Risky business?

[Seeker]

In its infinite wisdom (ho ho ho) the government are thinking of changing the vaccination strategy such that the second shot will be 12 weeks after the first instead of the 21 days recommended by the manufacturer.

https://www.businessinsider.com/expert-reaction-uk-untested-vaccination-strategy-single-dose-pfizer-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

I'm not an anti vaxxer but this makes me nervous. Given the government's handling of the pandemic do you now trust this new plan? It strikes me that it's a knee-jerk panic reaction.

[Biker Biggles]

Its all about politics and numbers. If you only need to give the first dose for the first three months then you will be able to stand up in front of your neatly folded flags at 10 Downing St and shout about double the number of people who have had the vaccine. If the delay policy works that will be fine but I would only support it if the manufacturers say so. Never would I trust our elected "leaders" to put aside their vested interests

[Seeker]

but I would only support it if the manufacturers say so.

therein lies the problem since there haven't been any tests on this procedure.

[Ruffy]

In its infinite wisdom (ho ho ho) the government are thinking of changing the vaccination strategy such that the second shot will be 12 weeks after the first instead of the 21 days recommended by the manufacturer.

https://www.businessinsider.com/expert-reaction-uk-untested-vaccination-strategy-single-dose-pfizer-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

I'm not an anti vaxxer but this makes me nervous. Given the government's handling of the pandemic do you now trust this new plan? It strikes me that it's a knee-jerk panic reaction.
I not sure I was ever clear what the initial overall plan was. I certainly don't trust any hastily adjusted component that may be issued.

I guess it depends whether you agree with the hypothesis that mass vaccination is the only way to de-restrict society. Individual dosing strategy aside, has there been anything issued on the society-scale plan - for example, do we have to wait until everyone is vacinnated before widespread restrictions are lifted and we can get back to some semblance of 'normality'? Or will it be 10%, 50%, 80% of population treated, or some other measure like case threshold, hospital admissions, random cabinet guffawing volume ... ?

[DJ123]

Of what i read the manufacturer has said they can't guarantee it will still be useful against Covid if the dose is given so late.

But, as BB put it; the numbers and the showing probably counts more to those with their necks on the line, than the lives they're potentially risking.


"The announcement caused controversy, however, and Pfizer and BioNTech warned that two doses of their vaccine were required for maximum protection against Covid and that they did not have evidence that the first dose alone offered protection after three weeks."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/31/covid-vaccine-uk-doctors-criticise-rescheduling-of-second-doses

[DJ123]

I not sure I was ever clear what the initial overall plan was. I certainly don't trust any hastily adjusted component that may be issued.

I guess it depends whether you agree with the hypothesis that mass vaccination is the only way to de-restrict society. Individual dosing strategy aside, has there been anything issued on the society-scale plan - for example, do we have to wait until everyone is vacinnated before widespread restrictions are lifted and we can get back to some semblance of 'normality'? Or will it be 10%, 50%, 80% of population treated, or some other measure like case threshold, hospital admissions, random cabinet guffawing volume ... ?

Even if everyone got the vaccine, there wouldn't be a mass de-restriction. Millions have already got over Covid without a Vaccine, whether they were hospitalised or not. They're not allowed out to play anymore than those who haven't had it.

I don't buy the Vaccine is the saviour call. It is for those who are vulnerable, but it isn't for society or the way life once was. They need to have a release plan to allow freedom of movement, or they will start to see a mass uprising/mass disobedience of restrictions when people see they there is no way out of the draconian measures.
This has to be dealt with on a 'living' with basis, not an end game plan - it'll more than likely be with us for a few years and peak during Winter/Flu season.

[Ruffy]

Even if everyone got the vaccine, there wouldn't be a mass de-restriction. Millions have already got over Covid without a Vaccine, whether they were hospitalised or not. They're not allowed out to play anymore than those who haven't had it.

I don't buy the Vaccine is the saviour call. It is for those who are vulnerable, but it isn't for society or the way life once was. They need to have a release plan to allow freedom of movement, or they will start to see a mass uprising/mass disobedience of restrictions when people see they there is no way out of the draconian measures.
This has to be dealt with on a 'living' with basis, not an end game plan - it'll more than likely be with us for a few years and peak during Winter/Flu season.
I agree. I just don't know what either of their 'release plan' or longer term 'living-with plan' is. At the minute it seems we just have to assume that it's once the vaccine is 'fully' rolled out then people will be properly "allowed out to play" again, to use your phrase. :confused:

I don't think that's good enough. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect us to return fully to the way it was pre-Covid but I want to see a clearer overall plan (with some ballpark anticipated steps and timings etc.) to get us to a new normal (whatever that looks like, best guess). I can cope with uncertainty and the fact it may need to be adjusted as time and events pass, but as a nation we seem to have gone from trying to be predicive to being totally reactive - to have nothing out there by way of strategic forward projection is surely pathetic management or incompetent?

[DJ123]

IMO it's incompetence from the current lot at the helm. They are afraid to take action too early, and when they finally take action it's usually rushed with Grey areas to be quantified and not inline with their own guidelines (RE the numbers).
Most the country is now in Tier 4, with a splattering of some in lesser tiers, which are no doubt surrounded by or are near Tier 4 areas. If the infection rate really is that bad why are we not in a national lock down? (no doubt this will happen in the New Year).
Schools; They were asking pre Christmas will there be a delay as they wanted to prepare in case there was, the answer was No. Between Christmas and New Year they U-Turn and say yes, there is a delay to Education returning.

They're currently clueless about what to do now, let alone in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if we're still fumbling around with Hokey Cokey lock downs until May/June.

[Red Herring]

There is actually logical argument behind the proposal, not just political gain.

In trials the Pfizer vaccine was found to be 90% effective after the first dose and this improved to 94% after the second.

So given it takes the same amount of clinical time to administer each dose would you rather have a number of people protected to 94%, or twice as many protected to only 90%?

I'd suggest at those odds it might be worth considering......

[chris8886]

There is actually logical argument behind the proposal, not just political gain.

In trials the Pfizer vaccine was found to be 90% effective after the first dose and this improved to 94% after the second.

So given it takes the same amount of clinical time to administer each dose would you rather have a number of people protected to 94%, or twice as many protected to only 90%?

I'd suggest at those odds it might be worth considering......



You're always a voice of reason that i'm inclined to agree with.

[johnnyrod]

Yes but how long is protection afforded from one or two doses?

[DJ123]

There is actually logical argument behind the proposal, not just political gain.

In trials the Pfizer vaccine was found to be 90% effective after the first dose and this improved to 94% after the second.

So given it takes the same amount of clinical time to administer each dose would you rather have a number of people protected to 94%, or twice as many protected to only 90%?

I'd suggest at those odds it might be worth considering......

Seeing as this first lot is for the most vulnerable, the more the better IMO. These are the people you're trying to protect the most, you need to minimise the risk as much as possible and have the option to do so.
If it was a general one for all, then i'd say 90% is probably enough.

[embee]

....In trials the Pfizer vaccine was found to be 90% effective after the first dose and this improved to 94% after the second.....

Well, there are different reports it would appear. The BMJ, a reasonably reputable publication, would suggest different numbers (published 11th Dec 2020) https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826
If as shown the Pfizer vaccine is only 52% effective after the first dose and 95% after the second, it would seem somewhat cavalier to suggest a significant delay of administering the second dose beyond the originally recommended 21days. I'm not aware that Pfizer have condoned the extension yet.
The USA authority CDC are still specifying an interval of 21days +/-4 days between doses (as of 30th Dec) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

I'm suspicious of the vaccination rates being bandied about. If as suggested it ramps up to 2m per week but the interval is extended to 12 weeks, which conveniently takes us pretty much to Easter to achieve the 20million highest priority subjects which is the Government gateway claim currently being offered, then the second doses would have to start being administered at the same 2m/week rate after that. If the total rate hasn't increased substantially by then (and I doubt it will, but we'll see), then there will be no further NEW recipients for a further 10 weeks until all the second doses are completed. I think there'll be a class1 smoke and mirrors exercise at the briefings to hide the reality ............. until it's too late. I hope as usual that I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, I can look forward to getting a vaccine sometime late summer.

[Seeker]

yet more guesswork from BoZo's Performing Clowns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-mix-and-match-covid-19-vaccine-strategy-2021-1?r=US&IR=T

I'm assuming they're taking advice from the guy that was in charge of Woolworth's Pic'n'Mix department.

Does anyone trust these people?

[Biker Biggles]

There is actually logical argument behind the proposal, not just political gain.

In trials the Pfizer vaccine was found to be 90% effective after the first dose and this improved to 94% after the second.

So given it takes the same amount of clinical time to administer each dose would you rather have a number of people protected to 94%, or twice as many protected to only 90%?

I'd suggest at those odds it might be worth considering......


Leaving aside issues with the use of statistics and data-------

That argument would suggest we dont need to bother with the second dose at all but Im not sure there is a study yet which shows sustained effectiveness from one dose. Perhaps there is current research going on into that but in the meantime I think we should be guided by the advice of the manufacturers. Incidently, if we dont give the second dose to the initial Pfizer recipients it seems likely we will have difficulty obtaining supplies in two or three months as they become due so the policy decision will have been made for us?
My fear is that short term political factors will overide scientific knowledge and we will see an endless cycle of new waves of infection as vaccine effectiveness wears off every six to twelve months because we didnt do the job properly.

[garynortheast]

yet more guesswork from BoZo's Performing Clowns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-mix-and-match-covid-19-vaccine-strategy-2021-1?r=US&IR=T

I'm assuming they're taking advice from the guy that was in charge of Woolworth's Pic'n'Mix department.

Does anyone trust these people?

Nope.

[Red Herring]

Well, there are different reports it would appear. The BMJ, a reasonably reputable publication, would suggest different numbers (published 11th Dec 2020) https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826
If as shown the Pfizer vaccine is only 52% effective after the first dose and 95% after the second, it would seem somewhat cavalier to suggest a significant delay of administering the second dose beyond the originally recommended 21days. I'm not aware that Pfizer have condoned the extension yet.
The USA authority CDC are still specifying an interval of 21days +/-4 days between doses (as of 30th Dec) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

I'm suspicious of the vaccination rates being bandied about. If as suggested it ramps up to 2m per week but the interval is extended to 12 weeks, which conveniently takes us pretty much to Easter to achieve the 20million highest priority subjects which is the Government gateway claim currently being offered, then the second doses would have to start being administered at the same 2m/week rate after that. If the total rate hasn't increased substantially by then (and I doubt it will, but we'll see), then there will be no further NEW recipients for a further 10 weeks until all the second doses are completed. I think there'll be a class1 smoke and mirrors exercise at the briefings to hide the reality ............. until it's too late. I hope as usual that I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, I can look forward to getting a vaccine sometime late summer.

Some very good points well made.

Statistics are always a bit dodgy, especially when they involve something as unreliable and unpredictable as medicine......;)

Referring just to the paper published in the BMJ as Embee has shared it here...

One of the biggest issues raised around the efficacy of the vaccine after just the one dose was just how "sterile" were the subject group. Finding 43k people to take part in the study who had all been self isolating for two weeks would have been impossible (especially if you wanted the group to be representative of a population with regard to age/sex/ethnic background etc...) so you have to factor in that a percentage of those receiving the first dose may have already been infected, or indeed become infected post vaccination and before they had developed immunity. Obviously by the time you come to administer the second booster dose your subject group will be far less likely to already been carrying a Covid infection (on account of the first dose) so you need to consider this when analysing results......

What is particularly important is the instance of serious Covid cases after just the first dose. There were thirty nine cases of Covid within the subject group (some 21,700 people) with only one of these being classified as serious. In the similar sized placebo group there were 82 cases of Covid (hence the 52% efficacy figure) but of these nine were classified as serious. In essence this is saying that after a single dose you are half as likely to catch Covid but nine times less likely to develop serious symptoms.

Given that it is those with serious symptoms that are going to bring the NHS to it's knees (or die......) I can still see why they are driving administering just the single dose.

[SV650rules]

There is actually logical argument behind the proposal, not just political gain.

In trials the Pfizer vaccine was found to be 90% effective after the first dose and this improved to 94% after the second.

So given it takes the same amount of clinical time to administer each dose would you rather have a number of people protected to 94%, or twice as many protected to only 90%?

I'd suggest at those odds it might be worth considering......

Agree, The vaccine makers did do a single dose during trials and found that nobody who had single dose got sick enough to need hospital treatment. They said a good level of immunity 14 to 20 days after jab. Another thing is that ultra low temperature storage needed for Pfizer vaccine is in short supply, so rather than having to keep vaccine for second doses and at same time have to store newly arrived doses as well, it is better to use vaccine ASAP rather than keep it stored doing no one any good.

[Seeker]

but most people in the UK will get the AstraZeneca vaccine and the MHRA only approved it for a 2 dose regime.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-being-approved-for-use-in-the-uk-by-the-mhra/

There are still questions on the AZ's efficacy since the testing had dosage errors.

Regarding the one dose plan, one GP surgery said they'd given 1600 people the first injection and now had to call the 1600 to cancel the second jab plus call another 1600 to schedule a first for which they didn't have the staff. Another surgery said they'd stick to the 21 days separation and defy the recommendations. I have no faith that Hancock knows what he's doing. All that's missing is him running around shouting: "Don't Panic" to complete the farce.

[SV650rules]

Makes more sense to vaccinate 2 million people a week with a dose that will prevent them being sick enough to need hospital care than to vaccinate half that number and tie up the scarce low temperature freezer space. Looks like experts in USA may take the British approach, as Churchill said 'America will normally make the right decision, but only after they have exhausted all other possibilities'...

I read a report on test done on a single dose of Oxford / AZ vaccine trials that said within 14 to 20 days a good level of immunity was given, the second dose is a booster, to try to ensure immunity lasts for a longer time.
If the mutations of virus continue an new vaccine may be needed anyway and the second shot of original vaccine may have been wasted.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/532270-us-debates-whether-uk-approach-is-better-on-covid-vaccinations




What is particularly important is the instance of serious Covid cases after just the first dose. There were thirty nine cases of Covid within the subject group (some 21,700 people) with only one of these being classified as serious. In the similar sized placebo group there were 82 cases of Covid (hence the 52% efficacy figure) but of these nine were classified as serious. In essence this is saying that after a single dose you are half as likely to catch Covid but nine times less likely to develop serious symptoms.

Given that it is those with serious symptoms that are going to bring the NHS to it's knees (or die......) I can still see why they are driving administering just the single dose.

[Seeker]

Looks like experts in USA may take the British approach

what it says in your link is that it is being considered, however:
"Moncef Slaoui, chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, said he does not support a policy with no evidence behind it.

What could possibly go wrong when you throw away the manufacturer's instruction manual?

Pfizer says:
But the announcement on Wednesday (about changing to 1 dose) prompted Pfizer to issue a warning over what it called "alternative dosing".
A spokesperson said: "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.

[embee]

.... There were thirty nine cases of Covid within the subject group (some 21,700 people) with only one of these being classified as serious. In the similar sized placebo group there were 82 cases of Covid (hence the 52% efficacy figure) but of these nine were classified as serious. In essence this is saying that after a single dose you are half as likely to catch Covid but nine times less likely to develop serious symptoms.

......
Unfortunately it's when numbers get this low in data that the question of statistical significance becomes particularly relevant. Even with a test base of 40k people, when you get down to 1 or 2 or 3 cases, the effect of just another 1 or 2 is potentially doubling the rate, so levels of confidence become important. That's why in the Pfizer data a nominal efficacy of 52% gets a 95% credible interval of 29.5% to 68.4%, which is a pretty wide range in anyone's book. I doubt many politicians understand statistics to any detailed level.

[Red Herring]

Unfortunately it's when numbers get this low in data that the question of statistical significance becomes particularly relevant. Even with a test base of 40k people, when you get down to 1 or 2 or 3 cases, the effect of just another 1 or 2 is potentially doubling the rate, so levels of confidence become important. That's why in the Pfizer data a nominal efficacy of 52% gets a 95% credible interval of 29.5% to 68.4%, which is a pretty wide range in anyone's book. I doubt many politicians understand statistics to any detailed level.

Indeed, like I said any statistics around medicine are pretty dodgy...... :D

I don't know if you've read the last BMJ? Interesting comments in there from some doctors involved in briefing the media on medical matters.........

[21QUEST]

A happy new year to everyone.

I applaud those prepared to have 'faith'. I'm certainly not prepared to offer myself up so I'd not be having the vaccine.

Hopefully, there'd be enough people with 'faith' to reach the percentage required for herd immunity.

Listening to the radio and hearing about mixing and matching of vaccines from different manufacturers was the last straw for me.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-mixing-coronavirus-vaccines-is-not-recommended-health-agency-warns-12177320

[Seeker]

I think my problem here is that I'm not a risk taker and yet I ride a motorcycle - go figure :rolleyes:

If a toaster manufacturer says don't immerse the toaster in water to clean it I won't, although immersing it would clean it so much easier and if the power was on the elements would soon shake off their residue. :D

When this government says jump off the cliff, we promise it won't hurt, it's only a drop of a few feet and there's a net to catch you, but the safety net manufacturer says we haven't tested it from that height - I wouldn't jump. Especially when the people advising me built a "world beating" test and trace system which never worked properly, they also built emergency hospitals which we cannot staff and we have a new policy U-turn every 2-3 weeks on average.
The governments track record on delivering the goods is abysmal, their ability to follow their own script also needs help.

If Pfizer and AZ stood up and said "we haven't tested this scenario but we have 90% confidence that it will work" then I might be swayed, but that's not what they're saying. Caution because of liability issues or lack of scientific evidence? Either way, I'm not running to jump off the cliff because Hancock says: "you'll be fine".

[Red Herring]

Interesting that those who say they wouldn't take a relatively untested vaccine on the basis that they are not risk takers are however quite prepared to risk catching Covid despite the fact that it has killed thousands of people and there is a very real possibility the state will not be able to provide them with the care they are expecting should they be unfortunate enough to catch it.

I do understand governments don't exactly inspire confidence, personally if an MP told me it was dark outside at 1am I'd still look out the window to check, but surely they have some confidence in their own ability to research the facts? Do we really live in such a shallow world that people believe what they see on social media to the extent that they make life changing decisions based on it?

One of the saddest things as far as I am concerned about this whole pandemic is how it has generated so much conflict within our society. Instead of uniting against it our leaders, and subsequently our population, have all been following the path that suits their personal agenda and the resulting chaos and confusion has done nobody any favours. If ever there was a catalyst for civil unrest this is it. You have to wonder just how long those that take this virus seriously and are prepared to do something about it will tolerate those that live in denial and frustrate all attempts to eradicate it.

[Seeker]

Interesting that those who say they wouldn't take a relatively untested vaccine on the basis that they are not risk takers are however quite prepared to risk catching Covid despite the fact that it has killed thousands of people and there is a very real possibility the state will not be able to provide them with the care they are expecting should they be unfortunate enough to catch it.

I think there's a difference between taking a vaccine that, if guidelines are followed is effective, compared to ignoring the guidelines in the assumption it may be better despite the warnings from the makers. I was keen to get the vaccine until the bungling started.

My situation is maybe a little different, I live alone and my family and friends are in the US which means that I can limit my exposure to the virus. I also live in an area where, after a brief rise in cases, the virus infection rate is low again.

This government continues to inspire little confidence. Currently, we have teachers pleading not to re-open schools and another U turn regarding London schools. If it were shown that by restricting the doses reduced the cost and benefited a Conservative party donor I would not be surprised. Their handling of this epidemic has been chaotic, corrupt and catastrophic (imho).

[Red Herring]

My situation is not unlike yours Seeker, I live in the countryside with one elderly neighbour, I'm retired so have no need to leave the property and my only real exposure to Covid is presented by my wife who as a GP does runs a risk every time she conducts a surgery......

I do however see the bigger picture. If, for example, half the population follow your view and elect not to receive the vaccine where does that leave the country? Do we continue with Lockdown in order to protect you, or allow life to resume and expose you to infection and the NHS to having to deal with the consequence?


If, like me, you have so little confidence in the government why are you even listening to what they are saying? Go out and do your own research and make your own decision based on that. The information is out there, the article in the BMJ linked to this thread is just one example but read it properly, not just the headlines, and draw logical conclusions from the facts presented.

[Biker Biggles]

My position is still that the vaccine(s) are the best and only way to stop the virus and as such we should all take it as soon as offered. Im much less concerned about the risks from the vaccine than I am about our government's propensity to **** it up and leave a good job half done. They do have form for this. Thus I try to absorb advice from relevant academics rather than politicians. My understanding so far, probably out of date, is that there is no significant evidence that the Pfizer vaccine should be second dosed at anything other than the 21 days specified because they never tested for this. The AZ jab has a very small sample of evidence suggesting a 12 week delay works well. There is no evidence yet showing the second dose to be not required nor that mixing the two types is useful. There is clearly a short term gain to be had by delaying the second dose because more people will get some cover but we have no idea if that cover wears off and how soon. My view is that politicians should STFU and stop pontificating about it until the experts have been able to research the options better, that in conjunction with a speedy roll out. Several scientists I have heard advocate a roll out with various times for the second dose involving the whole population to rapidly get data around efficacy which seems acceptable to me in the circumstances.

I dont expect to get a jab any time soon but if offered I would take it today so being suspicious/anti government does not make me anti vax. Quite the opposite

[SV650rules]

For people below 40 with no underlying conditions the risk is miniscule, even for older people without underlying conditions the risk is pretty low. Age is important, but it is the underlying chronic health conditions ( co-morbidities ) that really tilt the risk. The figures are that the average age of a covid fatality is 82 ( about the same as average lifespan in UK ) with 2 or more underlying conditions ( like heart disease, diabetes OBESITY ). The WHO did warn that UK would suffer more than average deaths from virus because the NHS was good a keeping people with multiple chronic conditions alive. Men are almost twice as likely as women to succumb to covid. The testing and rollout of these vaccines has been compressed, how much has been left out we can only guess, but obviously no long term testing of any after affects the newer mRNA vaccines, which have been around for about 30 years and never licenced for use on humans, which somewhat dents you confidence whether the licencing now was a medical decision - or more likely a political one..

There is conjecture as to whether some patient will show up for the second dose anyway if they have bad effects from the first jab, as it seems the reaction to second jab can be worse than the to the first.

https://bgr.com/2020/08/27/coronavirus-deaths-men-vs-women-immune-response/

https://towardsdatascience.com/covid-19-comorbidities-are-the-elephant-in-the-room-7d185bd6cfe2

[ethariel]

https://bgr.com/2020/08/27/coronavirus-deaths-men-vs-women-immune-response/[/URL]

https://towardsdatascience.com/covid-19-comorbidities-are-the-elephant-in-the-room-7d185bd6cfe2

Absolutely correct, often a first dose or course with a medication will offer up limited to no side effects in most (tho not all) cases, it's the second dose/course where all the nasties pop up.

I took an antibiotic for an abscess all good, 6 months later, same antibiotic same reason and it destroyed all the bacteria, good or bad in my digestive tract and that took 2 and a half years of hell to recover.

For the Covid Jab - A single dose is massively less probable at any kind of adverse reaction but where I'm unhappy is that the manufacturer says 21 days, there is limited data on the longevity of a full course and none on a half course. Of course the drug companies could just be padding it out that '2 doses are needed' from a profit point of view but if they are not, and are right about the 21 day gap being the only way it works properly, then I hope the good old Government is ready for the wrath of litigation for bolloxing it all up and killing millions.

[svenrico]

I do however see the bigger picture. If, for example, half the population follow your view and elect not to receive the vaccine where does that leave the country? Do we continue with Lockdown in order to protect you, or allow life to resume and expose you to infection and the NHS to having to deal with the consequence?

I agree, the vaccine is the way to get out of the restrictions and avoid lockdowns , but won't be effective if a lot of people refuse to have it.

[svenrico]

My wife and son no longer have a job and the sooner the vaccine is rolled out to as many people as possible the better as far as I am concerned so that things can get back to something more normal .
As far as the comments on civil unrest are concerned , I can see people becoming more intolerant of people whose behaviour risks spreading this virus or prolonging the restrictions.

[ethariel]

The simple way of raising the acceptance rate is to link your vaccination status to your passport in regards foreign travel, no jab, no leave UK. While it's possibly on the cards at this end it's more probable on the cards at the destination end.

There will however be holdouts regardless of what carrot/stick methods are used to get people to have the jab, unfortunately nature will take it's course amongst them over time.

[SV650rules]

The Vaccine companies, the NHS and presumably the government have been protected from legal action for any adverse affects of the vaccine because it is an 'emergency' medicine and they have not really had time to test it properly....

https://www.cityam.com/pfizer-given-protection-from-legal-action-by-uk-government/

[DJ123]

The simple way of raising the acceptance rate is to link your vaccination status to your passport in regards foreign travel, no jab, no leave UK. While it's possibly on the cards at this end it's more probable on the cards at the destination end.

There will however be holdouts regardless of what carrot/stick methods are used to get people to have the jab, unfortunately nature will take it's course amongst them over time.

How are you going to enforce a policy for something that isn't mandatory . . . .

Similar to the Flu vaccine it's to help protect the vulnerable, not everybody. The same will happen with the CV Vaccine, limited numbers to protect the vulnerable.

"Not all deaths are a tragedy" Is a quote from a speech made in Parliament regarding those who succumb to Covid. The premature of a death of a Child, or young Adult who's lives have yet to start are a tragedy. The passing of someone much older (70+) is not, they have lived a life. It is not to suppress any emotions to the older Generations who are Parents, Grandparents or even Great Grandparents.

[DJ123]

The Vaccine companies, the NHS and presumably the government have been protected from legal action for any adverse affects of the vaccine because it is an 'emergency' medicine and they have not really had time to test it properly....

https://www.cityam.com/pfizer-given-protection-from-legal-action-by-uk-government/

Correct. Immunity has been granted for the companies producing the Vaccine, and probably the Government too.

[svenrico]

Similar to the Flu vaccine it's to help protect the vulnerable, not everybody. The same will happen with the CV Vaccine, limited numbers to protect the vulnerable.

"Not all deaths are a tragedy" Is a quote from a speech made in Parliament regarding those who succumb to Covid. The premature of a death of a Child, or young Adult who's lives have yet to start are a tragedy. The passing of someone much older (70+) is not, they have lived a life. It is not to suppress any emotions to the older Generations who are Parents, Grandparents or even Great Grandparents.
As a 71 year old I resent these comments.
The CV vaccine is initially being rolled out to protect the most vulnerable but in time is intended to protect everybody .
Even older people don't deserve to die just because they might have underlying health conditions , when they would have carried on living if they hadn't caught Covid.

[Biker Biggles]

As a 71 year old I resent these comments.
The CV vaccine is initially being rolled out to protect the most vulnerable but in time is intended to protect everybody .
Even older people don't deserve to die just because they might have underlying health conditions , when they would have carried on living if they hadn't caught Covid.
Agreed!
When we start to think of any section of society as vaguely expendable we sail very close to a very nasty philosophy. Best resisted before it becomes acceptable.

[DJ123]

I think i have probably not represented what i meant to say in the best manner. Let me try and find the speech that was made, as it was not about the Elderly being expendable.

I will clarify, that i'm not for letting anyone die unnecessarily regardless of age or any other factors.

[Seeker]

I think i have probably not represented what i meant to say in the best manner. Let me try and find the speech that was made, as it was not about the Elderly being expendable.

I will clarify, that i'm not for letting anyone die unnecessarily regardless of age or any other factors.

if it was this speech:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9006157/Coronavirus-Tory-MP-argues-not-deaths-equal.html

He seemed to be saying that "some" (unspecified) older people had said they wanted to prioritise the young over themselves. Since it was Sir Charles Walker, a Conservative, I'd need to see evidence of what he claimed since he was using it as an argument against covid lockdowns.

As I wrote to my MP (who is 70), my problems with the Conservatives is that they see everything and everyone fitted with a price tag. As you join the older demographic your value diminishes (in the politician's eyes) until it comes time to vote. It seems to me that the only people left with any money are older people and they should be encouraged to spend, spend spend. I'm 65 and I'm following this mantra.

[DJ123]

if it was this speech:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9006157/Coronavirus-Tory-MP-argues-not-deaths-equal.html

He seemed to be saying that "some" (unspecified) older people had said they wanted to prioritise the young over themselves. Since it was Sir Charles Walker, a Conservative, I'd need to see evidence of what he claimed since he was using it as an argument against covid lockdowns.

As I wrote to my MP (who is 70), my problems with the Conservatives is that they see everything and everyone fitted with a price tag. As you join the older demographic your value diminishes (in the politician's eyes) until it comes time to vote. It seems to me that the only people left with any money are older people and they should be encouraged to spend, spend spend. I'm 65 and I'm following this mantra.

That is the speech.

I too would have liked to seen something to back this up, but you can't expect a Politician to have actual evidence . . . .

Most people have worked hard for their money and should enjoy it in the way they see fit.

[embee]

......
I don't know if you've read the last BMJ? Interesting comments in there from some doctors involved in briefing the media on medical matters.........

I only look occasionally out of curiosity when searching for general info. There's a good article which shows some of the limitations of data/information being published and the ways in which stuff gets "dumbed down" either intentionally or simply for convenience here https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/
Statistics eh?
I'll have to remember to check online every night to see what the next day's rules are going to be. Nice to know the folk in control really know what they're doing and have a strategy.

Edit - just read this BMJ article on the delay between vaccine doses. The authors listed at the end of the article probably have a reasonable clue as to what they are talking about, I would have thought. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/05/covid-19-vaccines-to-delay-or-not-to-delay-second-doses/
In summary they suggest the AZ version type has some background which would suggest probable efficacy even with extended interval between doses, the Pfizer/Moderna type doesn't have supporting background data because of the absence of previous use of this mRNA type of vaccine and the acceptability of the delay is based on assumptions not evidence. Go Matt Hancock ......

[SV650rules]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52308783

Couple of comments from the article below, I know from other sources that the average age of a victim is over 82, and typically suffering with 2 or more other life limiting conditions ( example heart disease, dementia, breathing problems, obesity, diabetes ).


Nick Stripe, head of health analysis at the ONS, said understanding what the deaths from coronavirus meant was "difficult and challenging".
He pointed out the risk of dying from heart disease and strokes had fallen, which could suggest they were dying from coronavirus instead of other things.


"Coronavirus is doing more than taking the place of other causes of death for people who would otherwise have died this month," he said.
"It has driven the total number of deaths higher than expected.
"People like these, with multiple health conditions, do have lower life expectancy, but these figures don't say exactly how many months or years coronavirus has taken off their life."

[DJ123]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52308783

Couple of comments from the article below, I know from other sources that the average age of a victim is over 82, and typically suffering with 2 or more other life limiting conditions ( example heart disease, dementia, breathing problems, obesity, diabetes ).


Nick Stripe, head of health analysis at the ONS, said understanding what the deaths from coronavirus meant was "difficult and challenging".
He pointed out the risk of dying from heart disease and strokes had fallen, which could suggest they were dying from coronavirus instead of other things.


"Coronavirus is doing more than taking the place of other causes of death for people who would otherwise have died this month," he said.
"It has driven the total number of deaths higher than expected.
"People like these, with multiple health conditions, do have lower life expectancy, but these figures don't say exactly how many months or years coronavirus has taken off their life."

And that is the blurred line of the Covid deaths. Are these people who simply succumbed to it rather than their existing condition a little earlier, a 'real' Covid death (which you could say is one without complication of other issues).

I need to review the daily numbers again and see what the actual number is, vs where it is mentioned on the DC.

The 'daily' infection rate is also BS, as it is a rolling number of tests over the last 7-10 days IIRC. It is more of a cumulative number.

[SV650rules]

The government is counting anyone who died and has been within 5 miles of a virus in last month as a covid death. This may well suit their purpose ( whatever that is ) .... I guess some deaths have been slightly hastened and may be some postponed till 2021 and beyond due to lack of diagnosis and treatment for pretty much everything but covid in past 9 months or so. As the head of health statistics at ONS said, sorting pure covid deaths from everything else is difficult and challenging, it is not clear cut by any means..

[embee]

.......The 'daily' infection rate is also BS, as it is a rolling number of tests over the last 7-10 days IIRC. It is more of a cumulative number.

The numbers given on the TV news reports are both actual daily recorded values and also a rolling 7 day average value. The rolling average is required to even out the big swings between weekdays and weekends reporting (for some reason the recording systems still appear to work differently at weekends, maybe the virus has days off?).

[DJ123]

Yes, Covid has breaks too. Its Unionised . . . . . that's why Pubs used to shut at 10PM as Covid works night shift.

The daily numbers aren't accurate in they are preliminary prior to an Autopsy and the actual COD being released, as far as i'm aware. That's why the ONS figures have the death from Covid & Covid mentioned on DC statistics split.

[Biker Biggles]

Its easy to criticise the figures but when you look at all the numbers such as hospital admissions and deaths in conjunction with positive tests they seem to tally up to something very close to accurate. They also tally up when looking at retrospective figures which were easy to criticise at the time they were produced. Then there is the anecdotal evidence. I live about a mile away from one of the London hospitals at the epicentre of it all just now and there is no doubt in my mind when I talk to people I know on the front line or I see the 10 or 12 ambulances waiting to unload their cargos. Then there's the people I and my family know or knew who have died -------Some of them were nowhere near 82 either.

[svenrico]

Agreed!
When we start to think of any section of society as vaguely expendable we sail very close to a very nasty philosophy. Best resisted before it becomes acceptable.
Exactly.
What we have to do is 'protect' the NHS by trying to control the spread of the virus to avoid a situation where hospitals are overwhelmed by Covid cases and doctors have to make to decisions on who can live and who has to die.
I have now read that speech and won't comment any further.

[Bri w]

I've just skim read through the thread, apologies if I've missed a post detailing the level of the dose given if its moved out to 12 weeks.

Basically, there were 3 options considered. Low first dose, high second dose. medium-medium. high 1st, low 2nd. The change in shifting to a 12 week gap also sees a shift to a higher first dose, lower second dose.

In an ideal world, giving a low first dose also gives the opportunity to highlight those that will react adversely to it without them receiving too high a dose. However, on the issue of reactions to the vaccine. Typically, there are between 1% and 2% adverse reactions to vaccines every year. Although early days, the number of adverse reactions to the Covid vaccine is below 1%.

Safety; with almost 30 years experience of working for and with the NHS I've come across the MHRA(Medical devices directorate) and NICE(National Institute of Clinical Excellence) on a significant number of occasions. I worked closely with the MHRA on numerous investigations, attended Coroner's Courts etc. They've said the vaccine is safe, and that's more than good enough for me.

If/when offered the vaccine I'll be saying yes please.

[ethariel]

At the end of the day, I'll take what ever is offered that gives me a fighting chance of getting out of the house after 10 months of working from home.

All I can hope is that ignoring manufacturers advice and spreading the shots out over 12 weeks instead of 3 does not bollox everything up completely!