Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hull City' started by dennisboothstash, Oct 29, 2020.
Stop deleting posts then.
What do your contacts say? The people you talk to.
They say pretty much what you posted, which is pretty much what I posted earlier. As I posted earlier, they have also pointed out that there is some protection after the first dose, and there is the basis for an argument to support rolling out the vaccine by getting as many people as possible to receive the initial first dose, so to minimise the impact of infection in order to reduce the strain on the health service for a period, before focusing on the second injection.
As far as I can tell, the focus is still on issuing the two injections within the timescales.
What data have you looked at that show the effectiveness of a single dose vaccine up to 21, 28, 42, 56 & 90 days?
I've looked at quite a few reports and papers, and spoken to a variety of people in the field, as well as outside of it. We're both effectively saying the same thing, but perhaps have a slightly different view on one possible way forward. I am comfortable with the prospect of focusing initially on getting the first jab to as many as possible, you seem to favour getting the two jabs within the time frame, and it looks as if the two jabs are happening anyway.
None of which means a lot, as it's not really a battle to show who has the most data, it's about discussing views. After all, no matter what we may like to think, posting stuff on here will change nothing, but may just help some people get a bit of peace of mind.
If you are actively involved, I'm sure people will be interested in what you have to share, although there will always be some that have other views, as this even happens among those at the top.
I would genuinely be interested to read your considered opinion, and see the information that supports it*.
*That's not meant as a challenge, it's just me hoping people get as wide an insight as possible.
Do you have the links to the reports that show the effectiveness of a single dose vaccine at 21, 28, 42, 56 & 90 days?
I favour two jabs within the recommended timescale as that is what the data supports & why the licence was granted.
Using it in any other way is not supported by the scientific data.
I'd have to rummage for the reports, and some of my view stems from conversations with people in the associated fields. Your comment that it was the basis of the license, is what I said in one of the very early posts, and as far as I know, there are no plans in place to make it a policy to go down the single dose route, so it's a moot point really.
I'm not really sure where the dispute is here. I can see the logic of giving as wide a number as possible some initial protection, with the follow ups coming along with it. You, and seemingly the Government are continuing with two doses, which again, I can see the argument for, and don't have an issue with.
I seem to recall that this started due to a tweet I posted, which claims 10% of the UK had been vaccinated, but the figures in the tweet itself, showed that only 10% of those had had both jabs. Both statements are correct as the initial jab does afford some protection, although 'received a vaccine' rather than being vaccinated is perhaps more correct, but it did clearly show the full picture under the graph.
The tweet was wrong. The vaccination comes in two parts, as per the Licence. You’re not vaccinated until you’ve had both parts.
The recommended, & licenced, gap between doses is up to 21 days. Anything beyond is stepping into the unknown & outside of the recommended parameters of the drug.
The effectiveness of a single dose is known upto 21 days. How effective it is beyond that is unknown. Whether a new course will need to be started is unknown, but entirely possible. The Government are going against the science.
“I’ve had my first doxycycline the clymidia has receded ... I’ll have the next one in a couple of weeks & the next a week after that” Doesn’t quite work like that. You follow the instructions & take as appropriate & in line with the manufacture’s instructions.
Were your “people in the associated fields” involved in the R&D process of the vaccine? If not, they’re just opinions based on the available data, which doesn’t support a longer gap than 21 days.
There’s nothing more than guesswork in extending the gap between doses beyond the manufacturer’s recommended directions for use. It’s a massive risk, being taken with people’s lives.
What's your view on the trials of the Oxford Zennica vaccine (albeit with small numbers) showing a gap of two to three months resulted in a greater immune response?
I believe the EMA have limited the gap between vaccines to not exceed 42 days and the MHRA have stated they believe a single dose offers considerable protection, at least in the short term. These are based on a number of studies, and wide ranging debates between the experts in the various fields.
I think the arguments for the single dose policy relate to concerns about supply, and are based on the view that lots of people partially protected will help get the economy moving better than a smaller number more protected for a longer term, and leaves the option to revisit the second dose.
The manufacturers themselves can only state the case for the use within the conditions they got the license for, as that's what the law dictates.
From what I understand the AZ trial was carried out on healthy people aged 18-55. The one dose result was based on a small selection of the whole study.
The data is therefore not to relevant to those currently been vaccinated, (70+ & immuno vulnerable).
There’s certainly no data available that supports extending the gap of the Pfizer vaccine.
**** the economy. Health before wealth everytime. Those who control the economy are increasing their wealth & looking after their own. Unfortunately the dumb arsed public are, in general, too thick, subservient & selfish to see through it.
Partial Vaccination will result in more avoidable deaths.
Those investigating the vaccine itself would no doubt agree, however the politicians and wider health community have to balance the information with the wider impacts, such as deaths from other causes, as well as the mental health and economic impacts of lock down. There is also the potential issue of limited supplies to complete the programme.
Most that have looked at holistically recognise that there is no black or white solution.
Ask a banker what his priorities are & he’ll give you a different answer to a Scientist.
There was enough doses for the PM’s old man to have his two (no chances taken there) & the Royals to have theirs.
If there’s a shortage it’s down to Government unwillingness, or ability, to prioritise production & procurement.
Perhaps, but the same issues apply the world over, and others are considering extending the time too, to protect the wider population for the reasons mentioned.
If they seriously wanted to protect the wider population they’d facilitate mass production of the vaccines, whatever the cost.
It seems whatever problems prevent that, are shared the world over. In the mean time, they have to make decisions based on the situation at hand, with due consideration to the wider implications. The UK so far has done better than most, where plenty are still yet to even have the first jab.
The UK hasn’t. In a month it’s managed to vaccinate less than 1% of the population.
It's doing better than most of the rest of the world so far.
You can’t compare with the rest of the world.
Interesting. So how do you gauge success?
Sorry, that’s the Government stance.
As we can safely assume any vaccine is not brewed in a billycan over an open fire in the middle of a field, then stored for future use in discarded beer bottles, how do you propose to facilitate mass production of this vaccine?