Is the news true from the WHO saying they agree with the 12 week gap between jabs, and that is could offer greater protection? Saw something about in on BBC just now.
We don't yet know that the so called UK variant emerged here do we? Being the first to identify it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.
A couple of weeks ago CNN reported that there was some evidence that it had been seen in the USA before being identified here. Sorry, don’t have a link to that story.
I thought I'd read something to that effect somewhere but couldn't remember the detail so thanks for that. You'll also likely know better than me due to your background, but aren't we also one of the most likely to find new variants, due to our strength in sequencing them or something? Edit - think genomics is word I'm looking for.
That's the point I'm making. Some think that it may have emerged in an immunocompromised individual with a chronic case, but it's basically impossible to nail down where these originated. That applies to the UK variant, and it applies to the disease itself. Where is also ultimately less pertinent than how. Thus the trick is to give the disease as few opportunities to multiply and mutate as possible, everywhere.
Yes, I think there is probably work going on all the time identifying and sequencing the variants, and from what I’ve read it’s not a huge job to tweak the vaccine if a resistant variant like the SA one crops up. As one of the scientific advisors said at a briefing the other day, we can always re-vaccinate people if necessary. As you say, this country is very well-placed to carry out this kind of work. Not too hard to imagine a scenario going forward similar to that of the flu vaccine, where at least vulnerable people have an annual or 6-monthly shot which covers the latest variants.
No they dont. At the time the gove were going against the vacine makers advice. A gamble was made and it looks like it will pay off. Dont think that makes people that criticised it look silly.
I do, really silly. I dont think it was a gamble, i doubt they sat round a table and thought, what could we dream up today that has a high chance of blowing up in our faces, giving it no thought whatsoever without consulting medial professionals. It was the usual ****ing bed wetters, using CoVid for Political point scoring. They should feel ashamed of themselves, but doubt they will admit to getting much wrong. Oh for the smell of arrogance.
The reasoning was logical. In a fast spreading situation, better to have more people with some resistance than a fraction of that number with better resistance. It is possible that a perusal of the data suggested that a longer interval could be better or, more likely, it was serendipitous.
Im not saying it was a bad move. In fact i think the vacine rollout has been a great effort by all. But it was a gamble,maybe an educated gamble. I questioned the wisdom of going against the vacine companys advice, i dont feel silly,just happy that it turned out the gamble is paying off
What are you basing it being a gamble on? Just wondering what inside info you have on the discussions between Gov and the Medics. Genuine interest, you never know who people are connected with.
I dont have any inside info other than the fact the manufacturers dont recommend the spacing the shots so far apart as they didint test them with that larger space,so they had no data to show what the outcome would be
Ok, I get that. Personally, I think they would have taken advice, and as Fran says above, the whole thing has to have some degree of trade off. I dont believe it was done on a whim, within evidence. I guess some of the time, we would all like a magic wand and three wishes, just it cant always be the case.
Interesting blog from the BMJ, from 1 month ago, followed by a report from the Scientific American, dated 10th Feb. BMJ If I have read this correctly, actual data from Israel, at the time of writing (21 Jan) shows the efficacy of the Pfizer jab, after one dose, to be as low as 33%, and suggests that leaving too long a gap between jabs 1&2 might be a mistake. Reference the Moderna, again if understood correctly, in a smaller test, the efficacy of the first and second jab significantly reduces, particularly in the older age groups 56< and suggests that the Moderna jab shouldn’t be given to the elderly. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/2...e-second-dose-of-the-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/ Scientific American They state the efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna, after 1 jab is 50%, and the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) are now suggesting that a 42 day gap between jabs might be okay, but the test group is so small there is still insufficient evidence to support stretching the gap between jabs. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-safe-to-delay-a-second-covid-vaccine-dose/
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18 It was a gamble, no research had been done by the manufactures. "What do the manufacturers say? In a joint statement Pfizer and BioNTech said, “The safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design . . . There is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.” The European Medicines Agency has said that the gap between the first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine should not exceed 42 days. “Any change to this would require a variation to the marketing authorisation as well as more clinical data to support such a change, otherwise it would be considered as ‘off-label use,’” the agency said. There was also the logistical problems highlighted by the BMA. "How have doctors responded? "The BMA has called the government’s decision “unreasonable and totally unfair” and said it could cause “huge logistical problems” for general practices and vaccination centres.8 GPs and clinical leaders have told the BMA that delaying already promised second doses “will have a terrible impact on the emotional wellbeing of their most vulnerable, at-risk patients.” Richard Vautrey, chair of the BMA’s General Practitioners Committee, said, “The decision to ask GPs, at such short notice, to rebook patients for three months hence will also cause huge logistical problems for almost all vaccination sites and practices. For example, to make contact with even just 2000 elderly or vulnerable patients will take a team of five staff at a practice about a week, and that’s simply untenable.” He said that bookings for the oldest and most vulnerable members should be honoured."
A calculated risk then..? But not a gamble..? I'm just thankful I've had my first jab and look forward to the second..
so you found info from some drugs, but not all. its not hard to find opinions to fit an agenda, it wasnt done on a whim, and there is no magic wand to do everything perfectly. Still not a gamble, a risk calculated by science in collaboration with experts.done did you want full lockdown for everyone, until it was 100% safe?
