COVID Vaccine !

[PK99]

Forgive me if I am wrong but you appear to post a load irrelevant stuff . Then when taken task - scream its off topic.

You say you don't believe the vaccination is political ? - yet to quote you a couple of posts back:-

"What is the view of "opposition politicians" to the UK's approach to vaccine procurement now I wonder? "Forgivable?"

To be fair, @Ajax Bay 's post was in response to a blatantly one-sided political article on the vaccine in the Guardian.

 

[kingrollo]

Wales seems to be lagging somewhat on the vaccine rollout...my friend whose 80+ year old parents have heard diddly squat about when they may get vaccinated (they live in Cardiff)

My friend said that Drakeford had been reported as saying it's not a sprint to get people vaccinated and in her words, she'd like to marmalise him (not a phrase I've heard but I guess it's not good!!)

Marmalise - that takes me back.

A thought occurred to me, great at the current vaccine stats are - are we in the 'low hanging fruit stage' - in that we are vaccinating people who are eager to come forward - we have a load more sites come on board today, and last week appeared to be getting through 300k jabs a day. It could well be that when we have shifted through the easy ones - it become harder to increase that figure even as we throw more resources at it.

 

[accountantpete]

Wales seems to be lagging somewhat on the vaccine rollout...my friend whose 80+ year old parents have heard diddly squat about when they may get vaccinated (they live in Cardiff)

My friend said that Drakeford had been reported as saying it's not a sprint to get people vaccinated and in her words, she'd like to marmalise him (not a phrase I've heard but I guess it's not good!!)

What are they doing in Wales? Mark Drakeford was on the radio explaining that they have loads of Pfizer vaccines but are not getting any more until the end of Feb. So they are spreading the roll out of the Pfizer vaccines over that 6 weeks by slowing down the rate of vaccination.

His argument seems to be that the centres have to be kept open and running - so rather than vaccinate the needy as soon as possible the process will be streched out.

Seems an odd bit of logic to me - mind you he is a Labour party First Minister

 

[kingrollo]

I thought that this has been covered here. 89-92 percent efficacy if you discount infections in the first 14 days

I had heard around 60% - but perhaps that figure hadn't deducted the 14 days.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

 

[Ajax Bay]

Please don't shout @kingrollo - my hearing is unaided, currently.
Is there much divergence currently, between the various parties, on the vaccination programme? What they actually say, not what the DM says they say.
Back in July the benefits of UK choosing to adopt a national approach on vaccination procurement rather than one integrated with the EU (of which we were no longer a member) was a political issue, wrapped up into the effort to influence the mode of exit from the transition period.
"What is the view of "opposition politicians" to the UK's approach to vaccine procurement now I wonder?" I don't know. Do you? Best of luck finding out.

 

[vickster]

Marmalise - that takes me back.

A thought occurred to me, great at the current vaccine stats are - are we in the 'low hanging fruit stage' - in that we are vaccinating people who are eager to come forward - we have a load more sites come on board today, and last week appeared to be getting through 300k jabs a day. It could well be that when we have shifted through the easy ones - it become harder to increase that figure even as we throw more resources at it.

It doesn't seem like in Wales that they have vaccinated the low hanging fruit - my friend says her elderly parents are desperate to be vaccinated, they are mobile and live in Cardiff, so why the delay?

 

[kingrollo]

Please don't shout @kingrollo - my hearing is unaided, currently.
Is there much divergence currently, between the various parties, on the vaccination programme? What they actually say, not what the DM says they say.
Back in July the benefits of UK choosing to adopt a national approach on vaccination procurement rather than one integrated with the EU (of which we were no longer a member) was a political issue, wrapped up into the effort to influence the mode of exit from the transmission period.
"What is the view of "opposition politicians" to the UK's approach to vaccine procurement now I wonder?" I don't know. Do you? Best of luck finding out.

I'm not aware that any opposition party have raised an objection to vaccine procurement - so a reasonable assumption that they broadly support it.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I agree that the approach the Wales medical system have decided to adopt (described above by @vickster and by the Welsh FM on the radio) is odd. I suspect this cunning plan will be revised (though public, medical and political pressure) and all supplies 'got of the shelf and into willing deltoids'. If that means some centres find they are out of vaccines, that would seem a good 'pedal spanner' to wrench an increase in supply from the central UK distribution system.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Back to the 80% which @kingrollo queried and on which @midlife commented.

I don't believe 80% protection 14 days after the first jab is [correct]

I think this is the BMJ article I read a fortnight ago (my emboldening):
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18

"How effective is just one dose?
A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 52.4% between the first and second dose (spaced 21 days apart).5 However, in its “green book” Public Health England said that during the phase III trial most of the vaccine failures were in the days immediately after the first dose, indicating that the short term protection starts around day 10.6 Looking at the data from day 15 to 21, it calculated that the efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 was around 89% (95% confidence interval 52% to 97%). Meanwhile, Pfizer has said that it has no evidence that the protection lasts beyond the 21 days.
In the case of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, PHE said, “High protection against hospitalisation was seen from 21 days after dose one until two weeks after the second dose, suggesting that a single dose will provide high short term protection against severe disease . . . An exploratory analysis of participants who had received one standard dose of the vaccine suggested that efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 was 73% (95% CI 48.79-85.76%).”

Most of groups 1-4 will or have received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (affects the calculation of 'average'). So might we estimate that the average 'protection' percentage 14 days after the first jab is actually above 80%? I will go back an edit my earlier post

 

[kingrollo]

Back to the 80% which @kingrollo queried and on which @midlife commented.
I think this is the BMJ article I read a fortnight ago (my emboldening):
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18

"How effective is just one dose?
A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 52.4% between the first and second dose (spaced 21 days apart).5 However, in its “green book” Public Health England said that during the phase III trial most of the vaccine failures were in the days immediately after the first dose, indicating that the short term protection starts around day 10.6 Looking at the data from day 15 to 21, it calculated that the efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 was around 89% (95% confidence interval 52% to 97%). Meanwhile, Pfizer has said that it has no evidence that the protection lasts beyond the 21 days.
In the case of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, PHE said, “High protection against hospitalisation was seen from 21 days after dose one until two weeks after the second dose, suggesting that a single dose will provide high short term protection against severe disease . . . An exploratory analysis of participants who had received one standard dose of the vaccine suggested that efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 was 73% (95% CI 48.79-85.76%).”

Most of groups 1-4 will or have received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (affects the calculation of 'average'). So might we estimate that the average 'protection' percentage 14 days after the first jab is actually above 80%? I will go back an edit my earlier post

Depends what you want to prove\measure with the stats. From memory it was the impact on people not getting ill post vaccination - If thats the case, can you ignore those 14 days and the people who get ill in that period ?

Have I read correctly the first pfizer jab may not offer any protection after 21 days ?

 

[tom73]

Marmalise - that takes me back.

A thought occurred to me, great at the current vaccine stats are - are we in the 'low hanging fruit stage' - in that we are vaccinating people who are eager to come forward - we have a load more sites come on board today, and last week appeared to be getting through 300k jabs a day. It could well be that when we have shifted through the easy ones - it become harder to increase that figure even as we throw more resources at it.

That's easy to fix and is another problem coming down the line. Most are fine with the groups getting 1st daps at the vaccine the problem than come's with the bun fight for who is next. At least 5 at the last count want it 1st many which will be popular with the public. Even if as now JCVI after reviewing evidence say it's not the way to go clinically. Going down the teachers, police ect route will be give easy government brownie points. So in one go the vaccine rate stay's nice and positive and ones with big political lobby are kept happy. Once we move that way it's a very slimy path to setting health policy and access based on social worth and not on need.
Or we can do as we now and totally gloss over the bits of society we don't like.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Have I read correctly the first pfizer jab may not offer any protection after 21 days ?

No, that's entirely mistaken.

The trial was run with a gap of 21 days, so there is no direct evidence from the phase three trial of the exact level of protection beyond 21 days.

Nobody, but nobody believes there is any risk of there being "no protection". Very few people believe there is any likelihood of anything other than a very good level of protection for weeks or months with a single jab.

 

[tom73]

No, that's entirely mistaken.

The trial was run with a gap of 21 days, so there is no direct evidence from the phase three trial of the exact level of protection beyond 21 days.

Nobody, but nobody believes there is any risk of there being "no protection". Very few people believe there is any likelihood of anything other than a very good level of protection for weeks or months with a single jab.

Not sure the government are keen for that to be mass public thinking right now. Since the weekend they have not been keen to still guarantee or confirm you will get the 2rd one.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Depends what you want to prove\measure with the stats. From memory it was the impact on people not getting ill post vaccination - If thats the case, can you ignore those 14 days and the people who get ill in that period ?
Have I read correctly the first pfizer jab may not offer any protection after 21 days ?

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. And I obviously had no input into what was measured.
I think the BMJ article is reasonably clear.
'My' 80% was after 14 days. Yes, of course one disregards any infections/getting ill for those who succumb before the vaccine has had time to have a beneficial effect. Pfizer's trials suggested that period to be 10 days.
Please remember that none of these vaccines is 100% effective so infection, serious illness and tragically death will occur in a few per cent, even 7 days after the second dose is administered.
@roubaixtuesday has answered your other point - you have read the article correctly: "Pfizer has said that it has no evidence that the protection lasts beyond the 21 days." But all the world's experience suggests that it will (and recently reported studies on the level of antibodies in those who had the disease in April reinforce experts' confidence in this).

 

[Ajax Bay]

Not sure the government are keen for that to be mass public thinking right now. Since the weekend they have not been keen to still guarantee or confirm you will get the 2nd one.

1) I'm sure, Tom. The government surely are keen that the public understand the truth*. There is no risk of there being "no protection" (well actually there's a 5% risk (but that's close enough to 'none' for government work)). "Very few people believe there is any likelihood of anything other than a very good level of protection for weeks or months with a single jab" as @roubaixtuesday said.
2) Tell us more about these guarantees or confirmations you implicitly seek. JCVI have suggested that the gap between the first and second dose can be extended to 12 weeks (rationale - read the BMJ paper I linked to above), and except in exceptional circumstances, that the second dose should be the same vaccine. I expect both these directions to be followed. Don't you?
Has anyone of standing suggested that, down the line (eg March/April), the programme will 'chin off' the second dose? Of course it may (I think the chances are extremely slim: the cost/benefit analysis medically and politically and legally will be starkly against). Maybe UK will decide that, so that all those second doses can be given to poorer countries (and in the EU) WHO will otherwise see even more delay in receiving supplies. Do you think that'd be a good idea?
But no point wringing your hands about it now and asking for 'guarantees'. What's the point? I guarantee that (Roman not Greek Orthodox) Easter will be on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.
* What is 'truth'?