Who's had the vaccine?

[Cowsham]

Heard on the radio 4 news tonight that the uk is the only country in the world going against the manufacturers instructions to administer the second dose after 3 weeks.

Not the only country. Delivery of vaccine to Canada has been interrupted due to expansion/construction at the Pfizer plant in Belgium; as a result many provinces here are delaying the second dose in order to get more first doses into more arms.

So they got it wrong too -- the iom held back half the vaccine tray in storage so they were sure they could give a second dose at the 21 day interval. They said that from before the start of the program.

[Phileas]

Heard on the radio 4 news tonight that the uk is the only country in the world going against the manufacturers instructions to administer the second dose after 3 weeks.

Not the only country. Delivery of vaccine to Canada has been interrupted due to expansion/construction at the Pfizer plant in Belgium; as a result many provinces here are delaying the second dose in order to get more first doses into more arms.

So they got it wrong too -- the iom held back half the vaccine tray in storage so they were sure they could give a second dose at the 21 day interval. They said that from before the start of the program.

The decision to delay the second dose was recommended by the JCVI and has since been backed up by other experts. There is disagreement among scientists (perhaps they haven’t seen all the relevant evidence) but it’s not obviously “wrong”.

[Cowsham]

Not the only country. Delivery of vaccine to Canada has been interrupted due to expansion/construction at the Pfizer plant in Belgium; as a result many provinces here are delaying the second dose in order to get more first doses into more arms.

So they got it wrong too -- the iom held back half the vaccine tray in storage so they were sure they could give a second dose at the 21 day interval. They said that from before the start of the program.

The decision to delay the second dose was recommended by the JCVI and has since been backed up by other experts. There is disagreement among scientists (perhaps they haven’t seen all the relevant evidence) but it’s not obviously “wrong”.

Did you check the membership of the JCVI ? It's mostly uk -- only two members come from a different country but both of them are from the Netherlands

Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
And
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)

I'd have thought it should be some world wide international body of scientists that could give more credibility to the uk decision but no, it's 14 uk members one of which is a lay member and two from the Netherlands.

Furthermore, clearly it was not Canada's decision to delay the second dose, that's if they actually have to.

https://www.wbrz.com/news/upon-disrupti ... ssistance/

[merseymouth]

Morningall, Just a thought has occurred to me, with the idea being touted of 24/7 Jagging Sessions be carried out. Would it be a case of "A Shot In The Dark"? Groan . MM

[kwackers]

The decision to delay the second dose was recommended by the JCVI and has since been backed up by other experts. There is disagreement among scientists (perhaps they haven’t seen all the relevant evidence) but it’s not obviously “wrong”.

But neither is it right.

That's the problem it's an hypothesis.
The issue I have is not that we're doing it (it might be the right thing after all) but the way the government latched onto it because it suited them - and don't forget they latched onto it weeks ago the second someone mentioned it as a possibility rather than wait to see if it was a good idea.

Some evidence suggests the effectiveness could be as low as 30%, it might even degrade rapidly after that.
(The vaccine has the same affect as having the disease on the immune system and we now now that the response fades - quite fast in some people).

Then there's issuing the second dose.
The original 3 week wait was easy, you give someone a shot and book them in to come back in 3 weeks.
Now it's so far away you're making it much more difficult to arrange that second shot.
How many won't bother? The bigger the gap the less likely people are to take it.

The whole thing is a rats nest of possibilities and unintended consequences.

I've no idea whether it's a good idea or not, it seems to me you can pick the expert you agree with and run with it.
My personal view is that without solid evidence then the broad spread of opinion amongst experts is what we should look at rather than selecting our favourite.

[thirdcrank]

We could not possibly vaccinate the entire population instantaneously; that's just stating the obvious.

From that starting point, there has to be a batting order and as that's a policy decision, it's as well taken by politicians acting on expert advice. We've done that, and the original order - based on the vulnerability of age groups - has been explained and supported with seemingly coherent arguments.

Beyond that, quite a lot seems to have been made of the way analysis of the virus has enabled the vaccines to be custom-made, using several different approaches. Now, I had, perhaps naively, assumed that "designing" vaccines would have predictable results. I don't mean exactly predictable but knowing how they were intended to work. I had also assumed, with even greater naivety, that the intention was to stop people who had been vaccinated becoming infected, when - uninfected - they could not infect others, except by physical transmission of infected matter.

Now it's being said that we - or rather our experts - don't know if vaccination prevents somebody being able to infect others. Layman speaking, but that implies to me that vaccination may not prevent the recipient becoming infected, but rather suppress the effects of infection in them. They would have no symptoms and, therefore, much less likely to die from the infection, but they would still be likely to infect others. Apart from the obvious point that if this is the case then the current vaccines offer no possibility of a return to normal life, then to me, at least, it detracts from the "custom-made" spin.

[Jdsk]

My personal view is that without solid evidence then the broad spread of opinion amongst experts is what we should look at rather than selecting our favourite.

Sounds wise. But in this case the evidence is not bad for the selected interval.

That "wrong" jarred with me. I'm happy to provide links to a whole raft of expert opinions, but I'm not sure what's being asked for here and it might be a waste of time...

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

My personal view is that without solid evidence then the broad spread of opinion amongst experts is what we should look at rather than selecting our favourite.

Sounds wise. But in this case the evidence is not bad for the selected interval.

That "wrong" jarred with me. I'm happy to provide links to a whole raft of expert opinions, but I'm not sure what's being asked for here and it might be a waste of time...

In a very short space of time, I have become disillusioned with the non-politicians involved here. We've had media presentations which increasingly seem like a Sooty Show re-enactment, with the prime minister or a side-kick playing Harry Corbett. The recent intervention of the BMA has just added to the disillusionment.

[Phileas]

Some evidence suggests the effectiveness could be as low as 30%...

But what exactly does that mean? E.g. the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was reported to be 70% effective at preventing disease but 100% effective at preventing serious illness and death.

[Jdsk]

Short explainer of efficacy from Spiegelhalter today:
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jan/24/behind-the-numbers-what-does-it-mean-if-covid-vaccine-has-90-per-cent-eifficacy

Jonathan

[kwackers]

My personal view is that without solid evidence then the broad spread of opinion amongst experts is what we should look at rather than selecting our favourite.

Sounds wise. But in this case the evidence is not bad for the selected interval.

That "wrong" jarred with me. I'm happy to provide links to a whole raft of expert opinions, but I'm not sure what's being asked for here and it might be a waste of time...

Jonathan

In this case we can select links that suit our preferred viewpoint. Experts on every side of the fence, pick one and run with it.

As time goes by the issue is getting more clouded, this is to be expected because nobody knows.
We tested a vaccine under the conditions we expected to use it and then decided to use it in an untested way.
Experts don't agree and so uncertainty is the way forward.

My real concern is that the less effective the vaccine the more chance a virus has to evolve to defeat it.
I know people point out that we could roll out a replacement pretty quickly but that's a nonsensical argument. We have a vaccine and it's going to take the best part of a year to roll out.
If we ignored clinical trials and simply modified the existing vaccine we'd still be looking at several weeks to modify and see if it actually worked and then we'd be starting our vaccine roll out from day one again.
And what then? Only give one shot again?
This could go on and on forever...

n a very short space of time, I have become disillusioned with the non-politicians involved here. We've had media presentations which increasingly seem like a Sooty Show re-enactment, with the prime minister or a side-kick playing Harry Corbett. The recent intervention of the BMA has just added to the disillusionment.

I go back to blaming the politicians. They pick the route and expect the experts to back them up.
Trouble is its all seat-of-the-pants stuff and nobody really knows what they're doing.

Go back several months and read the science and all of this was predicted.

[Jdsk]

n a very short space of time, I have become disillusioned with the non-politicians involved here. We've had media presentations which increasingly seem like a Sooty Show re-enactment, with the prime minister or a side-kick playing Harry Corbett. The recent intervention of the BMA has just added to the disillusionment.

No I didn't.

: - )

Jonathan

[kwackers]

n a very short space of time, I have become disillusioned with the non-politicians involved here. We've had media presentations which increasingly seem like a Sooty Show re-enactment, with the prime minister or a side-kick playing Harry Corbett. The recent intervention of the BMA has just added to the disillusionment.

No I didn't.

: - )

Jonathan

Sorry - fixed.

[Jdsk]

: - )

Jonathan

[merseymouth]

Well, Perfection is difficult to attain, but we should keep trying to reach such heights. So no "He said, she said" please. Scientific data is surely best analysed is a calm atmosphere? MM