Second vaccine dose timing

As an ex senior healthcare professional with Leukaemia on two different types of chemotherapy, not only am I immunosupressed due to the cancer, but at times neutropenic because of the treatment necessitating injections to stimulate my bone marrow to produce some white cells to help me against the real threat of sepsis . I cannot be alone in thinking that those with blood cancer are at an even greater risk of not achieving a good immune response to the vaccine, even less so with a 12 week gap. I have no choice but to continue to shield as I have done since March 2020 along with my Doctor husband who sadly had to give up medicine because of me.

Lizbethann55 I think it’s completely right that those like you who are helping with the organising of the vaccine, should have had the jab yourself. I would have thought all helpers would have been offered it, especially at the end of the day when any doses left over could potentially have otherwise been wasted.

@growstuff. It’s my understanding that the decision to widen the gap between doses, was because given the logistics of delivering the vaccine, the governments’ scientific advisers considered it better to vaccinate as many people as possible and provide some protection, rather than leaving half the population unprotected whilst second doses were given after 3 weeks. The decision is supported by existing evidence from other vaccines - a longer gap encourages the body’s immune response and the second dose is necessary for longer term protection. I think it was Pfizer who raised an objection based purely on the fact that their vaccine had not been tested at a gap of three months. My point was that, yes, it may have been a political decision, given the logistics of the roll out, but it’s wrong to suggest that the decision would have been taken without scientific advice.

@KaEllen. I think my position has shifted on this since reading through this thread. I’ve learned a lot about how the vaccine is designed to work - so yes, you’re right. Given that the vaccine doesn’t prevent you catching Covid, but lessens the effects, the current approach is the right one to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed.

One more thing I need to say. Re-reading the thread I’m amazed at how much faith people put in what they read in the papers and see in the media. Headlines are designed to sell copy, and newspapers mainly reflect the opinions of their editors - that’s no substitute for scientific fact.

Pammie1

@growstuff. It’s my understanding that the decision to widen the gap between doses, was because given the logistics of delivering the vaccine, the governments’ scientific advisers considered it better to vaccinate as many people as possible and provide some protection, rather than leaving half the population unprotected whilst second doses were given after 3 weeks. The decision is supported by existing evidence from other vaccines - a longer gap encourages the body’s immune response and the second dose is necessary for longer term protection. I think it was Pfizer who raised an objection based purely on the fact that their vaccine had not been tested at a gap of three months. My point was that, yes, it may have been a political decision, given the logistics of the roll out, but it’s wrong to suggest that the decision would have been taken without scientific advice.

But they there would have been no need to widen the spacing between doses, if there weren't an issue with supply.

I don't know what the outcome will be and I don't think anybody else does either, including the manufacturers and scientists. My understanding is that dosing and infections are being monitored, but until some trends are obvious, nobody will know for sure.

My personal view is that the best compromise has been made in the circumstances, but the circumstances aren't ideal. I don't think anybody can be blamed for that.

My real concern is that it was obvious before Christmas that there were supply issues and warning bells kept ringing when questions were being avoided. The objective seemed to be to keep people positive by making promises, which the government must have known even then couldn't have been delivered. It's not the first time that undeliverable promises have been made and, eventually, they backfire and people start to doubt all sorts of things. It's a breeding ground for conspiracy theorists.

I didn't claim that the decision was taken without scientific advice. My objection was to the claim that the decision was made as a result of scientific advice. It wasn't. No scientist would ever advise doing something which had not been trialled and for which there is no evidence that it's an improvement.

I would imagine the discussion was something along the lines of "Well, we haven't tested it like that and can't support you, but it possibly won't do too much harm, so go ahead, as you're so determined."

Doctors are like many of us saying that the big gap between the doses are difficult to justify.

I have never been comfortable with the gap extension, which goes against the Pfizer’s strong recommendation and many scientists, including my DD who has explained in scientific detail? why the gap is wrong.

For goodness sake why risk the issue. We have enough crises without risking another because we didn’t follow the instructions, because we thought we knew better.

Just do as the supplier instructs.

Do as you are told!!

Whitty said that there were risks when they made the announcement about delaying the second dose. They obviously felt that the benefits outweigh the risks. Valance said on Friday that the were continuing to study the data, I believe referencing Israel. I understand why they have made the decision they have, but it would be niaeve to think that it's risk free. I hope they are right and the gamble pays off.

No data to support a 12 week gap.

Follow the science!

The BMA has come out against the completely irrational move by this government to force an untried and untested vaccination regime on us.
Have a look at the BBC news today and read what the British Medical Association has to say on the subject of dose timing.

This experimentation is completely unethical and must be stopped.

I agree the BMA have stated their concerns plus they are worried about supply issues with the 2nd dose in 12 weeks time. I grow more concerned about this decision.

Yes what a fair few of us have been saying. ? - not necessarily GN but the wider world

I was delighted to see the BMA concerns given headline news today. Yesterday this thread had a deluge of opinions from someone who admitted to no scientific training and no medical training but insisting the 12 week gap was the way to go.
At least today we can all read on the news facts from doctors opposed to experiments being made with the health of the old and vulnerable in this nation. The second doses must be given according to the only evidence we have until more trials can be completed.

Is that me Esspee? Ohh, I'm cut to the quick.

The BMJ want six weeks. Will you all be telling them that's not what the manufacturers instructions say and that they don't know what they're talking about?

(Off to clear up the deluge)

Alegrias1

Is that me Esspee? Ohh, I'm cut to the quick.

The BMJ want six weeks. Will you all be telling them that's not what the manufacturers instructions say and that they don't know what they're talking about?

^(Off to clear up the deluge)^

Follow the data, as a scientist you will agree I am sure?

BMJ said that there's data to back up efficacy after 6 weeks. No data exists for a 12 week delay.

Esspee doctors opposed to experiments being made with the health of the old and vulnerable in this nation
In a sense, most medical interventions are experimental and are based on available evidence and current recommendations.
These change all the time as new evidence comes to light.
Look at tonsillectomy for example. A whole generation of children in the 50’s and 60’s were ‘experimented’ on when they had their tonsils out.
Then it was realised that in most cases, the dangers of surgery (fatal haemorrhage) outweighed any perceived benefit and tonsillectomy became a comparatively rare procedure reserved for cases of repeated and intractable infection.
Every time you sign a consent form you are basically saying that you understand the risks of the intervention and accept that you as an individual are being experimented on.
Nothing is risk-free.

But the solution is simple. Just don’t have any medical interventions.
Your choice.
Your choice.

Sorry didn’t mean to repeat the last sentence.

People shouldn’t be forced into choosing not to have the vaccine. That is a totally unethical suggestion.
The BMA have come out loud and clear saying the vaccination programme shouldn’t be changed to a twelve week gap. There is no evidence at the moment to support that change, and a small amount of evidence from Israel to suggest its potentially harmful. Apparently the Israeli study suggests only 33% efficacy after the first vaccine, whereas some British scientists were advising that it would be nearer to 89%. This is a guess, there is no evidence. I asked for evidence yesterday and simply received a long list of names of those who support the change. That is not evidence I’m afraid, it is a list of people who think they know but have absolutely no direct evidence. The only evidence is the small study in Israel.

Whitewave I totally agree with you and thank you for adding your daughter’s opinion as I know she has been working on/with the British/Italian vaccine programme.

Somebody asked a question about it on the IndieSage presentation yesterday. The answer was that nobody knows.

Israel have upgraded their 33% to 60% plus after one week. Evidence: twitter.com/segal_eran/status/1352696337477890049?s=21
Small study? 200,000 people.

FT article about what this means for the UK decision: www.ft.com/content/4d9fe80d-e604-4bbe-b0f8-fd4b8df9b7f1

89% immunity evidence: www.fda.gov/media/144416/download Graph on page 29

The list of people were those who made the decision, not those who supported it. But I guess you're right, a bunch of people on Gransnet and some doctors who have no responsibility for drug approval or public health are in a good position to cast doubt on all their attempts to save lives.

Alegrias1

Israel have upgraded their 33% to 60% plus after one week. Evidence: twitter.com/segal_eran/status/1352696337477890049?s=21
Small study? 200,000 people.

FT article about what this means for the UK decision: www.ft.com/content/4d9fe80d-e604-4bbe-b0f8-fd4b8df9b7f1

89% immunity evidence: www.fda.gov/media/144416/download Graph on page 29

The list of people were those who made the decision, not those who supported it. But I guess you're right, a bunch of people on Gransnet and some doctors who have no responsibility for drug approval or public health are in a good position to cast doubt on all their attempts to save lives.

Bit subjective, from a scientist???

I think I'd rather read about what those with some expertise in vaccines know.

I don't understand the angst, surely people are entitled be voice an opinion? What is coming across loud and clear is that scientific opinion divided and it's reasonable to listen with an open mind to differing opinions.