Chris Whitty moves to head off GPs' rebellion over vaccine doses

Quite growstuff. All the ‘back to normal by the Spring’ stuff from the govt doesn’t help either. I won’t even have been offered a vaccination by the spring so there will still be a lot of community transmission - there are a lot of people behind me in the queue. We also don’t know yet how well the vaccinations work in the field so to speak.

It makes it sound as if once you have had one jab you are fully protected to resume normal life (have seen 90 year olds ‘hugging people for first time since March’ mentioned on the TV - after one jab). There needs to be much more caution. Particularly if they spread the doses out - you really, really want to stop transmission from partially immunised people - and not just to protect themselves but to protect against spread of any vaccine resistant mutations.

FarNorth

lemongrove

It seems to be a case of scientists/virologists not quite agreeing with each other, political ‘need’ wanting as many people to have some protection as possible and any other reason you can think of.
The main thing though, is that our ‘jabs’ are on the way.

Effective or not, why worry? As long as we get some sort of 'jab'.

Are you being sarcastic?

Nezumi65

It’s a bit terrifying in places Rosie! It may be fine, it’s just increasing the risk.

I think also they should be louder on the advice that people should still be cautious after vaccination - we really don’t want lots of mixing until community transmission is much lower - especially after just one dose. I have heard it but really don’t think that message has been clear enough.

I agree. I really fear that people will throw all caution to the wind. 50% - 70% (whatever it is) still means that people have quite a high chance of becoming infected, if they're in a high infection area (which most are) and don't take precautions.

I sometimes think of it like accidental pregnancy.

Gwyneth

So GPs are being paid an additional £10 per vaccination. I thought that vaccination services were part of the services provided by primary health care trusts. As far as I’m aware GP surgeries are paid per patient whether or not the patient receives any treatment. As many GP surgeries have provided a very limited service during the pandemic unlike their hospital colleagues working non stop on the frontline I really find this unacceptable.

I find your comment unacceptable, untrue and really quite depressing, in that it shows that you don't have a clue what GPs have been doing.

lemongrove

It seems to be a case of scientists/virologists not quite agreeing with each other, political ‘need’ wanting as many people to have some protection as possible and any other reason you can think of.
The main thing though, is that our ‘jabs’ are on the way.

Effective or not, why worry? As long as we get some sort of 'jab'.

I think the fact that GPs have been providing a limited service does not mean to say that they are sitting about twiddling their thumbs. They are trying very hard to get medical care to those who need it via phone consultations and video links. The face-to-face consultations are few and far between and take a long time to book because they are having to observe covid restrictions and precautions, which means cleaning rooms between patients - all bound to take up time.

But I have had two face-to-face during the pandemic nd was grateful that these people continue to put themselves at risk for our sakes.

Gwyneth GP practices are paid a fixed rate per patient, but many of the other additional services they provide are on an enhanced service funded basis, which they can opt to do or not. Normal annual flu jabs are one of the enhanced services they are paid to do, so the proposals for the Covid vaccination are being offered in the same way.

So GPs are being paid an additional £10 per vaccination. I thought that vaccination services were part of the services provided by primary health care trusts. As far as I’m aware GP surgeries are paid per patient whether or not the patient receives any treatment. As many GP surgeries have provided a very limited service during the pandemic unlike their hospital colleagues working non stop on the frontline I really find this unacceptable.

It’s a bit terrifying in places Rosie! It may be fine, it’s just increasing the risk.

I think also they should be louder on the advice that people should still be cautious after vaccination - we really don’t want lots of mixing until community transmission is much lower - especially after just one dose. I have heard it but really don’t think that message has been clear enough.

I'll take a look at that thread Nezumi65 thank you.

Thanks for that MaizieD, that is mostly in agreement with what Dr John Campbell was saying. I do feel more reassured about the Pfizer vaccine now, although I'm far more likely to be vaccinated when it will be predominately the AstraZenica.

Rosie15 - I have a background in evolutionary biology (although not viral) & whilst I wouldn’t necessarily go so far as to say that it encourages vaccine resistance (mutation is random) potentially allowing more transmission to take place does increase the risk.

For a brief Twitter thread that explains the issue succinctly see here. This chap is a a research scientist in viral evolution. twitter.com/paulbieniasz/status/1344277738576900097?s=21

They may get away with it - you need a series of random events to occur for vaccine resistance to evolve but I agree with him that we will be watching experiments in viral evolution. All his comments are worth reading.

longer, not 'loner'

If it's of any help or interest to posters, I've been given a link to the 'Short statement from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI)' 31st December.

It was from someone who was trying to allay fears about the efficacy of a loner dosage interval.

I'm not sure I'm yet convinced...

app.box.com/s/uwwn2dv4o2d0ena726gf4403f3p2acnu

biba70

What is happening in the UK has massive implications and risks, way beyond the UK.

Pfizer specifically say that their vaccine against Covid19 must be taken in two separate doses 21 days apart. Only one dose and its ineffectual, any longer than 3 weeks and its ineffective.
UK Government planning a 12 week delay between doses for some ridiculous reason (maybe they can't get enough doses into the country?).
Not only will this political choice make those vaccinations ineffective according to the vaccine manufacturer, it will also make the vaccine unlicensed.
And yet it gets even worse than that. There are warnings that if a person has a single dose or a second dose 3 months later this process actually ENCOURAGES the Covid19 virus to adapt and work up immunity to the vaccine and then this mutation can then travel the world infecting other countries where they are vaccinating properly with a new mutation created in the UK that is immune to the vaccine.
The UK Government are simply a danger to the world and totally irresponsible. Someone needs to stop them. But WHO?

Biba70 can you please link to your evidence that a single dose or a second dose 3 months later encourages this mutation to a virus immune to the vaccine? I'm not in agreement with the delay for the Pfizer vaccine, but the AstraZenica one should be fine with a longer gap between doses, although I'd prefer 5-6 weeks.

Bit ironic that you capitalised your final who, as the WHO failed the world miserably at the start of this pandemic.

Pfizer is not willing to say "That could work, in a limited way" or anything resembling that - so clearly it's more appalling bungling from government.

If they have no data for efficacy after 21 days then they would be utterly and recklessly foolhardy to give any opinion at all on prolonging the dosage interval.

I absolutely agree with grannyactivist. I won't have the vaccine unless it is proven that the extended interval doesn't affect its efficacy.

I am so sorry for all of the UK having to live through this terrible, scaring time with utter incompetents running the country.

Very disappointing if vaccine fails in efficacy as a result. Let’s hope this uncontrolled trial works.

And that we don't end up with almost no-one being protected.

Pfizer is not willing to say "That could work, in a limited way" or anything resembling that - so clearly it's more appalling bungling from government.

There seem to be two threads on this topic

The ethics of it is shocking. You can’t just force people from an agreed prophylactic treatment into a trial without asking for their consent.

Exactly my point Greeneyedgirl

There are medical ethics at play here too. Giving consent for the first vaccine was on the understanding that the second would be given at the recommended time as far as I can understand.

I wonder if they will be checking for antibody response 4 weeks after the first injection if another not given? Very disappointing if vaccine fails in efficacy as a result. Let’s hope this uncontrolled trial works.

Grannyactivist I agree with your views, and those of us who have already had the first Pfizer jab are now taking part in an experiment without giving our permission. Obviously, one wants as many people as possible to have cover , and WAS grateful for receiving it,but I don’t want this stuff in my body if it is not doing any good.I signed up to what was approved by the powers that be.

I am on the PPG of the local surgery and our GPS are defying the government and giving the second dose, as planned, to people who have already had the first.

I am very much in favour of either vaccine, but I have no intention of having the Pfizer vaccine unless I know it WON’T be a case of mix and match with the Oxford one. I also want to see the evidence that a 12 week gap between doses is efficacious. I won’t take part in an experiment.

growstuff

www.ft.com/content/d97c72c5-ed23-4c2b-bf1c-9cc10b21f007

Pfizer is saying the “safety and efficacy” of the new schedule had not been evaluated and, while partial protection through the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first jab, Pfizer stressed in a statement on Thursday that two doses were required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, with an efficacy figure of 95 per cent.

Crucially, it said: “There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”

I hope to goodness the last statement doesn't prove to be true because people will have had the first dose for nothing.

This. Thank you everyone for a great thread. I thought I was on my own with my concerns. I should have dropped by sooner.

Wasn’t it Tony Blair who suggested the strategy for lleaving .the second dose til later?