Jump to content

Vaccine- who will have it?


Banker
 Share

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’ve been listening to More or Less, the popular statistics commentary and explanation R4 programme.

UK needs to deliver 2.5 million doses to achieve its target of one dose to everyone in top 4 categories by end February. It’s actually managing 500,000 a week average.

In Manx terms that’s 625 a week. We are achieving nearly double that.

Just some balance for the doomsayers and gloomsters who say we are going slow

I too listened to More or Less. Fascinating and balanced take on all the numbers and statistics flying around, recommended to other MF posters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Sure. I read it here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671

The BMJ is interesting though. I will have a good read

I think the point still stands however. There is significant protection from the first jab. It also seems to be accepted that the second jab is beneficial but that there is some debate about the optimum timing. That optimum will only be evaluated as mankind uses the vaccine over a sustained period of time (its early days still).

The point was however, why are we saving/reserving second doses when there is clear benefit to getting the first dose (it could save a life here) and that benefit is greater than the second (cumulatively)

How do you claim that having 6 million at 52% is better than 3 million at 95% is better.

They're two differing options.

And there is no evidence that the second dose at 12 weeks will then deliver 95%.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Sure. I read it here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671

The BMJ is interesting though. I will have a good read

I think the point still stands however. There is significant protection from the first jab. It also seems to be accepted that the second jab is beneficial but that there is some debate about the optimum timing. That optimum will only be evaluated as mankind uses the vaccine over a sustained period of time (its early days still).

The point was however, why are we saving/reserving second doses when there is clear benefit to getting the first dose (it could save a life here) and that benefit is greater than the second (cumulatively)

Thanks for that. The evidence does seem quite confusing. The published data seem to show a 52% effectiveness after the first Pfizer vaccine is administered but the JCVI have estimated that the 'short term' protection following the first injection is 90%. They don't say what 'short term' means or what evidence they have used to estimate the 90%

Optimising the COVID-19 vaccination programme

I take the point that there is significant benefit from the first vaccine and that there is some logic in the UK approach of getting the first dose into as many people as quickly as possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

How do you claim that having 6 million at 52% is better than 3 million at 95% is better.

They're two differing options.

I can understand the logic insofar as if you give 1 million people 1 dose you protect 520,000. If, on the other hand you give half a million people 2 doses each, you protect 475,000 people. In the early stages of the programme, with scarce resources, there is some logic to giving more people a single dose. If the JCVI are correct in their assumptions, and the initial protection is higher, it just strengthens the argument

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Newbie said:

I can understand the logic insofar as if you give 1 million people 1 dose you protect 520,000. If, on the other hand you give half a million people 2 doses each, you protect 475,000 people. In the early stages of the programme, with scarce resources, there is some logic to giving more people a single dose. If the JCVI are correct in their assumptions, and the initial protection is higher, it just strengthens the argument

But they are assumptions not backed by evidence, not tested, not endorsed by manufacturer or any other public health body in the world.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

But they are assumptions not backed by evidence, not tested, not endorsed by manufacturer or any other public health body in the world.

The 52% protection after the first dose is backed by science, but you are right that delaying the second dose until 12 weeks hasn't been tested, but that doesn't mean that it won't work. There are a number of other vaccines that have variable dosing schedules depending on circumstances (Hepatitis B Vaccination for instance). However, it is a calculated risk by the UK Government, but given the desperate situation in the UK with rapidly rising infection rates, I can understand why they feel it is a risk worth taking. Fortunately, we are not really in that situation on the Isle of Man (at lest yet!), so don't have to make that choice

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, John Wright said:

How do you claim that having 6 million at 52% is better than 3 million at 95% is better.

They're two differing options.

And there is no evidence that the second dose at 12 weeks will then deliver 95%.

I'm not saying that at all. That's the UKs decision to make. What I am saying is that we should stick to the plan of having the second dose as recommended. But, we should not be saving stock just with the sole objective of achieving this to the day. In the unlikely event of a delay in supplies, its not the end of the world is it?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the early summer of 2020 the media (BBC, I think) were quoting that some national health authorities would have been happy if there was a vaccine that only gave 30% protection in total.

So what we have right now is a significant improvement on that position and so should be maximising it's effectiveness as quickly as we possibly can. 

We need to avoid catastrophes such as Abbotswood. Remember that?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Back in the early summer of 2020 the media (BBC, I think) were quoting that some national health authorities would have been happy if there was a vaccine that only gave 30% protection in total.

So what we have right now is a significant improvement on that position and so should be maximising it's effectiveness as quickly as we possibly can. 

We need to avoid catastrophes such as Abbotswood. Remember that?

It all really depends on what exactly the vaccine actually does as that is still assumed but not publicly confirmed at the minute. Does it prevent infection? Does it stop transmission? Does it just alleviate symptoms? 

Edited by Lxxx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not saying that at all. That's the UKs decision to make. What I am saying is that we should stick to the plan of having the second dose as recommended. But, we should not be saving stock just with the sole objective of achieving this to the day. In the unlikely event of a delay in supplies, its not the end of the world is it?

On GMTV this morning, the uk health minister said that in the uk the vaccines were being deployed asap after receipt, but could not discount the possibility of supply disruption. 

In addition, four different scientists gave four different sets of figures and four different opinions. The most senior scientist said that the JCVIs advice assumptions and best guess. No evidence . 

On the grounds of the way the uk had handled this pandemic and cocked it up, I suggest we continue to do exactly the opposite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

. Does is prevent infection? Does it stop transmission? Does it just alleviate symptoms? 

 

Bit of basic biology

Does is prevent infection?  Its a vaccine so no. It trains your body to fight the infection before it establishes itself and makes you ill. That's what all vaccines do

Does it stop transmission? Not known yet but no evidence to say that it won't

Does it just alleviate symptoms? No. If it works you would not get symptoms because your little antibodies will have seen it off 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

It all really depends on what exactly the vaccine actually does as that is still assumed but not publicly confirmed at the minute. Does is prevent infection? Does it stop transmission? Does it just alleviate symptoms? 

The last of your list I think is the main driver (to keep folk out of hospital) and the other two, I guess, are part and parcel of the same package to some greater or lesser degree. There have been cases where people that have had the jab that have gone on to test positive both symptomatically and asymptomatically. 

The take up of other vaccines varies as well. Every year (for the last 15 years or so) I attempt a HepC vaccination (another vaccine with two doses) as it's an entry requirement for some countries that I work in but my body somehow won't take to it. Neither the first nor the follow up confer any immunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...