I only recently noted this and ‘agreed’, the experts ‘n’ Boris really are stabbing in the dark there!
I suspect there is growing evidence, since UK has already been injecting Pfizer for 3+ weeks, that immunity is not tailing off at the 3 or 4 week mark so maybe good to extend period between 2nd dose. It will be interesting to see if / when this 12 week max is reduced, especially in Pfizer.
It’s that optimal word - we don’t have the precious time to seek optimal play when we have 2BB remaining. It just becomes optimal to get it in with ATC. We’re in superCOVID times.
I’m not sure that 12 weeks is optimal, but the “I’m not going to take the vaccine at all unless I get a guarantee I’ll get the 2nd dose in 3 weeks” is probably worse. and by probably I mean “I’m 95% certain”
Again when there is evidence for A (21 days) and you want to do B (12 weeks) that is untested then you have an extra burden of proof to switch to B.
I’m effing tired of the idea that any hypothesis is ok because there isn’t proof against it.
And then to be accused of arguing in bad faith for not having detailed evidence against B.
It’s especially annoying when made-up government rules are somehow used as “evidence” that it must somehow make sense when it’s obvious that in certain countries (lolUS and lolUK) idiots are putting their two cents in front of the scientists recommendations (except Sweden where the scientist is clearly the idiot).
And if you think I’m talking about OFS as well, make your own assumptions as you are wont to do.
The UK’s Vaccine approval bodies have made these recommendations at the time of approving use, not politicians IMO.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) authorisation includes conditions that the AstraZeneca (Oxford) vaccine should be administered in 2 doses, with the second dose given between 4 and 12 weeks after the first. The MHRA has also clarified that for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the interval between doses must be at least 3 weeks. For both vaccines, data provided to MHRA demonstrate that while efficacy is optimised when a second dose is administered, both offer considerable protection after a single dose, at least in the short term. For both vaccines the second dose completes the course and is likely to be important for longer term protection.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has subsequently recommended that as many people on the JCVI priority list as possible should sequentially be offered a first vaccine dose as the initial priority. They have advised that the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may be given between 3 to 12 weeks following the first dose, and that the second dose of the AstraZeneca (Oxford) vaccine may be given between 4 to 12 weeks following the first dose. The clinical risk priority order for deployment of the vaccines remains unchanged and applies to both vaccines. Both are very effective vaccines.
The 4 UK Chief Medical Officers agree with the JCVI that at this stage of the pandemic prioritising the first doses of vaccine for as many people as possible on the priority list will protect the greatest number of at risk people overall in the shortest possible time and will have the greatest impact on reducing mortality, severe disease and hospitalisations and in protecting the NHS and equivalent health services. Operationally this will mean that second doses of both vaccines will be administered towards the end of the recommended vaccine dosing schedule of 12 weeks. This will maximise the number of people getting vaccine and therefore receiving protection in the next 12 weeks.
Based on JCVI’s expert advice, it is our joint clinical advice that delivery plans should prioritise delivering first vaccine doses to as many people on the JCVI Phase 1 priority list in the shortest possible timeframe. This will allow the administration of second doses to be completed over the longer timeframes in line with conditions set out by the independent regulator, the MHRA and advice from the JCVI. This will maximise the impact of the vaccine programme in its primary aims of reducing mortality and hospitalisations and protecting the NHS and equivalent health services.
The freezer? Ok, a $5 thermometer can go inside and someone can check it every once in a while. This isn’t rocket science, we need to get this shit out fast, not perfectly.
Again, we need to get this shit out fast, not perfectly. If somewhere some freezer dips and the doses don’t work, but otoh we distributed millions of doses more quickly… seems to me the tradeoff is fine.
What they should be doing is getting all the initial set of people vaccinated within 3 weeks - and supporting whatever is needed to get that done … and to keep it going through to the spring.
I’m not really sure to be honest - reading the stuff here over the last couple of hours has put me more on the fence.
I do however think to tories are using the possibility of it maybe being ok to not have to really make the effort they should be making. Even if 12 weeks was ok why plan right up to it? - not leaving alot of wiggle room there. They’re not doing it in good faith but for political expediency.
9 out of 10 covid deaths are in those aged 65yrs and over. If we can vaccinate 2 or 3 times more of this at risk group before March (end of winter), by delaying 2nd doses, to just say 40% immunity, then this should equal less deaths than just 80+years having say 70% (Oxford) immunity by same end winter deadline.
We already guess than Covid might be at least an annual vaccine in the future. No reason why we can’t take the slower route to higher maximum efficacy, especially in light of superCOVID. Some protection for all, IMO. But let’s keep up the monitoring as we go, which we know we’re world leaders at.
I’m not questioning the maths - I’m asking that the govt pull their finger out and really ramp up the vaccinations. There shouldn’t be a ‘slow route’.
If it’s a supply issue then use G powers to get more manufacturing going - whatever. If they want everyone on board with getting back to normal then everyone who needs or wants a vaccine needs to be vaccinated it’s a simple as that. Normal isn’t happening before that.
The drug companies are stating the maximum efficacy is at 3 weeks for second dose. When resources are tight, we can do with a little less than the max.
I think we are all agreeing that guessing shouldn’t be done but having some disagreement about what is guessing and what isn’t
I’d also like to see a consensus amongst epidemiologists about which is more effective by doing the maths if half at 2 doses or all at 1 dose makes more sense.
It may be close. It may differ between joe old guy and Susie young woman.
But it should not be a blind guess. I am certainly unclear as to what the actual knowledge is.