| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:52 - Jan 27 with 673 views | m14_blue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 07:45 - Jan 27 by GlasgowBlue |
This should also put to bed the debate over the UK changing the length between doses.
“I think the UK one-dose strategy is absolutely the right way to go, at least for our vaccine. I cannot comment about the Pfizer vaccine, whose studies are for a three-week interval. In our case, the trial we're talking about was conducted by Oxford University. We AZ are conducting the US trial, which we think is going to be ready very soon. Oxford University conducted the so-called Oxford trial in UK and Brazil, and we have data for patients who received the vaccine in one-month interval, 2 or 3 months interval. First of all, we believe that the efficacy of one dose is sufficient: 100 percent protection against severe disease and hospitalisation, and 71-73 percent of efficacy overall. The second dose is needed for long term protection. But you get a better efficiency if you get the 2nd dose later than earlier. We are going to do a study in the US and globally to use two-month dose interval to confirm that this is indeed the case, there are many reasons to believe it is the case with our vaccine. We have a different technology. First of all, when you look at level of antibody production, this is higher if you give the second dose three months or two months later than one month later.“ |
Unless I’m missing something, this doesn’t put anything to bed at all?
It specifically says it’s not a comment on the Pfizer vaccine, and that’s the one the controversy relates to?
I entirely understand why the decision was made but this isn’t relevant at all. |  | |  |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 10:36 - Jan 27 with 614 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 08:43 - Jan 27 by StokieBlue |
Why would that put the debate to bed?
There is no issue with 12 weeks between Oxford vaccines, there is an issue with Pfizer given there is no research for it, nobody else in the world is really taking that approach and the company themselves advise heavily against it.
Saying the JCVI recommended it isn't actually evidence. There are countless other vaccination bodies globally who haven't recommended it because the studies simply didn't have the data.
Conflating two totally different vaccines isn't helpful.
SB [Post edited 27 Jan 2021 8:45]
|
Sorry for the delay in replying but I’m in and out all day but wanted to reply to you.
Professor Adam Finn from the JCVI claims there is “absolutely rock-solid evidence that if you give a dose of the vaccine to more people you give them protection and save lives”.
With regards to Pfizer he said “ What we are expecting to see first of all is that the impact is as was shown in the studies done by Pfizer — that by around two weeks we see protection.
Actually, I would anticipate that we will see that protection continue to rise over subsequent weeks rather than fall. [That is because ] what we know from other vaccines and from the human immune responses is that they don’t plateau and fall in that kind of time period. Perhaps most important of all, we expect to see much better protection after the second dose when it’s delayed.”
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-second-dose-strategy-vaccination-d
Pfizer have said that they don’t recommend giving a second dose longer than three weeks apart yet the WHO have advised that the second does should be no more than six weeks apart. The JCVI have recommended 12 weeks.
Do we go with Pfizer, the WHO or THe JCVI? |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 10:47 - Jan 27 with 595 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 10:36 - Jan 27 by GlasgowBlue |
Sorry for the delay in replying but I’m in and out all day but wanted to reply to you.
Professor Adam Finn from the JCVI claims there is “absolutely rock-solid evidence that if you give a dose of the vaccine to more people you give them protection and save lives”.
With regards to Pfizer he said “ What we are expecting to see first of all is that the impact is as was shown in the studies done by Pfizer — that by around two weeks we see protection.
Actually, I would anticipate that we will see that protection continue to rise over subsequent weeks rather than fall. [That is because ] what we know from other vaccines and from the human immune responses is that they don’t plateau and fall in that kind of time period. Perhaps most important of all, we expect to see much better protection after the second dose when it’s delayed.”
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-second-dose-strategy-vaccination-d
Pfizer have said that they don’t recommend giving a second dose longer than three weeks apart yet the WHO have advised that the second does should be no more than six weeks apart. The JCVI have recommended 12 weeks.
Do we go with Pfizer, the WHO or THe JCVI? |
Suffolk Federation of GP’s when they started vaccinations were booking the second jab 8-9 weeks after the first.
I had mine Monday and the second jab will be 11 weeks after the first. They started with Pfizer but mine was Astra Zeneca. Got the impression that they are able to vaccinated more with the AZ vaccine.
Arrived at Trinity Park, earlier than my appointed time but they were running ahead of schedule iI was in and within 5 minutes. No queue to do paperwork and straight into cubicle for vaccination. |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 11:42 - Jan 27 with 545 views | Ryorry |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 09:34 - Jan 27 by StokieBlue |
A car and a train work "the same way" but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.
The Pfizer vaccine is the first ever mRNA vaccine and works by "programming" the body to create spike proteins that they can then recognise. The AZ vaccine is an modified adenovirus which contains a small piece of the C19 virus (in DNA form) which then gets the body to produce the spike proteins. So whilst they are similar they are also very different, that is why they have different efficacies and why they have to be handled in different ways (temperature for storage for instance).
As you say, Pfizer haven't tested the dosages we are using but would you generally accept a medicine which hadn't been tested in the way it was being used? Do we think that other regulators and experts around the world are incompetent and only ours understand the issues? There is definitely a debate to be had here and just saying "JVCI" to shut it down isn't valid. They may prove to be correct but it won't have been based on thorough testing.
It may well work but saying it's "simple" maths obfuscates a lot of complexity underneath that maths.
"What I’d be interested to know is that if you have the Pfizer vaccine and it’s effectiveness wears off after say 3 months, can you safely have the AZ one?"
If it wears off after 3 months then we have wasted millions of doses and made the most vulnerable once again prime targets for C19 given they are the ones who were getting Pfizer as it's the first vaccine we had. Don't you think that's more of an issue than whether we can switch to a different vaccine?
SB [Post edited 27 Jan 2021 9:50]
|
A GP somewhere in England was on 'Any Answers' on Saturday and pointed out that the *administering* of any vaccine is an inherent part of the *approval* of any vaccine, equally as much as the contents in the vial.
Any variation from the manufacturers' advice on *administering* the vaccine - including extending the recommended time between first & second doses - means that vaccine is no longer approved. This clearly applies to the Pfizer vaccine. |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 12:09 - Jan 27 with 497 views | Swansea_Blue |
A contractual dispute being played out in public isn't a particularly good look. You can see why the EU are pissed off if they paid a substantial amount towards the development and are now being told they're now going to get substantially fewer vaccines than contractually agreed.
It makes sense to publish the contract and then everyone can see if there's anything behind the company's 'best efforts' defence. |  |
| |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 12:26 - Jan 27 with 468 views | Churchman |
| Bit of protectionism from the EU here then. on 12:09 - Jan 27 by Swansea_Blue |
A contractual dispute being played out in public isn't a particularly good look. You can see why the EU are pissed off if they paid a substantial amount towards the development and are now being told they're now going to get substantially fewer vaccines than contractually agreed.
It makes sense to publish the contract and then everyone can see if there's anything behind the company's 'best efforts' defence. |
They are going to get the vaccines they asked for. Just not in the timescales they would like. The are not getting them in the timescales they like because they committed to buying this vaccine months after other countries and it’s taking time to ramp up production in their countries.
The solution for their chaotic mistake? Blame the company, bully and pressure them into diverting supplies from another country that produces it and helped create it to make up for their mistake. Because they think they can. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
