Off Topic 3rd vaccine passed
- Thread starter Comfy
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
This time next year we'll be fighting each other to book holidays 
You must log in or register to see images
But will North East pensioners accept it? Some have already said they don't want the Pfizer one as it's from them Jormans, and they want the "English one" from AstraZeneca instead 
Last edited:
C
Chunksafc
Guest
Brilliant news and a testament to the amazing people working on these that there are 3 approved in such a short space of time.
All good news. My issue is that already our government are going against expert advice in the timescales of the second doses. Is this another political decision to deal with numbers given the vaccinations rather than following the guidelines of between 21 and a maximum of 28 days between the first and second doses?
Why go against the advice of when the doses are given in order to boost the numbers vaccinated? If the people who created the vaccines say that the doses should be given between 21 and 28 days apart, then that is what should be happening.Why would it be 'another political decision' Whitey
Haven’t got my head around this one when we vaccinated all the farms if you didn’t do the 2nd dose inside the right timescale you might as well of not done the first one because they inter lock as the final booster.
Exactly.. An expert in vaccinations from WHO said much the same thing.. That is why I'm suspicious about the government's motives. Do they just want to say they have met their targets regarding numbers?
That’s what it looks like but they reckon it’s best to get as many injected as you can?
Not the expert from the World Health Organisation that I listened to. He said without the second jab within the timescale the vaccine is nowhere near as effective and has not even been tested in this way.
Th claim is if you give one vaccine you get about 70% of the benefit that you would get with both vaccines given. The Government say if they can vaccinate twice as many people first that is better for the population as a whole. It's better to have twice the population with 70% efficacy than half of the population with 95% efficacy. If you remember with the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine tests they achieved 70% efficacy after one full dose then gave a second injection of half a dose and achieved 90%+ efficacy.
That is the claim, which in itself reduces the effectiveness by around 25%, but as the WHO vaccine stated, it has never been tested in this way to any extent, so just guess work by our government.
C
Chunksafc
Guest
Pretty sure the annual flu vaccine gives around 60 to 70% effectiveness, maybe thats part of their thinking as well?
I'm sure I read somewhere that a longer gap between the 1st and 2nd administering of the Oxford vaccine actually improved its effectiveness.
To a certain extent it's all guesswork, man . . . . educated guesswork, which it's got to be 
Even though it’s never been used before or tested that long before now that’s clever.
To the Lake DistrictThis time next year we'll be fighting each other to book holidays