Second vaccine dose timing

What an amazing vaccine it is. Once injected it can tell exactly how old the recipient is and after their 65th brithday it goes on strike!

Not even Bill Gates could have thought of that.
?

I haven’t read all 12 pages of this post, but I’d like to say, without any political slant that I’ll be grateful to get my first jab and subsequent second. Many friends and acquaintances in France are having their appointments cancelled, first and second vaccinations.
Lastly a big thank you Alegrias1 for having the patience to repeatedly reiterate your points, in particular that the vaccine, neither one nor two shots stops anyone getting Covid, it’s as you were, hands, face, space, until advised, preferably by the government/scientists, otherwise.

That was about the AZ vaccine.

(Sorry haven't read all the thread, just too long - so don't know if this is already posted)

Just seen this on Oxford Uni news page:

^Analyses reveal single standard dose efficacy from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination of 76% with protection not falling in this three-month period
After the second dose vaccine efficacy from two standard doses is 82.4% with the 3-month interval being used in the UK. (82.4% effective, with a 95% confidence interval of 62.7% - 91.7% at 12+ weeks)
Data supports the 4-12 week prime-boost dosing interval recommended by many global regulators^

Before you step away from the thread, Algerias, I just wanted to tell you I've had mine.

My comment is in reply to garnet25 's post

Then I will step out of the conversation.

Growstuff I’m not an epidemiologist and I’m not even a scientist, but if I have read the article correctly, it does not warn against extending the period between vaccines to 12 weeks.
What it says (in relation to the Pfizer vaccine only) is that
- blood samples were taken from 26 individuals aged 19 to 89.
- 15 were >80yo
-3 weeks after 1st vaccination, all but 7 had sufficient antibodies to neutrally the virus
- these 7 were all >80
- in laboratory conditions when the South Africa variant was added to the mix, it needed 10 times the amount of antibody to be neutralised.
- after the second dose at 3 weeks, all the patients had sufficient antibodies to give immunity.

The article ends: Dr Dami Collier, the main co-investigator on the studies, added: “Our data suggest that a significant proportion of people aged over eighty may not have developed protective neutralising antibodies against infection three weeks after their first dose of the vaccine. But it’s reassuring to see that after two doses, serum from every individual was able to neutralise the virus.”

Nothing in the article supports Franbern’s assertion that ‘many scientists are opposing the long gap between doses’.

As a scientist who worked for many years in the field of immunology all I will add is that I am very relieved that I have had the AZ vaccine, also that I have an appointment for a booster at 12 weeks, the time which is recommended for that particular vaccine. Pfizer recommended 3 weeks for theirs
enough said.

Not peer reviewed.
Sample size of 15, of whom 8 did create sufficient antibodies.
Only against the SA variant which is the one we are currently trying to suppress.

We're all epidemiologists now.

....and there it is.......

Alegrias1

I think people naturally want certainty. We can't have certainty right now because this is so novel and so scientists and medics have to use the results of trials and their experience of how other viruses and vaccines work to make the best recommendation they can.

I get worried that they may have to change the recommendation in the future. Then they are likely to get such a backlash from the public, at the urging of the press.

I've just been reading an article on an online news page which is full of "might" "may" "could" but has a very scary headline. I think its a disgrace that the press are so negative about the way we are fighting this virus.

I think it's a disgrace that the press has been so "gung ho" and given unrealistic promises. People are bound to be disappointed and conspiracy theories will flourish.

janeainsworth

Franbern And there are many scientists etc. who are opposing the long gap between the doses

Could you provide some references so we can see which scientists you’re talking about?

As far as I can see the consensus seems to be that for individuals there might , with the emphasis on might , be a problem with the Pfizer vaccine, but not the AstraZeneca one.
At a population level, there are good arguments for giving some level of immunity with the first dose, to more people, than leaving larger numbers without any protection at all.

Concern that the second dose is needed to offer protection to those over 80 if infected with the SA variant:

www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-likely-to-be-effective-against-b117-strain-of-sars-cov-2

I think people naturally want certainty. We can't have certainty right now because this is so novel and so scientists and medics have to use the results of trials and their experience of how other viruses and vaccines work to make the best recommendation they can.

I get worried that they may have to change the recommendation in the future. Then they are likely to get such a backlash from the public, at the urging of the press.

I've just been reading an article on an online news page which is full of "might" "may" "could" but has a very scary headline. I think its a disgrace that the press are so negative about the way we are fighting this virus.

That was in reply to sillydevil

Personally I am inclined to trust more the scientists who qualify what they say with things like ‘it looks likely but at this stage we can’t be sure’ or ‘We will have a better idea when more evidence emerges’ because they are being honest as well as open-minded.

We do have a problem with the majority of interviewers and journalists being scientifically illiterate.

It's not reckless and it is good science.

I feel for these people. Trying to do their best and so much animosity comes their way. The Moderna vaccine is an mRNA vaccine, just like the Pfizer one, and it shows that you have 94% protection after 2 months and there is no theoretical reason that the immunity will fall off a cliff. His actual words. The interviewer brings up the 33% figure again - he has no no idea what that means, clearly. Or that its been debunked a few weeks ago.

Here's the guy you think is being reckless.

www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/anthony-harnden

This makes me so angry.

In a Sky TV interview - Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation says there's "no substantial evidence" a second dose of Pfizer gives better protection against COVID-19. We believe you should have second dose, but we believe this can be delayed. He states it's similar to the Moderna vaccine where their data show one protection lasts 2 months and probably longer. So here is the Deputy of the JCVI who advise the Government using word and phrases such as: "We believe", "probably". "no substantial evidence" (which means there is some and he offers none). So the Government decides to follow the advice from the JCVI because without evidence, they know better than the manufacturers and the rest of the world. The truth is they are gambling with peoples lives and that is not good Government or science, I just hope that their recklessness pays off.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NARoV8gPVRk

Actually one thing Franbern says explains a lot of things.
“I am very suspicious that (of) anything this government does . . .” though to be fair, I think the same, whichever government is in power when it’s actions, or lack of them, have the power to damage my life.
I’m grateful to have finally had my first dose, which I might not have got if everyone was getting two doses closer together.

janeainsworth
“At a population level, there are good arguments for giving some level of immunity with the first dose, to more people, than leaving larger numbers without any protection at all.”
Agree Jane!

Franbern And there are many scientists etc. who are opposing the long gap between the doses

Could you provide some references so we can see which scientists you’re talking about?

As far as I can see the consensus seems to be that for individuals there might , with the emphasis on might , be a problem with the Pfizer vaccine, but not the AstraZeneca one.
At a population level, there are good arguments for giving some level of immunity with the first dose, to more people, than leaving larger numbers without any protection at all.

Just as well that the JCVI don't have these agendas then.

And there are many scientists etc. who are opposing the long gap between the doses.

Just commenting that I am very suspicious that anything this government does - seems to me they have two main agendas

A) Which of us can make 'loadsamoney' from it
B) How can we spin figures to make us sound good

Franbern this has been gone over a lot in this thread and others. The manufacturers don't issue "instructions", they show the results of tests and MHRA and JCVI decide on how the medication is going to be used.

As for the "so-called" advisors, well to pick up on what Elegran said....the so-called advisors in the so-called MHRA and JCVI have so called years of so-called experience and use their so-called expertise to advise the government on what their so-called recommendations are on how to save so-called thousands of so-called lives.

Oh, and they don't have any so-called monetary interest in any specific so-called product so you could say that they are so-called independent.