Who's had the vaccine?

[Jdsk]

Thanks.

I see two main ideas there:

1 Vaccinating healthcare workers as soon as possible, including priority over second doses for others.

2 A preference for the original dose interval over what has been adopted.

I have a lot of sympathy for 1 over a policy based on only eg reduction of deaths. We ask healthcare workers to work in conditions of high risk and we need as many of them fit for work as possible. (And of course I know that both of those apply to others. And that many representative organisations have also put the case for their own members.)

A letter from NHS England has already asked hospitals to vaccinate their "frontline" workers, and I know that a lot of staff working in vaccinating sites have made sure that no vaccine is wasted by using it up on each other.

On 2 I don't see any new evidence or any new analysis of evidence that wasn't available to JCVI or BSI or Independent SAGE, and everyone agrees that there is a "lack of knowledge " on the adopted interval.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

Thanks.

I see two main ideas there:

1 Vaccinating healthcare workers as soon as possible, including priority over second doses for others.

2 A preference for the original dose interval over what has been adopted.

I have a lot of sympathy for 1 over a policy based on only eg reduction of deaths. We ask healthcare workers to work in conditions of high risk and we need as many of them fit for work as possible. (And of course I know that both of those apply to others. And that many representative organisations have also put the case for their own members.)

A letter from NHS England has already asked hospitals to vaccinate their "frontline" workers, and I know that a lot of staff working in vaccinating sites have made sure that no vaccine is wasted by using it up on each other.

On 2 I don't see any new evidence or any new analysis of evidence that wasn't available to JCVI or BSI or Independent SAGE, and everyone agrees that there is a "lack of knowledge " on the adopted interval.

Jonathan

No new evidence but it strongly suggests they don't interpret the lack of evidence as meaning 12 weeks is fine (whereas some other bodies do).

I think the aspect of that link (relevant to the discussion here) is the 12 week interval. If they consider 12 weeks questionable for healthcare workers due to lack of evidence then the same must presumably apply to others receiving the Pfizer vaccine.

The quote/link was intended as response to your request re: the BMA position. But repports are that the BMA is not the only body with reservations e.g.

It emerged on Friday that the Sage advisory group had raised the possible risk of triggering a “vaccine-resistant mutation”, by delaying second doses.

But the World Health Organisation recommended a gap of four weeks between doses – to be extended, only in exceptional circumstances, to six weeks.

Pfizer has said it has tested the level of protection given by its vaccine only when the two doses are given up to 21 days apart.

Dr Nagpaul [Chair of the Council of the British Medical Association] said he understood the “rationale” behind the decision to delay the second dose to 12 weeks, but argued it was “difficult to justify”.

“Most nations in the world are facing challenges similar to the UK in having limited vaccine supply and also wanting to protect their population maximally,” he told BBC Breakfast.

“No other nation has adopted the UK's approach. We think the flexibility that the WHO offers, of extending to 42 days, is being stretched far too much to go from six weeks right through to 12 weeks.

“I do understand the trade-off and the rationale but if that was the right thing to do then we would see other nations following suit.”

Ian

[Jdsk]

Yes, I remember that statement now. But I don't see what it adds to the evidence.

And, as above... if the working that led to the policy was published then the criticism would be much better informed.

Jonathan

PS: On other countries' decisions... if they don't have our massive death rate and pressures on hospitals it's possible that a different policy with a shorter interval is right for them.

[Psamathe]

Yes, I remember that statement now. But I don't see what it adds to the evidence.

And, as above... if the working that led to the policy was published then the criticism would be much better informed.

Jonathan

PS: On other countries' decisions... if they don't have our massive death rate and pressures on hospitals it's possible that a different policy with a shorter interval is right for them.

I don't think it does add to any evidence - it just highlights the lack of evidence which makes the decision for 12 weeks open to question. It is also people in a better position (than me) expressing concern.

As you say, if the workings that led to the policy were published then many questions might be quashed (which I'd be happy about, I'm not trying to drive any movment here). But when things are questioned and workings are not published that also raises questions as to why. And again it has now transpired that SAGE has raised concerns as well (from above)

It emerged on Friday that the Sage advisory group had raised the possible risk of triggering a “vaccine-resistant mutation”, by delaying second doses.

Ian

[Jdsk]

I don't think it does add to any evidence - it just highlights the lack of evidence which makes the decision for 12 weeks open to question. It is also people in a better position (than me) expressing concern.

Yes, this is the whole point... there isn't evidence at the highest level for the adopted policy, it relies on expert knowledge extrapolating from the initial studies.

And again it has now transpired that SAGE has raised concerns as well (from above)

It emerged on Friday that the Sage advisory group had raised the possible risk of triggering a “vaccine-resistant mutation”, by delaying second doses.

I always assumed that that had been considered. But it's good to know that it was.

Jonathan

[Cowsham]

But why does it take everyone so long to see this ? Surely it's easy to deduce?
If someone like me can why can't most people? Why do people follow these idiots like sheep?

If you could show me the steps in your “deduction” it might help me to stop being sheep-like.

It's easy

[thirdcrank]

Have you got a link to the BMA's position, please? And as it's you I'll certainly try and respond.

Thanks

Jonathan

I am only going on media reports of which this from the BBC is easiest to link. If the BMA is being wrongly quoted, then I've not seen any corrections or retractions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55777084

[Jdsk]

Were there any points from the BMA in addition to those mentioned in the recent posts above?

Thanks

Jonathan

[kwackers]

Experts endorse it and thats good enough for me.
Al

Just to correct you here; "some" experts endorse it "some" don't.

I got this from New Scientist.

There isnt anything wrong with my statement because it didnt say 'all experts' And by the way Experts did endorse it, and it would truly be a miracle if they all did.


Al

My issue isn't that "some" experts endorse it, rather that at the moment there doesn't appear to be a consensus amongst them.
Up until not long ago you could find "experts" that still claimed global warming wasn't a thing.

Personally I like consensus, when I see it then it makes me warm and tingly inside.
When consensus doesn't exist it's usually because they haven't yet got the information they need to make the decision - exactly like now.

The whole thing is an exercise in politics, after months of screwing the pooch the gov needs to look as if it's finally getting a handle on things.
Hence the song and dance about being the first to roll out vaccines, vaccinating more people than any other country etc
It's a gamble and one the scientific community isn't completely at ease with...

[Jdsk]

I know that are many fans of More or Less and Tim Harford:

"Is ‘first dose first’ the right vaccination strategy?"
https://timharford.com/2021/01/is-first-dose-first-the-right-vaccination-strategy/

Jonathan

[kwackers]

I know that are many fans of More or Less and Tim Harford:

"Is ‘first dose first’ the right vaccination strategy?"
https://timharford.com/2021/01/is-first-dose-first-the-right-vaccination-strategy/

Jonathan

I don't know who Tim Harford is but I think that's a pretty fair summing up (that matches what I think).

[Cowsham]

We're probably crying over spilled milk now anyway cos there won't be enough vaccine to give the shorter period jab. Anyway the government was forced into making that decision after making fatal decisions in August. They as much as admitted that literally on tv at the last briefing.

[al_yrpal]

I wont get my second jab until 17th April but in the meantime someone vulnerable will get my second jab as their first earlier than they would have done and thereby get some earlier protection. Its possible that overall I wont get as much protection from both jabs as I would have from the treatment. But, I am fine with that. I shall continue to be very careful and observe the rules. It seems sensible that the sooner more people get jabs and the rate of transmission therefore falls the better. I support the difficult choices being made.

Obviously mistakes and half hearted measures have taken their toll. I am glad not to be amongst those having to make them

Al

[Cowsham]

I wont get my second jab until 17th April but in the meantime someone vulnerable will get my second jab as their first earlier than they would have done and thereby get some earlier protection. Its possible that overall I wont get as much protection from both jabs as I would have from the treatment. But, I am fine with that. I shall continue to be very careful and observe the rules. It seems sensible that the sooner more people get jabs and the rate of transmission therefore falls the better. I support the difficult choices being made.

Obviously mistakes and half hearted measures have taken their toll. I am glad not to be amongst those having to make them

Al

You're probably right Al -- we'll just have to make the best of a bad job.

[pwa]

Unfortunately there is as yet no clear evidence that having been vaccinated makes someone a lot less likely to transmit the virus, so it is just possible that transmission will continue at a high rate even when most people are vaccinated. The vaccines seem to protect most people from becoming ill from the virus, but may not prevent people being a host to it.

This has to be viewed in light of the fact that once the most vulnerable have had (or been offered) a vaccine, we can expect restrictions and general behaviour to relax considerably. The virus may, or may not, persist quite readily in that environment.