Pfizer first dose efficacy

I'm not sure that the whole Brexit issue has influenced anything here,not to any significant degree anyway.

The vaccine programme has been so successful because the NHS infrastructure has been used, with the Army supporting this.

Contrast this to the test and trace debacle, which the government handed to the private sector - costing in excess of £3bn.

I'm not sure I feel that the government can claim too much credit, it seems to me to be despite them really.
 
Really good news this, and good research by our scientists, and good from our modellers to advise it, despite Pfizer advising against it (I think), thank feck the government actually listened to the science and modellers for once.
 
SmallTown said:
Wrong. The EU didn't gamble to make themselves look better. They followed the manufacturers instructions.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'm going to regret getting into this with you but here we go anyway...

The government didn't "gamble" as you put it, it was an evidence based decision, it also wasn't to make them "look good" either. The strategy always was to reduce death, mainly due to the fact that our numbers were ridiculously through the roof (completely governments fault but this is a side issue). The best way to start reducing deaths was to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible with a first dose of a vaccine. Then start to get a handle on the spread of the virus after that. It was a strategy that made sense and a lot of medical evidence suggested that it was the best way to go. If our numbers of infection were lower then it would have been a different strategy they'd followed. As much as I dislike the Tories it was a strategic decision which made a lot of sense and certainly wasn't driven by "looking good". It just wasn't. This has come from a director of public health in London as well who works for a Labour council, so not "tories sticking together".

The UK and EU have backed different vaccines as well, I'd say that the UK government have been some what fortunate that the horses they've backed and strongly backed come to market the quickest. One of the issues the EU have had is the fact they invested a lot of money and faith into a german vaccine which took longer to be made available. The EU programme isn't behind us due to the fact that they're providing two doses of the fizer vaccine within 6 weeks but more that they've struggled to get the supplies they require - which is pretty much their own fault as they've tried to drive prices of vaccines down by collective bargaining to get a better deal for EU members. This is certainly the case with the Oxford vaccine. UK government invested heavily in establishing the infostructure required to enable them to build up the capacity required to produce the amount of vaccine needed. The up side of providing that initial investment was we were then prioritised to receive vaccines as they were produced, which was a contractual agreement. The EU tried to say that they were part of that agreement by us still being a EU member at that point but it held no weight at all and they needed to conceed they had no rights at all.

Essentially the EU backed the wrong horse and then messed up by trying to be cheap and cut costs. The UK government were pretty shrude in spotting viable vaccines quickly backing them and then in the case of the oxford vaccine investing to ensure the vaccine could be produced at the capacity required - without that investment you don't get the amount of oxford vaccine being produced that currently is.

For once the government in this country has a sensible strategy on investing in vaccines and then used a evidence based approach to make a decision on how a limited number of initial vaccines should be delivered which was driven by reducing deaths in the UK, then trusting the NHS to deliver it. For once during this whole situation they've done what they should have done all along and its paid off.

apologies for the long post, it just amazes me how far people will argue when all evidence points the other way. I don't really like giving the tories any credit at all but I've got to be honest the start of this year they've started to make some better decisions. They completely ballsed it up the majority of last year though for which there current better form doesn't come close to absolving them of.
 
brain_in_a_jar said:
I'm sure I'm going to regret getting into this with you but here we go anyway...

The government didn't "gamble" as you put it, it was an evidence based decision, it also wasn't to make them "look good" either. The strategy always was to reduce death, mainly due to the fact that our numbers were ridiculously through the roof (completely governments fault but this is a side issue). The best way to start reducing deaths was to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible with a first dose of a vaccine. Then start to get a handle on the spread of the virus after that. It was a strategy that made sense and a lot of medical evidence suggested that it was the best way to go. If our numbers of infection were lower then it would have been a different strategy they'd followed. As much as I dislike the Tories it was a strategic decision which made a lot of sense and certainly wasn't driven by "looking good". It just wasn't. This has come from a director of public health in London as well who works for a Labour council, so not "tories sticking together".

The UK and EU have backed different vaccines as well, I'd say that the UK government have been some what fortunate that the horses they've backed and strongly backed come to market the quickest. One of the issues the EU have had is the fact they invested a lot of money and faith into a german vaccine which took longer to be made available. The EU programme isn't behind us due to the fact that they're providing two doses of the fizer vaccine within 6 weeks but more that they've struggled to get the supplies they require - which is pretty much their own fault as they've tried to drive prices of vaccines down by collective bargaining to get a better deal for EU members. This is certainly the case with the Oxford vaccine. UK government invested heavily in establishing the infostructure required to enable them to build up the capacity required to produce the amount of vaccine needed. The up side of providing that initial investment was we were then prioritised to receive vaccines as they were produced, which was a contractual agreement. The EU tried to say that they were part of that agreement by us still being a EU member at that point but it held no weight at all and they needed to conceed they had no rights at all.

Essentially the EU backed the wrong horse and then messed up by trying to be cheap and cut costs. The UK government were pretty shrude in spotting viable vaccines quickly backing them and then in the case of the oxford vaccine investing to ensure the vaccine could be produced at the capacity required - without that investment you don't get the amount of oxford vaccine being produced that currently is.

For once the government in this country has a sensible strategy on investing in vaccines and then used a evidence based approach to make a decision on how a limited number of initial vaccines should be delivered which was driven by reducing deaths in the UK, then trusting the NHS to deliver it. For once during this whole situation they've done what they should have done all along and its paid off.

apologies for the long post, it just amazes me how far people will argue when all evidence points the other way. I don't really like giving the tories any credit at all but I've got to be honest the start of this year they've started to make some better decisions. They completely ballsed it up the majority of last year though for which there current better form doesn't come close to absolving them of.
Click to expand...
Excellent post so nice to hear from someone in the real world and not the parallel universe of ST et al.
 
brain_in_a_jar said:
I'm sure I'm going to regret getting into this with you but here we go anyway...

The government didn't "gamble" as you put it, it was an evidence based decision, it also wasn't to make them "look good" either. The strategy always was to reduce death, mainly due to the fact that our numbers were ridiculously through the roof (completely governments fault but this is a side issue). The best way to start reducing deaths was to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible with a first dose of a vaccine. Then start to get a handle on the spread of the virus after that. It was a strategy that made sense and a lot of medical evidence suggested that it was the best way to go. If our numbers of infection were lower then it would have been a different strategy they'd followed. As much as I dislike the Tories it was a strategic decision which made a lot of sense and certainly wasn't driven by "looking good". It just wasn't. This has come from a director of public health in London as well who works for a Labour council, so not "tories sticking together".

The UK and EU have backed different vaccines as well, I'd say that the UK government have been some what fortunate that the horses they've backed and strongly backed come to market the quickest. One of the issues the EU have had is the fact they invested a lot of money and faith into a german vaccine which took longer to be made available. The EU programme isn't behind us due to the fact that they're providing two doses of the fizer vaccine within 6 weeks but more that they've struggled to get the supplies they require - which is pretty much their own fault as they've tried to drive prices of vaccines down by collective bargaining to get a better deal for EU members. This is certainly the case with the Oxford vaccine. UK government invested heavily in establishing the infostructure required to enable them to build up the capacity required to produce the amount of vaccine needed. The up side of providing that initial investment was we were then prioritised to receive vaccines as they were produced, which was a contractual agreement. The EU tried to say that they were part of that agreement by us still being a EU member at that point but it held no weight at all and they needed to conceed they had no rights at all.

Essentially the EU backed the wrong horse and then messed up by trying to be cheap and cut costs. The UK government were pretty shrude in spotting viable vaccines quickly backing them and then in the case of the oxford vaccine investing to ensure the vaccine could be produced at the capacity required - without that investment you don't get the amount of oxford vaccine being produced that currently is.

For once the government in this country has a sensible strategy on investing in vaccines and then used a evidence based approach to make a decision on how a limited number of initial vaccines should be delivered which was driven by reducing deaths in the UK, then trusting the NHS to deliver it. For once during this whole situation they've done what they should have done all along and its paid off.

apologies for the long post, it just amazes me how far people will argue when all evidence points the other way. I don't really like giving the tories any credit at all but I've got to be honest the start of this year they've started to make some better decisions. They completely ballsed it up the majority of last year though for which there current better form doesn't come close to absolving them of.
Click to expand...
Or maybe johnsons needs, for once, aligned with the science. Just saying.
 
brain_in_a_jar said:
I'm sure I'm going to regret getting into this with you but here we go anyway...

The government didn't "gamble" as you put it, it was an evidence based decision, it also wasn't to make them "look good" either. The strategy always was to reduce death, mainly due to the fact that our numbers were ridiculously through the roof (completely governments fault but this is a side issue). The best way to start reducing deaths was to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible with a first dose of a vaccine. Then start to get a handle on the spread of the virus after that. It was a strategy that made sense and a lot of medical evidence suggested that it was the best way to go. If our numbers of infection were lower then it would have been a different strategy they'd followed. As much as I dislike the Tories it was a strategic decision which made a lot of sense and certainly wasn't driven by "looking good". It just wasn't. This has come from a director of public health in London as well who works for a Labour council, so not "tories sticking together".

The UK and EU have backed different vaccines as well, I'd say that the UK government have been some what fortunate that the horses they've backed and strongly backed come to market the quickest. One of the issues the EU have had is the fact they invested a lot of money and faith into a german vaccine which took longer to be made available. The EU programme isn't behind us due to the fact that they're providing two doses of the fizer vaccine within 6 weeks but more that they've struggled to get the supplies they require - which is pretty much their own fault as they've tried to drive prices of vaccines down by collective bargaining to get a better deal for EU members. This is certainly the case with the Oxford vaccine. UK government invested heavily in establishing the infostructure required to enable them to build up the capacity required to produce the amount of vaccine needed. The up side of providing that initial investment was we were then prioritised to receive vaccines as they were produced, which was a contractual agreement. The EU tried to say that they were part of that agreement by us still being a EU member at that point but it held no weight at all and they needed to conceed they had no rights at all.

Essentially the EU backed the wrong horse and then messed up by trying to be cheap and cut costs. The UK government were pretty shrude in spotting viable vaccines quickly backing them and then in the case of the oxford vaccine investing to ensure the vaccine could be produced at the capacity required - without that investment you don't get the amount of oxford vaccine being produced that currently is.

For once the government in this country has a sensible strategy on investing in vaccines and then used a evidence based approach to make a decision on how a limited number of initial vaccines should be delivered which was driven by reducing deaths in the UK, then trusting the NHS to deliver it. For once during this whole situation they've done what they should have done all along and its paid off.

apologies for the long post, it just amazes me how far people will argue when all evidence points the other way. I don't really like giving the tories any credit at all but I've got to be honest the start of this year they've started to make some better decisions. They completely ballsed it up the majority of last year though for which there current better form doesn't come close to absolving them of.
Click to expand...
I just have to disagree with the fact it was an evidence based decision. We know in the past that this government have ignored scientific advice. We also know they are the type of people willing to hold up a parliamentary bill until it says nice things about them. It's not a massive stretch to then belive that they would roll out a vaccine against manufacturers instructions in order to improve their figures. Like I said, we got lucky.

Also what evidence was there (indeed is there) that it's OK to take the Pfizer vaccine 12 weeks apart? Unless I have missed something this approach is still untested.
 
The evidence was the performance of previous vaccines.
We didn't get lucky. We have tremendously competent people working to protect us.
The country rumbles on regardless of which colour rosettes the people at the top are wearing.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
The evidence was the performance of previous vaccines.
We didn't get lucky. We have tremendously competent people working to protect us.
The country rumbles on regardless of which colour rosettes the people at the top are wearing.
Click to expand...
Previous different vaccines? Where was the evidence for this specific one? I’m not sure you can use evidence of something else to prove your point
 
SmallTown said:
I just have to disagree with the fact it was an evidence based decision. We know in the past that this government have ignored scientific advice. We also know they are the type of people willing to hold up a parliamentary bill until it says nice things about them. It's not a massive stretch to then belive that they would roll out a vaccine against manufacturers instructions in order to improve their figures. Like I said, we got lucky.

Also what evidence was there (indeed is there) that it's OK to take the Pfizer vaccine 12 weeks apart? Unless I have missed something this approach is still untested.
Click to expand...

Its going to be pointless arguing really isn't it, I'm not going to agree with you and you're not going to change your mind either. So we'll just end up going round in circles. All I will say is I'm inclined to trust the opinion of a director of public health in one of the worst effected borough's in London when they say the strategy for distributing vaccines was based on reducing death, rather than believing it was based on the government trying to make themselves look good.

Come off it, you know the evidence base that was used to make the decision to give fizer vaccines 12 weeks apart. You wouldn't possibly argue so much on the topic if you weren't already aware of that.

Anyway as above, we'll go round in circles so this will be my last response.
 
www.rte.ie

Pfizer says SA variant could reduce vaccine protection

Researchers have urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose.
www.rte.ie www.rte.ie

Just came across this article which covers a few ideas on the jab, including one that the 3 week gap between Pfizer jabs may not be the best scenario, a long gap may give more protection

The study comes from our 'world leading' vaccination team of scientists, Pfizer, BioNtech and the University of Texas. Well done Johnson.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
www.rte.ie

Pfizer says SA variant could reduce vaccine protection

Researchers have urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose.
www.rte.ie www.rte.ie

Just came across this article which covers a few ideas on the jab, including one that the 3 week gap between Pfizer jabs may not be the best scenario, a long gap may give more protection

The study comes from our 'world leading' vaccination team of scientists, Pfizer, BioNtech and the University of Texas. Well done Johnson.
Click to expand...
The case for delaying the second jab certainly seems to be building.

You have to wonder if those who will not credit the government for delaying the second jab, putting this down to good luck, would merely have seen it as bad luck if it hadn’t worked out and subsequently not blamed the government...
 
Hicktonpen10 said:
Agreed. Despite the best efforts of some on here to say the contrary our vaccination programme really has been World leading. Well done to the NHS and Government
Click to expand...
I agree Hicktonpen10 - the Government should rightly be applauded for the way in which the vaccination programme has been carried out and is one of the few things they've got right. If you're so keen to congratualte the Government on this, perhaps you should be equally able to slaughter them for the way they've managed 95% of this crisis?
 
SmallTown said:
Also what evidence was there (indeed is there) that it's OK to take the Pfizer vaccine 12 weeks apart? Unless I have missed something this approach is still untested.
Click to expand...
According to the article linked to below, the latest real-world data shows the delayed 2nd dose schedule for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is justified.

Professor Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) also said initial figures appeared to justify the delayed second dose approach.
Click to expand...
He said the data – at this stage mainly relating to the Pfizer jab – shows that a “substantial proportion” of patients are protected after the first dose.

“I've just come off JCVI and we're looking at these real-time vaccine effectiveness figures, it's really early stages yet, but it does look like our first dose strategy is proving to be a good one,” said Prof Harnden.
"And the early signs are very promising from the data that we've made the right decision on this."
He said the early results appear to justify the decision to delay administering second doses in order to give out greater numbers of first jabs more quickly.
The JCVI believes the approach could save the lives of up to 4,000 elderly and vulnerable people this winter.
Click to expand...
https://archive.is/TUSPy
 
WeeGord said:
I agree Hicktonpen10 - the Government should rightly be applauded for the way in which the vaccination programme has been carried out and is one of the few things they've got right. If you're so keen to congratualte the Government on this, perhaps you should be equally able to slaughter them for the way they've managed 95% of this crisis?
Click to expand...
Happy to criticise where criticism is due but fear your 95% is way off the mark.
 
Hicktonpen10 said:
Happy to criticise where criticism is due but fear your 95% is way off the mark.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen nothing at all from you criticising the Government, in fact many other have pulled you up for refusing to criticise them.

if 95% is off the mark what do you think would be more accurate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top