- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
That's reassuring.
That would make sense to me under 'disconnect' circumstances.
COVID Vaccine !
- Thread starter kingrollo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That's reassuring.
That would make sense to me under 'disconnect' circumstances.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Are second doses being given as a matter of course (to, say, NHS front-line staff) at much less than the 12 weeks 'allowed' in this centre and elsewhere? Is that not depriving a person in the same group or Gps 3-6 an early first dose? I guess that an 'end-of-the-day' shortlist might include the opportunity to complete the vaccination schedule for a proportion of hospital (say) staff.
Is the sex of the "health professional of some sort" an issue or relevant? Just asking?
Tom's " investigated [and] blood will be on carpet" suggestion seems OTT. Haven't the NHS got better things to do or (don't have knowledge of any) other minor reasons to self-flagellate?
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Hope you don't mind, but I've pasted these across here.
Green Book
"Front line healthcare staff (Group 2 - NOW, along with over 80s and front line social care workers)
This includes the following groups:
Staff involved in direct patient care
This includes staff who have frequent face-to-face clinical contact with patients and who are directly involved in patient care in either secondary or primary care/community settings. This includes doctors, dentists, midwives and nurses, paramedics and ambulance staff, pharmacists, optometrists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and radiographers. It should also include those working in independent, voluntary and non-standard healthcare settings such as hospices, and community-based mental health or addiction services.
Staff working on the COVID vaccination programme, temporary staff, students, trainees and volunteers who are working with patients must also be included.
Non-clinical staff in secondary or primary care/community healthcare settings This includes non-clinical ancillary staff who may have social contact with patients but are not directly involved in patient care. This group includes receptionists, ward clerks, porters and cleaners.
Laboratory and pathology staff
Hospital-based laboratory and mortuary staff who frequently handle SARS-CoV-2 or collect or handle potentially infected specimens, including respiratory, gastrointestinal and blood specimens should be eligible as they may also have social contact with patients. This may also include cleaners, porters, secretaries and receptionists in laboratories.
Frontline funeral operatives and mortuary technicians / embalmers are both at risk of exposure and likely to spend a considerable amount of time in care homes and hospital settings where they may also expose multiple patients.
[Implicitly not included] Staff working in non-hospital-based laboratories and those academic or commercial research laboratories who handle clinical specimens or potentially infected samples will be able to use effective protective equipment in their work and should be at low risk of exposure."
No sadly not they are totally central government and don't join up. The best way is allow primary to do they can do it they just need to be allowed to get on with it. Much of the time, effect and money going into the big centres can be better spent in providing primary care with what it needs. They also need the vaccine which is not reaching them when they are told or even if it will arrive at all. Mrs 73 has at least had one lot never arrive and no word on if any is come. She and her staff can get though all they need both staff and patients across 3 sites they just need the stuff.
Back room errors are one thing the real issue are drug errors or worse. The other issues is people being missed or bypassed all together.
The rate at which the government what's to push this it's in danger of running away with it's self. The MVC are not needed really until we get to wide mass wider public vaccination time. Even then all they need is use the staffing model they have now just put them under primary care control and supervision. Mass public health is what they do and have for years they know the needs of the areas they cover and how best to get this rolled out. If the government really want's to help then what ever spare effect, energy and money it has should be going into getting hold of as much vaccine it can find. Not playing a political game.
They've be calling for an end to it for health care workers for some time. Though at the moment many would welcome even the possible hope of the 1st one.
midlife
Guru
Our hospital are booking second dose at 9 weeks. AFAIK we only have the Pfizer vaccine so getting a second AZ dose by mistake shouldn't be a problem. Last time I heard we have vaccinated about half the staff.
I know what say's but getting one is the problem or getting someone join up the dot's.
lane
Veteran
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55777084
Doctors call for 6 week gap saying the UK is increasingly isolated internationally and 12 weeks difficult justify.
Of course I have no idea what's right or best. However on the basis Whitty etc. have got so many of the big calls wrong it is at least a "realistic possibility" they got this wrong.
Doctors call for 6 week gap saying the UK is increasingly isolated internationally and 12 weeks difficult justify.
Of course I have no idea what's right or best. However on the basis Whitty etc. have got so many of the big calls wrong it is at least a "realistic possibility" they got this wrong.
No it's not it's a drug error and will be looked into things like this can have lead to deaths. How much blood get's spilled depends on how keen the place is or how keen the senior clinical manger is on clinical record keeping. It also depend on if the giver has made other recording errors in the past. At best it's a formal warning and going some sort of clinical reflection to do at worse if they are known for it and if a HCP it can go all the way to the professional body.
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
From here:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/coronavirus-vaccine-rollout
The rollout is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), working with NHS England, NHS Improvement and Public Health England to co-ordinate vaccinations across a large network of vaccination sites including in hospitals, GPs and pharmacies.
Are you saying that all these departments are not working effectively together and that NHS England, NHS Improvement and PHE are not involved in the strategic & tactical decision making processes of the rollout?
Judging by output it seems to me that all the above must be contributing effectively and I can't imagine that without them working together thus that we would be achieving the incredible vaccination numbers thus far.
How have you come to that conclusion? Some hard evidence would be useful.
Presume you mean Big Vaccination Centres?
Are we not in mass wider public vaccination time? We have a schedule to vaccinate the whole population and need to work through this as fast as possible.
The current approach using the BCV's in conjunction with the PCN must surely be the fastest way to achieve this?
I think you'll find that they have been putting a huge amount of effort into this via the BEIS and VTF.
As an aside they are certainly doing a much better job than the rest of Europe so every credit to them.
For sure they (like any other Government of any political colour or nation) will try and claim some of the credit at some stage but I find it hard to believe that decisions are being made, along with all the various agencies involved, that are politically motivated.
What made you say that apart from you not being a fan of the current Government?
Even the Labour Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth yesterday praised the rollout program thus far (adding it needs to go further and faster - for completeness on my part).
Whitty, Vallance and Stevens have also added their praise to the fantastic achievements thus far by everyone involved in the rollout program.
Something must be working well somewhere.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Yes - well reported. My immediate reaction (warning may be tl;dr) was that their argument seemed to be rather weak, not science based and unpersuasive. Fails to acknowledge (and/or refute) the benefit of increasing the gap between first and second doses to allow twice the number of the vulnerable element of the UK population to receive their first vaccine two months earlier than otherwise. Think there is some media 'puffing' involved: too much good news on the vaccination programme; we need to report the disagreements more - better clickbait.
BMA's line - Joe:
1) The trials used 3 weeks/4 weeks so we should do what's been trialed. We reluctantly agree that we might stretch to 6 weeks. [iaw WHO guidance]
2) The international community generally think we should stick to doing what's been trialed - WHO Guidelines. UK is an outlier in deferring the second dose.
Some Reuters reporting:
Britain is prioritising giving first doses of COVID-19 vaccine, allowing up to 12 weeks before a second dose, to give the maximum number of people some initial protection.
But Pfizer/BioNTech have warned they have no evidence their vaccine would continue to be protective if the second dose is given more than 21 days after the first. [Comment: Because they chose not to gather such evidence; and no evidence that it wouldn't.]
The British Medical Association (BMA) said it supports giving a second dose up to 42 days [6 weeks] after the first dose, but that a longer gap is not in line with WHO guidance. “The UK’s strategy has become increasingly isolated from many other countries,” the BMA said. “BMA members are also concerned that, given the unpredictability of supplies, there may not be any guarantees that second doses of the Pfizer vaccine will be available in 12 weeks’ time.”
Oxford/AZ has supported the gap between its jabs, saying data showed an 8-12 week gap was a “sweet spot” for efficacy.
The Department of Health and Social Care said that its priority was to protect as many people as possible as quickly as possible. “The decision...to change vaccine dosage intervals followed a thorough review of the data and was in line with the recommendations of the UK’s four chief medical officers.”
On 30 December NHS England said the decision had been taken to prioritise giving the first doses of vaccine (whether the Pfizer and BioNTech one or that of Oxford University and AstraZeneca) to as many people as possible on the priority list to “protect the greatest number of at-risk people overall in the shortest possible time.”1 Delaying the second dose meant that the prioritisation process “will have the greatest impact on reducing mortality, severe disease and hospitalisations and in protecting the NHS and equivalent health services,” it said.
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.
WHO Guidelines:
"WHO acknowledges that a number of countries face exceptional circumstances of vaccine supply constraints combined with a highdisease burden. Some countries have therefore considered delaying the administration of the second dose to allow for a higher initial coverage. This is based on the observation that efficacy has been shown to start from day 12 after the first dose and reached about 89% between days 14 and 21, at the time when the second dose was given. No data on longer term efficacy for a single dose of the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 currently exist,"
i don't know about that but the second dose may have been erroneously considered the first one by the vaccinator and the person involved went along to the appointment anyway because one thing is known for sure, they must have said that they hadn't had one previously in order to receive it.
The sex of the recipient would help my wife's nurse team uncover who it is as they may belong to her team.
My M-I-L isn't a member of any health profession and she received her second (Pfizer) vaccination two weeks ago.
Yes hard work is going in it's ones on the ground working flat out just like they have been though out this.
Vaccine program is at the end of a day all about public health and should be done in a way to achieve clinical outcomes and done in a way that is effect and best meets patient needs. Not something to be used to play political games so much of this current public health emergency has been total derailed by it all ready.
If NHS improvement are anywhere near this it's not a great sign to start with they pick up from Monitor.
What I mean is once the 1st two rounds are done. Which are the real numbers needed to be a maximum effect.
Like I've said have one route in and build capacity as you go but still having some overall management via ones who know how to do this in an effective , safe , tried and tested way. We don't need to reinvent the wheel the government tried that and it's not a great idea.
Can we at least get done group one first making sure no-one has been missed before running heading into group 2 and up. We need to get this right at the 1st go both in terms of getting the vaccinations done in a safe and effective way together with the public health messaging round it. People on the ground away from Mrs who I know and have worked tell me what's happening on the ground they all want to do this and make it work. (Ones been cheeky and already bagged me to lend a hand once ambo support is less full on) But the communication coming down is not happening and vaccine supply is getting cut at the last minute with little notice. We either have the supply or not the government needs to be open about. Why open even more placers if we don't have the supply in place for the places we already have?
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
My mother (well over 80) also had two Pfizer jabs: on 17 Dec and 7 Jan (21 days).
After the change in JCVI direction (to 'up to 12 weeks') in late Dec, the BMA negotiated an arrangement to agree that all arranged appointments for second doses up to 10 Jan should be met, but after that, they should be rearranged for (up to 12 weeks) later.
I have shared the date maths in a previous post, but essentially that means that the vast majority who got their first jab before 21 Dec (like your m-i-l, just) received their second dose at the 21 day point.
For those after 20 Dec it's March onwards (for example @midlife OTP). That will allow the programme to deliver (nearly) only first doses all the way through to 6 March. If the programme stays on track that'll mean that nearly all of Group 6 will get their first dose by that date.
If we'd stuck to the 3/4 week gap we'd still be giving the first dose to the later element of Group 3 (over 75s). Which is why I sincerely trust JCVI will not be swayed by the latest BMA representation.
