Second vaccine dose timing

Sorry ww

The answer is quite simply that they don't know. If you listened carefully to what Chris Whitty said yesterday in defence of the 12 week gap ( and I had to rewind to make sure I had heard it right) he said that evidence form the Astra Zenica trials, Moderna trails and from natural immunity suggested that there would be no problem with a twelve week gap for the Pfizer vaccine.

Coming from someone who has been playing down the importance or even existence of natural immunity for months, I thought this was a bit rich. But to change the regime for vaccination of one vaccine based on evidence from trials on other vaccines seems to me not to be very scientific (remember we are supposed to be following the science) and verging on the criminal.

janeainsworth

Sorry ww

??

Mollygo, I read that Germany believes there is not enough evidence for the Astra Zeneca over age 65. They accept it's safe but not that it's effective.
Apparently they will use a different vaccine for the older age groups.

But to change the regime for vaccination of one vaccine based on evidence from trials on other vaccines seems to me not to be very scientific (remember we are supposed to be following the science) and verging on the criminal.

Every vaccine basically does the same thing. They start your own immune system off creating whatever it needs to create to fight off a disease. So once that system gets going, its your own immune system you have to rely on. The vaccine doesn't hang around forever inside you, or even for a few weeks. So, that's how all the vaccines you've ever had have worked.

So, is this one vaccine, unique in all the world, going to set off your immune system and then somehow your immune system is going to go "Oh no, I've had the Pfizer vaccine, so I'm going to do something I've never done before and stop being immune really quickly". Well, it might. But more likely, far more likely, its going to do what it has always done and keep your immunity going for a while - at least 12 weeks. So its more than reasonable for the scientists to think that the Pfizer vaccine will have the same effect as every other vaccine does. Because that's how they work.

So, very scientific. Not criminal at all, and to suggest that is rather insulting to all the scientists who've made the recommendations, in my opinion.

They accept it's safe but not that it's effective.

They accept that its safe but they believe that they have not seen enough evidence that it is effective. That doesn't mean that they think its not effective. They want to wait for more data. Once they see more data, they will probably change to recommending this for over 65s as well. Or maybe they won't.

They have that leeway because the EU haven't even approved the Oxford vaccine yet, and even when they do supplies will be limited.

Oh, and another thing....

Nobody's been playing down the existence of natural immunity, but nobody has been able to observe it for periods longer that the time than the disease has been in existence. Obviously.

My German sis-in-law says she’s been told they won’t finish vaccinating people in their Group 1 till the end of February. She says the arguments over there are endless. So much like over here really.

Exactly, Alegrias1

Yes thank you Alegrias

Alegrias1

Oh, and another thing....

Nobody's been playing down the existence of natural immunity, but nobody has been able to observe it for periods longer that the time than the disease has been in existence. Obviously.

But if

Every vaccine basically does the same thing.

and

So its more than reasonable for the scientists to think that the Pfizer vaccine will have the same effect as every other vaccine does.

why have we been being told for months that this virus is unlike any other that has ever existed and doesn't confer any immunity, and affects a large number of people asymptotically and then go on to affect others.

You can't have it both ways. Either we know alot about this virus because it is the same as every other virus and we know alot about the vaccine because it is the same as all other vaccines OR we know nothing about either and have to get all our information from first principles.

grannyrose why have we been being told for months that this virus is unlike any other that has ever existed and doesn't confer any immunity

That’s not what we’ve been told.
Coronavirus (SARS -CoV2) is very similar to
SARS-CoV which caused the outbreak of Sudden Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in 2003.
There are differences in the way the virus behaves eg infectivity and mortality, but people who survived the 2003 outbreak have been shown to have T-cell immunity 17 years later.

Just saw this today.

www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-study-finds-contracting-Covid-gives-at-least-6-month-immunity

I trust JVT and Chris Whitty and they say in actual fact the Astra Zeneca Oxford one is better when they look at it again to be given the second rise up to 12 weeks later ...I trust their judgement

janeainsworth

grannyrose why have we been being told for months that this virus is unlike any other that has ever existed and doesn't confer any immunity

That’s not what we’ve been told.
Coronavirus (SARS -CoV2) is very similar to
SARS-CoV which caused the outbreak of Sudden Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in 2003.
There are differences in the way the virus behaves eg infectivity and mortality, but people who survived the 2003 outbreak have been shown to have T-cell immunity 17 years later.

janeainsworth

Throughout this whole affair we have been repeatedly told that this is a novel virus and therefore we don't know anything about the way it behaves. All our lockdown restrictions have been based on this.

Suggestions that it might behave like the other viruses it resembles have been dismissed in order to justify keeping restrictions in place.

Yes, SARS virus has been shown to confer immunity for at least 17 years and yet our scientists wouldn't let us extrapolate from that to say Covid19 would confer any immunity at all. Consequently people who have had the virus and recovered are still being told that it is not safe for them to go out and that they have to self isolate if they have been in contact with anyone who has had a positive test (the most notable example of course was the prime minister.)

It is this sort of nonsense that has lost the government the trust of the people. As thinking individuals we know that there is something that doesn't make sense about what we have been told - even if we cannot quite figure out where the lie entered the narrative.

They should have trusted us with the truth from the beginning.. All of it, not just the bits it was convenient for them to have us hear.

Perhaps then might even have trusted us to stick to draconian restrictions without compulsion and the use of oppressive police power.

Grannyrose Throughout this whole affair we have been repeatedly told that this is a novel virus and therefore we don't know anything about the way it behaves
It is a novel virus and 12 months ago the scientists didn’t know anything about the way it would behave. But now they know a great deal more. Scientific knowledge grows all the time through collection of data and clinical observation.

Yes, SARS virus has been shown to confer immunity for at least 17 years and yet our scientists wouldn't let us extrapolate from that to say Covid19 would confer any immunity at all
Because SARS-CoV2 (Coronavirus) is similar but not the same as SARS-CoV and until they had hard data to suggest that the same levels of immunity were conferred post-infection it would have been dangerous to make any assumptions.
Furthermore you can have immunity yourself but still be able to transmit the virus which is why the PM still had to self-isolate after being in contact with a positive case, even though he probably had immunity from his own infection.

Perhaps then might even have trusted us to stick to draconian restrictions without compulsion and the use of oppressive police power.

This thread is about the timing of the second dose of the vaccine, not the political decision-making behind lockdown, police powers and oppression. If you want to discuss those things I suggest you start a different thread.

Suffice to say, if you think the police in this country use oppressive powers, I suggest you take a look at countries like China, Russia, or even Australia.

Here’s a short article on differences and similarities between SARS and Covid-19
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7235519/#!po=4.16667

At the moment I am happy to listen to Whitty and JVT and believe what they say. They are the experts. I am getting fed up of lesser scientists spouting their beliefs. Shouldn’t we just listen to the acknowledged experts and ignore those who probably don’t have the full picture? Otherwise we are all going to go madder than we are already?

Jane and Grannyrose This is the point about science and continuing observation of the situation and accumulation of infirmation. You know more about it with everything observed.

If we had been told nothing at all at the start, they would have been an outcry about secrecy. They told us what was known. Later more was known and we were told more. Some people haven't added later news to their own database of information.

Talking to DD and a quick conversation about whether mixing the vaccines is sensible.

Her reply was that the immune system is incredibly complicated and the vaccines are based on different technologies and will affect different immune cells like T cells and others, she went into the usual complicated explanation with me trying to sound as if I knew what she was talking about ? but I can’t remember what she said.

So the answer to my question that is it a good idea to mix vaccines the answer is No.

That is of course unless further research proves otherwise?

I suppose it could be that with different vaccines stimulating different Tcells and so on, it might be that they add together their effects and cause more immunity than one dose of each would have separately - but we shouldn't rely on it. I imagine there will be all kinds of trials and studies in the future.

I’m sure they are being trialed now tbh. But medical science will almost always stick with proven data, and from our point of view, a jolly good job too.

We have to be confident that the treatment we receive is absolutely based on the best data available and strictly controlled.

I’m sure they are being trialed now tbh. But medical science will almost always stick with proven data, and from our point of view, a jolly good job too

I agree that’s what should happen in an ideal world WW, but I think the problem with Covid from a public health point of view is that time is of the essence in controlling infection rates & hospitalisations. Cast-iron data won’t emerge for many months.
I think we have to distinguish between safety and efficacy too - personally I’m happy that the trials so far have satisfied safety requirements as far as reasonably practicable.
Efficacy perhaps takes longer to demonstrate and until we know whether vaccinated people transmit the virus, harder to evaluate from a public health point of view rather than an individual one, if that makes sense.
We sometimes have to make a leap of faith and I’m very grateful to all those volunteers who made that leap & took part in the trials which are eventually going to benefit us all.

Scientists have always known that all viruses confer some degree of immunity. Yet, they have been disingenuous with the way they have presented the facts to the public. In other words they have treated us like idiots and expected us to hang onto their every word.

I'm so glad Ladyleftfieldlover you have faith in the chosen few scientists who have been advising the government. I wonder what makes you think that the "lesser" scientists you mention don't have an equally valid view.

Science is all about discussion, disagreement and eventual concensus. This fundamental scientific process has been sadly lacking in our response to this virus. As has a sense of proportion.