Joan Bakewell vaccine legal challenge

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

What on Earth is wrong with some of you?! The makers of the vaccine designed it for the three week wait and not a three month wait and that’s what she is very sensibly campaigning for - for everybody.

There are all sorts of people saying all sorts of things.

It would be good to have a definite, proven conclusion, and I don't think that's too much to ask.

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.

She has my backing.
I'm not sure when it ever became acceptable to take a chance on a vaccine whilst completely changing how it's administered.

Goodness, so many nasty people on this thread.

I was very conflicted when the new regime was announced as those who'd had the first dose did so on the understanding that they would have the second dose three weeks later, but then came the new variant, which necessitated getting as many people as possible vaccinated to afford some protection for more people.

Apropos of nothing, Joan Bakewell was Head Girl at my Grammar School

The government should be honest about what it's doing and why.

They are trying to give some protection to a larger number of people instead of higher protection to a less large number of people.

They're hoping this will work out okay but they don't actually know.

I agree that those who are at risk because of work involving the public should be first.

Oh well, she’s probably feeling that nobody pays her any attention any more.

It’ll be nice for her to see her name back in the media.

Peasblossom

I assume she’s had her first one? Now she wants her second.

Obviously such an important person should get that extra protection rather than some ordinary old pensioner getting what’s she’s already got.

She’s had the full course

PS Well said, mawbe.

I read a scientific basis somewhere. I'll see if I bookmarked it....

MawBe

Exactly Jaxjacky - people seem to be misunderstanding the “protection” offered. it never promised to prevent infection or transmission but to mitigate the symptoms to something easier to treat and, bottom line, to survive.
I would ask Joan Bakewell how the nurse who caught it is now? My 10 year old grandson tested positive before Christmas and remained asymptomatic but enjoyed his enforced isolation on the sofa with the tin of Quality Street to himself.
JB is muddying the water and misleading people. If she does hold up the vaccination programme she will not be doing us any favours.
There is a type of person who is stroppy just because they can be. I thought JB was more intelligent than that.

????????

She has had her second, I think, so she could just have an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude.

I assume she’s had her first one? Now she wants her second.

Obviously such an important person should get that extra protection rather than some ordinary old pensioner getting what’s she’s already got.

And I very much doubt if it will hold up the vaccination programme. Pfizer's clearly expressed disclaimers didn't, and they only developed and make the thing...

It seems a selfish move to me.

I'm sorry. I don't understand. What is 'selfish' about wanting to be absolutely sure that the vaccine, as it is being delivered, gives maximum protection?

She actually sounds to me as though she's being public spirited

Exactly Jaxjacky - people seem to be misunderstanding the “protection” offered. it never promised to prevent infection or transmission but to mitigate the symptoms to something easier to treat and, bottom line, to survive.
I would ask Joan Bakewell how the nurse who caught it is now? My 10 year old grandson tested positive before Christmas and remained asymptomatic but enjoyed his enforced isolation on the sofa with the tin of Quality Street to himself.
JB is muddying the water and misleading people. If she does hold up the vaccination programme she will not be doing us any favours.
There is a type of person who is stroppy just because they can be. I thought JB was more intelligent than that.