Pfizer Vaccine : Efficiacy after one dose

Loco

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.
What's the point of the trial then, if they are already certain?
 

20togo

Well-known member
What's the point of the trial then, if they are already certain?
Think he put his name forward for the trial which was carried out and I assume is still ongoing before the release of the vaccination was issued for the general public innoculation.
 

Archibald Knox

Well-known member
JVT has said it is OK to delay. I’ll listen to him and not the usual wild speculation on here.
The range of interval days between Pfizer 1st and 2nd jabs during the trials was 19 to 43 days max. The inventors are conservative scientists and will not claim protection values beyond 43 days after just the first jab because they have no data for that scenario.

I do not know where JVT is getting his 89% protection value from after just one jab. I hope it’s not a guesstimate from that Ferguson chap at Imperial College. He has a crap record as a modeller - he got Foot and Mouth modelling very wrong too and his methods have not changed much since (factamundo).
 
Last edited:

Archibald Knox

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.
The deadly Spanish Flu of 1918-20 had four waves.
 

Archibald Knox

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.
I appreciate your logical analysis. But I think you should be using the 29.5% efficacy value for the worst case in the 1-jab scenario. That’s the lower end of the 95% confidence interval, not the 52% median value. In that case the numbers are...

One jab scenario... 10,000,000 x .45% x 29.5% = 13,275 protected in most vulnerable group who would have got it, leaving Infected 31,725
The Govt’ claim says 89% efficacy with one jab, leaving Infected 4,500
Two-jab scenario... Pfizer recomendation means only 5m will get vaccinated (95% protection) with full 0.45% infection probability for 5m. Infected total 23,625.

So, JVT’s calculated gamble with just the 1-jab is an extra 8,100 people infected in this most vulnerable group for which the mortality rate could be >50%. So, potentially ca. 4000 lives compared with the current 75,000+ deaths (Govt figures within 28 days of CV+ test) or 95-100,000 (if you take “excess deaths”).


Although that is the cumulative deaths over the past 9 months and does not take into account the accelerating infections and deaths due to the new mutated variant currently ripping through the country.

JVT & Co are certainly focused on the upside of the equation. Let’s hope they have proper data and their 89% efficacy claim is correct. Is Whitty on board with this? He seems a little invisible atm.
 
Last edited:

Insider

Well-known member
What's the point of the trial then, if they are already certain?
It's another company trying to produce and sell a drug to save lives. It's obviously not precisely the same. Each company will have its own patent. That's what happens when you have a market of twice the population of the world that might need vaccinating annually.
My trial lasts for 12 months and for those volunteers on Pfizer and AZ trials there participation is still ongoing that's why there are still lots of unknowns.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
I think the main point is being missed here.....

If appears that anyone who has had one jab will get the virus much more lighter.

So much so nobody ended up in hospital who caught the virus later in the trials.

Do we need more evidence - probably - but we are short of time and the situation is incredibly fluid at best.

The chance to protect double the amount of people has to be taken.

I am also sick of hearing that the government should just follow the science. The reality is we don’t have all the evidence and many scientists disagree on the best way forward.

The government have actually done very well when it comes to securing the vaccine by buying multiple solutions in bulk when they didn’t really know which ones would, or will work. Credit where it’s due - the EU for example appear to have really screwed this up.

One fact we do have is that there is simply not enough doses to protect the planet yet.

So for me, we make the most of what we have got and that means one jab for now.
 

Loco

Well-known member
That doesn't re
Think he put his name forward for the trial which was carried out and I assume is still ongoing before the release of the vaccination was issued for the general public innoculation.
That doesn't really answer my question.
 

Loco

Well-known member
It's another company trying to produce and sell a drug to save lives. It's obviously not precisely the same. Each company will have its own patent. That's what happens when you have a market of twice the population of the world that might need vaccinating annually.
My trial lasts for 12 months and for those volunteers on Pfizer and AZ trials there participation is still ongoing that's why there are still lots of unknowns.
I was really pointing out the bias in your doctor's assumptions. Not very scientific imo.
 

Loco

Well-known member
Th
I think the main point is being missed here.....

If appears that anyone who has had one jab will get the virus much more lighter.

So much so nobody ended up in hospital who caught the virus later in the trials.

Do we need more evidence - probably - but we are short of time and the situation is incredibly fluid at best.

The chance to protect double the amount of people has to be taken.

I am also sick of hearing that the government should just follow the science. The reality is we don’t have all the evidence and many scientists disagree on the best way forward.

The government have actually done very well when it comes to securing the vaccine by buying multiple solutions in bulk when they didn’t really know which ones would, or will work. Credit where it’s due - the EU for example appear to have really screwed this up.

One fact we do have is that there is simply not enough doses to protect the planet yet.

So for me, we make the most of what we have got and that means one jab for now.
That is certainly their reasoning and the major scientific argument against is the potential to create selection pressure leading to worse mutations. It's a huge gamble. Let's hope they've got their risk-benefit calculations right.
 

Insider

Well-known member
Sir John Bell from Oxford University explained the position far better than me on GMTV a few minutes ago. The developing data supports the revised view that a one dose vaccination is the best way forward.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Sir John Bell from Oxford University explained the position far better than me on GMTV a few minutes ago. The developing data supports the revised view that a one dose vaccination is the best way forward.
Here's hoping, and hope is all we've got.
 

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member
Here's hoping, and hope is all we've got.
I am happy to trust the scientists in this but am interested in their rationale. Someone has to make the decisions, I don't particularly trust this government, but as long as the decisions are guided by rational scientific evidence then I am happy. Yes we have to hope, but I do think that we have much more than hope given what we know.
 

Mr Tangerine Man

Well-known member
Fuck them we should all say we are not having any unless we get the proper doses. Always the same in this country we get less becuase we expect less.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I am happy to trust the scientists in this but am interested in their rationale. Someone has to make the decisions, I don't particularly trust this government, but as long as the decisions are guided by rational scientific evidence then I am happy. Yes we have to hope, but I do think that we have much more than hope given what we know.
The science feels a bit wing and a prayer to me. They go to all the trouble of setting strict protocols in order the determine the efficacy of the vaccine snd then essentially throw it out of the window and pick small segments of data, combined with all manner of assumptions about the way in which the vaccines interact with the immune system over time.

I suppose we must rely on their expertise and experience in the field, but it might feel better if the decisions were supported by a) other countries b) the vaccine manufacturers and that they weren’t just borne out of ‘desperation’
 

Walnut

Well-known member
Any Doctors on here? I'd read (cant remember where I've read so much stuff on it) that the Pfizer vaccine had significantly more attributes than the Oxford one. It was essential that the most vulnerable had the pfizer vaccine.
 

Walnut

Well-known member
Just done Omni covid vaccine calculator Friends have said take no notice it's a load of rubbish but as a former shielder it is massively important to me. I did the calculator today and it says it could be between the end of March - end of May before I get the jab. Also did it for wife over 60 no underlying health and it came back with September. All that is based on 1million doses per week. surely this is a factor to the one dose strategy.
 

hertfordseasider

Well-known member
They are really concerned about the South African variant too. The Oxford/Zeneca people are saying they don't think their vaccine will be effective against it although they should be able to tweak it so it is in 6 weeks or so.

That's the problem with viruses like this, there isn't likely to be long term protection from vaccinations so we are likely to be at some risk for some time.
 

20togo

Well-known member
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.
Wiz
Just an update. Wife's parents are having their second jab tomorrow. They rung to check it was still going ahead in view of change of policy. So it does seem there may be a different policy being applied by different health authorities. Don't know how this might affect others on here who've already had their first jab.
 

glasshalffull

Well-known member
To be fair the Government had to take what was basically a punt on the vaccines in development and put orders in without knowing what might work.
They and we inevitably have to live with the outcome of those decisions for the time being.
Fortunately all the vaccines seem to have some efficacy, so here’s hoping it will at least be a partial silver bullet.
I think we have to realise and accept that the rollout of the vaccines across the population is basically a grand scale phase 2 (or is it phase 3, I forget) of their development experimental trials.
We can’t afford to wait longer for it clearly.
Whoever took the decision to postpone the second jab so that more of us can have the first one sooner has made a massive call.
I will back them on it though. Let’s hope it pays off.
Those who developed them are bound to cover their own arses by saying there is no evidence that the single doses will be effective aren’t they? They are technically correct as well because that method probably wasn’t part of their initial experimentation on the vaccines?
Squeaky bum time for whoever made that decision, and good luck to him/her and all the rest of us, fingers crossed 🤞 .
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Wiz
Just an update. Wife's parents are having their second jab tomorrow. They rung to check it was still going ahead in view of change of policy. So it does seem there may be a different policy being applied by different health authorities. Don't know how this might affect others on here who've already had their first jab.
Cheers
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Over 80s were at Lytham Health Centre getting their follow up jabs today, have the Government changed their tactic on this, or did they never change from the original plan?
Very hard to know what they are doing, we have a PM who isn't a leader, not being anti Tory just anti Johnson, totally unsuitable for the job.
 

todayistheday

Well-known member
Heard a young nurse talking, Dr's are refusing to vaccinate young women who are, thinking of having kids in near future,breast feeding or are already pregnant. Makes you wonder what chemicals are in the potion.
 

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
Heard a young nurse talking, Dr's are refusing to vaccinate young women who are, thinking of having kids in near future,breast feeding or are already pregnant. Makes you wonder what chemicals are in the potion.
"Refusing" sounds a bit dramatic. The advice around fertility when administering the Pfizer vaccine is here: Advice
The main sections around pregnancy suggest there's been limited testing on pregnant women although no data showing any harm but advise only to give the vaccine when benefits outweigh risks. I suppose women still young enough to have kids will be less likely to be in danger of dying from Covid so doctors probably evaluate it as not worth the risk?
 

Walnut

Well-known member
Spoke to two retired nurses who have re-registered but both are still waiting to be trained.
Also heard a rumour (source my mate) that there was a shortage of viles. Anyone else heard this?
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Spoke to two retired nurses who have re-registered but both are still waiting to be trained.
Also heard a rumour (source my mate) that there was a shortage of viles. Anyone else heard this?
Europe wide shortage of vials as well
 
Last edited:

Bring Back Standing

Well-known member
Over 80s were at Lytham Health Centre getting their follow up jabs today, have the Government changed their tactic on this, or did they never change from the original plan?
Very hard to know what they are doing, we have a PM who isn't a leader, not being anti Tory just anti Johnson, totally unsuitable for the job.
I know people who have had their 2nd jab too.
Does seem to be against government policy, or maybe the start date for this hasn't started yet .
 

Lost Seasider

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.

A bit of a necro, but I found and interesting article in The Mail on Sunday.

If anyone wonders where Bliar got his bright ideas from:

Matt Hancock has 'stopped talking' to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.

The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair's own suggestions.


🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

EPM46

Well-known member
The clue comes from ”I found an interesting article in the Mail on Sunday”!
Gullible or what?
 

gjr69

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 think if the Government had stuck to its original plan of a 2nd dose 3 weeks after the 1st hardly anyone, maybe nobody, would be complaining.
The companies that produce it said that's how it should be done, I would trust them more than anybody else on this.
If it meant I had to wait the best part of a year to get mine then that's the way it is, I've been living life almost like normal anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
The companies that produce it said that's how it should be done, I would trust them more than anybody else on this.

More than the JCVI?

Ox/AZ was tested with a 12 week interval so they're happy with that, Pfizer wasn't so they're covering their backs by recommending what they did test.


If it meant I had to wait the best part of a year to get mine then that's the way it is, I've been living life almost like normal anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

If you do the maths it works out at about 5,000 - 10,000 extra deaths, and it looks like the government made exactly the right decision again: New Pfizer jab study supports Government 12-week interval, researchers claim

A single dose of the Pfizer vaccine is 90% effective from 21 days after vaccination, a new study has suggested.
This seems to support the UK’s delay of the second dose to 12 weeks, the researchers claimed.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
More than the JCVI?

Ox/AZ was tested with a 12 week interval so they're happy with that, Pfizer wasn't so they're covering their backs by recommending what they did test.




If you do the maths it works out at about 5,000 - 10,000 extra deaths, and it looks like the government made exactly the right decision again: New Pfizer jab study supports Government 12-week interval, researchers claim

A single dose of the Pfizer vaccine is 90% effective from 21 days after vaccination, a new study has suggested.
This seems to support the UK’s delay of the second dose to 12 weeks, the researchers claimed.
I suppose time will tell, generally I would trust manufacturers of a pharmaceutical product to have the best knowledge of how to use their vaccine, let's hope there aren't issues further down the line.
So many stats thrown at us now that I don't know who or what to believe!
 

bleach51

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
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.
..and of course Cat knows best as our chief medical officer with all the data to hand.
I guess you think we should just stand by and do nothing and wait and wait and wait....
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
..and of course Cat knows best as our chief medical officer with all the data to hand.
I guess you think we should just stand by and do nothing and wait and wait and wait....

He also lies through his teeth makes a mistake by saying it's the government's decision when it was in fact the JCVI's and none of the committee's memebers are a part of the government.
 

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Interesting thread this looking back.

There's a few people will would have seen us vaccinate far, far fewer people than we have, either because they wanted a full inoculation or suspected we would run out of vaccine.

I'm so pleased we have done what we've done.

As for Tony Blair; sounds about right.
 
Top
X