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/expe...0-12?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]

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

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]

Originally Posted by 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/expe...0-12?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/...f-second-doses

[DJ123]

Originally Posted by Ruffy

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]

Originally Posted by DJ123

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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......

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