Who'd have thought it possible something written by the press could be so wrong, and downright misleading... The editor of the British Medical Journal has asked the New York Times to correct an article that claims UK guidelines allow two Covid-19 vaccines to be mixed. The US publication reported that UK health officials were allowing patients to be given a second dose that is different to their first. Fiona Godlee said there was no such recommendation to mix and match. The UK has approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab. Ms Godlee said the paper's report was "seriously misleading and requires urgent correction". She said the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) does not make any recommendation to mix and Dr Mary Ramsay, Public Health England's head of immunisations, said: "We do not recommend mixing the Covid-19 vaccines - if your first dose is the Pfizer vaccine you should not be given the AstraZeneca vaccine for your second dose and vice versa." Dr Ramsay added that on the "extremely rare occasions" where the same vaccine is unavailable or it is unknown which jab the patient received, it is "better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all". Ms Godlee urged the New York Times to print a "highly visible correction" as soon as possible.
Thanks for your reply. I was reading today from Van-Tam about the 12 week interval. Surely they have some inside track, as he is the deputy chief Medical Officer for the UK. I just would be gobsmacked if the medical profession didnt have more info than gut feel to base this on. As I said, itseems logical to me, and I think the noise and arguments stem from the rearranging of appointments already booked for 2and vacs... He mentions below "the evidence clearly shows" - so where is the research, it must be available. Second doses will take place within 12 weeks of the first - rather than the 21 days initially planned - in an effort to maximise coverage and expand the number of people getting the first vaccination. England's deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam defended the government's change in guidance. He told the Mail on Sunday: "The evidence clearly shows vaccinated individuals get almost complete protection after the first dose. Simply put, every time we vaccinate someone a second time, we are not vaccinating someone else for the first time. "It means we are missing an opportunity to greatly reduce the chances of the most vulnerable people getting severely ill from COVID-19." Can you imagine the fall out if the medics & government got it wrong!
It was a BBC article I read this morning. Usually, they are pretty reliable...although thesedays, clearly none are 100% reliable, as evidenced by daily posts from people on here Edit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55519042
Exactly Billie, where is the evidence? I'd want it to come from the creators and manufacturers test data and ongoing research as the inoculations are given across the population. I hope there's international cooperation via the EMA and WHO to. I'm OK with the 12 week if it's proven to give full protection but not the rescheduling of 500K+ vulnerable people it's a logistical nightmare.
Covid figures for Southampton, up to 28th December. Woolston leading the way with the highest infection rate. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18983027.another-covid-hotspot-identified-southampton/
I am no medical expert, not have I read all articles available in this. I do however have one simple question: Why did they originally plan to give people two jabs and not one from the start and what has changed t on make that decision? It seems I've missed a vital bit of info as this decisions could have been made at the start, rather than cause concern and confusion.
Not sure, but perhaps it was the speed this new variant is ripping through the country, so offering some protection is better than none. In an ideal world, the 2 doses would be the optimum solution, but we aren't really living in an ideal world at the moment. Maybe, we have been testing the vaccines, and realised the efficacy is still high enough. Or maybe we are taking this step as we are really ****ed, and the NHS is about to overwhelmed if we dont. I guess there are no easy decisions.
Apparently FLT, the efficacity of the antivirus is improved if given in 2 doses, with a smaller dose initially and a follow up 3 weeks later rather than a large dose initially. That was discovered when they accidently gave a too low a dose during trials and found it to be more effective than the if they'd been given the full strength dose as planned...that was for the Pfizer one Shortage of vaccine has meant that the new strategy could be to give everybody one dose and then after that, give everybody their second dose rather than give the 2 doses to each group within the 3 week original timescale. The argument being that partial immunity for the whole population is better than some groups of people potentially waiting the best part of a year before they get theirs. Pfizer are not guaranteeing that immunity from just one dose will last more than a few weeks, hence the need for a second dose within 3 weeks of the first. The one jab approach might turn out to be useless if the second jab doesn't get given within a few weeks. It's now further complicated by the Oxford vaccine which is different enough so that if people have had the Pfizer first dose, the Oxford one is not suitable to use as the second dose and vice versa. So it comes down to supply of doses and speed with which they can be given to the whole population. The intention was to start with the most vulnerable groups and then work down to the least vulnerable, with each group getting both doses before moving on to the next group etc however the reality is that it could take too long doing it that way... I think that's the case anyway.
On a slightly different matter, I wa really surprised that when my Dad was diagnosed with pneumonia, he wasn't given a Covid test, and when he was admitted to hospital he also never got tested...this surprised me because my initial thought at the time was that Covid might have caused the pneumonia and the ensuing blood clots.
Yep, that is concerning, i would have thought it was common place to test in such circumstances. Hopefully he can make a speedy recovery...
I honestly don’t know the answer to this question. But on all known form, if there is a way to cause concern and confusion, you can absolutely rely on this government to find it. My mum and dad had their first jabs in December, and were expecting to receive their follow ups this month. After hearing about the policy change on the news, my mum tried to find out from her Doctor’s surgery if that was now changed. They’re waiting to hear back.
Cheers Billy He's been on the phone this morning asking me to find a treadmill for him so he's fully intending to get over this
Brilliant. Let me know what you go for, I am thinking of getting one for light jogging, as have major issues with my lower back! I was searching Amazon before Xmas, so will get back on that...
I've got a Reebok GT40 which is brilliant. Got adjustable incline goes about 10mph and has a good cushioned deck. I've got knee and lower back problems and I've found it excellent low impact exercise. https://www.argos.co.uk/product/2329710
Thanks for that, had a quick peek from your link, looks good. I will watch the video, and I imagine will slide under my bed. So, you say isnt too bad on the joints and back? I started running again last week, first time in literally years due to the issues i had, so have done a super light jog, been 3 times in a week, only 5 mins, and back hasnt given way yet!
It's not very foldable - I think the incline aspect etc mean that it's not as convenient as some. I'm putting mine in the garage so space wasn't an issue. That's as folded as it gets, and I hurt my back getting it in the house when it was delivered as it weighs a tonne
