

It seems a rather risky road to take, that’s a lot of wasted vaccines.

Maybe they are taking a risky route because there is no safe route.

How do people feel on an individual basis? With 2 hypothetical elderly relatives, would you prefer both get a single jab, or would you rather have one with two jabs and the other left unprotected?

 

[Uter]

But 21 days works from the data.

I just wonder if this change by the Government to go to 12 weeks, is nothing more than looking to be towards the top of international tables for the number of people vaccinated, as by going to 12 weeks they immediately double the number. Thereby being able to say look how good we are, and hoping no one looks behind the headlines.

The fact that if the 12 weeks is found to be useless if the effects of the first jab fall away after 21 days, the UK second jab rather than giving the 95% protection will in effect be the 1st jab, thereby needing another jab within 21 days.

Let's hope this is wrong, otherwise the UK will have lost 12 weeks in fighting back against the virus and the increased number of deaths will be solely down to the Government.

To me it just seems to be a big gamble by a gambler trying to recover his losses.

For the Oxford/AZ vaccine there is already evidence to suggest that the longer the interval, the better the response:

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Maybe they are taking a risky route because there is no safe route.

How do people feel on an individual basis? With 2 hypothetical elderly relatives, would you prefer both get a single jab, or would you rather have one with two jabs and the other left unprotected?

With the chance of both having the effectiveness fading away?

 

[dsr-burnley]

With the chance of both having the effectiveness fading away?

With the facts as we now know them.

What I am interested in is whether - based on what we know now - people would prefer to have one elderly relative injected twice and the other one unprotected, or both elderly relatives injected once each. For me, I would go for both once each, but I'm interested in other views.

 

[Machiavelli]

You're assuming that this decision is set in stone and cannot possibly be changed. You're wrong. By mid-January they will have a good idea of the effectiveness of a single jab, and by the end of January they will know whether that effectiveness wears off after 3 weeks.

The government has perhaps been a bit brave, it's true. As you suggest, the "safe" thing to do is to do the three week jab regardless of results, because that's what's written down and any extra deaths that result will be someone else's fault. But if the government chose to govern on the basis of avoiding blame rather than saving lives, it would be worse than if they follow their medical advice that there is another way and this other way is probably better.

They will keep records day by day. If the single-jab vaccine ceases to work on day 22, they will know that by the end of January.

Thank you for your input on this thread. Very insightful.
Q: are you a B&HA fan that lives in Burnley, or a Burnley fan that frequents this board? If the latter, be interested to hear your thoughts on the takeover, and what the impact will be in the next six months or so.

 

[beorhthelm]

With the chance of both having the effectiveness fading away?

where has the idea efficacy fades come from?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

where has the idea efficacy fades come from?

The criticism comes after Pfizer said that it only assessed its vaccine on a two-dose regimen where people were given the jab three weeks apart, and there was "no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days".

In a statement, Pfizer says: "Pfizer and BioNTech’s Phase 3 study for the Covid-19 vaccine was designed to evaluate the vaccine’s safety and efficacy following a 2-dose schedule, separated by 21 days.

It’s fair to say they know more about the jab/data than our guys?

 

[dsr-burnley]

Thank you for your input on this thread. Very insightful.
Q: are you a B&HA fan that lives in Burnley, or a Burnley fan that frequents this board? If the latter, be interested to hear your thoughts on the takeover, and what the impact will be in the next six months or so.

Thank you. The latter. I've posted a bit about the takeover on the specific thread referencing the takeover, on the main part of the board.

 

[beorhthelm]

The criticism comes after Pfizer said that it only assessed its vaccine on a two-dose regimen where people were given the jab three weeks apart, and there was "no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days".

In a statement, Pfizer says: "Pfizer and BioNTech’s Phase 3 study for the Covid-19 vaccine was designed to evaluate the vaccine’s safety and efficacy following a 2-dose schedule, separated by 21 days.

It’s fair to say they know more about the jab/data than our guys?

they've given all their data on trials to the regulators. both FDA and MHRA are looking at that data and suggesting they dont necessarily need to do two doses to be effective (50% is the benchmark, not 90%+). Pfizer might have a commercial interest in supporting their 2 dose schedule...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

they've given all their data on trials to the regulators. both FDA and MHRA are looking at that data and suggesting they dont necessarily need to do two doses to be effective (50% is the benchmark, not 90%+). Pfizer might have a commercial interest in supporting their 2 dose schedule...

And the gov might have a target ?

They still have to have the second dose so the same amount are needed

I agree on the data part - but it still seems like a risk

 

[dazzer6666]

I’m quite relaxed about this as seems to make sense, particularly for the Oxford vaccine where the longer interval has already been subject to some testing with positive results.

Given one dose of either pretty much eliminates the risk of getting seriously ill or dying from the virus, getting twice as many vulnerable people jabbed once quickly rather than taking twice as long gets us out of the mire so much more quickly. Second jabs and rollout to the wider population can soon follow.

If there was any real risk identified by MRHA or the other bodies involved in approval and administration etc there’s no way this would be happening IMO because the non-conflicted scientists - particularly those that developed the vaccines - would be screaming from the rooftops.