Joan Bakewell vaccine legal challenge

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “Getting vaccines deployed as rapidly as possible to as many at risk older and clinically vulnerable people, as well as frontline health and social care workers, is our number one priority. “The decision by the MHRA to change vaccine dosage intervals followed a thorough review of the data and was in line with the recommendations of the UK’s four chief medical officers. “The Government is closely following the guidance of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) which recommended we prioritise first doses of vaccine for as many people as possible initially.”

This is the Department of Health’s response, as reported in the Daily Telegraph.
JB has applied for leave for a Judicial Review. That has to be granted before the Review can take place, so it may well not be granted on the grounds that the JCVI could reasonably be expected to know more about the subject than m’learned friends.

None of the vaccines offer 100% protection and the fact that having one dose prevents people having a serious infection and needing hospitalisation should be better than some people having less chance of being infected and other people dying. We do not need anything to hold up the vaccination programme given the huge rise in positive cases and deaths.

Professor Whitty himself suggested the spacing of doses was not ideal, but said the number of vaccine doses available to the UK "constrains" what action can be taken.

In a stark message against a backdrop of rising hospital admissions and deaths, he said: "If we had an infinite amount of vaccine we might have taken a different approach - but we don't."

Thanks Jane this should be reassuring even though I have no problems with the longer gap.

Me too, janeainsworth

While out walking the streets last week, I happened to meet a friend who is a retired consultant medical microbiologist & had a socially distanced chat across the road.
I asked him this very question & he said it wouldn’t worry him in the slightest having a 12-week gap between doses.

If Joan Bakewell’s legal action results in a delay to the vaccination programme I shall be beyond angry.

Callistemon

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.

I agree Callistemon but it's not just confusion, people are very concerned, sadly. We really need everything to be as clear as clear.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?'

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".

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

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.

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 .

I said that Oxford has shown a gap is ok

and could well be preferable.

Conjecture -v- science

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.

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*.

* Whitewave* Here Here

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%).