Second vaccine dose timing

We do have a problem with the majority of interviewers and journalists being scientifically illiterate.

Personally I am inclined to trust more the scientists who qualify what they say with things like ‘it looks likely but at this stage we can’t be sure’ or ‘We will have a better idea when more evidence emerges’ because they are being honest as well as open-minded.

That was in reply to sillydevil

I think people naturally want certainty. We can't have certainty right now because this is so novel and so scientists and medics have to use the results of trials and their experience of how other viruses and vaccines work to make the best recommendation they can.

I get worried that they may have to change the recommendation in the future. Then they are likely to get such a backlash from the public, at the urging of the press.

I've just been reading an article on an online news page which is full of "might" "may" "could" but has a very scary headline. I think its a disgrace that the press are so negative about the way we are fighting this virus.

janeainsworth

Franbern And there are many scientists etc. who are opposing the long gap between the doses

Could you provide some references so we can see which scientists you’re talking about?

As far as I can see the consensus seems to be that for individuals there might , with the emphasis on might , be a problem with the Pfizer vaccine, but not the AstraZeneca one.
At a population level, there are good arguments for giving some level of immunity with the first dose, to more people, than leaving larger numbers without any protection at all.

Concern that the second dose is needed to offer protection to those over 80 if infected with the SA variant:

www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-likely-to-be-effective-against-b117-strain-of-sars-cov-2

Alegrias1

I think people naturally want certainty. We can't have certainty right now because this is so novel and so scientists and medics have to use the results of trials and their experience of how other viruses and vaccines work to make the best recommendation they can.

I get worried that they may have to change the recommendation in the future. Then they are likely to get such a backlash from the public, at the urging of the press.

I've just been reading an article on an online news page which is full of "might" "may" "could" but has a very scary headline. I think its a disgrace that the press are so negative about the way we are fighting this virus.

I think it's a disgrace that the press has been so "gung ho" and given unrealistic promises. People are bound to be disappointed and conspiracy theories will flourish.

....and there it is.......

Not peer reviewed.
Sample size of 15, of whom 8 did create sufficient antibodies.
Only against the SA variant which is the one we are currently trying to suppress.

We're all epidemiologists now.

As a scientist who worked for many years in the field of immunology all I will add is that I am very relieved that I have had the AZ vaccine, also that I have an appointment for a booster at 12 weeks, the time which is recommended for that particular vaccine. Pfizer recommended 3 weeks for theirs
enough said.

Growstuff I’m not an epidemiologist and I’m not even a scientist, but if I have read the article correctly, it does not warn against extending the period between vaccines to 12 weeks.
What it says (in relation to the Pfizer vaccine only) is that
- blood samples were taken from 26 individuals aged 19 to 89.
- 15 were >80yo
-3 weeks after 1st vaccination, all but 7 had sufficient antibodies to neutrally the virus
- these 7 were all >80
- in laboratory conditions when the South Africa variant was added to the mix, it needed 10 times the amount of antibody to be neutralised.
- after the second dose at 3 weeks, all the patients had sufficient antibodies to give immunity.

The article ends: Dr Dami Collier, the main co-investigator on the studies, added: “Our data suggest that a significant proportion of people aged over eighty may not have developed protective neutralising antibodies against infection three weeks after their first dose of the vaccine. But it’s reassuring to see that after two doses, serum from every individual was able to neutralise the virus.”

Nothing in the article supports Franbern’s assertion that ‘many scientists are opposing the long gap between doses’.

Then I will step out of the conversation.

My comment is in reply to garnet25 's post

Before you step away from the thread, Algerias, I just wanted to tell you I've had mine.

(Sorry haven't read all the thread, just too long - so don't know if this is already posted)

Just seen this on Oxford Uni news page:

^Analyses reveal single standard dose efficacy from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination of 76% with protection not falling in this three-month period
After the second dose vaccine efficacy from two standard doses is 82.4% with the 3-month interval being used in the UK. (82.4% effective, with a 95% confidence interval of 62.7% - 91.7% at 12+ weeks)
Data supports the 4-12 week prime-boost dosing interval recommended by many global regulators^

That was about the AZ vaccine.

I haven’t read all 12 pages of this post, but I’d like to say, without any political slant that I’ll be grateful to get my first jab and subsequent second. Many friends and acquaintances in France are having their appointments cancelled, first and second vaccinations.
Lastly a big thank you Alegrias1 for having the patience to repeatedly reiterate your points, in particular that the vaccine, neither one nor two shots stops anyone getting Covid, it’s as you were, hands, face, space, until advised, preferably by the government/scientists, otherwise.

What an amazing vaccine it is. Once injected it can tell exactly how old the recipient is and after their 65th brithday it goes on strike!

Not even Bill Gates could have thought of that.
?

Urmstongran ????

Alegrias1

It's not reckless and it is good science.

I feel for these people. Trying to do their best and so much animosity comes their way. The Moderna vaccine is an mRNA vaccine, just like the Pfizer one, and it shows that you have 94% protection after 2 months and there is no theoretical reason that the immunity will fall off a cliff. His actual words. The interviewer brings up the 33% figure again - he has no no idea what that means, clearly. Or that its been debunked a few weeks ago.

Here's the guy you think is being reckless.

www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/anthony-harnden

This makes me so angry.

Yes, I believe the JVCI and the Government are reckless gamblers. If it's good science where was the evidence or proof that contradicts the makers published data? The "there is no theoretical reason that the immunity will fall off a cliff", is there a theoretical reason it shouldn't or fade even? Why should data from Moderna be applied to Pfizer, many products have similar designs, but they don't perform in the same way. I miss the point about Professor Harnden, is it because he has many qualifications he can't be reckless? I was stating the Government and JCV1, in my opinion, are taking a reckless gamble. There are other scientists who have opposing views to those taken by the JCVI. One headline today - "Public Health England is investigating cases of coronavirus with 'worrying' new genetic changes that have been found in some regions of the UK". This fits with an excerpt from a BMJ Article 6th January - Paul Bieniasz, a retrovirologist from Rockefeller University who is studying how the virus can acquire mutations, has warned that the UK was taking a gamble that risked fostering vaccine resistant forms of the virus. He told the news site STAT, “My concern, as a virologist, is that if you wanted to make a vaccine-resistant strain, what you would do is to build a cohort of partially immunised individuals in the teeth of a highly prevalent viral infection.” As previously stated I hope their gamble pays off and I pray it does, but it is wait and see.

Thank you Garnet25 for you accurate, concise post

sillydevil

Alegrias1

It's not reckless and it is good science.

I feel for these people. Trying to do their best and so much animosity comes their way. The Moderna vaccine is an mRNA vaccine, just like the Pfizer one, and it shows that you have 94% protection after 2 months and there is no theoretical reason that the immunity will fall off a cliff. His actual words. The interviewer brings up the 33% figure again - he has no no idea what that means, clearly. Or that its been debunked a few weeks ago.

Here's the guy you think is being reckless.

www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/anthony-harnden

This makes me so angry.

Yes, I believe the JVCI and the Government are reckless gamblers. If it's good science where was the evidence or proof that contradicts the makers published data? The "there is no theoretical reason that the immunity will fall off a cliff", is there a theoretical reason it shouldn't or fade even? Why should data from Moderna be applied to Pfizer, many products have similar designs, but they don't perform in the same way. I miss the point about Professor Harnden, is it because he has many qualifications he can't be reckless? I was stating the Government and JCV1, in my opinion, are taking a reckless gamble. There are other scientists who have opposing views to those taken by the JCVI. One headline today - "Public Health England is investigating cases of coronavirus with 'worrying' new genetic changes that have been found in some regions of the UK". This fits with an excerpt from a BMJ Article 6th January - Paul Bieniasz, a retrovirologist from Rockefeller University who is studying how the virus can acquire mutations, has warned that the UK was taking a gamble that risked fostering vaccine resistant forms of the virus. He told the news site STAT, “My concern, as a virologist, is that if you wanted to make a vaccine-resistant strain, what you would do is to build a cohort of partially immunised individuals in the teeth of a highly prevalent viral infection.” As previously stated I hope their gamble pays off and I pray it does, but it is wait and see.

I think the worrying new genetic change is B1351, aka the South Africa variant. Lab tests have shown that there has been a mutation in one of the spike proteins, which reduces the immune response. In the case of the so-called Brazil variant, this is on top of the mutation already identified in the "Kent" variant. Some scientists are concerned that one dose will just not work with the new variants, so it's vital that people continue to follow non-medical precautions.

It's also why testing has been ordered for the areas where the new variant has already been identified.

I know I said I'd step back but I'm just a glutton for punishment....

Headline from the Cambridge study: Pfizer BioNTech vaccine likely to be effective against B1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2

Hooray!!

In their article, Cambridge says that scientists have shown that in in-vitro lab tests, just under 50% of the 15 over-eighties they tested developed enough neutralising antibodies for mutation E484K after one jab. Antibodies are only one way that the body fights infection. Six months ago we would have given our right arms for 50% protection.

Headline in today's times: Single dose of Pfizer-Biontech vaccine may not protect elderly from Covid-19 infection

Boo!!

Alegrias1

I know I said I'd step back but I'm just a glutton for punishment....

Headline from the Cambridge study: Pfizer BioNTech vaccine likely to be effective against B1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2

Hooray!!

In their article, Cambridge says that scientists have shown that in in-vitro lab tests, just under 50% of the 15 over-eighties they tested developed enough neutralising antibodies for mutation E484K after one jab. Antibodies are only one way that the body fights infection. Six months ago we would have given our right arms for 50% protection.

Headline in today's times: Single dose of Pfizer-Biontech vaccine may not protect elderly from Covid-19 infection

Boo!!

www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-likely-to-be-effective-against-b117-strain-of-sars-cov-2

The seven individuals who were unable to neutralise the virus after the first dose were all aged over 80 years old. This accounts for almost half of the 15 individuals in this age group. However, at a follow-up visit after these individuals had received their second dose (given at three weeks), they were all able to neutralise the virus.

Dr Dami Collier, the main co-investigator on the studies, added: “Our data suggest that a significant proportion of people aged over eighty may not have developed protective neutralising antibodies against infection three weeks after their first dose of the vaccine. But it’s reassuring to see that after two doses, serum from every individual was able to neutralise the virus.”

I'd suggest this is a reason not to delay the second dose for 12 weeks, given it will be 15 weeks in total before the vaccine is fully effective. At the very least over 80s should be given the second dose at the 3 week mark. Maybe other age cohorts could have a slightly longer gap?

Haven't seen the Times article, but that headline is not untrue, although not telling the whole story, but when did headlines ever do so.

I personally don't think it is a good reason to change anything right now Rosie51, and here's why.

The reduced efficacy is only shown with the E484K mutation which is currently not prevalent at all in the population of this country. Assuming that the results can be scaled up and the 50% still holds then of the people who have had the vaccine, 50% of them are protected against a mutation that is not prevalent and something like 90% of them are protected against the other variants.

The more people who get vaccinated with even one dose, the less chance there is of the virus killing people. The recommendation may change in the future, but right now I can understand why they don't want to change. Other people may have a different viewpoint.

I included the Times headline because it seemed to me that the press - again - are focussing on the negative when the whole story is actually positive. Like you say, they never tell the whole story.

That's not how I'm reading it Alegrias the study was using the B.1.1.7 variant.

From the study which I linked to

“Of particular concern, though, is the emergence of the E484K mutation, which so far has only been seen in a relatively small number of individuals. Our work suggests the vaccine is likely to be less effective when dealing with this mutation.