Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Deeply unsurprising and I've said this from the outset." I think these groups either will have their vaccines brought forward ( which means other groups will loose out) or they will need a 3rf vaccination- which is a waste of a scare resource when two vaccines could have been enough | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The key bit of data: "Of those who had been vaccinated, overall 91% had antibodies after two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, rising to 95.5% in people under 60. The figure was slightly lower in people aged 80 and above at 88%. The study also found a high proportion of people under 30 had antibodies after a single dose, with 94.7% testing positive after 3 weeks. However this figure drops steadily with age and people aged 80 plus had the lowest rates of positive tests at 34.7%"" Those two dose were given three weeks apart - which is what Pfizer wanted not 12 weeks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The key bit of data: "Of those who had been vaccinated, overall 91% had antibodies after two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, rising to 95.5% in people under 60. The figure was slightly lower in people aged 80 and above at 88%. The study also found a high proportion of people under 30 had antibodies after a single dose, with 94.7% testing positive after 3 weeks. However this figure drops steadily with age and people aged 80 plus had the lowest rates of positive tests at 34.7%" Those two dose were given three weeks apart - which is what Pfizer wanted not 12 weeks" It's the second paragraph that tells us the figure on antibodies after 3 weeks in the elderly. The first paragraph relates to those who had 3 doses, yes. I didn't want to post a snippet totally out of context. For people over 80 who had one dose, only 34.7% had detectable antibodies after three weeks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They wanted to give more folk the greater chance rather than the minority more chance. As this is new for all we should be thanking what's been achieved rather than the ifs and buts and should/could have done. NHS. Had 1 pfizer in dec.. 2nd unknown " But it’s efficacy drops dramatically after 3-4 weeks in these age groups - they would have been expecting at least a longer period of protection than that... and they would have had it if the jabs had been given closer together | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. " I agree....a total cock up again....they should just stick to what the experts say...they cleary said that the 2nd jab should be within a month....not 3 months....that's just a waste then really if that's the case!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. I agree....a total cock up again....they should just stick to what the experts say...they cleary said that the 2nd jab should be within a month....not 3 months....that's just a waste then really if that's the case!! "And to think we will be opening up the economy when the most vulnerable could, again, be susceptible to Covid-19- honestly- you couldn’t script it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking?" Apologies, I don’t have any data from Uk. Only data Imperial College had was from Pfizer vaccines. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking?" If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘" Thank you Shortie- but does it give an age category breakdown of efficacy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘ Thank you Shortie- but does it give an age category breakdown of efficacy?" All it states age wise fir the two trials in UK & Brazil - Trial participants to date are aged 18 years or over, who are healthy or have medically stable chronic diseases and are at increased risk for being exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For South Africa trial it states - Trial participants are aged 18-65 years, who are living with or without HIV, It is a brief synopsis, so there might be a more detailed report if you know where to look | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘ Thank you Shortie- but does it give an age category breakdown of efficacy? All it states age wise fir the two trials in UK & Brazil - Trial participants to date are aged 18 years or over, who are healthy or have medically stable chronic diseases and are at increased risk for being exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For South Africa trial it states - Trial participants are aged 18-65 years, who are living with or without HIV, It is a brief synopsis, so there might be a more detailed report if you know where to look T " Thank you- I think I need some sleep | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking?" There's unfortunately a bit of a lack of data for the AZ vaccine at the moment on the older age group. From the Lancet recently: "These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18–55 years" So, good data for the 12 week delay for the Oxford-AZ vaccine, but in the younger cohort. I can't see any data there for the over 55s, probably because this particular study didn't recruit anyone over 65, and then in small numbers. Over 55s were only included in the COV005 cohort, which is the South Africa arm of the Oxford study and contains a total of 2070 participants across the age range 18-65. There's some data out of Scotland recently about the Oxford vaccine mainly in the over 80s but it's not been in use long enough to look at the interval between the vaccines yet: "For the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, which in Scotland was used predominantly in those aged 80+ years and available only since 4 January, VE at 28-34 days after Dose 1 for reducing COVID-19 hospitalizations was estimated at 94% (95% CI: 73 to 99). The later start means that the current analysis cannot yet estimate Oxford/AstraZeneca’s VE at 35+ days after Dose 1." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘ Thank you Shortie- but does it give an age category breakdown of efficacy? All it states age wise fir the two trials in UK & Brazil - Trial participants to date are aged 18 years or over, who are healthy or have medically stable chronic diseases and are at increased risk for being exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For South Africa trial it states - Trial participants are aged 18-65 years, who are living with or without HIV, It is a brief synopsis, so there might be a more detailed report if you know where to look T Thank you- I think I need some sleep" Kinky found it see above | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. " So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. " Yes. Yes I bloody well do. "Take the medicine as directed". Not "go on a wild experiment because vaccination is a dick measuring contest". Pfizer said at the time that this was a bad idea. *I* said at the time that you follow the damn instructions. (Who am I? Nobody. But you follow the fucking instructions) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. Yes. Yes I bloody well do. "Take the medicine as directed". Not "go on a wild experiment because vaccination is a dick measuring contest". Pfizer said at the time that this was a bad idea. *I* said at the time that you follow the damn instructions. (Who am I? Nobody. But you follow the fucking instructions)" I'm afraid I don't agree, 20 million people now vaccinated is not a bad thing. It's bloody good if you're one of the 20 million. If something isn't right with the older age groups they will change it. It will mean others waiting longer for their first vaccination though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. " Alternatively they could have READ THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE MANUFACTURERS. Pfizer told everybody "first jab, then second jab three weeks later". When our government announced they would make it a three month gap, the Pfizer CEO said "no, it must be a three week gap, there is no data on what the effect will be with a longer gap". At which point a bunch of people that had not worked for Pfizer, had not had anything to do with the Pfizer testing programme, and had no experience with the Pfizer vaccine said "well we think...", "in our opinion...", "it seems reasonable that...", "tests of (other things that are not tjis vaccine) say...". So yes, I and anybody else could have done better than this government by READING THE LABEL ON THE MEDICINE and FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE MAKER. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. Yes. Yes I bloody well do. "Take the medicine as directed". Not "go on a wild experiment because vaccination is a dick measuring contest". Pfizer said at the time that this was a bad idea. *I* said at the time that you follow the damn instructions. (Who am I? Nobody. But you follow the fucking instructions) I'm afraid I don't agree, 20 million people now vaccinated is not a bad thing. It's bloody good if you're one of the 20 million. If something isn't right with the older age groups they will change it. It will mean others waiting longer for their first vaccination though. " It is an utter fuckup if the result of the government NOT FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS is that millions of doses of vaccine were effectively flushed down the bog. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. Yes. Yes I bloody well do. "Take the medicine as directed". Not "go on a wild experiment because vaccination is a dick measuring contest". Pfizer said at the time that this was a bad idea. *I* said at the time that you follow the damn instructions. (Who am I? Nobody. But you follow the fucking instructions) I'm afraid I don't agree, 20 million people now vaccinated is not a bad thing. It's bloody good if you're one of the 20 million. If something isn't right with the older age groups they will change it. It will mean others waiting longer for their first vaccination though. " 34% protection in the most vulnerable people is fucking shit and would never have passed. These people are now more confident that they won't die. Guess who's going to have to send a difficult email to her higher ups in the morning about this? And who is fucking fuming right now? I suppose they're old, it doesn't matter if we give them substandard protection. Those who need the protection a bit less might now have better substandard protection than them. Awesome. Do you take your medicine not as prescribed? Do you think that's clever? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. Alternatively they could have READ THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE MANUFACTURERS. Pfizer told everybody "first jab, then second jab three weeks later". When our government announced they would make it a three month gap, the Pfizer CEO said "no, it must be a three week gap, there is no data on what the effect will be with a longer gap". At which point a bunch of people that had not worked for Pfizer, had not had anything to do with the Pfizer testing programme, and had no experience with the Pfizer vaccine said "well we think...", "in our opinion...", "it seems reasonable that...", "tests of (other things that are not tjis vaccine) say...". So yes, I and anybody else could have done better than this government by READING THE LABEL ON THE MEDICINE and FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE MAKER." Anybody can say "follow the instructions" after the event. Isn't it a better idea to try and get more people immune straight away? Any idea of the actual numbers of the infections, hospitalisations or deaths of these elderly people who had their second jab delayed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anybody can say "follow the instructions" after the event. Isn't it a better idea to try and get more people immune straight away? Any idea of the actual numbers of the infections, hospitalisations or deaths of these elderly people who had their second jab delayed? " Oooh. Hindsight. We're doing that again, are we? "Before 2021, medicine was a pure art. We did whatever the fuck we wanted, took them as shots all at once or occasional sweeties. Then we discovered that the instructions meant things". Are we really supposed to believe this? Do we not remember two or three months ago and we're supposed to cheer on our Churchillian leader, Blitz Spirit, for effectively flushing vaccines and endangering people? Christ almighty have some self respect. "Take medicine as directed" is not fucking hard. The government has gambled with many, many lives. Those who were alive for the Blitz Spirit we pretend to fucking appreciate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anybody can say "follow the instructions" after the event. Isn't it a better idea to try and get more people immune straight away? Any idea of the actual numbers of the infections, hospitalisations or deaths of these elderly people who had their second jab delayed? Oooh. Hindsight. We're doing that again, are we? "Before 2021, medicine was a pure art. We did whatever the fuck we wanted, took them as shots all at once or occasional sweeties. Then we discovered that the instructions meant things". Are we really supposed to believe this? Do we not remember two or three months ago and we're supposed to cheer on our Churchillian leader, Blitz Spirit, for effectively flushing vaccines and endangering people? Christ almighty have some self respect. "Take medicine as directed" is not fucking hard. The government has gambled with many, many lives. Those who were alive for the Blitz Spirit we pretend to fucking appreciate." But how many people have actually suffered because of this? No one has given an answer yet and I can't find one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anybody can say "follow the instructions" after the event. Isn't it a better idea to try and get more people immune straight away? Any idea of the actual numbers of the infections, hospitalisations or deaths of these elderly people who had their second jab delayed? Oooh. Hindsight. We're doing that again, are we? "Before 2021, medicine was a pure art. We did whatever the fuck we wanted, took them as shots all at once or occasional sweeties. Then we discovered that the instructions meant things". Are we really supposed to believe this? Do we not remember two or three months ago and we're supposed to cheer on our Churchillian leader, Blitz Spirit, for effectively flushing vaccines and endangering people? Christ almighty have some self respect. "Take medicine as directed" is not fucking hard. The government has gambled with many, many lives. Those who were alive for the Blitz Spirit we pretend to fucking appreciate. But how many people have actually suffered because of this? No one has given an answer yet and I can't find one. " We don't know, we'll find out in the coming weeks and months. This is why it's important that younger people take up the vaccines in high numbers, to continue to protect the older generation. There's increasing evidence that the vaccines reduce transmission so if enough younger people are protected and not spreading it, it will go some way to protecting older people who have weak immune responses to everything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anybody can say "follow the instructions" after the event. Isn't it a better idea to try and get more people immune straight away? Any idea of the actual numbers of the infections, hospitalisations or deaths of these elderly people who had their second jab delayed? Oooh. Hindsight. We're doing that again, are we? "Before 2021, medicine was a pure art. We did whatever the fuck we wanted, took them as shots all at once or occasional sweeties. Then we discovered that the instructions meant things". Are we really supposed to believe this? Do we not remember two or three months ago and we're supposed to cheer on our Churchillian leader, Blitz Spirit, for effectively flushing vaccines and endangering people? Christ almighty have some self respect. "Take medicine as directed" is not fucking hard. The government has gambled with many, many lives. Those who were alive for the Blitz Spirit we pretend to fucking appreciate. But how many people have actually suffered because of this? No one has given an answer yet and I can't find one. " I don't have a clue What damn good is a vaccine that provides likely zero protection to a solid majority of the most vulnerable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have always said that if anybody in the world could manage to fuck up a vaccination programme, it would be the useless shower of shit we have got as a government." I never seen politics on fab. But I cannot let it go unbalanced. I suppose you think a far left antisemitic terrorists loving government would have done vaccination better than the cretin corbyn or hindsight starmer. No they would not. We would still be in the EU waiting our turn at the bottom of the queue | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well I'm so glad I checked into this thread. I thought we was all here to fuck each other and not mislead the nation or moan because on one particular website said this or that. I didn't realise it was an anti government anti NHS hatemob. We have a government that is not controlled by the EU and are trying there best. If you want to be a concerned citizen and also want to be truly fucked go live in the Germany or France or the rest of the EU because their beaurocrats have spent the last 9 months dithering. While all of Europe and indeed the rest of the world with the exception of Israel look at us with green envy. So now that's sorted we can all meet up on the 21st June fuck each other senseless and look at the rest of Europe as they sit in there isolation bubbles and wave" What codswallop. Israel has its success precisely due to following the 3 week interval, as recommended. We should not have gone rogue and made it up on the fly. The Oxford-AZ is a different thing entirely, this thread refers to the Pfizer-BioNTech one, which we are not administering per recommendation. The NHS did not make that decision and a great many NHS staff are unhappy at the delayed dosing. Yes, the Government are at fault because they decided to go against the hard evidence. You do know that the date in June is not set in stone and is contingent on many things? Just because this is a swingers site does not mean people should be irresponsible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have always said that if anybody in the world could manage to fuck up a vaccination programme, it would be the useless shower of shit we have got as a government. I never seen politics on fab. But I cannot let it go unbalanced. I suppose you think a far left antisemitic terrorists loving government would have done vaccination better than the cretin corbyn or hindsight starmer. No they would not. We would still be in the EU waiting our turn at the bottom of the queue " Yes. Yes I do. I think even the Tory wet dream of demon Corbyn could not have fucked it up as spectacularly as these buffoons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd be saying exactly the same whoever was in Government, if the same events had unfolded. Ignoring scientific advice is not a party political thing." Quite. "I don't like Corbyn" isn't an argument. I've yet to see any accusation of hindsight that wasn't "this is stuff that makes lots of sense given what we know already, and everyone except the Cabinet seems to know". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have always said that if anybody in the world could manage to fuck up a vaccination programme, it would be the useless shower of shit we have got as a government. I never seen politics on fab. But I cannot let it go unbalanced. I suppose you think a far left antisemitic terrorists loving government would have done vaccination better than the cretin corbyn or hindsight starmer. No they would not. We would still be in the EU waiting our turn at the bottom of the queue "  . oh yes loads of balance in that post | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have always said that if anybody in the world could manage to fuck up a vaccination programme, it would be the useless shower of shit we have got as a government. I never seen politics on fab. But I cannot let it go unbalanced. I suppose you think a far left antisemitic terrorists loving government would have done vaccination better than the cretin corbyn or hindsight starmer. No they would not. We would still be in the EU waiting our turn at the bottom of the queue . oh yes loads of balance in that post "Lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. " The could have followed the what Pfizer recommended and what most other countries have done and followed their instructions- this 12 week malarkey is off label use | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well I'm so glad I checked into this thread. I thought we was all here to fuck each other and not mislead the nation or moan because on one particular website said this or that. I didn't realise it was an anti government anti NHS hatemob. We have a government that is not controlled by the EU and are trying there best. If you want to be a concerned citizen and also want to be truly fucked go live in the Germany or France or the rest of the EU because their beaurocrats have spent the last 9 months dithering. While all of Europe and indeed the rest of the world with the exception of Israel look at us with green envy. So now that's sorted we can all meet up on the 21st June fuck each other senseless and look at the rest of Europe as they sit in there isolation bubbles and wave" Unfortunately I think Europe could actually get ahead within a few months of fully protecting their populations while we we have our most venerable unprotected- at best it’s inefficient use of vaccines as I suspect a third dose will be required | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With specific reference to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in the older age group, it IS a waste of resources and effort if however many million elderly people are actually not going to get the benefit of what the vaccine is supposed to provide. If after 3 weeks, only 34.7% have detectable antibodies, we can fairly safely assume at 3 months, that figure will be a vanishingly small number with antibodies. The second dose is meant to boost immunity from the first. If there's no immunity left to boost, you wasted the first dose. This data has been out for a few days but there's been no official comment from the Government. I truly hope they rethink their approach on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine specifically." This was exactly my worry from when they announced the 12 week gap. They went against the science and the Manufacturers instructions...by only listening to a ex-prime minister...who only dealt in populist idealism.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well I'm so glad I checked into this thread. I thought we was all here to fuck each other and not mislead the nation or moan because on one particular website said this or that. I didn't realise it was an anti government anti NHS hatemob. We have a government that is not controlled by the EU and are trying there best. If you want to be a concerned citizen and also want to be truly fucked go live in the Germany or France or the rest of the EU because their beaurocrats have spent the last 9 months dithering. While all of Europe and indeed the rest of the world with the exception of Israel look at us with green envy. So now that's sorted we can all meet up on the 21st June fuck each other senseless and look at the rest of Europe as they sit in there isolation bubbles and wave What codswallop. Israel has its success precisely due to following the 3 week interval, as recommended. We should not have gone rogue and made it up on the fly. The Oxford-AZ is a different thing entirely, this thread refers to the Pfizer-BioNTech one, which we are not administering per recommendation. The NHS did not make that decision and a great many NHS staff are unhappy at the delayed dosing. Yes, the Government are at fault because they decided to go against the hard evidence. You do know that the date in June is not set in stone and is contingent on many things? Just because this is a swingers site does not mean people should be irresponsible. " Totally agree, we carried on with the 3 week second doses, for our staff in particular and were investigated as a result  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm no scientist, nor expert so a lot of the data goes over my head. It appears to be great news with the OAZ vaccine, but I did find it a bit puzzling with the extended 2nd Phizer jab. Especially as the OAZ came online so quickly after the vaccinations started rolling out. I remember thinking when it was announced that it would make sense to use the Phizer vaccine to give the top 4 (or 5, can't remember) groups the Phizer for both jabs in the original time frame, and use the AOZ for everyone else's first jab with the 12 week gap." Thats exactly what I think. Think what they need to do now is exactly that and make sure everybody who has had the Phizer who is extremely valuable or over 60 has that 2nd Phizer jab. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. " Its unfortunately just another example of a Tory government who say they listen to and are guided by ' the science'.. Who clearly keep doing the opposite of that and ignore anything that doesn't fit in with their back story plan of filling their own wallets and their friends bank balances in any way they can during this pandemic.. Never ever.. Ever.. Trust a Tory! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. Its unfortunately just another example of a Tory government who say they listen to and are guided by ' the science'.. Who clearly keep doing the opposite of that and ignore anything that doesn't fit in with their back story plan of filling their own wallets and their friends bank balances in any way they can during this pandemic.. Never ever.. Ever.. Trust a Tory! " The worrying thing it was a ex-labour prime minister that came up with the idea...but hey some would say that Tony Blair and a Tory are the same thing  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My politics are obvious, but I don't give a fuck what side someone is for this. If the instructions say weeks, it needs to be three weeks! It's medicine, it's science. You do the thing to protect people." I agree But I also think it was a political grandstanding decision that could very well backfire. At the cost of the most vulnerable again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My politics are obvious, but I don't give a fuck what side someone is for this. If the instructions say weeks, it needs to be three weeks! It's medicine, it's science. You do the thing to protect people. I agree But I also think it was a political grandstanding decision that could very well backfire. At the cost of the most vulnerable again." Oh I agree. But for me that's just the corn kernel in this shit decision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If I purchase a piece of home or garden equipment, and the manufacturers instructions are to lubricate it once a month, I won't leave it for three months and think to myself "nah, it'll be fine"." I might, but it'd be my goddamn fault if it fucked up. I'm youngish and stupidish. If my grandparents were involved, or anyone I'm charged to take care of, I'd lubricate it with military precision in my timing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? " I'm guessing that there will be a reduction, but once the population is fully vaccinated the viral transmission load will be reduced, coupled with an annual booster it should offset it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With specific reference to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in the older age group, it IS a waste of resources and effort if however many million elderly people are actually not going to get the benefit of what the vaccine is supposed to provide. If after 3 weeks, only 34.7% have detectable antibodies, we can fairly safely assume at 3 months, that figure will be a vanishingly small number with antibodies. The second dose is meant to boost immunity from the first. If there's no immunity left to boost, you wasted the first dose. This data has been out for a few days but there's been no official comment from the Government. I truly hope they rethink their approach on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine specifically. This was exactly my worry from when they announced the 12 week gap. They went against the science and the Manufacturers instructions...by only listening to a ex-prime minister...who only dealt in populist idealism. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? I'm guessing that there will be a reduction, but once the population is fully vaccinated the viral transmission load will be reduced, coupled with an annual booster it should offset it." If more people are vaccinated with one shot that would reduce the transmission load of the herd. Less virus circulating less chance of being infected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My politics are obvious, but I don't give a fuck what side someone is for this. If the instructions say weeks, it needs to be three weeks! It's medicine, it's science. You do the thing to protect people." This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"According to the NHS training materials, you can receive the second vaccination up to 12 weeks after the first, and there's no drop off in how effective it's protection will be." That’s applies to the Oxford AZ, not Pfizer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. Its unfortunately just another example of a Tory government who say they listen to and are guided by ' the science'.. Who clearly keep doing the opposite of that and ignore anything that doesn't fit in with their back story plan of filling their own wallets and their friends bank balances in any way they can during this pandemic.. Never ever.. Ever.. Trust a Tory! The worrying thing it was a ex-labour prime minister that came up with the idea...but hey some would say that Tony Blair and a Tory are the same thing "His proposal was backed up by Professor David Salisbury, the man in charge of immunisation at the Department of Health until 2013. He told Today the numbers were "straightforward". "You give one dose you get 91% [protection] you give two doses and you get 95% - you are only gaining 4% for giving the second dose," he said. "With current circumstances, I would strongly urge you to use as many first doses as you possibly can for risk groups and only after you have done all of that come back with second doses." However, he acknowledged this would be harder to do with the Oxford University vaccine, where the efficacy of two doses is 60%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? " We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. " If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. Its unfortunately just another example of a Tory government who say they listen to and are guided by ' the science'.. Who clearly keep doing the opposite of that and ignore anything that doesn't fit in with their back story plan of filling their own wallets and their friends bank balances in any way they can during this pandemic.. Never ever.. Ever.. Trust a Tory! The worrying thing it was a ex-labour prime minister that came up with the idea...but hey some would say that Tony Blair and a Tory are the same thing
His proposal was backed up by Professor David Salisbury, the man in charge of immunisation at the Department of Health until 2013.
He told Today the numbers were "straightforward".
"You give one dose you get 91% [protection] you give two doses and you get 95% - you are only gaining 4% for giving the second dose," he said.
"With current circumstances, I would strongly urge you to use as many first doses as you possibly can for risk groups and only after you have done all of that come back with second doses."
However, he acknowledged this would be harder to do with the Oxford University vaccine, where the efficacy of two doses is 60%."***“ "You give one dose you get 91% [protection] you give two doses and you get 95% - you are only gaining 4% for giving the second dose," he said.”*** Those stats are based on administering the second dose 3 weeks after the first. ———————————————- ***“ His proposal was backed up by Professor David Salisbury...”*** I will have more faith if that proposal was backed up by Pfizer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? I'm guessing that there will be a reduction, but once the population is fully vaccinated the viral transmission load will be reduced, coupled with an annual booster it should offset it. If more people are vaccinated with one shot that would reduce the transmission load of the herd. Less virus circulating less chance of being infected. " Yes yes yes but you don’t understand it’s Boris fault again ffs I wish these experts on here could answer me this. Me & the partner live in a one bedroom flat with zero outside space. My partner caught covid either December/January, her test results came back positive & we isolated for 10 days from the rest of society, we also tried to isolate from each other best we could but it’s almost impossible in a small flat. By day 9 of isolation I had an ear infection, but because of a high temp & change in taste I had a test to be safe & it came back negative. So come on experts tell me why I didn’t catch it? bearing in mind before we knew she had it, she already had it, I had been on holiday from work for two weeks so had only any real contact with Donna, this was not an isolated infection, she caught it at work with over 100 staff isolating during this time period because either they or a member of their family had covid, the funny thing is it seems that it was mainly the female staff that actually caught this strain of covid as the male partners didn’t, even the ones that both worked there together. So is this the government at fault for not picking up this strange pattern, or the experts who don’t look beyond their noses because they know the fab virologist will know who to blame. X there seems to be a lot of calling the decorator because the plumber hasn’t connected a pipe properly & caused a flood x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think." “.... If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think....” —————————- This
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. " Exactly right. Its insane this tribal bullshit .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. So you think vaccinating 20 million people within a little over 2 months and researching and developing a drug in less than a year is a cock up? You think you or anyone else could have done better? Scientists and governments are learning as they go along so there are bound to be mistakes. I suppose they could have just asked the people on fab as they have all the right answers. Exactly right. Its insane this tribal bullshit .. " If this is tribal... Are you claiming that "ignoring medical advice" and "performing widespread medical experiments without consent" are Tory positions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both of these statements taken from the same report. After 2 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the proportion of participants who tested positive was high across all age groups (100% in those under 30, and 87.9% in those 80 and over) For individuals who received a single dose of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, the proportion testing positive was 94.7% in those under 30, and in those who had previously had COVID-19 (confirmed or suspected) at 88.8%. The proportion testing positive was lower at older ages ranging from 73.7% at 60 to 64 years to 34.7% in those aged 80 and over" Yes. Can't link per Fab rules, but, citation "Coronavirus antibodies in 14% of England’s population – Imperial REACT" by Justine Alford 25 February 2021 On Imperial College News | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both of these statements taken from the same report. After 2 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the proportion of participants who tested positive was high across all age groups (100% in those under 30, and 87.9% in those 80 and over) For individuals who received a single dose of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, the proportion testing positive was 94.7% in those under 30, and in those who had previously had COVID-19 (confirmed or suspected) at 88.8%. The proportion testing positive was lower at older ages ranging from 73.7% at 60 to 64 years to 34.7% in those aged 80 and over Yes. Can't link per Fab rules, but, citation "Coronavirus antibodies in 14% of England’s population – Imperial REACT" by Justine Alford 25 February 2021 On Imperial College News" Yes. Same report. What I'd like to know is those who have had 2 vaccines, were they 3 or 12 week intervals? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both of these statements taken from the same report. After 2 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the proportion of participants who tested positive was high across all age groups (100% in those under 30, and 87.9% in those 80 and over) For individuals who received a single dose of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, the proportion testing positive was 94.7% in those under 30, and in those who had previously had COVID-19 (confirmed or suspected) at 88.8%. The proportion testing positive was lower at older ages ranging from 73.7% at 60 to 64 years to 34.7% in those aged 80 and over Yes. Can't link per Fab rules, but, citation "Coronavirus antibodies in 14% of England’s population – Imperial REACT" by Justine Alford 25 February 2021 On Imperial College News Yes. Same report. What I'd like to know is those who have had 2 vaccines, were they 3 or 12 week intervals?" It's got to be three weeks because we've not yet reached twelve weeks for people who got dose 1 right at the start (8th December). People on the twelve week intervals will start to receive dose 2 in March. Some people DID get dose 2 after three weeks, in early Jan, before the Govt clamped down on it (and they did, see earlier post from a healthcare worker who confirmed this). Fortunately, my 81yo Dad got his second dose in January, for which I am very grateful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. " Pure negative anti tory crap.I believe Astra is better given after 12 weeks and there is no evidence as yet with second jab rollout so grow up and stick with reality please | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think." Are you sure that's how it works? I think it could be that the antibodies are taking longer than three weeks build up rather falling off. I could be wrong though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you all are overreacting. The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one. I don't know the Pfizer/AZ split but if the data is showing reduced efficacy in that specific cohort, then we can easily tweak that. Hold your nerve." Less than 40% of over 80s show any antibodies after THREE weeks (Pfizer). They don't get their second dose until 12 weeks in the main. So at best 35% of people most likely to suffer horribly, die, and further overload and traumatise the NHS are protected. At best 35%. It's probably much less. I think you're severely underreacting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both of these statements taken from the same report. After 2 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the proportion of participants who tested positive was high across all age groups (100% in those under 30, and 87.9% in those 80 and over) For individuals who received a single dose of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, the proportion testing positive was 94.7% in those under 30, and in those who had previously had COVID-19 (confirmed or suspected) at 88.8%. The proportion testing positive was lower at older ages ranging from 73.7% at 60 to 64 years to 34.7% in those aged 80 and over Yes. Can't link per Fab rules, but, citation "Coronavirus antibodies in 14% of England’s population – Imperial REACT" by Justine Alford 25 February 2021 On Imperial College News Yes. Same report. What I'd like to know is those who have had 2 vaccines, were they 3 or 12 week intervals? It's got to be three weeks because we've not yet reached twelve weeks for people who got dose 1 right at the start (8th December). People on the twelve week intervals will start to receive dose 2 in March. Some people DID get dose 2 after three weeks, in early Jan, before the Govt clamped down on it (and they did, see earlier post from a healthcare worker who confirmed this). Fortunately, my 81yo Dad got his second dose in January, for which I am very grateful." Yeah fair point. It hasn't even been 12 weeks yet 
I'll reserve judgement until we have more data after the 2and jabs.
I'm sure I seen a report before on the AZ vaccine that anti actually increased between 3 & 6 weeks. Is it possible this could also be the case with Pfizer? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. Are you sure that's how it works? I think it could be that the antibodies are taking longer than three weeks build up rather falling off. I could be wrong though" I don't think that's how it works. Everything I've heard says it takes 2-3 weeks for your body to build immunity from the vaccine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both of these statements taken from the same report. After 2 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the proportion of participants who tested positive was high across all age groups (100% in those under 30, and 87.9% in those 80 and over) For individuals who received a single dose of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, the proportion testing positive was 94.7% in those under 30, and in those who had previously had COVID-19 (confirmed or suspected) at 88.8%. The proportion testing positive was lower at older ages ranging from 73.7% at 60 to 64 years to 34.7% in those aged 80 and over Yes. Can't link per Fab rules, but, citation "Coronavirus antibodies in 14% of England’s population – Imperial REACT" by Justine Alford 25 February 2021 On Imperial College News Yes. Same report. What I'd like to know is those who have had 2 vaccines, were they 3 or 12 week intervals? It's got to be three weeks because we've not yet reached twelve weeks for people who got dose 1 right at the start (8th December). People on the twelve week intervals will start to receive dose 2 in March. Some people DID get dose 2 after three weeks, in early Jan, before the Govt clamped down on it (and they did, see earlier post from a healthcare worker who confirmed this). Fortunately, my 81yo Dad got his second dose in January, for which I am very grateful. Yeah fair point. It hasn't even been 12 weeks yet
I'll reserve judgement until we have more data after the 2and jabs.
I'm sure I seen a report before on the AZ vaccine that anti actually increased between 3 & 6 weeks. Is it possible this could also be the case with Pfizer?"also are people actually being made wait 12 weeks? because i know multiple people who have had jabs 1 and 2 after christmas - we are only 9 weeks into the year - just because its policy doesnt mean its practice | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both of these statements taken from the same report. After 2 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the proportion of participants who tested positive was high across all age groups (100% in those under 30, and 87.9% in those 80 and over) For individuals who received a single dose of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, the proportion testing positive was 94.7% in those under 30, and in those who had previously had COVID-19 (confirmed or suspected) at 88.8%. The proportion testing positive was lower at older ages ranging from 73.7% at 60 to 64 years to 34.7% in those aged 80 and over Yes. Can't link per Fab rules, but, citation "Coronavirus antibodies in 14% of England’s population – Imperial REACT" by Justine Alford 25 February 2021 On Imperial College News Yes. Same report. What I'd like to know is those who have had 2 vaccines, were they 3 or 12 week intervals? It's got to be three weeks because we've not yet reached twelve weeks for people who got dose 1 right at the start (8th December). People on the twelve week intervals will start to receive dose 2 in March. Some people DID get dose 2 after three weeks, in early Jan, before the Govt clamped down on it (and they did, see earlier post from a healthcare worker who confirmed this). Fortunately, my 81yo Dad got his second dose in January, for which I am very grateful. Yeah fair point. It hasn't even been 12 weeks yet
I'll reserve judgement until we have more data after the 2and jabs.
I'm sure I seen a report before on the AZ vaccine that anti actually increased between 3 & 6 weeks. Is it possible this could also be the case with Pfizer?
also are people actually being made wait 12 weeks? because i know multiple people who have had jabs 1 and 2 after christmas - we are only 9 weeks into the year - just because its policy doesnt mean its practice "The healthcare workers and elderly I know are all waiting 12 weeks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you all are overreacting. The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one. I don't know the Pfizer/AZ split but if the data is showing reduced efficacy in that specific cohort, then we can easily tweak that. Hold your nerve." "....The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one...." --------------------------- It is a sound idea from a logistic point of view. Not a sound idea from a medical point of view if you are not following the recommendations / instructions set out by the vaccine manufacturer. We may end up administering more vaccines based on the current approach. However, if the efficacy of the vaccine is being compromised by not following the manufacturers instructions; then we are adopting a: "Quantity over Quality" approach. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you all are overreacting. The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one. I don't know the Pfizer/AZ split but if the data is showing reduced efficacy in that specific cohort, then we can easily tweak that. Hold your nerve. "....The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one...." --------------------------- It is a sound idea from a logistic point of view. Not a sound idea from a medical point of view if you are not following the recommendations / instructions set out by the vaccine manufacturer. We may end up administering more vaccines based on the current approach. However, if the efficacy of the vaccine is being compromised by not following the manufacturers instructions; then we are adopting a: "Quantity over Quality" approach." It's a decent idea, but if there's no evidence behind it - and the scientific rationale for it has not been explained, given the trial data we're supposed to be working from - then it's about as good as "an apple a day keeps the doctor away". We need to do what we know works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. Are you sure that's how it works? I think it could be that the antibodies are taking longer than three weeks build up rather falling off. I could be wrong though I don't think that's how it works. Everything I've heard says it takes 2-3 weeks for your body to build immunity from the vaccine." Right. So if at three weeks over 80s have suboptimal levels, is it possible that they will be stronger at, say, 4 weeks? I am just asking whether we are interpreting the data correctly. Would be good to hear from a doctor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Question, what age did the original Pfizer trials before launch get tested on ? I’m thinking it was 65 and under, if that’s the case this data is new and the first marker for anyone over that age group. Could it be that the older generations’ bodies take longer to build up the immunity it needs or their bodies aren’t strong enough to build up the immunity " Yes it could be the case. I struggle to imagine that if this data was available before then it would approved in the first place | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you all are overreacting. The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one. I don't know the Pfizer/AZ split but if the data is showing reduced efficacy in that specific cohort, then we can easily tweak that. Hold your nerve. "....The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one...." --------------------------- It is a sound idea from a logistic point of view. Not a sound idea from a medical point of view if you are not following the recommendations / instructions set out by the vaccine manufacturer. We may end up administering more vaccines based on the current approach. However, if the efficacy of the vaccine is being compromised by not following the manufacturers instructions; then we are adopting a: "Quantity over Quality" approach. It's a decent idea, but if there's no evidence behind it - and the scientific rationale for it has not been explained, given the trial data we're supposed to be working from - then it's about as good as "an apple a day keeps the doctor away". We need to do what we know works." Agreed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My concern is if we have a population with partial vaccination will it causes new variants of covid to become more smarter than the vaccine ? Resulting in constant delayed tweaks to the vaccine and the logistics of that " ... And this problem hasn't gone away either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Question, what age did the original Pfizer trials before launch get tested on ? I’m thinking it was 65 and under, if that’s the case this data is new and the first marker for anyone over that age group. Could it be that the older generations’ bodies take longer to build up the immunity it needs or their bodies aren’t strong enough to build up the immunity Yes it could be the case. I struggle to imagine that if this data was available before then it would approved in the first place" Agreed, hence my age question in trials. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you all are overreacting. The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one. I don't know the Pfizer/AZ split but if the data is showing reduced efficacy in that specific cohort, then we can easily tweak that. Hold your nerve. Less than 40% of over 80s show any antibodies after THREE weeks (Pfizer). They don't get their second dose until 12 weeks in the main. So at best 35% of people most likely to suffer horribly, die, and further overload and traumatise the NHS are protected. At best 35%. It's probably much less. I think you're severely underreacting." We are still in a lockdown. Therefore, we still have the wiggle room to go back and fix it. Also, as others have pointed out, the data is leading us to believe that vaccination us reducing transmission. So the more people - including care home staff - who are vaccinated, the better protected these vulnerable people are. That is how herd immunity works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Question, what age did the original Pfizer trials before launch get tested on ? I’m thinking it was 65 and under, if that’s the case this data is new and the first marker for anyone over that age group. Could it be that the older generations’ bodies take longer to build up the immunity it needs or their bodies aren’t strong enough to build up the immunity " its possible - nobody really knows so i think what folk are saying about we should have gone with what we did know is the right answer - then we would have better answers for the over 80s right now because age would be the only variable - instead we also have a time variable and either or a combination could be the cause | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. " Load of rubbish..... Germany’s vaccination advisory committee is considering extending the time between the 1st and 2nd dose to 60 or even 90 days now ..... we just got there first again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you all are overreacting. The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one. I don't know the Pfizer/AZ split but if the data is showing reduced efficacy in that specific cohort, then we can easily tweak that. Hold your nerve. Less than 40% of over 80s show any antibodies after THREE weeks (Pfizer). They don't get their second dose until 12 weeks in the main. So at best 35% of people most likely to suffer horribly, die, and further overload and traumatise the NHS are protected. At best 35%. It's probably much less. I think you're severely underreacting. We are still in a lockdown. Therefore, we still have the wiggle room to go back and fix it. Also, as others have pointed out, the data is leading us to believe that vaccination us reducing transmission. So the more people - including care home staff - who are vaccinated, the better protected these vulnerable people are. That is how herd immunity works." I'm aware of how herd immunity works, thank you. Care home workers were in the first wave. They could have done them and the over 80s at original schedule and at least performed their bloody experiment on those of us less likely to die horribly or spread it to those who would. What good is jabbing someone if their immunity wanes so quickly? Isn't that why the three weeks was recommended, to stop that? It seems to me that we've effectively flushed a bunch of vaccines (because no antibodies means it's doing jack shit) and left many of our senior citizens exposed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Question, what age did the original Pfizer trials before launch get tested on ? I’m thinking it was 65 and under, if that’s the case this data is new and the first marker for anyone over that age group. Could it be that the older generations’ bodies take longer to build up the immunity it needs or their bodies aren’t strong enough to build up the immunity " Pfizer included some over 65s in its trial but only a handful. The figure was about 750 out of the 20,000 in the vaccine cohort. Also they did not study anything other than the three week interval. At the time the decision was made to extend the intervals by the JCVI, there was zero data to support it. They extrapolated the Oxford-AZ facts and assumed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine would behave in the same way. Which they clearly do not. There IS and WAS data to support delaying the second dose of Oxford-AZ and I personally have no issues with that decision. I have a massive problem with the decision on Pfizer-BioNTech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. Are you sure that's how it works? I think it could be that the antibodies are taking longer than three weeks build up rather falling off. I could be wrong though I don't think that's how it works. Everything I've heard says it takes 2-3 weeks for your body to build immunity from the vaccine. Right. So if at three weeks over 80s have suboptimal levels, is it possible that they will be stronger at, say, 4 weeks? I am just asking whether we are interpreting the data correctly. Would be good to hear from a doctor." The data I read last night (a pre print of the Scottish study that Prof Whitty was quoting on Monday) and that shows hospitalisations start to creep back up in over 65s who had one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, after 35 days. I doubt their antibody levels suddenly jump up after 4 weeks. The increase in hospitalisations was small and the overall numbers small, but a trend nonetheless. That study seemed to show plateauing of benefits in general beyond three weeks in the older people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you all are overreacting. The idea to give as many people as possible some degree of protection was a sound one. I don't know the Pfizer/AZ split but if the data is showing reduced efficacy in that specific cohort, then we can easily tweak that. Hold your nerve. Less than 40% of over 80s show any antibodies after THREE weeks (Pfizer). They don't get their second dose until 12 weeks in the main. So at best 35% of people most likely to suffer horribly, die, and further overload and traumatise the NHS are protected. At best 35%. It's probably much less. I think you're severely underreacting. We are still in a lockdown. Therefore, we still have the wiggle room to go back and fix it. Also, as others have pointed out, the data is leading us to believe that vaccination us reducing transmission. So the more people - including care home staff - who are vaccinated, the better protected these vulnerable people are. That is how herd immunity works. I'm aware of how herd immunity works, thank you. Care home workers were in the first wave. They could have done them and the over 80s at original schedule and at least performed their bloody experiment on those of us less likely to die horribly or spread it to those who would. What good is jabbing someone if their immunity wanes so quickly? Isn't that why the three weeks was recommended, to stop that? It seems to me that we've effectively flushed a bunch of vaccines (because no antibodies means it's doing jack shit) and left many of our senior citizens exposed. " I am not nearly qualified to discuss the why. The drug manufacturers said one thing because that's what they did in the trial. The scientists on sage and JCVI looked at the trial data and made a judgement. And it's not true that they didn't publish anything. They did but I an not smart enough to get down in the s in a debate between scientists - my qualifications are in the statistical sphere. There are valid arguments for both approach. What I an saying is that it is too early to be calling failure or success on the strategy. We will know which is which in the months to come. And yes you are right that jabbing people and it not good use of resources, but a £7 a pop that's nothing in the wider scheme. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. Are you sure that's how it works? I think it could be that the antibodies are taking longer than three weeks build up rather falling off. I could be wrong though I don't think that's how it works. Everything I've heard says it takes 2-3 weeks for your body to build immunity from the vaccine. Right. So if at three weeks over 80s have suboptimal levels, is it possible that they will be stronger at, say, 4 weeks? I am just asking whether we are interpreting the data correctly. Would be good to hear from a doctor. The data I read last night (a pre print of the Scottish study that Prof Whitty was quoting on Monday) and that shows hospitalisations start to creep back up in over 65s who had one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, after 35 days. I doubt their antibody levels suddenly jump up after 4 weeks. The increase in hospitalisations was small and the overall numbers small, but a trend nonetheless. That study seemed to show plateauing of benefits in general beyond three weeks in the older people." Correlation is not causation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘" How many over 70s were included in this? Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed Government was just playing a numbers game as they have been all along. It never made sense to roll out to less vulnerable ppl before the vulnerable had received both shots. But as usual, ppl piled on the bandwagon thinking that the more ppl who have had one shot, the quicker we can open up (despite the lack of evidence at that time to support this). Im amazed how quickly people forgot the whole point was to protect the health of the vulnerable- not to facilitate shopping sprees and holidays! Personally I would've waited a year if it meant the most vulnerable were fully protected given that im generally healthy and not in an at risk category. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And wiggle room to fix it - what, going back and jabbing millions of people again? There's such a surplus of Covid vaccine in the world right now "We keep the lockdown for as long as we need to in order to get it right. Did you expect something like this to be smooth sailing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And wiggle room to fix it - what, going back and jabbing millions of people again? There's such a surplus of Covid vaccine in the world right now
We keep the lockdown for as long as we need to in order to get it right. Did you expect something like this to be smooth sailing?"No I didn't, but I didn't expect them to fuck up the vaccines. If they do it'll be pushing back on 21 June, and people will be furious. It'll also further damage the economy and cause knock on harms at all levels, including risk of death in the most vulnerable (and educational disruption in children). I agree with extending lockdown if we need to, but this was foreseeable. Even I foresaw it, and my qualifications are in history for the love of God. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. Are you sure that's how it works? I think it could be that the antibodies are taking longer than three weeks build up rather falling off. I could be wrong though I don't think that's how it works. Everything I've heard says it takes 2-3 weeks for your body to build immunity from the vaccine. Right. So if at three weeks over 80s have suboptimal levels, is it possible that they will be stronger at, say, 4 weeks? I am just asking whether we are interpreting the data correctly. Would be good to hear from a doctor. The data I read last night (a pre print of the Scottish study that Prof Whitty was quoting on Monday) and that shows hospitalisations start to creep back up in over 65s who had one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, after 35 days. I doubt their antibody levels suddenly jump up after 4 weeks. The increase in hospitalisations was small and the overall numbers small, but a trend nonetheless. That study seemed to show plateauing of benefits in general beyond three weeks in the older people. Correlation is not causation." Indeed, but seeing as the purpose of the study was to assess hospitalisation rates in people of various ages who had one dose, that's what the data says. It shows a slight resurgence in hospitalisation of over 65s beyond 35 days from the first dose. I've not ventured any analysis on that personally, that's just what the data says. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anybody can say "follow the instructions" after the event. Isn't it a better idea to try and get more people immune straight away? Any idea of the actual numbers of the infections, hospitalisations or deaths of these elderly people who had their second jab delayed? Oooh. Hindsight. We're doing that again, are we? "Before 2021, medicine was a pure art. We did whatever the fuck we wanted, took them as shots all at once or occasional sweeties. Then we discovered that the instructions meant things". Are we really supposed to believe this? Do we not remember two or three months ago and we're supposed to cheer on our Churchillian leader, Blitz Spirit, for effectively flushing vaccines and endangering people? Christ almighty have some self respect. "Take medicine as directed" is not fucking hard. The government has gambled with many, many lives. Those who were alive for the Blitz Spirit we pretend to fucking appreciate. But how many people have actually suffered because of this? No one has given an answer yet and I can't find one. " R is 0.6 and infections getting low at the moment so the risk is low- it’s when we come out of lockdown that we will find out | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Jamie59 I thought exactly the same" Agree that’s what should have been done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well I'm so glad I checked into this thread. I thought we was all here to fuck each other and not mislead the nation or moan because on one particular website said this or that. I didn't realise it was an anti government anti NHS hatemob. We have a government that is not controlled by the EU and are trying there best. If you want to be a concerned citizen and also want to be truly fucked go live in the Germany or France or the rest of the EU because their beaurocrats have spent the last 9 months dithering. While all of Europe and indeed the rest of the world with the exception of Israel look at us with green envy. So now that's sorted we can all meet up on the 21st June fuck each other senseless and look at the rest of Europe as they sit in there isolation bubbles and wave What codswallop. Israel has its success precisely due to following the 3 week interval, as recommended. We should not have gone rogue and made it up on the fly. The Oxford-AZ is a different thing entirely, this thread refers to the Pfizer-BioNTech one, which we are not administering per recommendation. The NHS did not make that decision and a great many NHS staff are unhappy at the delayed dosing. Yes, the Government are at fault because they decided to go against the hard evidence. You do know that the date in June is not set in stone and is contingent on many things? Just because this is a swingers site does not mean people should be irresponsible. Totally agree, we carried on with the 3 week second doses, for our staff in particular and were investigated as a result "Sorry to hear that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘ How many over 70s were included in this? Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed Government was just playing a numbers game as they have been all along. It never made sense to roll out to less vulnerable ppl before the vulnerable had received both shots. But as usual, ppl piled on the bandwagon thinking that the more ppl who have had one shot, the quicker we can open up (despite the lack of evidence at that time to support this). Im amazed how quickly people forgot the whole point was to protect the health of the vulnerable- not to facilitate shopping sprees and holidays! Personally I would've waited a year if it meant the most vulnerable were fully protected given that im generally healthy and not in an at risk category. " ****".....Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed...."*** --- That's right. The 3 week schedule should have been followed at least among the elderly who are more likely to be hospitalised and die from catching covid. The 12-week gap experiment would have been better done among lower age groups who tend to have lesser impact from the covid compared to the elderly. ------------------------------- ***"...Government was just playing a numbers..."*** -- Seems so, which is why I said above: it look like more like a "Quantity over Quality" approach. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. Its unfortunately just another example of a Tory government who say they listen to and are guided by ' the science'.. Who clearly keep doing the opposite of that and ignore anything that doesn't fit in with their back story plan of filling their own wallets and their friends bank balances in any way they can during this pandemic.. Never ever.. Ever.. Trust a Tory! The worrying thing it was a ex-labour prime minister that came up with the idea...but hey some would say that Tony Blair and a Tory are the same thing
His proposal was backed up by Professor David Salisbury, the man in charge of immunisation at the Department of Health until 2013.
He told Today the numbers were "straightforward".
"You give one dose you get 91% [protection] you give two doses and you get 95% - you are only gaining 4% for giving the second dose," he said.
"With current circumstances, I would strongly urge you to use as many first doses as you possibly can for risk groups and only after you have done all of that come back with second doses."
However, he acknowledged this would be harder to do with the Oxford University vaccine, where the efficacy of two doses is 60%.
***“ "You give one dose you get 91% [protection] you give two doses and you get 95% - you are only gaining 4% for giving the second dose," he said.”***
Those stats are based on administering the second dose 3 weeks after the first.
———————————————-
***“ His proposal was backed up by Professor David Salisbury...”***
I will have more faith if that proposal was backed up by Pfizer. "This over all true but not for the age groups in question 70 years which contribute to most of the hospitalisations | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. Load of rubbish..... Germany’s vaccination advisory committee is considering extending the time between the 1st and 2nd dose to 60 or even 90 days now ..... we just got there first again " Is that for all age groups including over 70’s? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘ How many over 70s were included in this? Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed Government was just playing a numbers game as they have been all along. It never made sense to roll out to less vulnerable ppl before the vulnerable had received both shots. But as usual, ppl piled on the bandwagon thinking that the more ppl who have had one shot, the quicker we can open up (despite the lack of evidence at that time to support this). Im amazed how quickly people forgot the whole point was to protect the health of the vulnerable- not to facilitate shopping sprees and holidays! Personally I would've waited a year if it meant the most vulnerable were fully protected given that im generally healthy and not in an at risk category. ****".....Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed...."*** --- That's right. The 3 week schedule should have been followed at least among the elderly who are more likely to be hospitalised and die from catching covid. The 12-week gap experiment would have been better done among lower age groups who tend to have lesser impact from the covid compared to the elderly. ------------------------------- ***"...Government was just playing a numbers..."*** -- Seems so, which is why I said above: it look like more like a "Quantity over Quality" approach." Agree but not a precautionary approach. Wasting vaccines and hypothetically increasing the risk of selection of more variants from a sub optimally vaccinated cohort of the population. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. Load of rubbish..... Germany’s vaccination advisory committee is considering extending the time between the 1st and 2nd dose to 60 or even 90 days now ..... we just got there first again Is that for all age groups including over 70’s?" Also important to ask the question is Germany recommending this for both vaccines or just one? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘ How many over 70s were included in this? Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed Government was just playing a numbers game as they have been all along. It never made sense to roll out to less vulnerable ppl before the vulnerable had received both shots. But as usual, ppl piled on the bandwagon thinking that the more ppl who have had one shot, the quicker we can open up (despite the lack of evidence at that time to support this). Im amazed how quickly people forgot the whole point was to protect the health of the vulnerable- not to facilitate shopping sprees and holidays! Personally I would've waited a year if it meant the most vulnerable were fully protected given that im generally healthy and not in an at risk category. ****".....Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed...."*** --- That's right. The 3 week schedule should have been followed at least among the elderly who are more likely to be hospitalised and die from catching covid. The 12-week gap experiment would have been better done among lower age groups who tend to have lesser impact from the covid compared to the elderly. ------------------------------- ***"...Government was just playing a numbers..."*** -- Seems so, which is why I said above: it look like more like a "Quantity over Quality" approach. Agree but not a precautionary approach. Wasting vaccines and hypothetically increasing the risk of selection of more variants from a sub optimally vaccinated cohort of the population." Ah, but that could also be offset by another increase in hospitalisations and deaths among the elderly if the vaccine is not administered as prescribed by Pfizer. Which is why I said above: that the 12 - week gap experiment would have been best conducted among the younger age groups. If the experiment goes wrong, it will have less impact compared to the impact it will have on the elderly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think." That's the problem you THINK you know the government decision was based on scientific advice, are you qualified to make such a deduction, the results from the scottish trial I saw showed a higher response from the 12 week gap that from the 3 week one. Part of the reason for the 3 week gap was there wasnt time for a 12 wk gap in the trials. While I dont have any experience in human drug trials I do in agrochemical approval, the licensing of products is based on trial data which use the makers protocol, this is the evaluated for safety etc, this does not mean that using these products in a different way reduces effectiveness, often after the initial approval other ways of using products get what's called "off label" approval this could well happen to the vaccines as new trial data from longer term trials have been evaluated, we then will be able to fully judge which method is best. Time was of the essence for the vaccines so three weeks was chosen to show two things primarily the safety of it and whether it was effective, as the trials were done over three week gap this is incorporated into its licence, it implies no view on extending the gap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Question, what age did the original Pfizer trials before launch get tested on ? I’m thinking it was 65 and under, if that’s the case this data is new and the first marker for anyone over that age group. Could it be that the older generations’ bodies take longer to build up the immunity it needs or their bodies aren’t strong enough to build up the immunity Pfizer included some over 65s in its trial but only a handful. The figure was about 750 out of the 20,000 in the vaccine cohort. Also they did not study anything other than the three week interval. At the time the decision was made to extend the intervals by the JCVI, there was zero data to support it. They extrapolated the Oxford-AZ facts and assumed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine would behave in the same way. Which they clearly do not. There IS and WAS data to support delaying the second dose of Oxford-AZ and I personally have no issues with that decision. I have a massive problem with the decision on Pfizer-BioNTech." Thanks Kinky. Is there a split anywhere that shows the age groups and the vaccine they received, I ask as all my family and friends have received Oxford. So wondering what percentage of those vaccinated have received the Pfizer vaccination, which may give a better indication of those elderly that might possibly be at risk following this data. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Question, what age did the original Pfizer trials before launch get tested on ? I’m thinking it was 65 and under, if that’s the case this data is new and the first marker for anyone over that age group. Could it be that the older generations’ bodies take longer to build up the immunity it needs or their bodies aren’t strong enough to build up the immunity Pfizer included some over 65s in its trial but only a handful. The figure was about 750 out of the 20,000 in the vaccine cohort. Also they did not study anything other than the three week interval. At the time the decision was made to extend the intervals by the JCVI, there was zero data to support it. They extrapolated the Oxford-AZ facts and assumed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine would behave in the same way. Which they clearly do not. There IS and WAS data to support delaying the second dose of Oxford-AZ and I personally have no issues with that decision. I have a massive problem with the decision on Pfizer-BioNTech. Thanks Kinky. Is there a split anywhere that shows the age groups and the vaccine they received, I ask as all my family and friends have received Oxford. So wondering what percentage of those vaccinated have received the Pfizer vaccination, which may give a better indication of those elderly that might possibly be at risk following this data. " I'll go back and try and pick out the more recent data on Oxford-AZ. The Oxford trials didn't include anyone over 65 (the COV005 arm, the South Africa arm with a total of just over 2000 participants in total, so vanishingly small number of people up to 65 max, but none over). The bottom line is that the trials done originally included few to no people over 65. Why? Because it's obvious that the efficacy data would be far lower for this age group and would suggest that the vaccines are less effective. We modify the formulation of the seasonal flu vaccine for over 65s because we know that the formulation for younger people does not elicit enough response. This approach may be needed for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines but isn't going to be straightforward. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had the Astra one a while back. Does anyone know any figures on that one and does your general health help with the effectiveness on the over 60s? Rather obvious why I'm asking? If you go to their website they published a paper on 3rd February based on results from UK, Brazil & South Africa. If I’ve read it right, the results show the three month gap is a plus point ‘ Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%). Sir Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “This primary analysis reconfirms that our vaccine prevents severe disease and keeps people out of hospital. In addition, extending the dosing interval not only boosts the vaccine’s efficacy, but also enables more people to be vaccinated upfront. Together with the new findings on reduced transmission, we believe this vaccine will have a real impact on the pandemic.”‘ How many over 70s were included in this? Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed Government was just playing a numbers game as they have been all along. It never made sense to roll out to less vulnerable ppl before the vulnerable had received both shots. But as usual, ppl piled on the bandwagon thinking that the more ppl who have had one shot, the quicker we can open up (despite the lack of evidence at that time to support this). Im amazed how quickly people forgot the whole point was to protect the health of the vulnerable- not to facilitate shopping sprees and holidays! Personally I would've waited a year if it meant the most vulnerable were fully protected given that im generally healthy and not in an at risk category. ****".....Immune responses are less robust in the elderly so it was always going to be important that the 3 week schedule was followed...."*** --- That's right. The 3 week schedule should have been followed at least among the elderly who are more likely to be hospitalised and die from catching covid. The 12-week gap experiment would have been better done among lower age groups who tend to have lesser impact from the covid compared to the elderly. ------------------------------- ***"...Government was just playing a numbers..."*** -- Seems so, which is why I said above: it look like more like a "Quantity over Quality" approach." Yes!! Exactly! The elderly were our most vulnerable and deserved nothing less And yes, the younger age groups were more suited to an 'experiment' but should have been given a choice as to whether they wished to consent to being part of this or given according to trial data schedule. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. That's the problem you THINK you know the government decision was based on scientific advice, are you qualified to make such a deduction, the results from the scottish trial I saw showed a higher response from the 12 week gap that from the 3 week one. Part of the reason for the 3 week gap was there wasnt time for a 12 wk gap in the trials. While I dont have any experience in human drug trials I do in agrochemical approval, the licensing of products is based on trial data which use the makers protocol, this is the evaluated for safety etc, this does not mean that using these products in a different way reduces effectiveness, often after the initial approval other ways of using products get what's called "off label" approval this could well happen to the vaccines as new trial data from longer term trials have been evaluated, we then will be able to fully judge which method is best. Time was of the essence for the vaccines so three weeks was chosen to show two things primarily the safety of it and whether it was effective, as the trials were done over three week gap this is incorporated into its licence, it implies no view on extending the gap. "
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. That's the problem you THINK you know the government decision was based on scientific advice, are you qualified to make such a deduction, the results from the scottish trial I saw showed a higher response from the 12 week gap that from the 3 week one. Part of the reason for the 3 week gap was there wasnt time for a 12 wk gap in the trials. While I dont have any experience in human drug trials I do in agrochemical approval, the licensing of products is based on trial data which use the makers protocol, this is the evaluated for safety etc, this does not mean that using these products in a different way reduces effectiveness, often after the initial approval other ways of using products get what's called "off label" approval this could well happen to the vaccines as new trial data from longer term trials have been evaluated, we then will be able to fully judge which method is best. Time was of the essence for the vaccines so three weeks was chosen to show two things primarily the safety of it and whether it was effective, as the trials were done over three week gap this is incorporated into its licence, it implies no view on extending the gap. " So I express appropriate conditions on my views, given I'm a non specialist, therefore it was fine for the government to experiment on our most vulnerable people? Abso-lutely fucking not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Time was of the essence for the vaccines so three weeks was chosen to show two things primarily the safety of it and whether it was effective, as the trials were done over three week gap this is incorporated into its licence, it implies no view on extending the gap. " Implied no view? Pfizer-BioNTech themselves said they did not advocate extending the interval. The people who developed the vaccine (BioNTech) should be listened to. What the JCVI did, it would seem, is extrapolate data about the Oxford-AZ vaccine and assume that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine would behave in the same way. There was zero empirical evidence for this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well I'm so glad I checked into this thread. I thought we was all here to fuck each other and not mislead the nation or moan because on one particular website said this or that. I didn't realise it was an anti government anti NHS hatemob. We have a government that is not controlled by the EU and are trying there best. If you want to be a concerned citizen and also want to be truly fucked go live in the Germany or France or the rest of the EU because their beaurocrats have spent the last 9 months dithering. While all of Europe and indeed the rest of the world with the exception of Israel look at us with green envy. So now that's sorted we can all meet up on the 21st June fuck each other senseless and look at the rest of Europe as they sit in there isolation bubbles and wave" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. That's the problem you THINK you know the government decision was based on scientific advice, are you qualified to make such a deduction, the results from the scottish trial I saw showed a higher response from the 12 week gap that from the 3 week one. Part of the reason for the 3 week gap was there wasnt time for a 12 wk gap in the trials. While I dont have any experience in human drug trials I do in agrochemical approval, the licensing of products is based on trial data which use the makers protocol, this is the evaluated for safety etc, this does not mean that using these products in a different way reduces effectiveness, often after the initial approval other ways of using products get what's called "off label" approval this could well happen to the vaccines as new trial data from longer term trials have been evaluated, we then will be able to fully judge which method is best. Time was of the essence for the vaccines so three weeks was chosen to show two things primarily the safety of it and whether it was effective, as the trials were done over three week gap this is incorporated into its licence, it implies no view on extending the gap. So I express appropriate conditions on my views, given I'm a non specialist, therefore it was fine for the government to experiment on our most vulnerable people? Abso-lutely fucking not " But the government took advice from experts, time will tell if the experts are right, I suspect going by the scottish trial shows they were. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please refer to imperial college data. Basically the over 70’s and over 80’s have reduced efficacy 3 weeks after the 1st jab( Pfizer). The vaccine was licensed for two jabs within a months period - delaying it to three months for these groups is leaving them vulnerable again- and there are questions now how efficacious a 2nd jab at twelve weeks will be. What a cock up again by this government. Why don’t they learn. Its unfortunately just another example of a Tory government who say they listen to and are guided by ' the science'.. Who clearly keep doing the opposite of that and ignore anything that doesn't fit in with their back story plan of filling their own wallets and their friends bank balances in any way they can during this pandemic.. Never ever.. Ever.. Trust a Tory! The worrying thing it was a ex-labour prime minister that came up with the idea...but hey some would say that Tony Blair and a Tory are the same thing "Won't argue with that.. Blair and his New Labour! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. That's the problem you THINK you know the government decision was based on scientific advice, are you qualified to make such a deduction, the results from the scottish trial I saw showed a higher response from the 12 week gap that from the 3 week one. Part of the reason for the 3 week gap was there wasnt time for a 12 wk gap in the trials. While I dont have any experience in human drug trials I do in agrochemical approval, the licensing of products is based on trial data which use the makers protocol, this is the evaluated for safety etc, this does not mean that using these products in a different way reduces effectiveness, often after the initial approval other ways of using products get what's called "off label" approval this could well happen to the vaccines as new trial data from longer term trials have been evaluated, we then will be able to fully judge which method is best. Time was of the essence for the vaccines so three weeks was chosen to show two things primarily the safety of it and whether it was effective, as the trials were done over three week gap this is incorporated into its licence, it implies no view on extending the gap. So I express appropriate conditions on my views, given I'm a non specialist, therefore it was fine for the government to experiment on our most vulnerable people? Abso-lutely fucking not But the government took advice from experts, time will tell if the experts are right, I suspect going by the scottish trial shows they were." I imagine these experts will have hell to pay from their own. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the antibodies reduce to about 34% after the first dose, what level are they at a few months after the second dose? We won’t be able measure what level the second dose will be until after the second dose has been administered. The concern here, is that the 12 week gap between doses could see some of the elderly exposed again if the antibodies start dropping off 4 weeks after the first dose. If it's 34% at three weeks, then it'll be lower at 12 weeks, and the second jab won't be as much or any of a boost. I think. That's the problem you THINK you know the government decision was based on scientific advice, are you qualified to make such a deduction, the results from the scottish trial I saw showed a higher response from the 12 week gap that from the 3 week one. Part of the reason for the 3 week gap was there wasnt time for a 12 wk gap in the trials. While I dont have any experience in human drug trials I do in agrochemical approval, the licensing of products is based on trial data which use the makers protocol, this is the evaluated for safety etc, this does not mean that using these products in a different way reduces effectiveness, often after the initial approval other ways of using products get what's called "off label" approval this could well happen to the vaccines as new trial data from longer term trials have been evaluated, we then will be able to fully judge which method is best. Time was of the essence for the vaccines so three weeks was chosen to show two things primarily the safety of it and whether it was effective, as the trials were done over three week gap this is incorporated into its licence, it implies no view on extending the gap. So I express appropriate conditions on my views, given I'm a non specialist, therefore it was fine for the government to experiment on our most vulnerable people? Abso-lutely fucking not But the government took advice from experts, time will tell if the experts are right, I suspect going by the scottish trial shows they were. I imagine these experts will have hell to pay from their own." whos listening to the government experts?! i know a lady who reads tea leaves, a voodoo dr and a white witch and everyone of them says the government is dodgy! You follow the nhs advice but im listening to aunty maureen!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The data is there in the Imperial College REACT study and in pre print from Scotland. It's easy to ignore or cherry pick the positive bits. Title: Coronavirus antibodies in 14% of England’s population – Imperial REACT by Justine Alford 25 February 2021 The 7th paragraph on my phone: "The study also found a high proportion of people under 30 had antibodies after a single dose, with 94.7% testing positive after 3 weeks. However this figure drops steadily with age and people aged 80 plus had the lowest rates of positive tests at 34.7%" The news is much more positive for younger people, but the elderly are the highest risk of dying and so appear to need to stick to the original dosing schedule." The positive stuff is fact. The negative stuff - eh it's a preprint it can't be relied on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The data is there in the Imperial College REACT study and in pre print from Scotland. It's easy to ignore or cherry pick the positive bits. Title: Coronavirus antibodies in 14% of England’s population – Imperial REACT by Justine Alford 25 February 2021 The 7th paragraph on my phone: "The study also found a high proportion of people under 30 had antibodies after a single dose, with 94.7% testing positive after 3 weeks. However this figure drops steadily with age and people aged 80 plus had the lowest rates of positive tests at 34.7%" The news is much more positive for younger people, but the elderly are the highest risk of dying and so appear to need to stick to the original dosing schedule." Exactly this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's a pre print of the latest REACT study which clearly shows over 80s with one dose beyond 4 weeks have very very low frequency of antibodies. God knows where they'll be by three MONTHS: Report title: 'REACT-2 Round 5: Increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies demonstrate impact of the second wave and of vaccine roll-out in England'" How many antibodies do they have 3 months after the 2nd dose? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's a pre print of the latest REACT study which clearly shows over 80s with one dose beyond 4 weeks have very very low frequency of antibodies. God knows where they'll be by three MONTHS: Report title: 'REACT-2 Round 5: Increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies demonstrate impact of the second wave and of vaccine roll-out in England' How many antibodies do they have 3 months after the 2nd dose?" Obviously we don't know. But if a majority don't have any antibodies after three weeks, then for them a second jab after that will be like a first jab, not a booster. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time." You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time." It's not modelling. It's data from samples collected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. It's not modelling. It's data from samples collected. " But it doesn’t seem to be being reflected in the current data | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. It's not modelling. It's data from samples collected. But it doesn’t seem to be being reflected in the current data " Have you read the data in the REACT study pre print I posted about above? It's the biggest data set on antibody levels after the Pfizer vaccine in this country. Our Government keep referring to Israeli data, where everyone had a second dose within the three weeks. The Israeli data is largely not relevant to how we are conducting things. The Scottish data didn't measure antibody levels either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's a pre print of the latest REACT study which clearly shows over 80s with one dose beyond 4 weeks have very very low frequency of antibodies. God knows where they'll be by three MONTHS: Report title: 'REACT-2 Round 5: Increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies demonstrate impact of the second wave and of vaccine roll-out in England' How many antibodies do they have 3 months after the 2nd dose?" Not known yet as Pfizer never looked at this. In the states they are saying Max 6 weeks between first and second dose , ideal is 3 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's a pre print of the latest REACT study which clearly shows over 80s with one dose beyond 4 weeks have very very low frequency of antibodies. God knows where they'll be by three MONTHS: Report title: 'REACT-2 Round 5: Increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies demonstrate impact of the second wave and of vaccine roll-out in England' How many antibodies do they have 3 months after the 2nd dose? Not known yet as Pfizer never looked at this. In the states they are saying Max 6 weeks between first and second dose , ideal is 3" Following instructions. Outrageous | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. It's not modelling. It's data from samples collected. But it doesn’t seem to be being reflected in the current data " There is a very important article in The Lancet discussing this from the 19th Feb Under the title Delayed second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine: innovation or misguided conjecture? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. It's not modelling. It's data from samples collected. But it doesn’t seem to be being reflected in the current data There is a very important article in The Lancet discussing this from the 19th Feb Under the title Delayed second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine: innovation or misguided conjecture? " I’m sure there is, but that was the 19th February. We are now on the 1st March and the biggest fall in hospitalisations is in the over 80s age group. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"after the news from todays briefing the science seems to rubbish these findings " The Devil is in the detail- yes the vaccines work very well initially - one shot works very well for 4-5 weeks ... but what after that. Essentially, what it comes down to is will the most venerable of our population be fully cover by the time the economy fully opens in June? Great if cases reduce then their risk is reduced but if cases are high then what happens to them. It’s a big gamble. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. It's not modelling. It's data from samples collected. But it doesn’t seem to be being reflected in the current data There is a very important article in The Lancet discussing this from the 19th Feb Under the title Delayed second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine: innovation or misguided conjecture? I’m sure there is, but that was the 19th February. We are now on the 1st March and the biggest fall in hospitalisations is in the over 80s age group." It’s early days - Quote UK's delayed second dose strategy for BNT162b2 is, in our view, a misguided conjecture. It will yield some protection for the individual after a first dose: how much, and for how long, is unknown and without patient consent. Like I said- it’s a gamble | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"after the news from todays briefing the science seems to rubbish these findings The Devil is in the detail- yes the vaccines work very well initially - one shot works very well for 4-5 weeks ... but what after that. Essentially, what it comes down to is will the most venerable of our population be fully cover by the time the economy fully opens in June? Great if cases reduce then their risk is reduced but if cases are high then what happens to them. It’s a big gamble." The over 80s will have had their second jab by June. I got my jab last week I was told my second one would be the end of May. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time." It is not modelling though, this is 'data' taken from samples. The data is also published in the British Medial Journal (BMJ). It has also been confirmed by Prof Aziz Sheikh who is Chair of the primary research Edinburgh University. Also confirmed by Prof Robin Shattack who is Vaccine Lead at Imperial college London. Both Profs were interviewed by Sky news last week. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. It is not modelling though, this is 'data' taken from samples. The data is also published in the British Medial Journal (BMJ). It has also been confirmed by Prof Aziz Sheikh who is Chair of the primary research Edinburgh University. Also confirmed by Prof Robin Shattack who is Vaccine Lead at Imperial college London. Both Profs were interviewed by Sky news last week. " I’m aware of that. However the real world current data doesn’t seem to support it. The biggest drop in hospitalisations is in the over 80s. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. It is not modelling though, this is 'data' taken from samples. The data is also published in the British Medial Journal (BMJ). It has also been confirmed by Prof Aziz Sheikh who is Chair of the primary research Edinburgh University. Also confirmed by Prof Robin Shattack who is Vaccine Lead at Imperial college London. Both Profs were interviewed by Sky news last week. I’m aware of that. However the real world current data doesn’t seem to support it. The biggest drop in hospitalisations is in the over 80s." Hospitalisations may have dropped due to the lockdown too. There's a 2-3 week lag in the lockdown having an effect. We can't say the reduction in hospitalisations is purely down to the vaccine. How do you respond to empirical data that only 1/3 of over 80s have detectable antibodies four weeks after one dose of Pfizer? Remember, this discussion is purely about the Pfizer vaccine. You cannot separate out from the hospitalisation data presented en mass those who've had one dose of which vaccine. The antibody studies HAVE done that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll both have to forgive me for not giving government pronouncements of scientific findings much weight at this time. You’ll have to forgive me for not giving imperial modelling much weight at this time. It is not modelling though, this is 'data' taken from samples. The data is also published in the British Medial Journal (BMJ). It has also been confirmed by Prof Aziz Sheikh who is Chair of the primary research Edinburgh University. Also confirmed by Prof Robin Shattack who is Vaccine Lead at Imperial college London. Both Profs were interviewed by Sky news last week. I’m aware of that. However the real world current data doesn’t seem to support it. The biggest drop in hospitalisations is in the over 80s." "..The biggest drop in hospitalisations is in the over 80s..." ------------------------------ We see a drop at the moment because: immunity levels are still high in the over 80s for up to 40 days after their first dose. Immunity starts dropping after day 40. So what happens between day 40 to day 90 when they receive their second dose? Will we start seeing an uptick in hospitalisations between day 40 - 90? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry, can't be arsed to read every comment so will just put my two penneth forward and assume similar things have already been said... Actually, I'll only make one point right now. Data can be presented in many ways to suit a point anyone wants to make, is 3 weeks to early to detect antibodies in the over 80's? What were the results after week 1 and week 2 for all age groups? What will they be after weeks 4, 5, 6... " Read the reports cited higher up for the answers.... It's all there. The only study that measured antibodies (IgG antibodies) across all ages is the REACT study from Imperial. The SIREN study looked only at healthcare workers, so has few to no people aged over 65/70. All the other studies either did not measure antibody levels at all, or are from Israel where they gave everyone dose 2 at three weeks so doesn't aid our understanding of the three month gap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry, can't be arsed to read every comment so will just put my two penneth forward and assume similar things have already been said... Actually, I'll only make one point right now. Data can be presented in many ways to suit a point anyone wants to make, is 3 weeks to early to detect antibodies in the over 80's? What were the results after week 1 and week 2 for all age groups? What will they be after weeks 4, 5, 6... Read the reports cited higher up for the answers.... It's all there. The only study that measured antibodies (IgG antibodies) across all ages is the REACT study from Imperial. The SIREN study looked only at healthcare workers, so has few to no people aged over 65/70. All the other studies either did not measure antibody levels at all, or are from Israel where they gave everyone dose 2 at three weeks so doesn't aid our understanding of the three month gap." Ok, I may be tired (or just generally thick)but from what I can see there is not enough of a sample size to be all that meaningful, without even taking other factors into account such as increased confidence after having the first vaccine jab to leave the house or be in closer contact. The only thing that looks likely to me from the data is that you are more likely to test higher for antibody presence if you have had had the 2nd jab or have previously tested positive or suspected positive of having previous exposure  than if you haven't had the first jab (which suggests higher positive antibody results than not have having the initial jab).
Of course, I may be interpreting the data incorrectly or | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I may be tired (or just generally thick)but from what I can see there is not enough of a sample size to be all that meaningful, without even taking other factors into account such as increased confidence after having the first vaccine jab to leave the house or be in closer contact. The only thing that looks likely to me from the data is that you are more likely to test higher for antibody presence if you have had had the 2nd jab or have previously tested positive or suspected positive of having previous exposure than if you haven't had the first jab (which suggests higher positive antibody results than not have having the initial jab).
Of course, I may be interpreting the data incorrectly or "“..... Ok, I may be tired (or just generally thick)but from what I can see ....” ————————————— So when you are not feeling tired, do some research and checkout: “REACT 2, Round 5 - Imperial College London.” Take special note of Table 5:- which provides details of antibody levels by days after a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine by age, sex & clinical history. The evidence from this research has also been supported by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) The Lancet also describes the UK's decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine to 12 weeks as: "a misguided conjecture" In their conclusion, they strongly recommend that the UK Government reverts to the two doses in a 3-week schedule. The WHO and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adopt no more than a 6-week delay to the second dose. There is no evidence that supports delaying the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine to 12 weeks, if anything the current evidence advises against doing so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I posted earlier in this thread but I was shouted down for supporting the fact that this meant 20 million people have now had a vaccination and some immunity from the virus. I kept being told that the government should have read the instructions and provided the second dose after 3 weeks. In the news last night and the papers this morning. For the people who have had one dose the chances of them being admitted to hospital through Covid has reduced by 80%. Surely that is good news, the Europeans are way behind but the UK is planning a road map out of this. At the moment every day the exit out of lockdowns seems to get closer and closer. Boris has come in for a lot of criticism but I think he should be congratulated for his foresight months ago in getting these vaccines to the UK. " All this good news doesn't matter to some they just like to use it as a political football, i see the eu have now changed tack and saying the oxford vaccine is ok for over 65,s. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I may be tired (or just generally thick)but from what I can see there is not enough of a sample size to be all that meaningful, without even taking other factors into account such as increased confidence after having the first vaccine jab to leave the house or be in closer contact. The only thing that looks likely to me from the data is that you are more likely to test higher for antibody presence if you have had had the 2nd jab or have previously tested positive or suspected positive of having previous exposure than if you haven't had the first jab (which suggests higher positive antibody results than not have having the initial jab).
Of course, I may be interpreting the data incorrectly or
“..... Ok, I may be tired (or just generally thick)but from what I can see ....”
—————————————
So when you are not feeling tired, do some research and checkout:
“REACT 2, Round 5 - Imperial College London.”
Take special note of Table 5:- which provides details of antibody levels by days after a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine by age, sex & clinical history.
The evidence from this research has also been supported by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
The Lancet also describes the UK's decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine to 12 weeks as: "a misguided conjecture"
In their conclusion, they strongly recommend that the UK Government reverts to the two doses in a 3-week schedule.
The WHO and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adopt no more than a 6-week delay to the second dose.
There is no evidence that supports delaying the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine to 12 weeks, if anything the current evidence advises against doing so.
"I may be reading this data wrong but for me I see that the 70+ group their body isn’t building the antibodies as strongly as the younger generation. Weren’t they stating it gives 80-90% effectiveness after first jab when launched ? If so only the 49 and unders have managed that, so maybe not as robust as they claim from jab one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I posted earlier in this thread but I was shouted down for supporting the fact that this meant 20 million people have now had a vaccination and some immunity from the virus. I kept being told that the government should have read the instructions and provided the second dose after 3 weeks. In the news last night and the papers this morning. For the people who have had one dose the chances of them being admitted to hospital through Covid has reduced by 80%. Surely that is good news, the Europeans are way behind but the UK is planning a road map out of this. At the moment every day the exit out of lockdowns seems to get closer and closer. Boris has come in for a lot of criticism but I think he should be congratulated for his foresight months ago in getting these vaccines to the UK. " “....... For the people who have had one dose the chances of them being admitted to hospital through Covid has reduced by 80%.....” —————————————— The 80% reduction you refer to,- applies up to 30 days after a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine. That percentage begins to drop after the first 30 days. Between day 30 to day 90 when the second dose is given the percentage drops even further. So no it’s not good news. Refer to all the scientific materials cited above to learn more about this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I posted earlier in this thread but I was shouted down for supporting the fact that this meant 20 million people have now had a vaccination and some immunity from the virus. I kept being told that the government should have read the instructions and provided the second dose after 3 weeks. In the news last night and the papers this morning. For the people who have had one dose the chances of them being admitted to hospital through Covid has reduced by 80%. Surely that is good news, the Europeans are way behind but the UK is planning a road map out of this. At the moment every day the exit out of lockdowns seems to get closer and closer. Boris has come in for a lot of criticism but I think he should be congratulated for his foresight months ago in getting these vaccines to the UK. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I have no issue waiting the extended time for a 2nd jab cause even with 1 your in a way safer place.....dont worry bout a 3 week,6 week window.....its the 1st 2 weeks after your 1st jab is the most important time cause they itll take roughly 10 days for it to give protection to whatever degree...any is better than none yes...everyone do our bit keep tour wits about ye and give folk there own space and stay as safe as can be....lets get our jabs safe n sound and get on with life  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I may be tired (or just generally thick)but from what I can see there is not enough of a sample size to be all that meaningful, without even taking other factors into account such as increased confidence after having the first vaccine jab to leave the house or be in closer contact. The only thing that looks likely to me from the data is that you are more likely to test higher for antibody presence if you have had had the 2nd jab or have previously tested positive or suspected positive of having previous exposure than if you haven't had the first jab (which suggests higher positive antibody results than not have having the initial jab).
Of course, I may be interpreting the data incorrectly or
“..... Ok, I may be tired (or just generally thick)but from what I can see ....”
—————————————
So when you are not feeling tired, do some research and checkout:
“REACT 2, Round 5 - Imperial College London.”
Take special note of Table 5:- which provides details of antibody levels by days after a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine by age, sex & clinical history.
The evidence from this research has also been supported by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
The Lancet also describes the UK's decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine to 12 weeks as: "a misguided conjecture"
In their conclusion, they strongly recommend that the UK Government reverts to the two doses in a 3-week schedule.
The WHO and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adopt no more than a 6-week delay to the second dose.
There is no evidence that supports delaying the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine to 12 weeks, if anything the current evidence advises against doing so.
I may be reading this data wrong but for me I see that the 70+ group their body isn’t building the antibodies as strongly as the younger generation. Weren’t they stating it gives 80-90% effectiveness after first jab when launched ? If so only the 49 and unders have managed that, so maybe not as robust as they claim from jab one.
"“.......... I see that the 70+ group their body isn’t building the antibodies as strongly as the younger generation....” ———————————- Yes you’re right and the immune system is weaker in the 70+ compared to the younger generation. Which is why we shouldn’t take a gamble with science when administering the vaccine to that age group. We should follow the instruction as set out by the vaccine manufacturer. There is zero scientific evidence to show that delaying the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine to 90 days is helpful - certainly not from a Medical point of view. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
