Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Another drop? We've only just come out of the last drop, which was supposed to be only two weeks but vaccinations were actually slow for about a month. There was supposed to be a massive increase after the last drop, which has not materialised.
A look at progress made in vaccinating the country, as more than 52 million people have received at least one dose and 38 million have had a booster or third dose.
www.bbc.co.uk
Last week, the UK's vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi told MPs that although supply had been "finite" until now, the country would see a "big uplift" in available doses in the second half of March - amounting to tens of millions of jabs.
Local health organisations in England have been told to expect a reduced vaccine supply in April.
www.bbc.co.uk
The NHS has written to local health organisations warning of a "significant reduction in weekly supply" of coronavirus vaccines from the week beginning 29 March for a month.
I'm told the problem is fewer Astra Zeneca vaccines are available than expected. There have been some other letters to health trusts about managing supply which has been 'lumpy' but this is more significant than previous bumps and lumps
Meanwhile, certain countries in mainland Europe have millions of doses which they are refusing to allow to be used within their own countries while also refusing to export them. Madness!
I am worried about what will happen re. second doses, as they seem to be totally focussed on first doses. Those who had their first dose appointment via their GP weren't given a second date, just told to wait until we're contacted. I wonder if longer than 12 weeks will make it not so effective, given that it was originally meant to be three weeks.
I am worried about what will happen re. second doses, as they seem to be totally focussed on first doses. Those who had their first dose appointment via their GP weren't given a second date, just told to wait until we're contacted. I wonder if longer than 12 weeks will make it not so effective, given that it was originally meant to be three weeks.
I have no qualms about second doses. With this rumoured shortage some additional prioritization will inevitably occur to ensure second doses are supplied on or a bit before the end of the recommended interval. Doses have been kept back for some time to keep the double dose train running.
It was originally only the Pfizer vaccine that was on a 3 week basis - AZ was (for the briefest moment) 4 weeks, but it has since transpired that a longer interval makes the AZ even more effective
Shortest possible time to complete trials whilst having a credible gap between them for side effects to pass and the body to have gone out of 'fight mode' for the first infection, would be my guess
I have no qualms about second doses. With this rumoured shortage some additional prioritization will inevitably occur to ensure second doses are supplied on or a bit before the end of the recommended interval. Doses have been kept back for some time to keep the double dose train running.
What also has to be considered is that if it's a 4 week downturn in supply from the 29th of March, that means that it is "only" second doses due for people who had their vaccines before February 2nd - around 10m, of which we have already given almost 2m (and several tens of thousand will have died, given the age profiles). It includes our most successful week of jabbing so far, but also includes everything from Christmas to that point, so comes at a relatively fortuitous time
Meanwhile, certain countries in mainland Europe have millions of doses which they are refusing to allow to be used within their own countries while also refusing to export them. Madness!
Meanwhile, certain countries in mainland Europe have millions of doses which they are refusing to allow to be used within their own countries while also refusing to export them. Madness!
There are plenty of other EU countries they should go to first before they get shipped out of the block to a country that is preventing* AZ vaccines being exported from it's own prroduction facilities.
*Politicians and their supporters will claim that there is no vaccine export ban. But according to the AZ CEO the contract between them and the UK government is rather more prescriptive of which countries residents, will end up with said shots in their arms.
Whilst the 0EU is still allowing Export of Pfizer and Moderna to the UK (albeit just), on the grounds that those two manufacturers are supplying their contracted amounts (or close to) into the EU. There is not a chance the UK will be recieving any EU manufactured AZ, in the foreseable future.
Whilst the 0EU is still allowing Export of Pfizer and Moderna to the UK (albeit just), on the grounds that those two manufacturers are supplying their contracted amounts (or close to) into the EU. There is not a chance the UK will be recieving any EU manufactured AZ, in the foreseable future.
Yes many EU countries appear not to want the AZ vaccines.
In a parallel universe, diplomats would come up with a solution which may involve the UK receiving AZ supplies from within the EU, and in return allowing the EU access to some of the doses that Pfizer and/or Moderna are contractually obliged to supply to the UK. We would just need to retain sufficient Pfizer supplies to give second doses to people who've already had it as their first. That would benefit the UK because the AZ vaccine is cheaper and simpler. It would benefit the EU because they would get supplies of a vaccine that they want, instead of one that it seems many EU countries do not want. It would benefit the continent of Europe (including the UK) as a whole, as more vaccine would be in peoples arms and not in fridges or warehouses.
This won't happen because it's more convenient politically for the EU/UK to have a massive row.
I suppose it's typical that everything slows down just before I'm due to have one.
Whilst I sympathise with the Government for the slowdown in vaccine availability which is outside of their control, if they respond to that slowdown by delaying the end of lockdown, I will not be in a forgiving mood.
I suppose it's typical that everything slows down just before I'm due to have one.
Whilst I sympathise with the Government for the slowdown in vaccine availability which is outside of their control, if they respond to that slowdown by delaying the end of lockdown, I will not be in a forgiving mood.
I think there was an element of uncertainty built into the roadmap, which is why people have been calling for dates to be brought forwards. That looks less likely now but hopefully there was enough 'recovery time' built into the plans, that dates won't need to go the other way.
I think there was an element of uncertainty built into the roadmap, which is why people have been calling for dates to be brought forwards. That looks less likely now but hopefully there was enough 'recovery time' built into the plans, that dates won't need to go the other way.
Logically, I think we should be ok. The vaccines given to date should be sufficient to keep hospital admissions low, and deaths low. Although we do not know how low the government think these numbers ought to be.
But I think we probably have enough protection of vulnerable groups already to be reasonably safe. And the programme isn't stopping, just suffering a short setback. And on the positive side, they are making sure the limited supplies continue to go to the groups where they will have the biggest impact on hospital admissions and deaths.
But I do recognise that the Prime Minister will come under pressure from the 'zero covid' advocates to delay relaxations. I hope he can hold his nerve but I do sympathise (even though I cannot stand him). This morning the newspapers are reporting that if the current lockdown measures had been implemented in December, 27,000 deaths might have been avoided. Whatever you think of lockdown measures, reports like that must be weighing on the Prime Minister's mind. If I'd made a decision that was claimed to have resulted in 27,000 deaths I would not be able to sleep at night, even if I thought I'd made the right decision at the time.
Yes many EU countries appear not to want the AZ vaccines.
In a parallel universe, diplomats would come up with a solution which may involve the UK receiving AZ supplies from within the EU, and in return allowing the EU access to some of the doses that Pfizer and/or Moderna are contractually obliged to supply to the UK. We would just need to retain sufficient Pfizer supplies to give second doses to people who've already had it as their first. That would benefit the UK because the AZ vaccine is cheaper and simpler. It would benefit the EU because they would get supplies of a vaccine that they want, instead of one that it seems many EU countries do not want. It would benefit the continent of Europe (including the UK) as a whole, as more vaccine would be in peoples arms and not in fridges or warehouses.
This won't happen because it's more convenient politically for the EU/UK to have a massive row.
So...UK more than happy as are other Countries to carry on with the AZ vaccine, Mainland EU have stopped using the AZ as they say it's 'not safe', yet they are blocking unused / unwanted vaccines to the UK (and elsewhere) !
or have I got that wrong ?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Logically, I think we should be ok. The vaccines given to date should be sufficient to keep hospital admissions low, and deaths low. Although we do not know how low the government think these numbers ought to be.
But I think we probably have enough protection of vulnerable groups already to be reasonably safe. And the programme isn't stopping, just suffering a short setback. And on the positive side, they are making sure the limited supplies continue to go to the groups where they will have the biggest impact on hospital admissions and deaths.
But I do recognise that the Prime Minister will come under pressure from the 'zero covid' advocates to delay relaxations. I hope he can hold his nerve but I do sympathise (even though I cannot stand him). This morning the newspapers are reporting that if the current lockdown measures had been implemented in December, 27,000 deaths might have been avoided. Whatever you think of lockdown measures, reports like that must be weighing on the Prime Minister's mind. If I'd made a decision that was claimed to have resulted in 27,000 deaths I would not be able to sleep at night, even if I thought I'd made the right decision at the time.
Given that the 'actual' outcomes of decisions have not been in line with the modelled outcomes of those decisions, you are right that assigning numbers to alternative decisions is just conjecture. The 27,000 could be too high, too low, or those deaths might have happened anyway but a few months later.
I think my point was more that reports like this must weigh on the PM's mind when he's deciding what to do. Whatever he decides, there will be bad outcomes (more deaths, or more job losses). Perhaps I am too kind but even though I think many of the decisions were wrong, I am glad I am not the person who had to make them.
Given that the 'actual' outcomes of decisions have not been in line with the modelled outcomes of those decisions, you are right that assigning numbers to alternative decisions is just conjecture. The 27,000 could be too high, too low, or those deaths might have happened anyway but a few months later.
I think my point was more that reports like this must weigh on the PM's mind when he's deciding what to do. Whatever he decides, there will be bad outcomes (more deaths, or more job losses). Perhaps I am too kind but even though I think many of the decisions were wrong, I am glad I am not the person who had to make them.
Yes, he, well they are on a hiding to nothing, damned if they do, damned if they don't. one thing they did get right were the vaccine orders, unlike many Countries, who are now feeling the pinch.
Logically, I think we should be ok. The vaccines given to date should be sufficient to keep hospital admissions low, and deaths low. Although we do not know how low the government think these numbers ought to be.
But I think we probably have enough protection of vulnerable groups already to be reasonably safe. And the programme isn't stopping, just suffering a short setback. And on the positive side, they are making sure the limited supplies continue to go to the groups where they will have the biggest impact on hospital admissions and deaths.
But I do recognise that the Prime Minister will come under pressure from the 'zero covid' advocates to delay relaxations. I hope he can hold his nerve but I do sympathise (even though I cannot stand him). This morning the newspapers are reporting that if the current lockdown measures had been implemented in December, 27,000 deaths might have been avoided. Whatever you think of lockdown measures, reports like that must be weighing on the Prime Minister's mind. If I'd made a decision that was claimed to have resulted in 27,000 deaths I would not be able to sleep at night, even if I thought I'd made the right decision at the time.
I think that when reports make those sorts of claims, it's up to them differentiate out of lockdown, exactly which measures make what difference. otherwise I'm inclined to suspect them of trying to shield from attention the measures which might make a difference, but which they don't want to highlight.
So...UK more than happy as are other Countries to carry on with the AZ vaccine, Mainland EU have stopped using the AZ as they say it's 'not safe', yet they are blocking unused / unwanted vaccines to the UK (and elsewhere) !
or have I got that wrong ?
You have that wrong on every point. Some countries in 'mainland' Europe have temporarily suspended the use of AZ. There are plenty of countries who are continuing to vaccinate with the AZ vaccine, and even those who have temporarily paused the rollout are likely to restart tomorrow after the EMA report is published later today.
There are no unwanted vaccines in the EU, plenty of people want them, plenty of governments want to offer them. Just because you hear through the British news filter that some countries have paused the rollout, by no means makes that universal.
The EU approved the blockage of 1 shipment of AZ vaccine to Australia at the request of the Italian government. That is 1 blockage out of a total of 300 vaccine export requests in the last 6 weeks. Meanwhile in the UK, no AZ vaccine can be shipped outside the country due to 'contractual obligations' imposed on the supplier (an export ban in all but name).
I am worried about what will happen re. second doses, as they seem to be totally focussed on first doses. Those who had their first dose appointment via their GP weren't given a second date, just told to wait until we're contacted. I wonder if longer than 12 weeks will make it not so effective, given that it was originally meant to be three weeks.
I'm a bit concerned about that as well especially having the Pfizer and the EU antics. Interestingly I have a relative in the 90 plus group who was called up yesterday to get the second Pfizer jab today which is I think about 2 and half weeks before she was due for the second one.
I'm a bit concerned about that as well especially having the Pfizer and the EU antics. Interestingly I have a relative in the 90 plus group who was called up yesterday to get the second Pfizer jab today which is I think about 2 and half weeks before she was due for the second one.
They're slowing down new first appointments while they still have vaccine in reserve for second jabs. It makes a lot of sense to go full tilt and get some of the second jabs done early in that case - you aren't risking anything and you have the teams there anyway. Best case the delay turns out to only be a week, and you're ready to start hammering through first jabs again with no time lost. Worst case you are able to give the vaccine teams a few actual days off, rather than having them sit around doing nothing half the time
Does it really need asking? They announce any uplift they can to get the credit for it, and hope that projected downturns don't then actually follow. If, as in this case, the downturn does follow then they take the hit but on balance they're reckoning that the overall boost from the initial announcements is still worth it.
I am worried about what will happen re. second doses, as they seem to be totally focussed on first doses. Those who had their first dose appointment via their GP weren't given a second date, just told to wait until we're contacted. I wonder if longer than 12 weeks will make it not so effective, given that it was originally meant to be three weeks.
This has been discussed elsewhere, so at the risk of repeating myself:
There is no evidence that immunity will wane after 12 weeks; indeed it takes time for our immune response to fully develop.
The only reason it was "meant to be three weeks" is because three weeks is the absolute minimum for a booster to be effective and we did not want to delay the trials! Many boosters are done many months after the initial shot, not just a few weeks. In general a longer period between booster doses (up to a point) is more effective than a shorter gap.
The main purpose of a booster is for longer term immunity, as well as making your immune system realise that this is not a one-off threat and to ensure the threat is remembered long term.
Our memory B & T cells have a long lasting memory; people who go on about "antibodies waning" generally don't really know what they are talking about. I've listened to numerous podcasts with various experts, including virologists among others, and they all agree a longer gap is likely to be more effective than a shorter gap, and there really isn't anything to worry about if the gap is longer than 12 weeks.
I hope this sets your mind at rest.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm a bit concerned about that as well especially having the Pfizer and the EU antics. Interestingly I have a relative in the 90 plus group who was called up yesterday to get the second Pfizer jab today which is I think about 2 and half weeks before she was due for the second one.
There is nothing to be concerned about; there is not going to be any reduction in longer term immunity by waiting an extra couple of weeks. It probably won't make any difference, but if there is a difference, there is a greater chance of having better results, than worse results, by waiting a little longer.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So...UK more than happy as are other Countries to carry on with the AZ vaccine, Mainland EU have stopped using the AZ as they say it's 'not safe', yet they are blocking unused / unwanted vaccines to the UK (and elsewhere) !
or have I got that wrong ?
My understanding is that this is correct in terms of some countries (not the whole EU though!) pausing the AZ vaccine, while there are threats to block vaccines arriving in the UK (but this is not happening yet, and hopefully won't ever happen).
Some countries appear to be playing a ridiculous political game with vaccines, which is unacceptable in my opinion.
They're slowing down new first appointments while they still have vaccine in reserve for second jabs. It makes a lot of sense to go full tilt and get some of the second jabs done early in that case - you aren't risking anything and you have the teams there anyway. Best case the delay turns out to only be a week, and you're ready to start hammering through first jabs again with no time lost. Worst case you are able to give the vaccine teams a few actual days off, rather than having them sit around doing nothing half the time
Agreed but Hancock would have been much wiser to have put a marker down over this but he had to kick off with political point scoring and as a result the media are now all over this and turning into something it didn't need to be to undermine the success of what they have achieved. What happened to honesty and transparency.
You have that wrong on every point. Some countries in 'mainland' Europe have temporarily suspended the use of AZ. There are plenty of countries who are continuing to vaccinate with the AZ vaccine, and even those who have temporarily paused the rollout are likely to restart tomorrow after the EMA report is published later today.
There are no unwanted vaccines in the EU, plenty of people want them, plenty of governments want to offer them. Just because you hear through the British news filter that some countries have paused the rollout, by no means makes that universal.
The EU approved the blockage of 1 shipment of AZ vaccine to Australia at the request of the Italian government. That is 1 blockage out of a total of 300 vaccine export requests in the last 6 weeks. Meanwhile in the UK, no AZ vaccine can be shipped outside the country due to 'contractual obligations' imposed on the supplier (an export ban in all but name).
It's 18 Countries 'suspended' use of the AZ. ( 3 non-EU) My Sister in Law lives in France in her 60's, she cannot get a jab for love nor money, even a few weeks ago she said there were over 1.5 million doses in the Country, and they had used 250K, but was still not able to get a vaccine, due to 'safety issues'
There is nothing to be concerned about; there is not going to be any reduction in longer term immunity by waiting an extra couple of weeks. It probably won't make any difference, but if there is a difference, there is a greater chance of having better results, than worse results, by waiting a little longer.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
For the majority that maybe true but I have already seen comments from some Doctors that for some cancer patients and people with poor immune systems like myself that the second jab should really be less than 12 weeks because the response from the 1st jab wont be as good so certainly I don't really want it to be longer than 12 weeks.
I do not believe the vaccine is causing blood clotting, but hypothetically, if it was, the risk of not taking the vaccine for 'safety reasons' would be far greater than the risk of not taking it.
For the majority that maybe true but I have already seen comments from some Doctors that for some cancer patients and people with poor immune systems like myself that the second jab should really be less than 12 weeks because the response from the 1st jab wont be as good so certainly I don't really want it to be longer than 12 weeks.
If you are particularly worried about the short term, you can choose to stay at home until you have had the second jab.
But it is important to bear in mind you still have an extremely high level of protection against severe disease with just one jab; the booster jab is more to reduce your chances of mild symptoms and to provide long-lasting immunity.
My Sister in Law lives in France in her 60's, she cannot get a jab for love nor money, even a few weeks ago she said there were over 1.5 million doses in the Country, and they had used 250K, but was still not able to get a vaccine, due to 'safety issues'
Which is fundamentally untrue. AZ vaccination is still going on in many countries, and two of the ones who have temporarily paused it's use are not on the mainland (Ireland and Iceland).
Do not judge all the countries in the EU and EEA based upon a small amount of knowledge of what is going on in France and/or Germany.
That maybe true, I cannot possibly comment as I don't live there. However your claim was:
Which is fundamentally untrue. AZ vaccination is still going on in many countries, and two of the ones who have temporarily paused it's use are not on the mainland (Ireland and Iceland).
Do not judge all the countries in the EU and EEA based upon a small amount of knowledge of what is going on in France and/or Germany.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.bbc.co.uk
