New vaccine

[Selbourne]

13 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

I wonder if the second dose makes the effectiveness of the vaccine last longer, if you understand what I mean. As it's a new virus in our body and a new vaccine to combat it, maybe we need a large dose given  by two spaced injections at first and then a regular top up each year. I might not be explaining it right but I hope you get the gist.

This is an interesting subject.

Avril

Im sure that you are right Avril, although I am no expert. Those that are experts seem to be saying that there is no panic for the 2nd jab though and it is far better to get as many people with some degree of protection as a matter of urgency. Makes sense to me. Still waiting for the 80 somethings in our family to be called for their first jab. 

[wowzz]

23 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

I wonder if the second dose makes the effectiveness of the vaccine last longer, if you understand what I mean. As it's a new virus in our body and a new vaccine to combat it, maybe we need a large dose given  by two spaced injections at first and then a regular top up each year. I might not be explaining it right but I hope you get the gist.

This is an interesting subject.

Avril

You could be right, but surely the more people we vaccinate now,  the sooner the pressure will be eased on the NHS. The need is to get through the next  3 months,. 

[ohnonotmeagain]

Strangely enough, I would rather  go by what the pharmaceutical companies tell me to do than that well known medic and epidemiologist, Tony Blair.

[wowzz]

4 minutes ago, ohnonotmeagain said:

Strangely enough, I would rather  go by what the pharmaceutical companies tell me to do than that well known medic and epidemiologist, Tony Blair.

I would agree about Blair, but qualified experts have expressed similar views. 

[yorkshirephil]

3 minutes ago, ohnonotmeagain said:

Strangely enough, I would rather  go by what the pharmaceutical companies tell me to do than that well known medic and epidemiologist, Tony Blair.

The problem is the pharma companies will tell you to do whatever makes them the most money, and I worked for some of them for over 30 years. Only time will tell who has got it right. Saying that I would still take the word of the pharma's as opposed to the right honourable Mr honesty himself.

[Adawn47]

2 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Im sure that you are right Avril, although I am no expert. Those that are experts seem to be saying that there is no panic for the 2nd jab though and it is far better to get as many people with some degree of protection as a matter of urgency. Makes sense to me. Still waiting for the 80 somethings in our family to be called for their first jab. 

The tetanus vaccination is effective from the first dose and has a booster after 10 years to be fully effective. I'm not saying the covid one is going to be 10 years😁 I'm just using it as an example as to why it might not be imperetive for 2/3 week between the two doses.  I agree with wowzz that they need to vaccinate as many as possible with the first dose, if what we're hearing about it's effectiveness is correct.

Avril

[jaydee6969]

17 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Still waiting for the 80 somethings in our family to be called for their first jab. 

 

One of the 80+ in our family was called to attend on the 19th December.  After an hour of discussion and a second opinion at the vaccine centre, they decided not to inject due to an allergy medication she is taking.  Still waiting on a decision on the future of medication advice.

[Selbourne]

10 minutes ago, ohnonotmeagain said:

Strangely enough, I would rather  go by what the pharmaceutical companies tell me to do than that well known medic and epidemiologist, Tony Blair.

Plenty of virologists and medical experts are saying the same as him though. 

[Selbourne]

2 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

The tetanus vaccination is effective from the first dose and has a booster after 10 years to be fully effective. I'm not saying the covid one is going to be 10 years😁 I'm just using it as an example as to why it might not be imperetive for 2/3 week between the two doses.  I agree with wowzz that they need to vaccinate as many as possible with the first dose, if what we're hearing about it's effectiveness is correct.

Avril

It sounds as though we are all in violent agreement 😂 

[wowzz]

2 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

It sounds as though we are all in violent agreement 😂 

That makes a first!

[Adawn47]

1 minute ago, Selbourne said:

It sounds as though we are all in violent agreement 😂 

That's a first, there must be something in the air😉

Or the glass🤣

Avril

[wowzz]

9 minutes ago, yorkshirephil said:

The problem is the pharma companies will tell you to do whatever makes them the most money, and I worked for some of them for over 30 years. Only time will tell who has got it right. Saying that I would still take the word of the pharma's as opposed to the right honourable Mr honesty himself.

My understanding was that the pharma companies were basically supplying at cost, so less need for them to skew the research in their favour.

[zap99]

10 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Plenty of virologists and medical experts are saying the same as him though. 

He may be right, but it would have been better if he had said.     Nothing.

[jeanlyon]

30 minutes ago, ohnonotmeagain said:

Strangely enough, I would rather  go by what the pharmaceutical companies tell me to do than that well known medic and epidemiologist, Tony Blair.

Totally agree.  Too many amateur experts.

[PJ's]

My mum (who is 88yrs old) has her appointment for the first vaccine on 5th January 2021 with the second injection on the 26th January 2021 at her local GP surgery. All her friends who are the same age as her have also received appointments for the vaccine. Hopefully when the Oxford vaccine is approved it will speed up the vaccination program immensely as the storage/distribution of this vaccine will be easier.

[yorkshirephil]

18 minutes ago, wowzz said:

My understanding was that the pharma companies were basically supplying at cost, so less need for them to skew the research in their favour.

Have you ever seen any data explaining that "cost". We used to supply to third world countries at "cost", it is a meaningless statement. Companies love people to think they are doing them a favour.

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, Selbourne said:

Im sure that you are right Avril, although I am no expert. Those that are experts seem to be saying that there is no panic for the 2nd jab though and it is far better to get as many people with some degree of protection as a matter of urgency. Makes sense to me. Still waiting for the 80 somethings in our family to be called for their first jab. 

I think I agree that maybe get everyone one vaccination initially, and then start on the 2nd or top up.  However I doubt that Matty will agree, unless all the experts concur.

[bobstheboy]

It seems sensible to give one shot to as many as possible, if it gives good protection. Unfortunately the powers that be don't do common sense well.

[yorkshirephil]

7 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I think I agree that maybe get everyone one vaccination initially, and then start on the 2nd or top up.  However I doubt that Matty will agree, unless all the experts concur.

The current vaccine is approved on the basis of clinical trials giving 2 doses. Giving one dose to twice as many people may seem logical but there would have to be evidence that one dose actually worked and to what extent. This is one of the reasons why the Astra vaccine has not been approved yet, the original trial was with 2 full strength doses and was found to be 62% effective in some age groups, however if the first dose was half strength it was found to be up to 90%. Unfortunately they didn't trial this on over 55's. Here lies the problem, a massive push for a vaccine but without the years of data usually required to approve such a vaccine. Personally I would take the 62% vaccine now and see how it pans out as some protection is better than none. If I was in a highly vulnerable group I may think differently.

[Adawn47]

39 minutes ago, yorkshirephil said:

Have you ever seen any data explaining that "cost". We used to supply to third world countries at "cost", it is a meaningless statement. Companies love people to think they are doing them a favour.

I know Yorkshire men are ''careful'' with money, but are you honestly debating costs and profits above the health of our families and friends. I'm sure I'm not only one that thinks their lives are priceless.

Avril

[Adawn47]

4 minutes ago, yorkshirephil said:

The current vaccine is approved on the basis of clinical trials giving 2 doses. Giving one dose to twice as many people may seem logical but there would have to be evidence that one dose actually worked and to what extent. This is one of the reasons why the Astra vaccine has not been approved yet, the original trial was with 2 full strength doses and was found to be 62% effective in some age groups, however if the first dose was half strength it was found to be up to 90%. Unfortunately they didn't trial this on over 55's. Here lies the problem, a massive push for a vaccine but without the years of data usually required to approve such a vaccine. Personally I would take the 62% vaccine now and see how it pans out as some protection is better than none. If I was in a highly vulnerable group I may think differently.

Given the personal losses and the wasted and depressing year I've just endured, I would rather take a 50% chance than no chance of a hopeful 2021.

Avril

[Windsurfboy]

I think they can be creative, the highly vulnerable say over 75 and health conditions get 2 , then everyone else over 50 gets one for now,  2 when the have finished first dose

[zap99]

2 hours ago, yorkshirephil said:

Have you ever seen any data explaining that "cost". We used to supply to third world countries at "cost", it is a meaningless statement. Companies love people to think they are doing them a favour.

We flogged stuff to staff at cost +10%. They could buy it on the open market at cost +5%. 

[davecttr]

2 hours ago, yorkshirephil said:

The current vaccine is approved on the basis of clinical trials giving 2 doses. Giving one dose to twice as many people may seem logical but there would have to be evidence that one dose actually worked and to what extent. This is one of the reasons why the Astra vaccine has not been approved yet, the original trial was with 2 full strength doses and was found to be 62% effective in some age groups, however if the first dose was half strength it was found to be up to 90%. Unfortunately they didn't trial this on over 55's. Here lies the problem, a massive push for a vaccine but without the years of data usually required to approve such a vaccine. Personally I would take the 62% vaccine now and see how it pans out as some protection is better than none. If I was in a highly vulnerable group I may think differently.

I agree the one dose idea should only be used if the data available supports it. did Pfizer do trials where only one dose was used? .If not they will have to conduct a proper trial

[wowzz]

6 hours ago, zap99 said:

We flogged stuff to staff at cost +10%. They could buy it on the open market at cost +5%. 

Economics 101 - what is your definition of cost pricing?