Gransnet forums


Second vaccine dose timing

(343 Posts)
GagaJo Thu 21-Jan-21 07:05:13

Everything I have read in the media points to the 2nd dose needing to be within a certain time frame which the government are ignoring.

What is the REAL evidence of this reducing the efficacy of the vaccine?

And is there a petition to be signed about this, to force a debate in parliament?

MissAdventure Thu 21-Jan-21 10:00:36

That's the point.
Some people (scientific people) believe that not to be the case.
There is a whole raft of what appear to be people you would expect to have valid opinions who have opposing beliefs.

Daisymae Thu 21-Jan-21 10:03:35

When I first heard about the plan it seemed like a good idea, but it's a major experiment. If it works great.

MissAdventure Thu 21-Jan-21 10:05:46

Well, I have sore misgivings.
I should probably put some talc on 'em.

EllanVannin Thu 21-Jan-21 10:08:37

I had my second Asian 'flu vaccine 3 weeks after the first one. This was common practice in 1957 in order to give a fuller protection of the virus----3 months is no good.

Perhaps scientists were more knowledgeable back then !?

biba70 Thu 21-Jan-21 10:09:21


I won't get the vaccine in the UK. I will get it in Switzerland where I am currently living. Therefore I won't need to worry about the timing of the 2nd dose.

People in my school are already being called for their vaccinations so I think it is safe to assume I will have the 1st dose within a month.

Switzerland was a bit slow starting vaccinations, but are doing really well now. All over 75s can now book their vaccine and will be done in a few weeks- then over 65s- with 2nd dose given on time.

Alegrias1 Thu 21-Jan-21 10:10:20

Not an experiment.

1957 was 64 years ago. Covid is not flu. Science has moved on.

MissA I hope your misgivings improve grin

Esspee Thu 21-Jan-21 10:11:21

I am sure I am not alone in having been asked to sign a legal document with the NHS when being prescribed medication not yet licensed for use in the U.K. for my requirements.
On two occasions I have had consultants explain in great detail the situation and possible risks before signing to say that I take full responsibility.
Is this being done with those currently taking part in the big experiment?
BoJos dad has had both jabs. So that’s alright then?

Daisymae Thu 21-Jan-21 14:06:20

Quote from an article in the Mail today: 'The Doctors' Association UK said no studies had been done to prove a single dose of a vaccine, or two spaced very far apart, would reliably prevent cases of Covid.' This strategy is far from proven and very far from risk free.

Alegrias1 Thu 21-Jan-21 14:20:56

None of the vaccines prevent Covid, irrespective of the dosing regime; they reduce the likelihood of serious illness if you get it.

The DM is not a reliable source of medical information. I went and had a look at the DM article online. There's the "manufacturer's instructions" comment again. There are lots of other inaccuracies there as well.

You'd almost think that the DM were trying to cause trouble, wouldn't you? Surely not!!

Atqui Thu 21-Jan-21 14:23:38

Why do we need TTS o threads about this?

Atqui Thu 21-Jan-21 14:23:57

Two not TTS

Alegrias1 Thu 21-Jan-21 14:24:25

What's TTS Atqui? (serious question)

Alegrias1 Thu 21-Jan-21 14:25:27

Thanks smile

Nightsky2 Thu 21-Jan-21 14:37:50


I listened to a scientist who made this point in discussion. Dr Fauci is on record as saying he's not in favour. Israeli doctors are saying that their research indicates a much lower rate of protection after one jab and people have tested positive after one. The world is watching while we make a massive drug trial using one dose. The problem is that we don't know how it's going to turn out. Our record in management of the pandemic speaks for itself.

Simple, don’t have when it’s offered to you if you feel so strongly. Let someone who does want have it instead.

Where are these scientists you are horrified and what makes them think that know any better than our scientist.

janeainsworth Thu 21-Jan-21 14:47:14

There was a discussion on World at One today with a scientist from the JCVI and someone else.

Take home message
1) that the research done in Israel involved testing people only two weeks after they had had the first dose, so not enough time to fully develop antibodies. So a lower percentage immunity than if the tests had been carried out later.
2) There is evidence that the Astra-Zeneca vaccine gives even greater immunity when the two doses are given at longer intervals.

Daisymae Thu 21-Jan-21 14:48:57

The Doctors Association have written a letter expressing real and grave concerns. The full text is available online.

Daisymae Thu 21-Jan-21 15:16:17

An opinion piece in the BMJ is calling for the government to revisit its strategy 'The current UK strategy with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine is, in our view, a non-randomised, uncontrolled population experimental study without pilot data.' People who understand the science are calling the strategy an experiment.

GagaJo Thu 21-Jan-21 15:22:14

That is very frightening. My mum should be having the vaccine soon. She has severe asthma and would be at great risk if she caught the virus. To experiment with the lives of people like her for the sake of boosting the official vaccinated numbers in a media headline is shocking.

What was the evidence for the Astra-Zeneca vaccine giving even greater immunity when the two doses are given at longer intervals, janeainsworth? That would be incredibly good!

maddyone Thu 21-Jan-21 15:41:34

I agree with GagaJo
I think the vaccine should be used as advised by the developers. We have no way of knowing if we’re wasting vaccine by spreading it out in this way. Our own scientists did not develop this vaccine and do not know how the half vaccine will work, or how effective it will be.
Doctors wouldn’t normally give you half a course of medication and say it should be enough. There’s a reason for that, it’s because it probably wouldn’t be as effective. Normally a doctor would not play with your life in this way. I cannot think of a situation in which it is more important for medics to follow the science, as advised with a three week gap.

maddyone Thu 21-Jan-21 15:43:10

I agree with your posts.

Alegrias1 Thu 21-Jan-21 15:43:16

OK, I've lost the will to live so this will probably be my last comment.

In the Doctors' Association 3-page letter they devote one paragraph to worrying about how effective the new dosage interval will be and use the 52% efficacy number, which scientists (i.e. not doctors) have shown to be the wrong metric to use. The rest of the letter is about things like how difficult it will be to rebook patients and how they will have to deal with questions of consent. They think a better option would be prolonged lockdown and continued closure of the schools.

The BMJ Opinion piece cites the Israeli 33% number as one of the reasons for not relying on one dose for a longer period; the reasons that this is not valid have come to light today.

As for people who understand the science - well people who understand science aren't only publishing in medical journals. Some of them write on forums for Grans. You know, maybe this is the wrong decision. Maybe in a year's time we'll all look back and say, yes, in hindsight, we shouldn't have done that. Or maybe we'll go, thank goodness we did that, look at all the lives we've saved.

If you don't like the idea of delayed second doses, tell your doctor you don't want the jab and leave it for someone who does. Support Dame Joan and her crowdfunding. But mainly, stop undermining a decision taken by medical professionals faced with the worst health crisis in their history.

maddyone Thu 21-Jan-21 15:48:45

I was discussing the Pfizer vaccine, but the same argument probably applies equally to any other. Anyone receiving a half vaccine should be told and sign a document saying they understand that the efficacy may be compromised by the long gap, and they should agree to be in a trial studying the effect of a longer gap. To spread out the doses in this way is not licensed, and therefore the population is part of an experiment. Maybe it will be found to be completely safe, or even better, but without studying, no one knows.

Daisymae Thu 21-Jan-21 15:51:47

The BMJ opinion is written by people who have expert opinion, why would we not pay attention to their views? It's hardly as if following current advice has got the country out of a difficult position. They are asking the government to rethink.

janeainsworth Thu 21-Jan-21 16:12:30

Will this do Gagajo? Published by Pulse, a fairly reputable journal.

Daisymae it has to be remembered that the BMJ is the journal of the British Medical Association, which is the doctors trade union and which has a very large axe to grind as far as government policy is concerned.

I wouldn’t suggest that they would publish anything deliberately misleading or dishonest of course, just that their position is bound to affect editorial decisions about what they choose to publish.

Sarnia Thu 21-Jan-21 16:15:49


Well, I have sore misgivings.
I should probably put some talc on 'em.

You've been watching Carry On films. wink