Pfizer Vaccine : Efficiacy after one dose

Lost Seasider

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.

40 million doses not enough?
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
"40 million doses not enough?"

We’ll no doubt find out that some whopper has managed to spoil 20M doses by letting them overheat or something.
 
Last edited:

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member
The problem is that we don't have enough information to know whether the approach being adopted will work as we think / hope. And we are only going down this route because we don't have enough ready doses of the vaccine, not because we think it is a better treatment.
I am actually surprised that we are legally allowed to do this, I did think that the licensing of an intervention included stuff like the timing of the two stages.
 

BigHandsOliverKahn

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.
Nobody is safe until we are all safe. Even those who have had both jabs cant just return to normal life because although they may not get so ill from it in future, they may well still be spreaders to others in future. The data doesn't exist yet for the spreading side of things.
 

Wizaard

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.
What has changed since 22 December when the scientific advice was to have a second jab within 3 weeks?
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member

Insider

Well-known member
I don't know why everybody is hanging on every word of the article in the o/p.
JVT told me one dose gives you 89% protection and 2 jabs 95%. I believe him.
You believe who want.
Personally I'm dubious that anyone knows. The numbers in the trial were far too small to be conclusive IMO but I'm an optimistic by nature so I believe in positives.
Who do you fancy in the next round of the FA Cup?
 

Lost Seasider

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 answer to your question: Optimising the COVID-19 vaccination programme for maximum short-term impa

The short answer is that most of the infections in that 52% figure occurred shortly after the jab, once you filter that out it looks like after 14 days protection is more like 90%.

Which makes sense, some people getting the vaccine may already have the virus, for others it takes time for the immune response to kick in so they're still vulnerable, but after 3 weeks it looks like almost all of the protection is in place and there is little gain in rushing to the second jab.

Maybe the scientists know what they're doing.


Edit:

Linky not working, now fixed.
 
Last edited:

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
So we are just making it up on the fly...

Let me state my position again...

This is a bad decision and it will backfire...

please bookmark!

Define backfire.

You've also not yet mentioned where you work or sit on the MHRA or JCVI.

And see the detailed reasoning above.
 

20togo

Well-known member
What has changed since 22 December when the scientific advice was to have a second jab within 3 weeks?
Well there you go. Seems you want to go against this advice. No one seems to want to answer my specific question either. Why is that? Easy to call out out people til it comes down to having to make a personal decision yourself. I wonder how many of you critics will refuse the first vaccination until such a time you can have the second one with the original timescale set? A case here no doubt of damned if you do and damned if you don't. For what reason. Yep, political point scoring again.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
40 million doses not enough?
Population of 60 million requires 120 million doses, does it not? Plus the millions of immigrants that haven't even been counted but which will go to the top of the queue according to the Express and Mail.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Well there you go. Seems you want to go against this advice. No one seems to want to answer my specific question either. Why is that? Easy to call out out people til it comes down to having to make a personal decision yourself. I wonder how many of you critics will refuse the first vaccination until such a time you can have the second one with the original timescale set? A case here no doubt of damned if you do and damned if you don't. For what reason. Yep, political point scoring again.
I want to stick with the advice given by the manufacturer. You'd think they'd know best. And just for you, I'd want those deemed most vulnerable to get their two jabs first, in order. As I'm 7 years older than my wife, I'd expect to get mine long before her and many strangers get theirs in between. That's nothing to do with political points scoring. It's to do with making the best use of the resources available and not weakening its effectiveness.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Define backfire.

You've also not yet mentioned where you work or sit on the MHRA or JCVI.

And see the detailed reasoning above.
I don't need to work for anyone... I'm capable of reading and evaluating a broad spectrum of opinion, rather than burying my head in a set of initials!!

What I men by backfire is that we may well experience issues with the effectiveness of the vaccine and / or mutant strains that develop some degree of vaccine immunity due to the lower dose / low level resistance approach.
 

20togo

Well-known member
I want to stick with the advice given by the manufacturer. You'd think they'd know best. And just for you, I'd want those deemed most vulnerable to get their two jabs first, in order. As I'm 7 years older than my wife, I'd expect to get mine long before her and many strangers get theirs in between. That's nothing to do with political points scoring. It's to do with making the best use of the resources available and not weakening its effectiveness.
Has it been trialled with two separate periods of time before the second vaccination? I'm happy to go with the advice given. If you want it to not weaken it's effectiveness then why not refuse your first jab until you can have a second jab within the time frame first specified so you can be confident it's effectiveness has not been weakened. You won't of course. Why? Dare I say, it's because you'll feel happier in your own mind that you've got some sort of protection from the date of your fist jab.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
What I men by backfire is that we may well experience issues with the effectiveness of the vaccine and / or mutant strains that develop some degree of vaccine immunity due to the lower dose / low level resistance approach.

I'm sure this is something that the CMO's of all 4 nations together with the other members or JCVI are aware of and have considered.

I suggest you read the detailed link above (I've fixed it now, wasn't working previously).

Also it's important not to get too caught up on the 21 day interval, this is what was used in the trials no doubt to get them completed as fast as possible, there's no reason to think that immunity drops off significantly over the extended interval and in fact good reason to think that a longer interval might in fact be beneficial.
 

AllOrNothing

Well-known member
Has it been trialled with two separate periods of time before the second vaccination? I'm happy to go with the advice given. If you want it to not weaken it's effectiveness then why not refuse your first jab until you can have a second jab within the time frame first specified so you can be confident it's effectiveness has not been weakened. You won't of course. Why? Dare I say, it's because you'll feel happier in your own mind that you've got some sort of protection from the date of your fist jab.
What if when you had your first dose you were promised your 2nd 3 weeks later then the goalposts change. It’s a breach of trust
 

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
You know that this is new technology, increadibly difficult to set up and scale up, they are working as fast as possible.
Begs the question then why the "U"K government rushed through this first batch of vaccines if it was known they would run out in a month and face a 2 month gap before more supplies were available?
 

20togo

Well-known member
What if when you had your first dose you were promised your 2nd 3 weeks later then the goalposts change. It’s a breach of trust
Yep, I understand why and that you feel let down. But the positive spin is that some-one else is benefitting and their risk has been reduced. What would you say, if a child of yours was offered the first dose instead of you having your second one which was delayed for a further few weeks.. Would you not do that?
 

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member
The answer to your question: Optimising the COVID-19 vaccination programme for maximum short-term impa

The short answer is that most of the infections in that 52% figure occurred shortly after the jab, once you filter that out it looks like after 14 days protection is more like 90%.

Which makes sense, some people getting the vaccine may already have the virus, for others it takes time for the immune response to kick in so they're still vulnerable, but after 3 weeks it looks like almost all of the protection is in place and there is little gain in rushing to the second jab.

Maybe the scientists know what they're doing.


Edit:

Linky not working, now fixed.
Understood.
The same was said of the OX / AZ vaccine - of the two people that had been hospitalised with Covid after immunisation (with the improved regimen) both were thought to have been infected before vaccination took place.
Hope that we get millions vaccinated in the next few weeks and we can get back to normal sometime soon - hopefully with BFC in the championship after some more Critchley magic.
 

AllOrNothing

Well-known member
Yep, I understand why and that you feel let down. But the positive spin is that some-one else is benefitting and their risk has been reduced. What would you say, if a child of yours was offered the first dose instead of you having your second one which was delayed for a further few weeks.. Would you not do that?
Let’s hope it works out. I’ll be extremely interested to see what other countries, and when, adopt the same approach
 

20togo

Well-known member
Understood.
The same was said of the OX / AZ vaccine - of the two people that had been hospitalised with Covid after immunisation (with the improved regimen) both were thought to have been infected before vaccination took place.
Hope that we get millions vaccinated in the next few weeks and we can get back to normal sometime soon - hopefully with BFC in the championship after some more Critchley magic.
Agree. I'm happy to follow this advice. I don't know when I'll get my first vaccination but I'll be happy to wait the time needed til my second one. Is it not just about then following the same protocols we've been following the last nine months? Except, I'll feel that bit safer having had my first jab.
 

Insider

Well-known member
We’ll no doubt find out that some whopper has managed to spoil 20M doses by letting them overheat or something.
Oi Bifster
Your post 7.28 appears to attribute a quote to me.
Where did I say that?
Are you putting words in my mouth?
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
Begs the question then why the "U"K government rushed through this first batch of vaccines if it was known they would run out in a month and face a 2 month gap before more supplies were available?

Where do you get this idea that there will be no further deliveries until March or indeed that we'll run out by end January from?


Edit:

Presumably Jeremy Hunt (19/12), in which case:

A Pfizer spokeswoman denied Mr Hunt’s claims hours later, saying: ‘The deliveries are on track and progressing according to our agreed schedule. ‘We can confirm, in accordance with the schedule, that there will be continued deliveries into the UK in early 2021, with shipments scheduled to arrive before March.’
 
Last edited:

Wizaard

Well-known member
Yep, I understand why and that you feel let down. But the positive spin is that some-one else is benefitting and their risk has been reduced. What would you say, if a child of yours was offered the first dose instead of you having your second one which was delayed for a further few weeks.. Would you not do that?
With 60 million to vaccinate, the likelihood of my child being vaccinated with my second jab is less likely than winning the lottery. The comparison doesnt work.
 

20togo

Well-known member
With 60 million to vaccinate, the likelihood of my child being vaccinated with my second jab is less likely than winning the lottery. The comparison doesnt work.
You know perfectly well the point I'm making. Funny how you come on here condemning all these rule breakers and how you're rigidly following the guidelines set but simply applying those same rules after having your first jab for a few extra weeks seems to be a big issue for you. And some-one else is able to have their first jab giving them a greater level of protection than simply not having their first injection. And that doesn't sit comfortably with you.
 

Loco

Well-known member
"The cumulative incidence of Covid-19 cases over time among placebo and vaccine recipients begins to diverge by 12 days after the first dose, 7 days after the estimated median viral incubation period of 5 days,10 indicating the early onset of a partially protective effect of immunization. The study was not designed to assess the efficacy of a single-dose regimen."

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=RP
 

Fargo99

Well-known member
I wouldn't put the Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi in charge of a twopenny raffle. It's a recipe for disaster.
Give the job to a high ranking General in the army who is trained in logistics and crisis management, then let the army administer it with support from the NHS.
 

Insider

Well-known member
Crass as always. After his first jab he was told it wasnt effective until he had his second by the doctor at the Vic. So you want him dead so someone else can be slightly more safe?
Wiz. I'm pretty sure that's just not true. I'm on a trial and although it's not Pfizer or AZ I'm pretty sure the vaccine I MAY have been given is very similar.
I've been given a lot of information by ordinary Doctors with no agenda and they are pretty certain one jab gives a fairly good percentage protection.
 

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
Where do you get this idea that there will be no further deliveries until March or indeed that we'll run out by end January from?


Edit:

Presumably Jeremy Hunt (19/12), in which case:

A Pfizer spokeswoman denied Mr Hunt’s claims hours later, saying: ‘The deliveries are on track and progressing according to our agreed schedule. ‘We can confirm, in accordance with the schedule, that there will be continued deliveries into the UK in early 2021, with shipments scheduled to arrive before March.’
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
You know perfectly well the point I'm making. Funny how you come on here condemning all these rule breakers and how you're rigidly following the guidelines set but simply applying those same rules after having your first jab for a few extra weeks seems to be a big issue for you. And some-one else is able to have their first jab giving them a greater level of protection than simply not having their first injection. And that doesn't sit comfortably with you.
It's a big issue because I was told by my Dad's doctor that the first jab wasnt fully effective on its own but needed the booster in three weeks. All of a sudden, literally between jabs, that's no longer the case with no medical evidence put forward other than speculation that it might not be as necessary as it was a fortnight ago. It simply doesn't add up.

Someone is gambling with the nation's health. Who has made this call? It's not like we haven't been told that we're following the science repeatedly, only to find out otherwise.

I sincerely hope that this doesnt come back to bite us as it might result in suppressing the virus briefly without giving anyone sufficient immunity, resulting in us being back to square one. That's a real possibility by this late change of plan.

What are other countries doing? Is the rest of the world following our lead, or sticking with the original plan? If others are doing it, I may be more reassured.
 

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
So do you suggest that it was better not to vaccinate anyone in that period. Can't personally workout the logic of that.
Depends how people behave who have had just one jab. I'm reading comments where people think it's job done after 1 jab. If they think that, then they could be a danger to themselves and probably spread more disease to others than had they not had it at all.
 
Last edited:

20togo

Well-known member
It's a big issue because I was told by my Dad's doctor that the first jab wasnt fully effective on its own but needed the booster in three weeks. All of a sudden, literally between jabs, that's no longer the case with no medical evidence put forward other than speculation that it might not be as necessary as it was a fortnight ago. It simply doesn't add up.

Someone is gambling with the nation's health. Who has made this call? It's not like we haven't been told that we're following the science repeatedly, only to find out otherwise.
Whereas I genuinely understand your concern for your Dad and rightly so, it's the same situation as covered in a previous post.
 

20togo

Well-known member
Depends how people behave who have had just one jab. I'm reading comments where people think it's job done after 1 jab. I they think that, then they could be a danger to themselves and probably spread more disease to others than had they not had it at all.
Straws clutching at.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Whereas I genuinely understand your concern for your Dad and rightly so, it's the same situation as covered in a previous post.
I've added to my earlier post. What is the rest of the world doing? Sticking with the Pfizer recommendation or changing the frequency? I'd be more reassured if they're also changing plan.

If not, why not?
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Wiz. I'm pretty sure that's just not true. I'm on a trial and although it's not Pfizer or AZ I'm pretty sure the vaccine I MAY have been given is very similar.
I've been given a lot of information by ordinary Doctors with no agenda and they are pretty certain one jab gives a fairly good percentage protection.
I was with him. I'm not saying one jab gives no protection, but there is better effectiveness with the second booster, hence them calling it that until this u turn.
 

1950`spoolfan

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.
The problem here is that you have consistently shown yourself to be so biased with your extreme left wing views that almost no-one respects or believes anything that you post.

If you expect anyone to respect your views or even take any notice of them then I suggest you start showing a lot more balance but everything we have seen on here so far suggests that is asking for the impossible from you.
 
Top
X