Second vaccine

exd I m not sure why you are surprised about the vaccines effectiveness it’s been known from its conception that it may only be a partial help it has never been known how well it protects or even if it stops you passing it on that was clear from day 1
The annual flu jab is quite low with its protection

I have three older friends who have had their first injection and today they are having their second one none been cancelled so far

I certainly don’t think it’s the be all and end all but hopefully it will be an improvement on nothing

BlueBelle
“I certainly don’t think it’s the be all and end all but hopefully it will be an improvement on nothing.”
Agree BlueBelle.

A second dose should follow no more than 3 weeks later.

I was vaccinated twice within 2 weeks while working on a ward during the Asian 'flu.

The 2018 'flu vaccination was proved as good as useless against the type of virus at the time. 2019 was no better either when Covid struck.

Does it not tell you something when so many die each winter ?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination

Mum had her second vaccination cancelled today. I don’t know of anyone in our area that has had the second one.

www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/boris-johnson-announcement-coronavirus-vaccine-4863499

More info tonight re speeding up of vaccine rollout

Once I have the first, I'll demand the second one 2 weeks later because of the questionable efficacy of the initial one given to the elderly.

I don't see how your could insist and 'make' someone stick a needle into you?????

The more medical information I read about the vaccine the more I wonder about how effective it is with a 12 week gap. It seems we will still have to be very careful even after the second dose.

Bury St Edmunds are giving second vaccination 3weeks after first. Just had ours. Doctor said they are doing it as that is what was recommended

A friends elderly parents, 90 and 91, had their second jabs on Tuesday, but apparently was the last day that hospital was doing 2nd jabs.

For what it’s worth, I think anyone who had the initial jab should get their second one the three weeks later. The cut off should have been instigated after that.

That’s what has happened here calendargirl. Those receiving number one before the decision was made have had number two as planned. Mr C has a jab next week and his confirmation says clearly that new Government guidelines are now being followed and second jab will be between 3 and 12 weeks later, date to be confirmed.

My 91 year old Mum lives in Wolverhampton. She has not been invited for the first vaccination yet

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.