Second vaccine

cathymum

I work in Social Care, where I work all staff have recieved the vaccine first dose, this was during December, we all had appointments for our 2nd dose next week which have now been cancelled. At present we have 4 colleagues Covid positive, we are all tested twice weekly and have every sort of strategy in place that you could think of for protection but still can't avoid the virus. All of the older adults we care for recieved the vaccine yesterday however we can't see any way that we can possibly relax our vigilance or the restrictions that our residents are living under for the foreseeable future, it's all very depressing.

Are you tested with lateral flow tests? Are they self-administered?

EllanVannin In saying what you did in your post at EllanVannin Sat 16-Jan-21 20:07:09 you show that you definitely misunderstand how a vaccine works. Flu and CoVid both affect the lungs, among other targets, but they are different things. A blow with a hockey stick or a fall on an icy pavement can both break a leg, but they are not the same. You can't play hockey with a pavement.

The flu vaccine works specifically against a flu virus, because the vaccine primes the immune system to recognise and attack that virus. The CoVid vaccine primes the immune system to recognise and attack the CoVid virus.

Alegrias1

What I see Summerlove is a group of medical and scientific professionals who have looked at data from a drug company that has shown then that they have access to a new drug with 90% effectiveness after one dose. There's nothing to suggest the immunity that the Pfizer vaccine gives you is in any way different to immunity conferred by any other process.

So faced with thousands of people dying, or the minute possibility that immunity conferred by the Pfizer vaccine is different to every other type of immunity from vaccines, ever, their expert recommendation is that delaying the second dose is the best option.

Only a few weeks ago there were vocal posters on here saying Pfizer couldn't be trusted, that they had lawsuits against them and so on. Now its all about how Pfizer haven't done a trial on this so we can't trust it. Any more testing Pfizer could have done would only verify risk data, it wouldn't make anything certain.

It's misleading to call the vaccine rollout a "trial" and underestimates the knowledge and experience of the MHRA in licencing and approving drugs.

But people signed up for the vaccine being told they’d get their second after 3 weeks as that’s what best data said.

Now it’s up to 12 weeks, with assumptions it will work the same

That is putting people into an unauthorized trial.

I’m sure it will work just as well. But it’s still a trial as the company didn’t test it.

Ex D

Are they telling us lies?

Almost certainly. The problem is working out which bits are lies and which are the truth.

I work in social care too, and none of "my" people have heard anything, as have none of the staff.

One 94 year old was offered it last week, but she declined.

I work in Social Care, where I work all staff have recieved the vaccine first dose, this was during December, we all had appointments for our 2nd dose next week which have now been cancelled. At present we have 4 colleagues Covid positive, we are all tested twice weekly and have every sort of strategy in place that you could think of for protection but still can't avoid the virus. All of the older adults we care for recieved the vaccine yesterday however we can't see any way that we can possibly relax our vigilance or the restrictions that our residents are living under for the foreseeable future, it's all very depressing.

Elegran

ExD No-one has ever said that the current vaccines will stop you catching CoVid, only that they protect you against the worst effects. Who "led you to believe" that it would?

Unfortunately, some people did think a vaccine would be a magic wand.

EllenVannin Coronavirus does more than attack the respiratory system. Many medics think that respiratory disease is a secondary symptom of coronavirus. It can attack vital organs such as the heart, kidney and brain directly. It would appear to cause blood clots which block oxygen. It's not just a quicker and more easily transmissable form of flu.

Covid shares the 'flu virus in that it attacks the respiratory system. The difference in both is that Covid is an easier and quicker spreader than ordinary 'flu.
We also have the pneumonia vaccination which should be taken up by those who suffer chest problems in winter, along with those over 60.

ExD No-one has ever said that the current vaccines will stop you catching CoVid, only that they protect you against the worst effects. Who "led you to believe" that it would?

EllanVannin You say "The 2018 'flu vaccination was proved as good as useless against the type of virus at the time." but the content of the flu vaccine is always a guess at which variation on the flu virus will be most common each year and need to be vaccinated against. and that "2019 was no better either when Covid struck." but why would you expect a flu vaccine to be any use against CoVid? Surely you don't think that CoVid is a flu?

Strange that Stanley, Murdoch, Jerry (64!) have had both - not?

What I see Summerlove is a group of medical and scientific professionals who have looked at data from a drug company that has shown then that they have access to a new drug with 90% effectiveness after one dose. There's nothing to suggest the immunity that the Pfizer vaccine gives you is in any way different to immunity conferred by any other process.

So faced with thousands of people dying, or the minute possibility that immunity conferred by the Pfizer vaccine is different to every other type of immunity from vaccines, ever, their expert recommendation is that delaying the second dose is the best option.

Only a few weeks ago there were vocal posters on here saying Pfizer couldn't be trusted, that they had lawsuits against them and so on. Now its all about how Pfizer haven't done a trial on this so we can't trust it. Any more testing Pfizer could have done would only verify risk data, it wouldn't make anything certain.

It's misleading to call the vaccine rollout a "trial" and underestimates the knowledge and experience of the MHRA in licencing and approving drugs.

Alegrias1

^The companies producing the vaccine have tested it on the two vaccinations three weeks apart regime.^

That is incorrect. Pfizer presented their results showing what happened when you are give two doses around 3 weeks apart. They have said that they did not carry out experimentation on any longer gap. That doesn't mean it doesn't work

The JCVI, who are senior scientists with knowledge of immunology and public health, looked at these tests in light of all the other vaccines that have ever been developed in the history of the world. A longer gap is generally more effective, and certainly not less. They do what they always do - looked at trial results and decided how to act on them.

The Government aren't changing anything. Just forget the ""unethical" argument, its just wrong.

The problem here is, the government and scientists have now made a trial out of the population who didn’t sign up for being in a trial
Surely you see this?

Absolutely agree with toy calendar girl.

I like to know my facts so I went to have a look at the crowdfunding site Dame Joan has set up. (She was looking for £5k initially. I'd have thought she'd have been able to rustle that up on her own if she thought it was so important)

One of the contributors said they have contributed because the decision undermines the MHRA. But as most of us know, it was the MHRA that made the decision.

Such is the standard of debate in the UK today.

I have chosen to receive a medication which is not yet accepted by the NHS for general treatment. I had to be given full disclosure and then had to sign a document to confirm that I consented to taking the medication.
Is this being done with the COVID vaccination?

An untested delivery schedule of a vaccine may not be dangerous but we have no way of knowing how effective it might be.
Any medical intervention which is untested is using members of the general public as guinea pigs without their informed consent and is therefore medically unethical.

It’s obvious isn’t it that it makes complete sense to concentrate on giving more people their first jab which in itself offers a high level of protection rather than giving fewer people two jabs which only give a small amount of extra protection.

We need to get millions vaccinated as quickly as possible as this is the best strategy to save lives and to stop hospitals being overwhelmed with cases.

ExD

The thing that worries me is the fact that after I'd had my first, I was given a long serious lecture about the importance of returning for my second and not wasting this first one, which makes one think that it will then become useless.
Now its OK to miss it!
Now it gives us full protection - so why were they recommending a second one in the first place?
Doesn't add up.

You're still getting the second one. You are not being asked to miss it, quite the opposite. Nobody has said the first one gives full protection

You're just waiting a bit longer so that fewer of us will die.

It all "adds up" if you think about it.

The companies producing the vaccine have tested it on the two vaccinations three weeks apart regime.

That is incorrect. Pfizer presented their results showing what happened when you are give two doses around 3 weeks apart. They have said that they did not carry out experimentation on any longer gap. That doesn't mean it doesn't work

The JCVI, who are senior scientists with knowledge of immunology and public health, looked at these tests in light of all the other vaccines that have ever been developed in the history of the world. A longer gap is generally more effective, and certainly not less. They do what they always do - looked at trial results and decided how to act on them.

The Government aren't changing anything. Just forget the ""unethical" argument, its just wrong.

The companies producing the vaccine have tested it on the two vaccinations three weeks apart regime.
If the govt. adjust this to any other schedule they are subjecting the population to an untested, untried regime. This is medically completely unethical.

Because full protection doesn't last for ever.
This could become an annual event as well.

The thing that worries me is the fact that after I'd had my first, I was given a long serious lecture about the importance of returning for my second and not wasting this first one, which makes one think that it will then become useless.
Now its OK to miss it!
Now it gives us full protection - so why were they recommending a second one in the first place?
Doesn't add up.

Our next door neighbour has had both. Hers were arranged with our local GPS.
MIL had to go to the hospital on the same day for her first, her 2nd has been cancelled.