This question is not just for you, but everyone who is against “messing with the schedule”: Why? Is it because
If your answer is more than one of these, what is the dominant factor.
Did you ever post a TR after second dose? I heard that many people have a pretty noticeable reaction to that one (i.e., flu-like symptoms, nothing actually dangerous).
New York announced that education workers are in 1B and can start applying starting Monday (though they are estimating 14 weeks to get through 1B based on current pacing of supply).
Might mean as a 40something working at a college I may be able to get it before my 74 year old parents (1B is 75+).
They are also looking to have the teacher unions (and other sectors) help coordinate vaccinations to their constituency.
I’m against it generally meaning the general principle that scientists aren’t setting these drug schedules out of thin air and they’re based on sound medicinal and epidemiological reasons, and I’m against it specifically with covid because I had just half-heard about what Wookie then made clear, i.e. that current data suggests getting just a single dose is ineffective. I don’t know anything about what Churchill said re Pfizer v Moderna but will look into it
Well no one is suggesting one dose as an actual plan. So the question, once again, is why is the plan to give a later second dose bad in your mind:
If your answer is more than one of these, what is the dominant factor.
I’m just a simple caveman lawyer, not a science bro, but my gut instinct is to stick to the schedule because:
The timeframe is what we have the most data for, and I’m just generally concerned that deviating from the study protocol will make it less effective (or is it efficacious?). If the scientists really have good reason to think this isn’t the case, I’ll listen, but it seems like if something worked under certain conditions, you should try to replicate those conditions.
At least in the US (I’m not as familiar with the rollout in other countries), it seems like part of the slow rollout is because so many different places are coming up with different rules about eligibility, administration, etc. My concern is that allowing too much timeline flexibility could just be presenting another layer of complexity. Again, I’m not involved in any way in the logistics of getting shots in arms, so I’m just going on feels, but a “thanks for taking your first shot, we’ll see you back here in exactly 3 weeks for your second and we’re already scheduled the appointment” seems much easier to implement and follow up on than a “just pop by sometime in the next 3 weeks to 4 months.”
I’m a little concerned about people going YOLO after the first shot, and I think it’s a big enough risk that you might be better off getting the second shot in them quickly rather than getting a first shot in another round of people that will also just go YOLO after the first dose.
They actually do have good reasons. There is decent evidence to show that delaying the second dose will actually lead to greater immunity.
How do you think they came up with the current dosing schedule? For Pfizer anyway, they didn’t do a lot of comparison of different schedules. They basically picked one that seemed reasonable based on their general knowledge of immunology, then tested it, and it worked. However using their knowledge of immunology and how boosters in other vaccines work (including other COVID vaccines), it is likely that giving the second dose later will actually increase immunity (after it has been received). How much later can you go? This is not known, of course. But it seems that a few weeks of delay would still work (after the second dose is received).
So while I agree that it would be ideal to replicate the study conditions, I don’t think that spacing them out farther apart is a terrible idea for reasons of reduced efficacy.
#2 is not one I’m as worried about, but I can understand
#3 is a legit concern imo, but not one that I suspect most people are the most worried about.
oh so it’s the chinese virus but definitely NOT the american variant of it, I see
More sore this time. I’ve taken tylenol 1g every 6-8 hours even if I feel fine and right now my arm is a little achy, that’s all
so basically someone just thought ‘maybe it’s a variant’ and that’s it. Sounds familiar.
Yep. It’s not a ridiculous hypothesis, but it’s no more than that, either.
There is data in the Oxford-AZ trial. People who were more than six weeks apart between doses had more immunity than people who had less than six weeks apart (immunity was tested 2 wks after second dose in both cases).
A similar effect has also been seen in other vaccines. I’m not sure there are cases where the reverse has been seen.
I love data as much as the next guy. And it would be ideal to do everything the same as the trials. All I’m saying is that the idea that it won’t work as well if we space them apart more is actually, if anything, against whatever science we already have.
There are other considerations, of course. But this probably should not be one of them.
Perhaps. However, they’re going to fuck us out of the second dose is not really a criticism of spacing the doses farther apart. They could fuck you out of the second dose (possibly just due to general incompetence) even if they intend to give it at 3 weeks.
Unfortunately I don’t teach. I’m just a programmer who tries to squeeze more money out of donors. I’m probably in group Z.
I’m in IT and expect I’ll count. You never know!
Re: dose timing
Don’t F with the schedule for the short term. Why? Because that’s what has been tested to be shown to be effective.
As soon as you start chasing butterflies based on “sort of” data, theories, and well frankly wild hypothesis, you get in a situation where it becomes near impossible to interpret what happens.
As someone that does microbiology day in and day out I cannot begin to tell you how much of a mess it is when changes get made without being done in a deliberate fashion based on thin information.
You get a few weeks in and get all kinds of contradictory information with no way to know what works and what doesn’t until you go back in the lab and do the work necessary to understand. You lose time, not gain it
Stop death. We know who the vulnerable are. Get them the vaccine on schedule ASAP.
If pushed, I’d rather see the half dose deal than the extended timing.
If the science supports then have epidemiologists do the math on 3 weeks vs 6 weeks as far as better outcome. Just because more people get the first dose faster does not mean that a net decrease in morbidity is the result. It’s a pretty complicated equation.
The burden of proof relies on changing the protocol, NOT on keeping it. The whole idea of having this questioned “backwards” is wrong from both a medicine and science standpoint.
This does NOT mean that proper resources should not be theorizing and testing to see if there is a more efficient way to get community immunity.
It also does not mean that it has to be 100% to make the change if a risk/benefit analysis with good information is done. Just as the vaccines were developed quickly, improved strategies can be implemented with less testing than during “non-emergency” conditions.
It seems like the logic is “why if my hypothesis is better would you not want to implement it”. Because it’s a hypothesis. It has as much value as “trickle down economics” without data to support it.
Also the different vaccines all need to be tested, at least by technology type. So a protein vaccine may have one result and mRNA different.
I’m sorry, but this is absolutely wrong. The Pfizer trial is here with a slick graphic. Infections fall off sharply 11 days after the first shot. Moderna is the same (here, p.28).
Hmmm, you are correct. I was remembering that plot as days after the second dose, not the first. My mistake. Should have checked.
No one really wants to “change the protocol”. The question is really what if we don’t have enough doses to do the protocol for everybody in a timely manner. What do we do then?
Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “Just make more vaccine and follow the protocol” is kind of a cop out for people who don’t want to try to answer the question. Obviously, we should do that. But if that fails, we should have an idea of what is the best of the less desirable options: half doses, delaying doses, just vaccinating less people. At this point I think that the scientists are just using what scant data they have to come to the best decision on that. But everyone’s first choice is just give the vaccine as it was given in the study.
No one is questioning that would be the best strategy. It’s a question of what the second best strategy is given the info we have and the additional info we can get with the time pressure that is present.