|
Originally Posted by lhrsfo
(Post 33355954)
Given that what we know from the figures is that two doses offers significantly more protection against the Indian variant than one (most especially when it comes to AZ) and nobody has done any testing on lengthening the gap, I would be inclined to get the second jab as soon as possible after the 3 weeks is up. There's speculation that longer gaps are "better", and I can see that such might be the case for the UK generally, but I'd be inclined to mistrust what the NHS says on this - it's an organisation that doesn't care much about individual requirements and it's firmly in their interests to get people to wait.
Just think it through: you get a vaccine, it probably won't last forever (but because it's a new vaccine you don't actually know). So you're going to assume that after a few months the immunity will start to ebb, and that the B and T cells will start to degrade in effectiveness. How long would that take? Three weeks seems a bit short. So we extend it to say 10 weeks, then you bump up the immune protection to a higher level and give longevity to the immune response. If you gave the second jab say 2 days after the first, you don't need to be graduate in immunology to appreciate that is way too soon, it's a waste of time since the body cannot react to that. Three weeks was the minimum you could do in order to get Phase III to work, but actually longer is better. Those immunised in January and then April now have higher immune levels than January and February. In fact I'm not aware of a single Delta case in the January + April cohort, but there are a very small number in the January + February cohort. In which case, why are we reducing the timeline now? Because January + February is still better than January only - two doses are better than one. So now that Delta has taken off, then particularly for the vulnerable you do want them to have a second dose at say 8 weeks, but in the medium term this isn't good and may force a third booster shot when otherwise it would have been avoided. None of this should be surprising, this applies to almost all viruses. Indeed it would have been utterly surprising if COVID-19 somehow degraded a vaccine in weeks rather than months. The NHS is in charge of delivering the vaccine, and not much more. I am seconded to that effort from my usual role and I am not one of those who blindly worships the NHS (those that do work for the NHS are also healthily cynical about the organisation). But from what I have seen the NHS has delivered the vaccines into more arms than any other large health organisation on the planet, safely, efficiently and cost effectively. We are likely to get 90% plus coverage of these vaccines in the adult population and I doubt many other places will achieve that. |
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 33356338)
Let me correct that. The main stakeholders in the NHS wanted to stick closer to the manufacturers' recommendations, but it was the body of immunology generally, and specifically the MHRA, JCVI and Public Health England that wanted to extend the interval. The UK has a relatively strong immunology and statistical immunology faculty, relatively few of whom are employed by the NHS. They normally work for universities, research institutes and public bodies other than the NHS. It's a core principle of immunology, indeed sheer common sense, to delay vaccine doses where it's a booster and longevity impact (as opposed to precursor and main dose impact).
Just think it through: you get a vaccine, it probably won't last forever (but because it's a new vaccine you don't actually know). So you're going to assume that after a few months the immunity will start to ebb, and that the B and T cells will start to degrade in effectiveness. How long would that take? Three weeks seems a bit short. So we extend it to say 10 weeks, then you bump up the immune protection to a higher level and give longevity to the immune response. If you gave the second jab say 2 days after the first, you don't need to be graduate in immunology to appreciate that is way too soon, it's a waste of time since the body cannot react to that. Three weeks was the minimum you could do in order to get Phase III to work, but actually longer is better. Those immunised in January and then April now have higher immune levels than January and February. In fact I'm not aware of a single Delta case in the January + April cohort, but there are a very small number in the January + February cohort. In which case, why are we reducing the timeline now? Because January + February is still better than January only - two doses are better than one. So now that Delta has taken off, then particularly for the vulnerable you do want them to have a second dose at say 8 weeks, but in the medium term this isn't good and may force a third booster shot when otherwise it would have been avoided. None of this should be surprising, this applies to almost all viruses. Indeed it would have been utterly surprising if COVID-19 somehow degraded a vaccine in weeks rather than months. The NHS is in charge of delivering the vaccine, and not much more. I am seconded to that effort from my usual role and I am not one of those who blindly worships the NHS (those that do work for the NHS are also healthily cynical about the organisation). But from what I have seen the NHS has delivered the vaccines into more arms than any other large health organisation on the planet, safely, efficiently and cost effectively. We are likely to get 90% plus coverage of these vaccines in the adult population and I doubt many other places will achieve that. CWS, in your opinion, will the younger age groups (20s, 30s, 40s) be offered a booster in Autumn or should I say will the advice be for those age groups to get it, or is it likely just to be the priority groups? |
Originally Posted by HB7
(Post 33356459)
I don't know about the NHS management, but the staff and volunteers I have dealt with have been top notch in my opinion.
CWS, in your opinion, will the younger age groups (20s, 30s, 40s) be offered a booster in Autumn or should I say will the advice be for those age groups to get it, or is it likely just to be the priority groups? For the younger age groups, they are not in the planning for boosters. Indeed on paper the advantage of the extended interval should mean you won't need to worry about it for the winter ahead, most people below 40 would have their second dose in the June to September period, and hopefully that should be enough to go through to Spring 2022 or perhaps beyond. Some younger people had their first dose in February 2021, so frontline care and health workers, and those with a specific range of pre-existing health conditions. They will be in the frame for any boosters since (a) they had their first pair of doses earlier than most and (b) they are more vulnerable anyway. But actually we are seeing very good immune responses from those vaccinated in January + April, no apparent weakening is obvious yet, so the vaccines are doing a very good job here. The planning is logisitical at this point, we don't actually have a clinical need to give third doses yet. Some things could change this. If the variants do continue to move further away from the original virus then at some point a tweaked set of vaccines may be more effective, as is the case with the influenza vaccine. This hasn't been shown as needed yet. As time goes on the vaccines administered early in 2021 may wane in strength, indeed that would be most likely outcome, but we don't, know if it's 8 months or 18 months or 18 years yet. But we will find out as time marches on. Finally, if it is deemed a good idea for those aged 50 years plus to get a third injection, then those aged 49 and a bit will say "hang on, what about us?" and before you know it, you have offered it, perhaps as "you can have it if you really want it". I think that scenario is quite plausible. And of course, there will be some people who will go the extra mile to get their jabs....... So the short verison is that boosters don't seem immediately on the cards for healthy people under 50 not wokring in health or social care. |
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 33356571)
I'm glad you have had a positive experience of the vaccination effort - which is good since vaccination is an inherently unpleasant thing to do. We do what we can to do the necessary screening and vaccination as efficiently as possible.
For the younger age groups, they are not in the planning for boosters. Indeed on paper the advantage of the extended interval should mean you won't need to worry about it for the winter ahead, most people below 40 would have their second dose in the June to September period, and hopefully that should be enough to go through to Spring 2022 or perhaps beyond. Some younger people had their first dose in February 2021, so frontline care and health workers, and those with a specific range of pre-existing health conditions. They will be in the frame for any boosters since (a) they had their first pair of doses earlier than most and (b) they are more vulnerable anyway. But actually we are seeing very good immune responses from those vaccinated in January + April, no apparent weakening is obvious yet, so the vaccines are doing a very good job here. The planning is logisitical at this point, we don't actually have a clinical need to give third doses yet. Some things could change this. If the variants do continue to move further away from the original virus then at some point a tweaked set of vaccines may be more effective, as is the case with the influenza vaccine. This hasn't been shown as needed yet. As time goes on the vaccines administered early in 2021 may wane in strength, indeed that would be most likely outcome, but we don't, know if it's 8 months or 18 months or 18 years yet. But we will find out as time marches on. Finally, if it is deemed a good idea for those aged 50 years plus to get a third injection, then those aged 49 and a bit will say "hang on, what about us?" and before you know it, you have offered it, perhaps as "you can have it if you really want it". I think that scenario is quite plausible. And of course, there will be some people who will go the extra mile to get their jabs....... So the short verison is that boosters don't seem immediately on the cards for healthy people under 50 not wokring in health or social care. Suppose there are identical triplets living in identical situation. Triplet one is Jan/Feb vacc'd, Triplet two is Jan/April vacc'd. Now suppose Triplet three is Jan/Feb/Apr vacc'd (three doses, administrative blunder, say.) You've stated that triplet two is better off than triplet one given the current situation, and possibly come September. But how does triplet three compare? In Canada, they're saying if you have a non-canadian approved vacc series completed elsewhere, you should restart a new series when you arrive in Canada. I was wondering if multiple vaccine shots taken too soon after each other would actually negatively impact the effect of the original series, ie could 3/4 shots be worse than 2? Thank you! |
Originally Posted by under2100
(Post 33356738)
Triplet one is Jan/Feb vacc'd, Triplet two is Jan/April vacc'd. Now suppose Triplet three is Jan/Feb/Apr vacc'd (three doses, administrative blunder, say.) You've stated that triplet two is better off than triplet one given the current situation, and possibly come September. But how does triplet three compare?
Originally Posted by under2100
(Post 33356738)
In Canada, they're saying if you have a non-canadian approved vacc series completed elsewhere, you should restart a new series when you arrive in Canada. I was wondering if multiple vaccine shots taken too soon after each other would actually negatively impact the effect of the original series, ie could 3/4 shots be worse than 2?
|
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 33356571)
I'm glad you have had a positive experience of the vaccination effort - which is good since vaccination is an inherently unpleasant thing to do. We do what we can to do the necessary screening and vaccination as efficiently as possible.
For the younger age groups, they are not in the planning for boosters. Indeed on paper the advantage of the extended interval should mean you won't need to worry about it for the winter ahead, most people below 40 would have their second dose in the June to September period, and hopefully that should be enough to go through to Spring 2022 or perhaps beyond. Some younger people had their first dose in February 2021, so frontline care and health workers, and those with a specific range of pre-existing health conditions. They will be in the frame for any boosters since (a) they had their first pair of doses earlier than most and (b) they are more vulnerable anyway. But actually we are seeing very good immune responses from those vaccinated in January + April, no apparent weakening is obvious yet, so the vaccines are doing a very good job here. The planning is logisitical at this point, we don't actually have a clinical need to give third doses yet. Some things could change this. If the variants do continue to move further away from the original virus then at some point a tweaked set of vaccines may be more effective, as is the case with the influenza vaccine. This hasn't been shown as needed yet. As time goes on the vaccines administered early in 2021 may wane in strength, indeed that would be most likely outcome, but we don't, know if it's 8 months or 18 months or 18 years yet. But we will find out as time marches on. Finally, if it is deemed a good idea for those aged 50 years plus to get a third injection, then those aged 49 and a bit will say "hang on, what about us?" and before you know it, you have offered it, perhaps as "you can have it if you really want it". I think that scenario is quite plausible. And of course, there will be some people who will go the extra mile to get their jabs....... So the short verison is that boosters don't seem immediately on the cards for healthy people under 50 not wokring in health or social care. |
Normal service resumes. Daily data:
Cases 15,810 (10,476 last Thursday) Deaths 18 (11) Patients admitted 224 (221 on the 14th) Patients in hospital 1,485 (1,251 on the 16th) Patients in ventilation beds 259 (210 on the 17th) People vaccinated up to and including 24 June 2021: First dose: 43,877,861 Second dose: 32,085,916 The rolling seven day daily average for cases is now up 47.9% on the previous week and the same measure for deaths is up 52.8%. The rolling 7 day daily average for deaths is 15.7 today. |
Managed a 2nd dose of Pfizer in London, ~4 weeks after the 1st.
There's a decent chance I've already had Covid -- technically, an indeterminate Covid test just over 2 weeks after being pinged by Test + Trace - and by indeterminate, I don't mean void or invalid, a genuine indeterminate result in a Pillar 1 test. So I'm glad this is out of the way. |
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 33356852)
If you tested triplet 3 say 2 weeks the third dose, I'd expect that one to have the highest level of antibodies, but it may only be slightly more than triplet2. After a few more weeks I would expect it to be within the margin of error, maybe not much to choose. I know that you chose triplets to effectively say "all things being equal", but one of the things twins and triplets do not usually share is immune response, they can be quite different, but that's a digression. Triplet1 I would expect to trail the other 2 siblings. But here's an interesting thing: had you tested triplet1 in March, that one would have been way ahead of triplet2 - now imagine Delta was going on in March and hopefully every slots into place.Triplet1 (and 3) better protected for that surge, triplet2 better protected over the medium and longer period.
I think that's two questions really. Take the Sputnik vaccine, it may be a very useful tool, but most Western health agencies have not been fully engaged in the testing and manufacturing stages and therefore we feel in the dark about this vaccine and its effectiveness. How best to resolve this? Probably to start again. Having the extra shot(s) will either be more or less neutral or provide better protection. It's not an ideal situation, it is the sort of reason why we have the WHO to provide a baseline for international vaccinations. Hopefully this is the sub 1% scenario when from a public health perspective the focus is on the 80% to 90% area. As far as I know there is no evidence that you can overdo it with 4 vaccines, but clearly at some point the maximum sensible effectiveness is reached - so far determined to be a few weeks after vaccine 2. |
Originally Posted by under2100
(Post 33357698)
I think you are saying is rather, at some frequency level, the benefit-cost ratio would not make sense (say 94.5% protected vs 95.5% weighed against constant 1/100000 side-effect risk). Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts in detail.
|
Regarding boosters ...
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/vaccina...years/46738564 "In a policy brief published on Friday, the Swiss National Covid Science Task Force writes that after mRNA vaccination, individuals below 65 years of age likely maintain more than 50% protection against mild infection for 16 months or longer and more than 80% protection against severe infection for more than three years." |
18,270 new people had a confirmed positive test result reported on 26 June 2021.
Between 20 June 2021 and 26 June 2021, 98,460people had a confirmed positive test result. This shows an increase of 54.4% compared to the previous 7 days. Deaths up 60% in a week. We will be on 70k cases by July 19th at the current rate. The media are going to have a field day talking about 60k at Wembley and wheeling out Sage scientists screaming for another delay. Boris really has ****ed it with this Delta variant. Please say something encouraging CWS.. |
About a month ago, on this or another thread, I expressed concern about the apparent exponential rise in cases and was told that there was nothing to worry about because the actual numbers were so low. Well, this is what happens when low numbers rise exponentially. Anyone else concerned yet? :)
Any thoughts of further loosening of restrictions while cases are out of control is madness. |
Daily data:
Cases 18,270 (10,321 last Saturday) Deaths 23 (14) Patients admitted 227 (226 on the 15th) Patients in hospital 1,505 (1,318 on the 17th) Patients in ventilation beds 259 (210 on the 17th) People vaccinated up to and including 25 June 2021: First dose: 44,078,244 Second dose: 32,244,223 The rolling seven day daily average for cases is now up 54.4% on the previous week and the same measure for deaths is up 60.8%. The rolling 7 day daily average for deaths is 17.0 today. |
Originally Posted by PxC
(Post 33359051)
18,270 new people had a confirmed positive test result reported on 26 June 2021.
Between 20 June 2021 and 26 June 2021, 98,460people had a confirmed positive test result. This shows an increase of 54.4% compared to the previous 7 days. Deaths up 60% in a week. We will be on 70k cases by July 19th at the current rate. The media are going to have a field day talking about 60k at Wembley and wheeling out Sage scientists screaming for another delay. Boris really has ****ed it with this Delta variant. Please say something encouraging CWS.. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:50 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.