Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[Yew]

Restrictions will last much longer if the hospitals are full of half vaccinated people.

I don't see how that can be worse that they would be otherwise?

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, I'd be wary of this approach unless the vaccine manufacturer says it's likely to work.

However, if it becomes an annual jab anyway, will it matter that much if it gets people through to the next year ?

 

[158756]

I don't see how that can be worse that they would be otherwise?

Worse than having fewer people vaccinated properly.

 

[Pete_uk]

One thing that was touched on in a earlier post is while it's great that we can start to get on top of things, what's it going to take to stay on top?

 

[Yew]

Worse than having fewer people vaccinated properly.

What's your basis for that assumption?

 

[hwl]

Restrictions will last much longer if the hospitals are full of half vaccinated people. Even if this gamble actually works the whole situation is a gift to anti-vaxxers, and may well harm trust in this and other vaccines and the level of take up.

As covered by JVT in yesterdays' BoJo show: In the vaccinated group in the Oxford-AZ trial there were only 2 hospitalised* (non ICU) Covid cases with first +ve PCR swabs from the those individuals taken 2 & 10days after 1st jab respectively i.e. before the immunity had time to develop.
There were 0 hospitalisations after this point including the subgroup that had the 2nd jab at 8 weeks. (0 ICU admissions overall). *This compares to 5 in the control group who weren't vaccinated (with the Covid jab) and developed covid in the 3 weeks post first jab.

Agree on the loss of confidence aspect if we screw up the medium and long-term effectiveness or have to have more frequent boosters.

 

[All Line Rover]

And Pfizer have apparently told the Guardian that there was no data to demonstrate that protection after the initial dose was sustained after 21 days.

Seems to me like the government are continuing their amazing track record of poor decision making. Call me cynical but to me this just smacks of another dose of their love for announcing huge figures. In 8 weeks time they can make an amazing claim of vaccinating a large number of people even it is at the potential detriment to the effectiveness of the vaccine itself.

Not true. Only the Russians are making it up as they go along. The Russians are clueless.* The British absolutely are not. Because Britain is a much better country (source: Gavin Williamson MP).

*As proved by this BBC News article about "Sputnik V vaccine rushed out to wary Russians", which I have kept my own copy of for posterity, published at the same time as the BBC News homepage was covered in wall-to-wall praise of the launch of the NHS' own vaccination programme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55221785

We all know that the BBC is a fully impartial, neutral broadcaster, publishing stories on all matters of interest to the British public and never pressured, directly or indirectly, by government. Nope, never. So that article is unquestionable proof.

Boris, our great leader, knows what he is doing. He is very wise and always has the interests of his people at heart in any decision he makes. You need some re-edumacation.

 

[158756]

I must admit, I'd be wary of this approach unless the vaccine manufacturer says it's likely to work.

However, if it becomes an annual jab anyway, will it matter that much if it gets people through to the next year ?

The manufacturer (Pfizer/BioNTech) has stated that there is no evidence to support the new strategy, no evidence the first dose is effective beyond 21 days. We don't know if it will become an annual jab, we probably don't have the capacity to do everyone again before next winter, we don't have any evidence that any of the existing vaccines will work as an annual or booster jab.

What's your basis for that assumption?

Nothing. Exactly the same as the basis the government have for ignoring all the available evidence and making up a schedule for their own political gain.

 

[Mojo]

The manufacturer (Pfizer/BioNTech) has stated that there is no evidence to support the new strategy, no evidence the first dose is effective beyond 21 days. We don't know if it will become an annual jab, we probably don't have the capacity to do everyone again before next winter, we don't have any evidence that any of the existing vaccines will work as an annual or booster jab.

Very worrying this, almost like we’re being set up to fail, to prolong the pain we’re all going through

 

[kez19]

Very worrying this, almost like we’re being set up to fail, to prolong the pain we’re all going through

Or you could throw it the other way, has this been done on purpose was not long ago they all spoke of the vaccine (giving it credit) and things like "light at the end" .... so why say/do things if that wasn't the intention?

Even though I mentioned above I have had first dose and due next one in few weeks, it does seem to me its a con! I wouldn't be surprised for up north either it will go as planned or Sturgeon will follow the UK "guidelines" and delay it? I wasn't confident on getting it but even still this is another blow.

I may have spoke too soon: dated 30 December 2020 (the only time I will defend Sturgeon in this case but I wonder why the reason from 3 weeks to 3 months though or is something about to be blown?) as didnt Pfizer say the 3 weeks was "normal" and it shouldn't be this way?

Nearly 100,000 Scots receive vaccine shot as new jab to be rolled out on Monday

The First Minister confirmed the total on the day a second vaccine was approved for use in the UK

www.dailyrecord.co.uk

She also said the UK had secured a "much higher number" of doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.


Sturgeon added: "It is also now recommended that the second dose of both vaccines can be given up to 12 weeks after the first, rather than three.


"That means we can now prioritise providing a first dose to as many people as possible - rather than providing the required two doses in as short a time as possible.


"And that will allow more people to be vaccinated more quickly."

I wonder if this was the way (possibly) Boris was trying to say it? (at a guess)!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2020 ==

The manufacturer (Pfizer/BioNTech) has stated that there is no evidence to support the new strategy, no evidence the first dose is effective beyond 21 days. We don't know if it will become an annual jab, we probably don't have the capacity to do everyone again before next winter, we don't have any evidence that any of the existing vaccines will work as an annual or booster jab.

I had that thought in my mind if this was going to come about being an annual/booster jab? (after having the 2 initally)

I may sound a bit stupid here and accept apologies but has their been a time where vaccines have ever been given out in the spring/summer?

I was even trying to think back to when I was in high school but the closest thing is the menigitis vaccine I got but even then I can't even recall if that was ever given out then!

 

[hwl]

"light at the end of the tunnel"

With Boris's luck the light at the end of tunnel is a high intensity headlight rather than daylight...

 

[kez19]

With Boris's luck the light at the end of tunnel is a high intensity headlight rather than daylight...

lol! , like a rabbit/deer caught in the headlights springs to mind!

 

[Domh245]

There's no reason to assume that this will become an annual vaccine - flu is an annual vaccine as it's different strains each year, requiring different targeted vaccines based on what the prevailing strains might be. Given the high confidence in the covid vaccine to be 'universal' in effectively dealing with the different variants, there's no need for new vaccines each year, it would only serve to potentially give a short term boost to immunity immediately going into winter but this may prove to be unnecessary depending on the longevity of the immunity conferred by the first vaccine, something that (again) we have no evidence for as yet.

 

[matacaster]

And Pfizer have apparently told the Guardian that there was no data to demonstrate that protection after the initial dose was sustained after 21 days.

Seems to me like the government are continuing their amazing track record of poor decision making. Call me cynical but to me this just smacks of another dose of their love for announcing huge figures. In 8 weeks time they can make an amazing claim of vaccinating a large number of people even it is at the potential detriment to the effectiveness of the vaccine itself.

This was a Tony Blair idea - he really should get lost.

 

[The Ham]

The data to support it for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is also apparently unpublished, which doesn't inspire confidence, especially given the quality of their published work.

Expectations of the vaccination programme are far too high. The government have made this move because a realistic, science based approach would have had maybe only a million people done by the end of January, months, maybe most of the year to finish the vulnerable groups and much longer for everyone else, but no one wants to hear that. But the backlash would be nothing compared to that which will come in a few months or so if it turns out our 'strategy' has rendered every single dose completely ineffective.

If you look at the numbers who get the flu vaccine (which is done between September and end of February) then how long would it take to do all the adults in the UK?

Assuming 45% of the population have the flu vaccine in that 6 month period, then you can do 45% in 12 months giving 2 doses.

However 25% of the population is under 18 so we're looking at 45/75 which is 60%. Therefore even at Flu Vaccine rates we'd get 60% of all adults done within a year and therefore more than just the at risk groups.

However, flu vaccine take up in September and February is very low, which means that we're probably doing (say) 56% in 4 months, so duel dosing 56% in 8 months, so over 12 months we'd be able to do 50% more, so about 81% of adults within twelve months.

We wouldn't need to go much faster to get to the point where we'd done everyone who needed the vaccine in all ages and all adults who accepted the vaccine.

Restrictions will last much longer if the hospitals are full of half vaccinated people. Even if this gamble actually works the whole situation is a gift to anti-vaxxers, and may well harm trust in this and other vaccines and the level of take up.

The effectiveness of the vaccine will be lower without a second dose, however with no other restrictions the R value would still be about half that of the unrestricted value.

However that may still not be the full picture, as hospitalisation rates appeared to be lower as well. If that's the case is unlikely that there would be many needing to go to hospital. Therefore unless there's something else causing hospitals to be fairly full it's not overly likely that they would be full of those with a single dose.

The manufacturer (Pfizer/BioNTech) has stated that there is no evidence to support the new strategy, no evidence the first dose is effective beyond 21 days. We don't know if it will become an annual jab, we probably don't have the capacity to do everyone again before next winter, we don't have any evidence that any of the existing vaccines will work as an annual or booster jab.

The reason that there's no evidence is that everyone who was vaccinated then had their second vaccine at or by 21 days.

As such there's no knowledge of what the level of protection would be, which is all that the companies are highlighting.

This is very different to that it will cease to be of any benefit after that point.

With regards to the possibility of needing an annual vaccine, it may be that's what's needed. However as no one has had the vaccine for a year, there's no way of knowing.

It may of course provide 2, 5, 10, 50 years or lifetime protection.

 

[kez19]

Just opinion here as I’m trying to work out the “why” the change

1 safety possibly? - yet Governments approved it (for now I’ll say no)

2 furlough? Looking on gov uk site states furlough is to end of April

3 my next dose would be 19 Jan (26 Jan if you want push it) but if 3 months that will be 23 Mar (29 Mar)... am I missing something or something isn’t adding up?

As far as I read yesterday the Scottish Government is following the UK government in terms of second dose (for once I’ll defend Sturgeon here)

This is just opinion here but any thoughts welcome here! (I know there could be nothing to it but why the push for it to then backpedal?)

 

[The Ham]

Just opinion here as I’m trying to work out the “why” the change

1 safety possibly? - yet Governments approved it (for now I’ll say no)

2 furlough? Looking on gov uk site states furlough is to end of April

3 my next dose would be 19 Jan (26 Jan if you want push it) but if 3 months that will be 23 Mar (29 Mar)... am I missing something or something isn’t adding up?

As far as I read yesterday the Scottish Government is following the UK government in terms of second dose (for once I’ll defend Sturgeon here)

This is just opinion here but any thoughts welcome here! (I know there could be nothing to it but why the push for it to then backpedal?)

My suspicion is that by having only ~1 million second doses to do by the end of March/mid April that would allow more people to have had their first dose.

If that gives them a 50/50 chance of not getting it (and better than that at not going to hospital) then that could allow restrictions to be lifted so that Furlough isn't needed beyond the current end date.

In that if everywhere is tier 1 (or better) by then, then chances are government can just let businesses cope and things not be too bad for the economy. At the very least it should be possible to look at a more refined scheme, maybe looking at something where to get furlough staff have to be working part time.

 

[21C101]

The approach seems to be to give the maximumn number of people some ability to fight this off asap. Ie they are not bothered if you will still get it, providing the partial immunity means it won't kill you.

Ie turn it into no worse fatality rate than normal winter flu and get everyone back to normal pronto.

Cynical view. They know the above is largely ballcocks but it will likely together with spring coming get the death rate downn enough that people will fall for it to allow them to get everything back to normal...

.....without admitting that the whole social distancing and lockdown thing was a disaatrous error and they should never have gone beyond telling the vulnerable not to go out and the rest of us to wash hands for 20 seconds and avoid crowds.

 

[Snow1964]

So we now have some stats, nearly a million people in 3 weeks have received first jab (an average of less than 50,000 per day)

Unless something speeds up massively, at that rate will take 1000+ days for first jab to be given (1000 days is 3 years)

So basically if want everyone over 16 done by Easter (not licenced for minors or during pregnancy), then need to be doing 500,000 jabs per day

 

[bramling]

So we now have some stats, nearly a million people in 3 weeks have received first jab (an average of less than 50,000 per day)

Unless something speeds up massively, at that rate will take 1000+ days for first jab to be given (1000 days is 3 years)

So basically if want everyone over 16 done by Easter (not licenced for minors or during pregnancy), then need to be doing 500,000 jabs per day

There's still a lot of people who don't want it. Pretty much everyone I speak to - including some who have been shielding.

A relative who works in the NHS was vaccinated this week, she was pretty much forced to take it and really didn't want to. She distributed copies of her will the day before!

 

[Bantamzen]

So we now have some stats, nearly a million people in 3 weeks have received first jab (an average of less than 50,000 per day)

Unless something speeds up massively, at that rate will take 1000+ days for first jab to be given (1000 days is 3 years)

So basically if want everyone over 16 done by Easter (not licenced for minors or during pregnancy), then need to be doing 500,000 jabs per day

We don't need everyone over 16 vaccinated.

 

[Spamcan81]

There's still a lot of people who don't want it. Pretty much everyone I speak to - including some who have been shielding.

A relative who works in the NHS was vaccinated this week, she was pretty much forced to take it and really didn't want to. She distributed copies of her will the day before!

And pretty much everyone I speak to wants the vaccine. Neither of our experiences will reflect the population at whole though, merely the views of people in our social circle.

 

[The Ham]

There's still a lot of people who don't want it. Pretty much everyone I speak to - including some who have been shielding.

A relative who works in the NHS was vaccinated this week, she was pretty much forced to take it and really didn't want to. She distributed copies of her will the day before!

The probability of death from Covid-19 of you catch it is greater that 1:1,000 (if it was that high we'd be seeing case numbers start to fall off the cliff as we'd all have had it, even 1:500 would see cases start to fall without a vaccine by the end of this month, with something along the lines of 1:250 being a possibility - although all of those assume that you've caught Covid-19, and so the actual risk would likely be lower that that).

That compares with 1:250 for you to die in a road accident over your lifetime.

The risk of being significantly harmed by those vaccines which are cited as the reason that we should be careful over having vaccines are typically 1:50,000.

That isn't even the risk of death, which would be much lower than this. It also compares with the risk of dying on the roads in the next 12 months of 1:10,000.

Using the above data it would be more reasonable to distribute your will before any time you go for a long drive (especially if that's mostly avoiding motorways) than before receiving a vaccine (unless you know you are in a high risk category).

 

[kez19]

My suspicion is that by having only ~1 million second doses to do by the end of March/mid April that would allow more people to have had their first dose.

If that gives them a 50/50 chance of not getting it (and better than that at not going to hospital) then that could allow restrictions to be lifted so that Furlough isn't needed beyond the current end date.

In that if everywhere is tier 1 (or better) by then, then chances are government can just let businesses cope and things not be too bad for the economy. At the very least it should be possible to look at a more refined scheme, maybe looking at something where to get furlough staff have to be working part time.

Hopefully!, then why not have said this in the beginning as my understanding it was the push for the 2 doses within a small timeframe that’s what gets me (this was one of the reasons I was against initially)

I’m agreeing with what you say too

 

[35B]

There's still a lot of people who don't want it. Pretty much everyone I speak to - including some who have been shielding.

A relative who works in the NHS was vaccinated this week, she was pretty much forced to take it and really didn't want to. She distributed copies of her will the day before!

Andrew Wakefield and his followers/amplifiers have blood on their hands for the propaganda they’ve spread about vaccination.

 

[Dent]

So we now have some stats, nearly a million people in 3 weeks have received first jab (an average of less than 50,000 per day)

Unless something speeds up massively, at that rate will take 1000+ days for first jab to be given (1000 days is 3 years)

So basically if want everyone over 16 done by Easter (not licenced for minors or during pregnancy), then need to be doing 500,000 jabs per day

As has already been pointed out several times, the numbers so far have been limited by the availability and logistics of the Pfizer vaccine. This will all change when the Oxford vaccine is rolled out from Monday.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

As has already been pointed out several times, the numbers so far have been limited by the availability and logistics of the Pfizer vaccine. This will all change when the Oxford vaccine is rolled out from Monday.

Maybe but only 530,000 doses available from Monday and only 2m/week by start of February and don't forget every batch has to be tested by the regulator first before its released. It spoke volume on last week BoJo/JVT/Powis that neither of the medics could answer what the planed rollout was likely to be.
I just can't seem them getting anywhere near the 15m people done by easter but it won't matter anyway as good weather will be coming and long hours of daylight will suppress the virus naturally like it did last year and as it does for every respiratory virus annually. Also 1.5m people have had the virus already and at current rates it will nearly 3m by Easter so natural immunity building up as well.
The people are being duped here and when the bills need paying it will the majority of low paid people that will face the burden not those that can afford to ride this out and many of which are busily making money out of furlough and other govt support schemes.

 

[HSTEd]

It appears Tier 4 is not going to hold R sub-1.
There is not really much left to tighten, given that schools are already closed for Christmas anyway.

If R remains at 1.2, this will be over in three months.

Long term immunity is of no importance, this will be over one way or the other before it matters.

What matters is getting as many doses as possible into as many people's arms as possible now

 

[DelayRepay]

It spoke volume on last week BoJo/JVT/Powis that neither of the medics could answer what the planed rollout was likely to be.

In the early days of this pandemic, the government repeatedly made promises that could not be kept. Remember the fiasco with testing?

I think they are deliberately not sharing specific plans so that they can't be held to them. But I do believe that they will be doing everything possible to get as many doses into peoples arms. I believe the vaccine roll out is being managed by the NHS with assistance from the armed forces, which is a good thing. At least it's not been outsourced to a consultancy firm...

 

[brad465]

It appears Tier 4 is not going to hold R sub-1.
There is not really much left to tighten, given that schools are already closed for Christmas anyway.

If R remains at 1.2, this will be over in three months.

Long term immunity is of no importance, this will be over one way or the other before it matters.

What matters is getting as many doses as possible into as many people's arms as possible now

Yes this news here suggesting the new variant puts R up by as much as 0.7 suggests just about no level of restrictions can have it under control, especially as winter is probably helping that R value right now:

Covid-19: New variant 'raises R number by up to 0.7'

A study finds the new coronavirus variant is responsible for pushing the R rate above the crucial 1.0 mark.

www.bbc.co.uk

The new variant of Covid-19 is "hugely" more transmissible than the virus's previous version, a study has found.

It concludes the new variant increases the Reproduction or R number by between 0.4 and 0.7.

The UK's latest R number has been estimated at between 1.1 and 1.3. It needs to be below 1.0 for the number of cases to start falling.

Prof Axel Gandy of London's Imperial College said the differences between the viruses types was "quite extreme".

"There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

The Imperial College study suggests transmission of the new variant tripled during England's November lockdown while the previous version was reduced by a third.

Cases of Covid-19 have begun to increase rapidly during the second spike, and the number of cases recorded in a single day reached a new high on Thursday.

The only things that will control this are increased immunity in the population, both by vaccinating as many as possible and existing immunity from additional people who've recently had it, and improving weather that's known to suppress respiratory viruses.