What is fair? Covid - sudden change of policy!

As a scientist who worked in immunology am incensed that the government is going against the advice of Pfizer on this matter. Three weeks sounds good to me. The AZ/Oxford one is different and twelve weeks is fine for that. It all depends on how they are formulated. I think the government is playing with peoples lives.

You might call me selfish but I was glad when I heard the change of plan in order to give more vulnerable people a first dose sooner. I am really hoping DH gets his soon.

I have heard scientists working on the vaccine say that the longer gap between the two doses is likely to have greater efficacy. You can bet your bottom dollar that they are not going to waste money giving the first dose if leaving the second one too long negates the affect of the first.

PamelaJ1

I got the impression that the longer gap was for the Astra Zeneca vaccine.
I am prepared to be wrong, I often am.

I don't know how true it is, but I have read that some people awaiting their second Pfizer vaccine have already had their appointments cancelled.

Tweedle24 that was my thinking too.
My opinion is that NHS staff and the teaching profession should have been the priority.
I also tend to think that any one who has to leave home to work should be next. They have no choice and will have mortgages and families to look after.
It is far easier (in general )for those who are retired to stay safe at home, however much we don’t like it.

I'm not quite sure why older people in care homes should get the vaccine first. Surely their carers should have it first, as well as those in the NHS and teachers I also think that police and other people who come into contact with the public should be near the top of the list. I'm quite content to stay at home save for our weekly visit to the supermarket.

I agree with you tweedle and ginny.

Dinahmo our surgery, earlier this week put a fb shout out for anyone in a caring role to email in with their information for the vaccine. So, I assume they are getting ready.

I agree that as many as possible should be vaccinated as quick as possible, in view of the very infectious mutant strain, so yes I agree with the change of policy.

Dinahmo

I'm not quite sure why older people in care homes should get the vaccine first. Surely their carers should have it first, as well as those in the NHS and teachers I also think that police and other people who come into contact with the public should be near the top of the list. I'm quite content to stay at home save for our weekly visit to the supermarket.

Because the care home residents are the ones at highest risk of dying.

The rationale has all been quite clearly and logically explained. The aim is to save lives, so it makes sense to give priority to those who are most likely to die.

The priority groups include nearly all the people who are most likely to die from Covid-19. There are about 20 million of them.

If the vaccine were to be given to younger people without underlying risk it would mean that people more likely to die wouldn't be vaccinated.

ginny

Tweedle24 that was my thinking too.
My opinion is that NHS staff and the teaching profession should have been the priority.
I also tend to think that any one who has to leave home to work should be next. They have no choice and will have mortgages and families to look after.
It is far easier (in general )for those who are retired to stay safe at home, however much we don’t like it.

So write to your MP. The decision was made by independent scientists based on statistics and risk factors. It's a scientific, not a political decision.

Quite simply, if you want to save lives, you need to vaccinate the people most likely to die.

garnet25

As a scientist who worked in immunology am incensed that the government is going against the advice of Pfizer on this matter. Three weeks sounds good to me. The AZ/Oxford one is different and twelve weeks is fine for that. It all depends on how they are formulated. I think the government is playing with peoples lives.

So do I.

One dose will probably offer some protection, so the death figures will reduce and the government will pat itself on the back, but that's no consolation to the people who thought they would have massively reduced risk.

BigBertha1

You might call me selfish but I was glad when I heard the change of plan in order to give more vulnerable people a first dose sooner. I am really hoping DH gets his soon.

Even though it possibly won't give him much protection and he's going to have to carry on shielding, social distancing and wearing a mask, etc. as before?

one of the problems is that many careworkers will refuse to have the vaccine. they have already said so.
around here 90 % of them are from African or Asian heritage, with some eastern europeans, and those are the groups most likely to refuse the vaccine.
so care home residents and people needing domiciliary care really need the vaccine.

Despite vaccinations, part or otherwise, I think we’ll have to keep to social distancing, masks and minimum contact with others for a long time yet. I will anyway.

I am sure you are disappointed but I think the decision is correct.

Getting more people vaccinated more quickly is the way out of this, and as it’s been said that the majority of protection comes from the first jab, then the decision to delay the second jab to speed things up is very sensible.

I will just be grateful and relieved to have my first when my turn comes and if I have to wait three months for the second, so be it.

But no, don’t let’s have that attitude.
Lets use it as another petty excuse to hammer the government and scientists who are doing their best to get us out of this mess.

JenniferEccles

I am sure you are disappointed but I think the decision is correct.

Getting more people vaccinated more quickly is the way out of this, and as it’s been said that the majority of protection comes from the first jab, then the decision to delay the second jab to speed things up is very sensible.

I will just be grateful and relieved to have my first when my turn comes and if I have to wait three months for the second, so be it.

But no, don’t let’s have that attitude.
Lets use it as another petty excuse to hammer the government and scientists who are doing their best to get us out of this mess.

Interesting opinion.

Can you tell me your opinion about the Pfizer statement that the initial injection only provides immunity for 3 weeks, and they cannot agree with what the U.K. government is doing. In fact I think it will invalidate the injection.

What would you recommend that someone does who has received the first Pfizer jab but not the second. And do you think that leaving such a big gab will compromise the second pfizer says?

The Oxford injection does not have the same issue.

I can see a whole new mess up happening here. If as Pfizer say the initial injection only provides immunity for 3 weeks ( and they should be the experts), then we will have wasted that first jab if we don't do it after 3 weeks and leave it 3 months. Surely people will the still need to have a booster after the 2nd. If you get my drift.
I hold no hope in this government getting it right with their past record.

Barmeyoldbat

I can see a whole new mess up happening here. If as Pfizer say the initial injection only provides immunity for 3 weeks ( and they should be the experts), then we will have wasted that first jab if we don't do it after 3 weeks and leave it 3 months. Surely people will the still need to have a booster after the 2nd. If you get my drift.
I hold no hope in this government getting it right with their past record.

Exactly

growstuff

BigBertha1

You might call me selfish but I was glad when I heard the change of plan in order to give more vulnerable people a first dose sooner. I am really hoping DH gets his soon.

Even though it possibly won't give him much protection and he's going to have to carry on shielding, social distancing and wearing a mask, etc. as before?

Yes, we shall have to carry on social distancing and wearing masks for some time. There is no definite evidence yet that the vaccine stops transmission. It only protects the vaccinated person,
The point of vaccinating as many people as possible, beyond the immediate benefit of saving lives, is to give the virus nowhere to go so it would mostly disappear. This would happen naturally eventually, but, at the cost of many more lives. Previous pandemics took up to 50% of populations. That is what the vaccine is hoping to avoid,

I can see what you are saying Tweedle24. When I get called for the vaccine I will continue to self isolate as without the second one it’s efficacy is questionable. In that case my vaccine slot may as well be given as a second shot to someone who has already had the first.

I am trying not to think about the vaccine.

but suspect that the change in giving the vaccine is more because we don`t have the facilities to give them out quick enough, rather than not have enough vaccine..

as I said, I am trying not to think about it all.

I’m concerned that the NHS will not be able to get enough of the Pfizer jab to give everyone the second one in 12 weeks. Supply chains have a habit of breaking!!

Another problem is that we dont know how long immunity will last after we have had our 2 shots. Could be 3 months, could be a year. Having had your 2 doses you may be tempted to take a holiday after 6 months. But without knowing it your immunity may only last 6 months and you may get ill in a distant foreign land. Its still all trial and error.
Happy New Year all.

polnan

I am trying not to think about the vaccine.

but suspect that the change in giving the vaccine is more because we don`t have the facilities to give them out quick enough, rather than not have enough vaccine..

as I said, I am trying not to think about it all.

I agree here with polnan. A lot of the difficulties surrounding the first vaccine have been centered around logistics. For one reason or another it has been a painfully slow and difficult process. Maybe it is now time to get first jabs quickly out there amongst those who are more mobile and who can show up for appointments within an hour or two.