Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

Yes, some people disagree, it's not a right or wrong decision and there's arguments both ways. It's a decision that's been taken after weighing up the evidence and extrapolating from other data and knowledge, and hopefully it's the correct choice to protect more people.
 
LynnDoyleCooper said:
No, it's really not. It's very clear why it's done. It's to get more people vaccinated and so give protection to more of the vulnerable groups. The only alternative is to give a smaller number of people more protection, and in the current situation the decision has been made that is not as effective in protecting more people. That might change, but currently it does make clinical sense.

And of course the BMA are going to argue that, that's their job, to represent the best interests of doctors, not to argue for the best clinical option for the population as a whole. You can't have GP surgeries making their own decisions over this, or the whole thing will be chaotic and unfair and will cause massive rows. People are already moaning about the different speeds areas are vaccinating, can you imagine if the surgery down the road started giving second jabs against advice when some people haven't had their first?
Click to expand...

I dont understand your point about whats in doctors best interests at all.

I agree with the BMAs concerns such as:

"The absence of any international support for the UK's approach is a cause of deep concern and risks undermining public and the profession's trust in the vaccination programme," the letter said.
Click to expand...

And I also note WHOs recommendations, whats the excuse for ignoring these?

www.who.int

Interim recommendations for use of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2, under Emergency Use Listing

Publicaciones de la Organización Mundial de la Salud
www.who.int www.who.int

WHO acknowledges that a number of countries face exceptional circumstances of vaccine supply constraints combined with a high disease 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, as the trial participants received 2 doses with an interval between doses in the trial ranging from 19 to 42 days. Of note, neutralizing antibody responses are modest after the first dose and increase substantially after the second dose.
Click to expand...

Countries experiencing exceptional epidemiological circumstances may consider delaying for a short period the administration of the second dose as a pragmatic approach to maximizing the number of individuals benefiting from a first dose while vaccine supply continues to increase. WHO’s recommendation at present is that the interval between doses may be extended up to 42 days (6 weeks), on the basis of currently available clinical trial data. Should additional data become available on longer intervals between doses, revision of this recommendation will be considered. Countries should ensure that any such programme adjustments to dose intervals do not affect the likelihood of receiving the second dose.
Click to expand...
 
Vaccintating already seems somewhat patchy. My mum has had both the Pfizer vaccines within the two week period as recommended by the manufacturer (she lives in Hampshire which has done better than other areas in terms of vaccinations) meanwhile in Israel:

www.bmj.com

Covid-19: Reports from Israel suggest one dose of Pfizer vaccine could be less effective than expected

Concerns have been raised over how much protection a single dose of the Pfizer BioNTech covid-19 vaccine provides, following reports from Israel that it is much lower than expected. Israel, which, like the UK, is currently in its third national lockdown, has so far vaccinated more than 75% of...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com

Which does not bode well for delaying the second jab for 12 weeks.
 
LynnDoyleCooper said:
I bet half the people now arguing it's wrong would be arguing the other way and we needed to protect more people with longer gaps if the government had stuck rigidly to the shorter gap between doses tbh.
Click to expand...

What a pathetic smear.

Whats the point in doing trials of how well specific vaccines work if we are just going to ignore the findings and come up with our own plan that is not backed by evidence?
 
LynnDoyleCooper said:
I bet half the people now arguing it's wrong would be arguing the other way and we needed to protect more people with longer gaps if the government had stuck rigidly to the shorter gap between doses tbh.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, given that the argument for the shorter gap is that that's what was tested and what we have evidence for.
 
elbows said:
And I also note WHOs recommendations, whats the excuse for ignoring these?

www.who.int

Interim recommendations for use of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2, under Emergency Use Listing

Publicaciones de la Organización Mundial de la Salud
www.who.int www.who.int
Click to expand...

Again, the WHO are citing the absence of clinical trial data, but this is not an absence of evidence. As I said, there weren’t clinical trials on 90+ year olds, or people who were extremely clinically vulnerable, but a decision was taken to vaccinate these groups on the evidence available, including how other vaccines are tolerated by these groups.
 
My own stance remains that maybe they will get away with their chosen approach without serious consequences, maybe they wont. What is completely and utterly understandable to me is the unease and concern about this stuff. There are valid scientific reasons for concern. And so you wont find me smearing that stance in a pathetic attempt to side with the UK establishment by default on this one.
 
Yossarian said:
It definitely takes world-beating levels of arrogance for the leaders whose strategy led to the highest death rate in the world and the spawning of a new COVID variant to decide to ignore scientific advice and press ahead with their own untested plan.
Click to expand...

Own untested plan? It was scientific advice that made the plan...
 
Yossarian said:
It definitely takes world-beating levels of arrogance for the leaders whose strategy led to the highest death rate in the world and the spawning of a new COVID variant to decide to ignore scientific advice and press ahead with their own untested plan.
Click to expand...

It was a decision taken on scientific advice. Anyway this is a pointless discussion now, I'm out.
 
Registered HCPs would be in dodgy ground giving these shots in a way they are not licenced to be given surely.
Do those that have had sign a waiver?
 
cupid_stunt said:
We rightly rounded on the government when they ignored the scientific advice from SAGE about locking down earlier, yet some are now rounding on them for accepting the scientific advice from JCVI.

But, well, this is urban.
Click to expand...
It's possible that both those decisions, to follow one piece of advice and ignore another, were taken for similar political reasons ie. prioritising days at work over an overall long term strategy. The whole vaccine thing gives me the willies since I found out it's not a sterilising vaccine. This is going to go on for decades.
 
cupid_stunt said:
We rightly rounded on the government when they ignored the scientific advice from SAGE about locking down earlier, yet some are now rounding on them for accepting the scientific advice from JCVI.

But, well, this is urban.
Click to expand...

Judge each decision on its own merit. Study the detail. Try not to throw away the nuances. Be prepared not to reach a firm conclusion either way if in doubt.

SAGE, NERVTAG etc made mistakes at the start of the pandemic that means they must share blame in my mind for first lockdown timing catastrophe. Does that mean I shouldnt bother looking at all the detail they have discussed since? Or that I cannot side with or against them when it comes to a particular issue? Of course not.

Good science doesnt have to rely on pathetic appeals to believe in the wisdom of authorities. In much the same way that your tedious bleating at times about 'all four UK nations are in agreement' was in no way evidence that the government were doing the right thing at the right time.
 
editor said:
BMJ opinion piece:

blogs.bmj.com

Revisiting the UK’s strategy for delaying the second dose of the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine - The BMJ

Neutralising antibody immunity likely to fall with delayed dose, say these authors There is ongoing debate about the UK government’s decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine [...]More...
blogs.bmj.com
Click to expand...

There is some great detail in there and I would echo their concerns.

I should really transcribe the bit from yesterdays press conference where Vallance danced around a question that was put to him about whether the vaccine dose scheduling policy increases the risk of escape mutants. Coming soon.
 
The39thStep said:
Why is it a pointless discussion now?
Click to expand...

Pointless for me. I've read and discussed lots about this decision with a fair few people in health, and I've got a position that I'm unlikely to change unless new info comes up, and I've haven't seen that here so far.

But mostly I just can't be arsed on a Saturday when I planned to spend a day bottling cider and chopping wood tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
UK Inquiry Module 3: Impact on UK Healthcare Systems
2 3
Replies
72
Views
1K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 1: Resilience and preparedness
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
6K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 2: Decision-making & political governance
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
4K
elbows
elbows
frogwoman
Shanghai lockdown
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
573
elbows
elbows
Back
Top Bottom