3 month gap between AZ jabs given thumbs up by report in Lancet

Laughing said:
No wanderer just facts, the same facts that are available to you, should you wish to look. If you are going to attack the poster, at least back it up with a study that refutes what the israelis have found in the real world. That would be a start to a debate.

Let me help you a bit. During real world vaccinations in Israel, they found that after 1 Pfizer jab, at 14 days the efficacy was 33%. They then retested at 17 days and the efficacy was still 33%. There was not the anticipated rise in efficacy beyond 14 days. That is an opinion backed up with evidence.

Your turn?

Oh and my agenda is only truth.
Click to expand...
The 12 week gap is a gamble but in terms of evidence so far the argument about the two week gap reporting 33% efficacy and extrapolating this up to 12 weeks is disputable

"Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said reports from Israel are "insufficient to provide any evidence that the current UK policy in regard to delaying the second dose of vaccines is in any way incorrect".

"The reported efficacy of one dose has not been compared using the same methods and patients with the efficacy of two doses at 84 days"

Lets just hope it works out for the best as we should all hope it does.
 
Decent_Left said:
The 12 week gap is a gamble but in terms of evidence so far the argument about the two week gap reporting 33% efficacy and extrapolating this up to 12 weeks is disputable

"Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said reports from Israel are "insufficient to provide any evidence that the current UK policy in regard to delaying the second dose of vaccines is in any way incorrect".

"The reported efficacy of one dose has not been compared using the same methods and patients with the efficacy of two doses at 84 days"

Lets just hope it works out for the best as we should all hope it does.
Click to expand...
I thought that was for the Pfizer jab?
 
Decent_Left said:
The 12 week gap is a gamble but in terms of evidence so far the argument about the two week gap reporting 33% efficacy and extrapolating this up to 12 weeks is disputable

"Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said reports from Israel are "insufficient to provide any evidence that the current UK policy in regard to delaying the second dose of vaccines is in any way incorrect".

"The reported efficacy of one dose has not been compared using the same methods and patients with the efficacy of two doses at 84 days"

Lets just hope it works out for the best as we should all hope it does.
Click to expand...
Oh I hope it works DL, but it is a gamble. If you were to ask the very simple question, one dose of AZ or one dose of Pfizer, everyone would pick the AZ vaccine. That is very telling.

I am not sure in the differernt comparisons, I didn't read that so can't comment intelligently on it, but, as far as I am aware, no studies prove the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine above the 33% after one dose. There is extrapolated and assumed efficacy only.

In the abscence of refuting evidence you go with your best information.
 
Laughing said:
Oh I hope it works DL, but it is a gamble. If you were to ask the very simple question, one dose of AZ or one dose of Pfizer, everyone would pick the AZ vaccine. That is very telling.

I am not sure in the differernt comparisons, I didn't read that so can't comment intelligently on it, but, as far as I am aware, no studies prove the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine above the 33% after one dose. There is extrapolated and assumed efficacy only.

In the abscence of refuting evidence you go with your best information.
Click to expand...
Totally agree - the blizzard of "facts" is frankly overwhelming then you have to wade through the prism of what the source is and establish if its biased or factual.

Here is my bias - Despite my utter contempt for the govt in most things and the handling of the crisis specifically, I have decided to be a rah rah for the vaccination programme based on my assumption that the entire NHS would not be rolling it out with the 12 week gap if there was not an overall benefit to the population. Am I ready for a slew of bad news takes if the 12 week gap does not perform as well for one vaccine as another - absolutely.
 
Decent_Left said:
Totally agree - the blizzard of "facts" is frankly overwhelming then you have to wade through the prism of what the source is and establish if its biased or factual.

Here is my bias - Despite my utter contempt for the govt in most things and the handling of the crisis specifically, I have decided to be a rah rah for the vaccination programme based on my assumption that the entire NHS would not be rolling it out with the 12 week gap if there was not an overall benefit to the population. Am I ready for a slew of bad news takes if the 12 week gap does not perform as well for one vaccine as another - absolutely.
Click to expand...
On the rah rah, absolutely. Whilst the success is largely the NHS' the government got 2 things spot on. Firstly the early procurement has helped enormously. Secondly the government could have chosen to farm out the vaccination program to some pest control company, but they didn't.

So yes, well done on that. I have a fairly cynical view on the early procurement and the vaccination strategy, but I don't know. It could be simplly good decision making.

To balance the good bits, the BMJ begged the government to re-think the 12 week gap for the Pfizer vaccinations. Over and above that, what will the picture look like when the government have to start doing second vaccinations, and that is about to happen. To give second vaccination shots, they will have to be doing 2nd shots at exactly the same rate, pro-rata, that they gave the first shot. That means that the ability to continue giving first shots is premised solely on increasing capacity, which the government has managed to do so far. From 200,000 a day to about 400,000 a day, but probably not consistently enough.

Once they get to the second vaccinations and run out of capacity the whole program will slow down as people are administered their second shots. That my friend, is where the maths starts to fall apart. Without continually increasing capacity, you eventually have to have a hiatus on first shots whilst you administer second shots.
 
Laughing said:
On the rah rah, absolutely. Whilst the success is largely the NHS' the government got 2 things spot on. Firstly the early procurement has helped enormously. Secondly the government could have chosen to farm out the vaccination program to some pest control company, but they didn't.

So yes, well done on that. I have a fairly cynical view on the early procurement and the vaccination strategy, but I don't know. It could be simplly good decision making.

To balance the good bits, the BMJ begged the government to re-think the 12 week gap for the Pfizer vaccinations. Over and above that, what will the picture look like when the government have to start doing second vaccinations, and that is about to happen. To give second vaccination shots, they will have to be doing 2nd shots at exactly the same rate, pro-rata, that they gave the first shot. That means that the ability to continue giving first shots is premised solely on increasing capacity, which the government has managed to do so far. From 200,000 a day to about 400,000 a day, but probably not consistently enough.

Once they get to the second vaccinations and run out of capacity the whole program will slow down as people are administered their second shots. That my friend, is where the maths starts to fall apart. Without continually increasing capacity, you eventually have to have a hiatus on first shots whilst you administer second shots.
Click to expand...
Yes there’s a long way to go yet, the government and their supporters should just shut up and get on with it.
 
Liamo said:
In one sense, not really. The O-AZ vaccine trials included a relatively large subset that received their second dose 12 weeks (or even more) after the first.

So there's good clinical data for it.
Click to expand...
I’ve just heard a medical guy this lunchtime on the Jeremy Vine show say that the decision to delay the second dose was a gamble based on very little data which has, fortunately, paid off.

I‘m only listening to expert opinion.

As an aside he also said he would not trust the Sputnik vaccine until he had seen more data.
 
Laughing said:
On the rah rah, absolutely. Whilst the success is largely the NHS' the government got 2 things spot on. Firstly the early procurement has helped enormously. Secondly the government could have chosen to farm out the vaccination program to some pest control company, but they didn't.

So yes, well done on that. I have a fairly cynical view on the early procurement and the vaccination strategy, but I don't know. It could be simplly good decision making.

To balance the good bits, the BMJ begged the government to re-think the 12 week gap for the Pfizer vaccinations. Over and above that, what will the picture look like when the government have to start doing second vaccinations, and that is about to happen. To give second vaccination shots, they will have to be doing 2nd shots at exactly the same rate, pro-rata, that they gave the first shot. That means that the ability to continue giving first shots is premised solely on increasing capacity, which the government has managed to do so far. From 200,000 a day to about 400,000 a day, but probably not consistently enough.

Once they get to the second vaccinations and run out of capacity the whole program will slow down as people are administered their second shots. That my friend, is where the maths starts to fall apart. Without continually increasing capacity, you eventually have to have a hiatus on first shots whilst you administer second shots.
Click to expand...
My Rah Rah response is.......

Correct that a huge number of people waiting for the 2nd dose will clash with the roll out to the next priority groups... However

It will undoubtedly be more efficient as all the set up kinks should be ironed out by now. The capacity for vaccinating is massively greater than it was by definition at the early stages for the first round of jabs.

The capacity for the next bunch of priority groups will be increased as these become age groups with better mobility to get to vaccination points.

The roll out of extra vaccination points is continuing, nearly every day another group of pharmacys or a mass centre is opening up

Some of the future vaccines are one shots when your done your done

I believe every new vaccine coming on stream does not have the severe handling issues the Pfizer jab has enabling the jab to be given in far more accessible locations.

There we go - the futures bright.
 
Laughing said:
On the rah rah, absolutely. Whilst the success is largely the NHS' the government got 2 things spot on. Firstly the early procurement has helped enormously. Secondly the government could have chosen to farm out the vaccination program to some pest control company, but they didn't.

So yes, well done on that. I have a fairly cynical view on the early procurement and the vaccination strategy, but I don't know. It could be simplly good decision making.

To balance the good bits, the BMJ begged the government to re-think the 12 week gap for the Pfizer vaccinations. Over and above that, what will the picture look like when the government have to start doing second vaccinations, and that is about to happen. To give second vaccination shots, they will have to be doing 2nd shots at exactly the same rate, pro-rata, that they gave the first shot. That means that the ability to continue giving first shots is premised solely on increasing capacity, which the government has managed to do so far. From 200,000 a day to about 400,000 a day, but probably not consistently enough.

Once they get to the second vaccinations and run out of capacity the whole program will slow down as people are administered their second shots. That my friend, is where the maths starts to fall apart. Without continually increasing capacity, you eventually have to have a hiatus on first shots whilst you administer second shots.
Click to expand...
The plan is to have more mass vaccination centres. Matt Hancock was asked about a Teesside centre by Matt Vickers yesterday in the commons and he said they plan to have more when needed. There are also talks of extending the length of the vaccination day even potentially 24 hour jabs. The ability to administer the jabs will not be an issue, it's whether we have enough stock. Supply chain issues will be the problem not capacity. There are huge numbers of volunteers signed up ready to assist too
 
Londons_Moggie said:
The plan is to have more mass vaccination centres. Matt Hancock was asked about a Teesside centre by Matt Vickers yesterday in the commons and he said they plan to have more when needed. There are also talks of extending the length of the vaccination day even potentially 24 hour jabs. The ability to administer the jabs will not be an issue, it's whether we have enough stock. Supply chain issues will be the problem not capacity. There are huge numbers of volunteers signed up ready to assist too.
Click to expand...
Yes I am aware of that, the supply chain forms part of your capacity though. Can we really administer 1 million jabs a day? I don't know. It would be good if we could
 
HolgateCorner said:
I’ve just heard a medical guy this lunchtime on the Jeremy Vine show say that the decision to delay the second dose was a gamble based on very little data which has, fortunately, paid off.

I‘m only listening to expert opinion.

As an aside he also said he would not trust the Sputnik vaccine until he had seen more data.
Click to expand...
The chief exec of Astra zenica said it was exactly the right thing to do. It was also based on the results from existing vaccines such as ebola. And the decision was made by a group of experts all of whom will have had greater access than you're chap on the radio I'd imagine.
They're not closing their eyes and hoping for the best here.
The gamble is on pfizer and we don't know what the result of that will be.

An important factor in giving out one jab is the reduction in transmission. Getting as many people only one third as infectious could be absolutely huge.
 
You're right sheriff transmission is a bigger killer than how deadly a virus is, assuming it's deadly to begin with
 
Randy said:
It's what was implied.

Russia and the UK could both announce they've found the cure to cancer at the same time. Who would people believe first?
Click to expand...
Which people? If it was us then the UK, or most of western Europe then the UK. If it was Armenia or Moldova or most of Asia then Russia. Thays just natural. I'm not sure what your point is. Well I know what your point is but I don't think it's right.
 
sherlock1969 said:
This isn't really news.

The Oxford jab was always supposed to be 12 weeks apart, Oxford/Astra Zeneca supported that from the beginning.

It's the Pfizer one that's the worry. Pfizer don't support the 12 week gap, it should be 3 weeks, and they make no claim as to efficacy with a 12 week gap between doses.
Click to expand...
Yeah this, good post. I thought the thread was about Pfizer.

Great news on reduced transmission and a great gamble (I'd use strategy actually credit where due) on going all in on the Oxford vaccine but don't confuse that with the gamble on Pfizer.
 
SmallTown said:
Which people? If it was us then the UK, or most of western Europe then the UK. If it was Armenia or Moldova or most of Asia then Russia. Thays just natural. I'm not sure what your point is. Well I know what your point is but I don't think it's right.
Click to expand...
My point is some people are still hooked up on Russia been the big bad commie wolf coming to blow the house down.

Russia has always been at the forefront of science since well before anybody on here was born. With Putin been the richest man in the world (yes seriously he is) I see no reason why Russia's position would be any different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top