Pfizer Vaccine : Efficiacy after one dose

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member

I have just read that and it certainly goves some cause for concern.
The UK government have been telling us that the Pfizer vaccine gives 90% coverage after the first jab, this is their justification for deviating from the prescribed program. According to the article above the coverage is in fact only 52% after one jab.
Who is telling the truth here and are the government taking a massive gamble with the health of the old people who have had this vaccination (and NHS staff)?
I'd be interested if there is more information about this - where did the government's 90% figure come from?
 

Wizaard

Well-known member

I have just read that and it certainly goves some cause for concern.
The UK government have been telling us that the Pfizer vaccine gives 90% coverage after the first jab, this is their justification for deviating from the prescribed program. According to the article above the coverage is in fact only 52% after one jab.
Who is telling the truth here and are the government taking a massive gamble with the health of the old people who have had this vaccination (and NHS staff)?
I'd be interested if there is more information about this - where did the government's 90% figure come from?
90% for 3 weeks and 52% for 3 months. Both figures are correct in context.
 

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member
So they have to be innoculated for the second time within about 5 weeks of the first jab?
Where does it say that in th elink that you posted?
I'm not sure about this, it looks like what we are proposing (and now doing) hasn't really been trialled properly.
 

TimperleyTangerine

Well-known member
After 12 months of development and having been signed-off for use in the UK, based on 2 doses, I’m struggling to accept the change. I can’t see any data on efficacy if the second dose isn’t received, or if it’s delayed beyond the recommended time.

Having reached this point, I just hope that the Government isn’t going to impact our long-term ability to live ‘normally’ with this virus, by opting for a short-term approach. If the efficacy of the first dose reduces, we would be vulnerable again next winter, particularly as it may be challenging getting hold of enough vaccine for the second dose.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
After 12 months of development and having been signed-off for use in the UK, based on 2 doses, I’m struggling to accept the change. I can’t see any data on efficacy if the second dose isn’t received, or if it’s delayed beyond the recommended time.

Having reached this point, I just hope that the Government isn’t going to impact our long-term ability to live ‘normally’ with this virus, by opting for a short-term approach. If the efficacy of the first dose reduces, we would be vulnerable again next winter, particularly as it may be challenging getting hold of enough vaccine for the second dose.
Short term approach? This Government? As if...

We'll all get one jab, think we're ok and the fourth wave will kick in because we dont have the follow up quickly enough, losing the overall benefit.
 

Chunkylad

Well-known member
Wonder what happens if first jab is Pfizer and second is the lower cost AZ vaccine
They’d certain prefer that
 

Insider

Well-known member
Short term approach? This Government? As if...

We'll all get one jab, think we're ok and the fourth wave will kick in because we dont have the follow up quickly enough, losing the overall benefit.
I honestly don't think the data is available yet to confirm or deny the effective of the vaccines more than a few months down the line.
 

Sooty59

Well-known member
Wonder what happens if first jab is Pfizer and second is the lower cost AZ vaccine
They’d certain prefer that
Not sure if they can do that. I’m no expert but thought it was stated these vaccines work slightly differently in the way they stimulate the build up of immunity.
 

hertfordseasider

Well-known member
The report about mixing vaccines came from the NYT and the BMJ have asked them to retract this as it isn't true, they won't be mixing vaccines.

However, I think it is folly to spread the 1st and second vaccinations out for as long as 12 weeks just to get more vaccinated initially. Let's get people vaccinated properly, so if it is best and most effective to get the second jab 3 or 5 weeks later, let's make sure everyone who has the first jab gets exactly that.

This Government don't seem to be able to look for anything other than a quick fix. I would rather wait a couple of extra months for my vaccinations if it meant those before me got the 2 jabs in the proper time gap as this would surely save more lives?
 

Bisphamtang

Well-known member
Wonder what happens if first jab is Pfizer and second is the lower cost AZ vaccine
They’d certain prefer that
Chunky don't think they can do that as the drugs are formulated differently and have different action

Must say would rather follow the scientists advice than politician's fir obvious reasons
In most drugs timing and dosage are important
If this initiative is simply to speed things up and manage the news I would rather have a delay particularly if it impacts negatively on the efficacy of the vaccine
 

Loco

Well-known member

I have just read that and it certainly goves some cause for concern.
The UK government have been telling us that the Pfizer vaccine gives 90% coverage after the first jab, this is their justification for deviating from the prescribed program. According to the article above the coverage is in fact only 52% after one jab.
Who is telling the truth here and are the government taking a massive gamble with the health of the old people who have had this vaccination (and NHS staff)?
I'd be interested if there is more information about this - where did the government's 90% figure come from?
The BMJ news article is reporting the results from the vaccine trial and has a link to the paper. What is actually stated is
"The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,1 found that vaccine efficacy between the first and second doses was 52% (95% credible interval 29.5% to 68.4%).
Seven or more days after the second dose, vaccine efficacy then rose to 95% (90.3% to 97.6%)".

So the vaccine may only be 25.9% effective after one dose in the worst case. There is much more confidence in the efficacy after two doses, 7.3% variation compared to 38.9% after one dose.

The limitations are listed in the original paper. One of these is how to deal with those who miss the second vaccine dose. If those who trialled the vaccine don't know, how can the UK government? It's a calculated risk.

 
Last edited:

Newholland

Well-known member
Short term approach? This Government? As if...

We'll all get one jab, think we're ok and the fourth wave will kick in because we dont have the follow up quickly enough, losing the overall benefit.
Shame the government didn’t take Tony Blair’s advice on the vaccine roll out... oh wait a minute they did!😂😂
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Shame the government didn’t take Tony Blair’s advice on the vaccine roll out... oh wait a minute they did!😂😂
And what relevance is Tony Blair to anything, and you think it's a good idea the Government listen to him? Dont get your point.
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
Wonder what happens if first jab is Pfizer and second is the lower cost AZ vaccine
They’d certain prefer that
BMJ has publicly asked the NYT to refute their allegation that the UK was going to do that, so it is certainly of unproven use. As the former is RNA based, and the latter virus based, the BMJ has a point. It may be the spike in both cases, or other elements in the Oxford case.
 

Chunkylad

Well-known member
Chunky don't think they can do that as the drugs are formulated differently and have different action

Must say would rather follow the scientists advice than politician's fir obvious reasons
In most drugs timing and dosage are important
If this initiative is simply to speed things up and manage the news I would rather have a delay particularly if it impacts negatively on the efficacy of the vaccine
Totally agree
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
Short term approach? This Government? As if...

We'll all get one jab, think we're ok and the fourth wave will kick in because we dont have the follow up quickly enough, losing the overall benefit.
As well as the vaccine, why don't you also get a dose of positivity? You may find you like living in a positive world instead of the endless doom and gloom.
 

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member
JVT has said it is OK to delay. I’ll listen to him and not the usual wild speculation on here.
JVT comes across as the only honest and knowledgeable government spokesperson.
However, I would still like to know where the scientific evidence is that justifies yet another uturn from the government.
Pfizer have said that the vaccine is not supposed to be used in the way our government is using it and other scientists (eg. Faucci) have accused us of gambling.
What evidence has this decision been based on?
It is a fair question.
 

Sooty59

Well-known member
Whatever the so called experts deemed ok this needs some proper evidence which will take time & we don't have that. In that case it's probably a reasonable gamble to quell the immediate spread, but how the delay will affect the efficacy after the second delayed jab is relatively unknown. I can see a shitstorm from some quarters with the medical passport suggestion, personally I've nowt to hide & wouldn't be bothered if this data was gathered by a reputable source (not the dubious track & trace lot)

 

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
The "U"K didn't order enough Pfizer vaccines so it would run out by about the end of January if it gave each person both jabs and would then be faced with a gap of around 2 months before the next Pfizer order arrives. It's a fudge that wouldn't have ever been considered if they had ordered enough in the first place.
 

20togo

Well-known member
And what relevance is Tony Blair to anything, and you think it's a good idea the Government listen to him? Dont get your point.
Here we go again. Seems people want to overlook the fact that it was the govt's initial intention to give the second vaccination shortly after the first. It is a fact that Blair did say that in his view we should concentrate on giving as many people the first vaccination rather than giving people the second. Whether they listened to him or not they did change their minds on it. It did seem a reasonable thing to consider doing.
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
The "U"K didn't order enough Pfizer vaccines so it would run out by about the end of January if it gave each person both jabs and would then be faced with a gap of around 2 months before the next Pfizer order arrives. It's a fudge that wouldn't have ever been considered if they had ordered enough in the first place.
Another one who needs a vaccine and also a dose of positivity. Must be awful living in that negative world of yours.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Here we go again. Seems people want to overlook the fact that it was the govt's initial intention to give the second vaccination shortly after the first. It is a fact that Blair did say that in his view we should concentrate on giving as many people the first vaccination rather than giving people the second. Whether they listened to him or not they did change their minds on it. It did seem a reasonable thing to consider doing.
It's not a reasonable thing if it's not giving immunity to the same level as two doses closer together and the figures seem to indicate that. I agree that the sooner the population is vaccinated the better but not at the cost of immunity.

And when did Tony Blair get his doctorate in virology?
 
Last edited:

catinstalbans

Well-known member
What we have got to remember is that it is not the negligence of Boris Johnson that is responsible for 85% of the deaths from Covid in this country as stated in a scientifically published report that I am not allowed to link to by the mods on here. It's not not following the science either.
The disaster befalling this country has nothing to to with the government. It is all the fault of those of us that criticise and don't think happy thoughts about every time Johnson and this government lie to us.
Honestly why should we be positive when this government has messed up on Covid time and time again. Every time they have ignored the science has been a disaster yet here we go again!
 

20togo

Well-known member
It's not a reasonable thing if it's not giving immunity to the same level as two doses closer together and the figures seem to indicate that. I agree that the sooner the population is vaccinated the better but not at the cost of immunity.
Look, do you seriously deny that if the Govt had stuck with their original plan, there wouldn't have been people on here moaning about not doing it the way it is now being done. As sure as night turns to day there would have been.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Look, do you seriously deny that if the Govt had stuck with their original plan, there wouldn't have been people on here moaning about not doing it the way it is now being done. As sure as night turns to day there would have been.
I wouldn't be one of them if they were following the science to develop immunity. Someone has decided to take a gamble. If it comes off, great. If not, who is accountable? Tony Blair or the Government?

It's literally gambling with people's lives, but when weve over 70,000 dead already, they've probably decided what the hell
 

Insider

Well-known member
The "U"K didn't order enough Pfizer vaccines so it would run out by about the end of January if it gave each person both jabs and would then be faced with a gap of around 2 months before the next Pfizer order arrives. It's a fudge that wouldn't have ever been considered if they had ordered enough in the first place.
What we have got to remember is that it is not the negligence of Boris Johnson that is responsible for 85% of the deaths from Covid in this country as stated in a scientifically published report that I am not allowed to link to by the mods on here. It's not not following the science either.
The disaster befalling this country has nothing to to with the government. It is all the fault of those of us that criticise and don't think happy thoughts about every time Johnson and this government lie to us.
Honestly why should we be positive when this government has messed up on Covid time and time again. Every time they have ignored the science has been a disaster yet here we go again!
Thank you to the "62" of the non-football side of the messageboard.
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
What we have got to remember is that it is not the negligence of Boris Johnson that is responsible for 85% of the deaths from Covid in this country as stated in a scientifically published report that I am not allowed to link to by the mods on here. It's not not following the science either.
The disaster befalling this country has nothing to to with the government. It is all the fault of those of us that criticise and don't think happy thoughts about every time Johnson and this government lie to us.
Honestly why should we be positive when this government has messed up on Covid time and time again. Every time they have ignored the science has been a disaster yet here we go again!
How you get through the day I’ll never know. The children you teach need to be put on suicide watch ffs
 

Insider

Well-known member
The "U"K didn't order enough Pfizer vaccines so it would run out by about the end of January if it gave each person both jabs and would then be faced with a gap of around 2 months before the next Pfizer order arrives. It's a fudge that wouldn't have ever been considered if they had ordered enough in the first place.
BHOK. Maybe Pfizer said we can only sell you the amount we ordered. You might find this difficult to believe but there is a population on our planet of about 7.8 billion requiring 15.6 billion doses and that's just in year one.
 

20togo

Well-known member
What we have got to remember is that it is not the negligence of Boris Johnson that is responsible for 85% of the deaths from Covid in this country as stated in a scientifically published report that I am not allowed to link to by the mods on here. It's not not following the science either.
The disaster befalling this country has nothing to to with the government. It is all the fault of those of us that criticise and don't think happy thoughts about every time Johnson and this government lie to us.
Honestly why should we be positive when this government has messed up on Covid time and time again. Every time they have ignored the science has been a disaster yet here we go again!
An article that didn't consider any events after lockdown so it really wasn't a fair reflection. You [the article] quoted 21,000 people and you abused in your usual manner the PM for it. Tell me with 100% certainty by providing evidence that every one of those 21000 people who died would have been alive today. Fact is, we well may have come out of lockdown a week earlier and the death rate may have started rising at even quicker rate than it did. Those people were just as vulnerable after lockdown as they were before it.
 

20togo

Well-known member
It's not a reasonable thing if it's not giving immunity to the same level as two doses closer together and the figures seem to indicate that. I agree that the sooner the population is vaccinated the better but not at the cost of immunity.

And when did Tony Blair get his doctorate in virology?
But then there's millions at MORE risk because they haven't had the first jab. Moaning for moanings sake and like I said if they'd stuck with their first intention people on here would have been criticising it. And I think you know that. Because that's what the usual suspects do.
 

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
BHOK. Maybe Pfizer said we can only sell you the amount we ordered. You might find this difficult to believe but there is a population on our planet of about 7.8 billion requiring 15.6 billion doses and that's just in year one.
Pfizer are making profits out of it so doubt it. Also, the cost of this vaccine rules most countries out of ever being able to order it.
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
I wouldn't be one of them if they were following the science to develop immunity. Someone has decided to take a gamble. If it comes off, great. If not, who is accountable? Tony Blair or the Government?

It's literally gambling with people's lives, but when weve over 70,000 dead already, they've probably decided what the hell
Even by your standards that's laughable.
 

20togo

Well-known member
Even by your standards that's laughable.
Simple question Wiz.

You can have both your jabs now within the space of a few days of each other so you are fully immune but your wife is at more risk because she's not had any jab. Or you can give one of your jabs to your wife so although you are both not perhaps quite fully protected the risk is less for your wife. What do you do? That same question applies to anyone here.
in effect that's what this decision is about is it not?.
 

Loco

Well-known member
"If we want to generate difficult viral escape mutants in the lab (e.g. for epitope mapping), we subject the virus to low antibody pressure and then slowly move up. A little bit like after one vaccine dose. I think it would be good to give the second dose as soon as possible."

Quote from a Prof of Microbiology. Many scientists worry the one dose scenario will lead to more mutations, possibly unpleasant ones.
 

Insider

Well-known member
Look at the maths
In the first 3 months we might be able to source 10m doses.
The current infection rate is about 0.45%.
So if you use the worse case scenario of 1 dose = 52% efficacy
10,000,000 x .45% x 52% = 23,400 less cases in the highest viulnerable group. Infected 21,600
The Govt figues say 89% efficacy with one jab
10,000,000 x .45% x 89% = 40,500 Infected 4,500
Pfizer recomendation means only 5m will get vaccinated
5,000,000 x 0.45% × 95% = 21,375 Infected 1,125 + 22,500 = 23,625.
(But add to that 5m non vaccinated
5,000,000 x 0.45 = 22,500)
So if JVT is not telling porkies there's a huge reduction in infections in vulnerable groups.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Simple question Wiz.

You can have both your jabs now within the space of a few days of each other so you are fully immune but your wife is at more risk because she's not had any jab. Or you can give one of your jabs to your wife so although you are both not perhaps quite fully protected the risk is less for your wife. What do you do? That same question applies to anyone here.
in effect that's what this decision is about is it not?.
Before Christmas, my Dad was told that one jab wasnt enough and he'd need to shelter until he'd had the second. Now one's enough. With this Government's track record to date of picking the wrong course of action, forgive me if I dont get too enthusiastic. This smacks of someone pointing out that 'we can say weve reached a million' much quicker than 500,000, like when Hancock claimed they'd delivered 1,000,000 gloves early on, helping 1,000,000 nurses, ignoring that they're needed in pairs.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Simple question Wiz.

You can have both your jabs now within the space of a few days of each other so you are fully immune but your wife is at more risk because she's not had any jab. Or you can give one of your jabs to your wife so although you are both not perhaps quite fully protected the risk is less for your wife. What do you do? That same question applies to anyone here.
in effect that's what this decision is about is it not?.
No. It's about giving the correct dose when its needed or risking that no one gets immunity to the required standard.
 

20togo

Well-known member
Before Christmas, my Dad was told that one jab wasnt enough and he'd need to shelter until he'd had the second. Now one's enough. With this Government's track record to date of picking the wrong course of action, forgive me if I dont get too enthusiastic. This smacks of someone pointing out that 'we can say weve reached a million' much quicker than 500,000, like when Hancock claimed they'd delivered 1,000,000 gloves early on, helping 1,000,000 nurses, ignoring that they're needed in pairs.
No. It's about giving the correct dose when its needed or risking that no one gets immunity to the required standard.
I'm not disputing that one does is not enough. I've already covered that. But it does give at least over 50% protection. And I think that's the lowest estimate. And it's pretty clear that at this point in time there isn't enough doses to vaccinate everybody. But I've asked you a direct question and given reasons behind it. So answer the question. Would you have both the injections for yourself and let your wife run the greater risk of contracting the virus? It's a pretty straightforward question..
 

Newholland

Well-known member
It's not a reasonable thing if it's not giving immunity to the same level as two doses closer together and the figures seem to indicate that. I agree that the sooner the population is vaccinated the better but not at the cost of immunity.

And when did Tony Blair get his doctorate in virology?
Same time as you possibly 😁
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
An article that didn't consider any events after lockdown so it really wasn't a fair reflection. You [the article] quoted 21,000 people and you abused in your usual manner the PM for it. Tell me with 100% certainty by providing evidence that every one of those 21000 people who died would have been alive today. Fact is, we well may have come out of lockdown a week earlier and the death rate may have started rising at even quicker rate than it did. Those people were just as vulnerable after lockdown as they were before it.
Let's go back to the key points which you seem to want to ignore.
The government has consistently failed to act on scientific advice at the time it is recommended.
They then act too late after the situation worsens.
Each time they do this people die that did not need to.
Yet you defend them every time.
 

fcblackpool

Well-known member
I'm not disputing that one does is not enough. I've already covered that. But it does give at least over 50% protection. And I think that's the lowest estimate. And it's pretty clear that at this point in time there isn't enough doses to vaccinate everybody. But I've asked you a direct question and given reasons behind it. So answer the question. Would you have both the injections for yourself and let your wife run the greater risk of contracting the virus? It's a pretty straightforward question..
What does 50% do? Allow you to live half your life normal? The 2 jab delay will cause problems, not least because by the time the 2nd comes to some the first will have weakened. And we won't have a bleedin' clue who is safe and who isn't.
 

20togo

Well-known member
Let's go back to the key points which you seem to want to ignore.
The government has consistently failed to act on scientific advice at the time it is recommended.
They then act too late after the situation worsens.
Each time they do this people die that did not need to.
Yet you defend them every time.
Hang on you brought up the other stuff and now you want to deflect away from it again. Jeez!.
 

Insider

Well-known member
Let's go back to the key points which you seem to want to ignore.
The government has consistently failed to act on scientific advice at the time it is recommended.
They then act too late after the situation worsens.
Each time they do this people die that did not need to.
Yet you defend them every time.
I think you pick and choose to suit your agenda. The four deputy chief medical officers' scientific advice is that we give one dose and the Government is following that.
 

20togo

Well-known member
What does 50% do? Allow you to live half your life normal? The 2 jab delay will cause problems, not least because by the time the 2nd comes to some the first will have weakened. And we won't have a bleedin' clue who is safe and who isn't.
Halves the risk. The second jab is intended for twelve weeks later is it not? I think that's a reasonable short period to wait so that others can have jab and halve their risk too. And is it asking too much to follow the same rules we all should have been following for the last nine months till hopefully every one has done. And as Insy says, is that not the scientific advice now.
 

fcblackpool

Well-known member
Halves the risk. The second jab is intended for twelve weeks later is it not? I think that's a reasonable short period to wait so that others can have jab and halve their risk too. And is it asking too much to follow the same rules we all should have been following for the last nine months till hopefully every one has done. And as Insy says, is that not the scientific advice now.
Originally the second was 4 weeks.
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
I think you pick and choose to suit your agenda. The four deputy chief medical officers' scientific advice is that we give one dose and the Government is following that.

The efficacy of the vaccine is based on 2 doses.
Pfizer have stated that there is no experimental evidence that protection lasts beyond the 3 weeks in between the doses.
That is the experimental evidence. The government's decision is based on assumption without evidence.
 
Top
X