Second vaccine dose timing

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

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?

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

No data to support a 12 week gap.

Follow the science!

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.

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!!

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."

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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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.

For those who think the decision was a political one and the government are ignoring the scientists' recommendations. Maybe you think all these scientists have been leaned on by Boris and Matt?

JCVI statement on vaccines link at the bottom. Extract:
The Committee supports a two-dose vaccine schedule for the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. Given the data available, and evidence from the use of many other vaccines, JCVI advises a maximum interval between the first and second doses of 12 weeks for both vaccines.
It can be assumed that protection from the first dose will wane in the medium term, and the second dose will still be required to provide more durable protection.
The Committee advises initially prioritising delivery of the first vaccine dose as this is highly likely to have a greater public health impact in the short term and reduce the number of preventable deaths from COVID-19.

Members of JCVI :
Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England)
Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England)
Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)

Additional members of the COVID-19 sub committee :
Professor Bryan Charleston (The Pirbright Institute)
Professor Lucy Yardley (University of Southampton)
Professor Robert Dingwall (Nottingham Trent University)
Professor Liz Miller (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

www.gov.uk/government/publications/prioritising-the-first-covid-19-vaccine-dose-jcvi-statement/optimising-the-covid-19-vaccination-programme-for-maximum-short-term-impact

growstuff
Very good, balanced posts.

....you’re entitled to keep on believing what you like.......

Nobody is discussing belief but they are asking for evidence that a twelve week gap between Pfizer vaccines is as good, or better than the recommended three week gap. At the moment there is none.

The AstraZenica vaccine on the other hand has shown better efficacy with a longer gap.

Just because you are a scientist Alegrias does not make you an authority on these vaccines. They’re not even in your area of expertise. Shouting that you know better than everyone else does not make you actually know better than everyone else. Perhaps you should get in touch with the BMA because I’m sure they’d appreciate your expertise.

Grow stuff. No . I am not a frontline anything. I am a ,library assistant who desperately misses my beautiful old branch library and all my much loved regular borrowers. I can't wait to get back, though it isn't looking at all likely this side of summer. So my colleagues and I have been packed off to the local sports centres to help out. At the end of the shift any left over vaccine has to be thrown away. Any staff there who want a vaccine can have it as an alternative to literally wasting it. I am actually one of the last as it depends entirely on what shift we are on.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I know a few people who have volunteered at vaccination sessions too.

I'm just surprised you can make such a silly comment as the one you did about people choosing and accusing people of being triumphalist if they turn out to be right. There will be nothing to celebrate if they are right! :-(

Lizbethann55

growstuff was the sarcy comment aimed at me? You really should say who you are talking to. If it was. No. I am not over 80. I was 66 on Wednesday. But nor am I shielding. I am working my socks off helping literally hundreds of people a day getting to the correct place and moving around a large building. Many of them have mobility problems and need physical help or aren't quite sure where they are or why. All of them are enormously grateful for the opportunity they have been given. Lots of them bring treats and cakes for us. (That is definitely a hint to everyone waiting to get theirs!) I got my vaccination because there was some left at the end of the shift. And the NHS had to use it or lose it. I am hugely glad as my children were not happy about me working there.

So did you count as a frontline healthcare worker?

#Alegrias It's quite interesting what the BMJ says. See here:

www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18#:~:text=A%20paper%20published%20in%20the,failures%20were%20in%20the%20days