Joan Bakewell vaccine legal challenge

for everybody.

No, not for everybody
For the elderly

At the expense of key workers getting at least one vaccine to give them some level of protection.

Goodness, so many nasty people on this thread.

Actually, I think there are a lot of decent people in this country who are prepared to isolate for longer in order to give medical staff, key workers, etc who are likely to encounter the virus a better chance of survival by having the vaccine before them.

I posted this last week. JB can make all the legal challenges she likes but if this slows down the rollout I will not be a happy bunny. The idea that Pfizer "designed" it for a 3 week gap is not correct.

From last week:
None of us were at the MHRA meeting so we can’t know what was said. But what do we know? We know that after 21 days the effectiveness of the Pfizer one is 89%. Not 52% as is often bandied about, because 52% is the average over the first 21 days, because immune response takes some time to happen. Although 52% would still be very good. After 21 days, immune response does not fall off a cliff, at least it doesn’t with immunity in any other situation, so its reasonable to assume the same is true here. Its reasonable to assume that the immunity given by the Pfizer vaccines works the same as immunity from any other source.
On balance of risks, with hundreds of people dying every day and tens of thousands contracting COVID, the MHRA have decided that the risk of a small reduction in immunity, and the risk of vaccine resistant mutations, are outweighed by the risk that thousands of people will die and our NHS will collapse. Its worth noting that is always the MHRA who decide on how a drug will be used, not the manufacturer. (Based on the manufacturer's trials, of course)

We don’t have the luxury of waiting until months of research are in to show us about the interval, and we don’t have the luxury of rolling out the vaccine slower that we could.

It will benefit everyone to know how long they're likely to be covered for once they're vaccinated; be they young, old, or whatever.

Callistemon

^for everybody.^

No, not for everybody
For the elderly

At the expense of key workers getting at least one vaccine to give them some level of protection.

Goodness, so many nasty people on this thread.

Actually, I think there are a lot of decent people in this country who are prepared to isolate for longer in order to give medical staff, key workers, etc who are likely to encounter the virus a better chance of survival by having the vaccine before them.

I agree

Will anyone be given the option to isolate longer and donate "their" vaccine, then?

Is it better for a greater proportion of the population to receive some protection or for a minority of the population (who are in fact able to self-isolate as they are not working) to receive two doses?

What’s the evidence for changing the schedule?
There isn’t much for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, as trials did not compare different dose spacing or compare one with two doses. The trials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine did include different spacing between doses, finding that a longer gap (two to three months) led to a greater immune response, but the overall participant numbers were small. In the UK study 59% (1407 of 2377) of the participants who had two standard doses received the second dose between nine and 12 weeks after the first. In the Brazil study only 18.6% (384 of 2063) received a second dose between nine and 12 weeks after the first.3 The combined trial results, published in the Lancet,4 found that vaccine efficacy 14 days after a second dose was higher in the group that had more than six weeks between the doses (53.4%).
www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18

Oldwoman70

There was an immunologist on local TV the other night who said research had shown giving the second dose later improves the level of protection.

There is no evidence for that assertion. Pfizer expect a 3week gap. Oxford has said that a longer gap is not significant but has no evidence Modena I think are saying 28 days.

Now, the point is that there may be evidence eventually to support a longer delay, and that would help enormously.

But equally there might be evidence that eventually shows that the short gap must be maintained for optimum effectiveness.

Biologists can speculate, and indeed some have done so, that a longer gap is not detrimental. I always bow to greater knowledge, but I expect that knowledge to have the backing of evidence and I feel very uncomfortable that it isn’t there.

Joan Bakewell is asking that the decision to operate outside of the vaccine producers parameters is backed up with evidence.

Not a lot to ask is it?

There is no evidence for that assertion.

You didn't look at my link, then.
There have not been extensive trials but there is some proof that a longer gap improves the level of protection.

The trials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine did include different spacing between doses, finding that a longer gap (two to three months) led to a greater immune response, but the overall participant numbers were small.
The combined trial results, published in the Lancet,4 found that vaccine efficacy 14 days after a second dose was higher in the group that had more than six weeks between the doses (53.4%).

* Whitewave* Here Here

Oldwoman70

There was an immunologist on local TV the other night who said research had shown giving the second dose later improves the level of protection.

I think an immunologist might know what he or she is talking about*Oldwoman70*.

Callistemon

^There is no evidence for that assertion.^

You didn't look at my link, then.
There have not been extensive trials but there is some proof that a longer gap improves the level of protection.

The trials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine did include different spacing between doses, finding that a longer gap (two to three months) led to a greater immune response, but the overall participant numbers were small.
^The combined trial results, published in the Lancet,4 found that vaccine efficacy 14 days after a second dose was higher in the group that had more than six weeks between the doses (53.4%).^

I said that Oxford has shown a gap is ok.

Conjecture -v- science

I said that Oxford has shown a gap is ok

and could well be preferable.

I think they should have given the first people who were vaccinated the second jab, then after the announcement people would at least be knowing what they signed up for. I know of some who could have had the Pfizer jab but preferred to wait for the Oxford one which has at least done trials on the gap. Having said that Personally I would still probably have have had the first one and taken the risk, but at least I would have known. What is the point of medical trials and approval if the instructions are changed .

Callistemon
“Now, if 87 year old Ms Bakewell was urging the government to vaccinate all health care workers and those on the front line eg teachers, before elderly people who are able to stay at home then I would applaud her.
It seems a selfish move to me.”
Agree Calli.

If we're trying not to overwhelm the nhs then those most likely to die need to be vaccinated.

What is the point of medical trials and approval if the instructions are changed .

I think people in general don't understand about how the trials and approvals processes work.

Its not a case of the developing company presenting a document to the MHRA that says this is exactly what we did and you need to follow the instructions exactly. If that was the case, the MHRA would just be rubber stamping the drug and that's not what happens. Pfizer will have presented all the results of their trials which MHRA then consider, and then make recommendations about how the drug can be used.

The MHRA are scientists who have experience in approving drugs and deciding how they are used, and they use their experience to make recommendations when approvals are given. Pfizer don't generate "instructions".

MissAdventure

If we're trying not to overwhelm the nhs then those most likely to die need to be vaccinated.

NHS staff?
Or at least so many would not be off sick with Covid.

What doesn't an elderly woman of 87 understand about 'Stay at Home?'

If she doesn't, then she's not alone, it seems.

This will end with it being another mess up. If you have to wait longer for your second dose then we might find everyone needs a third dose to give us catch up with protection. I think Joan Bakewell is doing the right thing to challenge and I will contribute to the fund.

Although the vaccines are not going to stop 100% of infections the data submitted to the MHRA showed that in those who did get it, none were of the most extremely ill category so it seems it offers some cover to everyone.

As for the extension of the days before the second dose, those who created the Oxford vacine did, apparently, put forward some longer dated studies. When the Pfizer and BioNTech got it's temporary approval it had not published its Phase III data. That may or may not throw more light on the longer phases.

Not sure what Joan Bakewell will achieve but more facts cannot be a bad thing.

If you have to wait longer for your second dose then we might find everyone needs a third dose to give us catch up with protection

If you read the link you will see that this is probably not the case - it may, in fact, offer better protection.

One dose of the vaccines gives 90% protection or near that. The second dose increases the effectiveness to about 95%. In ither words it only portects another 5% of those vaccinated.

Give 1 million people both jabs and 950,000 are protected
Give 2 million people 1 jab and 1,800,000 are protected in the same period of time

As far as I can see, it is a no-brainer, more people with a good level of protection more quickly is better than fewer people getting 5% more protection with two jabs.

The message does need to be made clearer in the media, PippaZ.

There does seem to be a lot of confusion in general about the vaccines.

As we have been in effect locked down since 13th March last year and have suffered no hardship. apart from the physical separation with loved ones. I would rather wait longer and let the vaccinators prioritise the people that are keeping us going.

Having said that I am a bit apprehensive about the twelve week gap not having been properly assessed but in any event we don't intend to take any avoidable risks until three weeks after the second jab. whenever that is.