LondonLax Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, Xela said: 1449 is still a lot isn't it It takes a few weeks for the vaccines to kick in and deaths lag infections by a few weeks as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, Xela said: 1449 is still a lot isn't it It is but it's backfilling data. In better news, both of these findings are brilliant 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 Have all the experts that said extending the gap between jabs to 12 week was a big mistake had today off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted February 2, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Genie said: Have all the experts that said extending the gap between jabs to 12 week was a big mistake had today off? They weren't talking about the AZ vaccine, that's known to be ok with a long gap. It's the Pfizer one that's the unknown. Nothing has changed there afaik. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, Genie said: Have all the experts that said extending the gap between jabs to 12 week was a big mistake had today off? No, they’ve gone to work for the EU. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 Just now, Genie said: Have all the experts that said extending the gap between jabs to 12 week was a big mistake had today off? To be fair, the gamble paying off doesn't mean it was wrong to argue against it on the grounds that it was a gamble. The government took some risks around this vaccination rollout, and I'm delighted it's worked, but I think it's fair to have pointed out that it wasn't certain to work. The science now appears to be vindicating the decision, but that's only really a justification if the science is known when the decision was made, otherwise you're just rolling the dice. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 2, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 2, 2021 34 minutes ago, Xela said: 1449 is still a lot isn't it New infections are down a lot, we're about 1/3 of where they were 3 or 4 weeks ago, that will filter through soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 16 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said: They weren't talking about the AZ vaccine, that's known to be ok with a long gap. It's the Pfizer one that's the unknown. Nothing has changed there afaik. Fair enough, I don’t recall the differential between the 2 vaccines at the time. Just lots of experts saying the UK was making a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 23 minutes ago, Davkaus said: To be fair, the gamble paying off doesn't mean it was wrong to argue against it on the grounds that it was a gamble. The government took some risks around this vaccination rollout, and I'm delighted it's worked, but I think it's fair to have pointed out that it wasn't certain to work. The science now appears to be vindicating the decision, but that's only really a justification if the science is known when the decision was made, otherwise you're just rolling the dice. They weren’t rolling the dice. It is well established that vaccines work better with a longer interval between doses. The shorter interval only came about because the testing phase was compressed in a rush to get approvals. However once a three week gap was done in the trial it became the recommendation for the rollout. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 8 minutes ago, Genie said: Fair enough, I don’t recall the differential between the 2 vaccines at the time. Just lots of experts saying the UK was making a mistake. I guess experts have knowledge and so they are equipped to voice concerns based on data presented to them at the time. Its right to voice concerns and we need the experts to have critical thought as they are the people who will be heard, rather than internet forum armchair experts, which we all are, in effect. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted February 2, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 2, 2021 9 minutes ago, Genie said: Fair enough, I don’t recall the differential between the 2 vaccines at the time. Just lots of experts saying the UK was making a mistake. I think it got a bit lost in all the midst of the news to be honest. The only reason there was thinking that there may be problems with the 12 week gap is that Pizer just hadn't got any data to support it, and obviously didn't want to go on record saying it would be ok when they just didn't know for sure. It is definitely a gamble by our government, one which personally I think on balance will probably pay off, but still a gamble nevertheless. I wouldn't want to be taking such chances myself if I were in charge! But yeah, the AZ one always said they thought a longer gap was fine, they'd got data to support that and now the real world results seem to be bearing that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 2, 2021 Moderator Share Posted February 2, 2021 35 minutes ago, Genie said: Have all the experts that said extending the gap between jabs to 12 week was a big mistake had today off? It wasn't this one (the AZ one) that people are/were concerned about - it was the Pfizer one. There was reason and evidence to do it for the AZ one. Less so for the Pfizer one, where there was 0 evidence for a 12 week gap. Which isn't to say it won't be OK, but that there is a risk it may cause unexpected problems - for example either allowing the virus to mutate in a way which renders it unaffected by the Pfizer jabs, or in terms of the effectiveness of the jab wearing off significantly before the 12 weeks is up, again rendering it ineffective. Those concerns remain, to the extent that other nations are absolutely not following the 12 week path, despite being behind on vaccinations. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 I think the 12 week period goes back to the earlier discussion around British attitudes Vs various other cultures. The British still tend to go with pragmatism based on educated guesses so are probably happier with taking risks. It looks like the JCVI in conjunction with the scientists at Oxford who developed the vaccine came to the conclusion that other similar viral vector vaccines work well without boosters and gradually continue to build immunity. Then the JCVI seemingly made the logical leap that, actually, all vaccines that work to build immunity in similar ways, work to keep that immunity in similar ways. So it's a fair shout that the Pfizer messenger RNA vaccine should at best work in the same way and at least drop off quicker but it won't be dangerous, protection just won't be as good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted February 2, 2021 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted February 2, 2021 43 minutes ago, darrenm said: it's a fair shout that the Pfizer messenger RNA vaccine should at best work in the same way and at least drop off quicker but it won't be dangerous, protection just won't be as good. See this is the thing - It might probably... fingers crossed...unless we're unlucky... My philosophy is that facts and evidence are essential in clearing medicines, or in varying their administration away from what is evidentially supported. Maybe doing that "best guess" stuff might be OK in an emergency for a patient. But for millions of patients all at once? There are concerns amongst the BMA and other medics and scientists about both rendering it ineffective, or sufficiently ineffective to allow virus mutations which will be themselves impervious to the vaccine. Get evidence before you make a "shout" and chance your arm. The same approach by the Gov't has led to delays in lockdowns, opening up too early, Christmas easing and all the rest "with a bit of luck it'll not go wrong". I have no problem with anyone discussing it, or their views here. I just expect the actual experts to want to use evidence, rather than "informed guesswork" when dealing with public health on this scale. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, blandy said: See this is the thing - It might probably... fingers crossed...unless we're unlucky... My philosophy is that facts and evidence are essential in clearing medicines, or in varying their administration away from what is evidentially supported. Maybe doing that "best guess" stuff might be OK in an emergency for a patient. But for millions of patients all at once? There are concerns amongst the BMA and other medics and scientists about both rendering it ineffective, or sufficiently ineffective to allow virus mutations which will be themselves impervious to the vaccine. Get evidence before you make a "shout" and chance your arm. The same approach by the Gov't has led to delays in lockdowns, opening up too early, Christmas easing and all the rest "with a bit of luck it'll not go wrong". I have no problem with anyone discussing it, or their views here. I just expect the actual experts to want to use evidence, rather than "informed guesswork" when dealing with public health on this scale. Facts and evidence didn't win us the war buddy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 2, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted February 2, 2021 This Oxford news is really superb. I read somewhere a week or so ago that they were already looking at the new strains and changing their formula. I'm probably going to fall into a category to get vaccinated early March with a presumably early June second jab. Reasonable chance that second jab could have a new formula for the mutations I would hope. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 13 hours ago, darrenm said: The gov are secretly planning to have every adult in the UK offered a vaccine by May now. I certainly think there is a decent chance that all adults will have had at least one jab by the end of May which is 17 weeks away. If we can do 3 million jabs a week then within 5 weeks that means around around 25 million people will have had one jab, if then over the following 12 weeks 18 million get their 2nd jab and 18 million get their first jab that will mean 43 million people will have had a least 1 jab. There are around 52 million adults so it probably means getting up to doing around 3.5 million a week. It will all come down to how many vaccines we can get our hands on. The NHS are doing a remarkable job in vaccinating so many people though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 What things could look like in the UK in an alternative universe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 12 hours ago, Genie said: Have all the experts that said extending the gap between jabs to 12 week was a big mistake had today off? I'm not sure many said that it was a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 12 hours ago, LondonLax said: They weren’t rolling the dice. They were and, to an extent, they still are. The data being quoted above does not allay the fears being voiced by some people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts