What's new
Pinball info

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Covid and NHS - What the Hell is Going On ?

DRD

Registered
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
5,434
Location
Newark

Daily Telegraph.....​

Chris Whitty moves to head off GPs' rebellion over vaccine doses​

CMO tells medics that the 'public will understand and thank us' for administering as many first doses as possible

ByVictoria Ward
The chief medical officer on Thursday night attempted to head off a growing rebellion by GPs over delaying the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine as he insisted the new strategy was the “right decision.”
In a letter co-signed by his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Prof Chris Whitty told medics that the “public will understand and thank us” for administering as many first doses as possible, rather than giving people a second jab within the recommended three or four weeks.
It came as GPs across the country vowed to defy the Government’s new strategy, branding it a “huge gamble.” Doctor's leaders said the decision to cancel appointments for elderly patients due to have their second Pfizer coronavirus vaccination next week was "grossly unfair", and encouraged GPs to press ahead with the planned jabs in defiance of the Government’s new strategy.

In a letter to ministers, the Doctors Association said there was no evidence that delaying the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine would be effective, suggesting the move “undermined the vaccine programme as a whole.”
In a joint letter sent to medics, all four of the UK’s chief medical officers said: “We recognise that the request to reschedule second appointments is operationally very difficult, especially at short notice, and will distress patients who were looking forward to being fully immunised.
“Halving the number vaccinated over the next two-three months because of giving two vaccines in quick succession rather than with a delay of 12 weeks does not provide optimal public health impact.”
They added: “"We have to follow public health principles and act at speed if we are to beat this pandemic which is running rampant in our communities and we believe the public will understand and thank us for this decisive action.”
The letter added that for every 1,000 people boosted with a second dose of the vaccine in January, 1,000 new people were unable to have substantial initial protection.

The Government's advisory Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation (JCVI) meanwhile insisted that an extended time period between doses would not prove detrimental.
In a lengthy statement explaining the decision, it said the short term efficacy from the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine was around 90 per cent, 20 per cent higher than that of the Oxford vaccine.
“Given the high level of protection afforded by the first dose, models suggest that initially vaccinating a greater number of people with a single dose will prevent more deaths and hospitalisations than vaccinating a smaller number of people with two doses,” it said.
Meanwhile, it emerged that a million doses of the newly approved Oxford vaccine will be ready by Monday amid concern over the NHS’s ability to carry out a mass vaccination programme at speed.
The MHRA and the Government's advisory Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation (JCVI) announced the last minute change of approach for the Pfizer vaccine in order to reach as many people as quickly as possible, extending the time between doses from three to 12 weeks.
The decision brings it in line with the Oxford vaccine regime, meaning that more than 500,000 elderly people who have already been vaccinated will have their second dose delayed. Pfizer said there was “no data” suggesting that a first dose of its vaccine would offer immunity after three weeks.
The Doctors Association UK (DAUK) yesterday (THURS) wrote to both the NHS and Matt Hancock highlighting “major concerns” about the decision to change the regimen, which they said could leave people without immunity.
The Black Country and West Birmingham CCGs are among several understood to have vowed to continue with the original three-week regime, defying the new edict.
Dr Martin Stevens, GP partner at Umbrella Medical in Walsall, told the Telegraph: ““Our patients consented to a vaccine schedule of two doses and doing anything other than that would be doing them a disservice.
“The Walsall CCG told us they would support us in making a pragmatic decision that was in the best interests of our patients and that is what this is about. It is sensible and it keeps up staff morale.”
Lizzie Toberty, a GP spokeswoman for DAUK, warned the intervention “undermined the vaccine programme as a whole.”
She told the Telegraph: “The idea that the Government can come in and change the schedule without an evidence base is extremely concerning.
“It is population protection versus individual protection. Their logic seems to be that if we confer some protection on as many people as possible, perhaps that is better than fully protecting certain cohorts. But the over 80s need the fullest protection. This is an untested strategy. It’s a huge gamble.”
Dt Toberty warned that patients who had not consented to receiving the Pfizer vaccine 12 weeks apart might now legitimately request the Oxford vaccine, rendering the last eight weeks “wasted.”
Dr Katrina Farrell, a haematologist, revealed on Twitter that she had received a letter cancelling her appointment for her second jab.
“This means that the vaccine is not being delivered as licensed,” she said. “I did not consent to receive an off-label drug with no evidence of benefit with a single dose.
“This means that tens of thousands of Scottish & UK health & social care workers have rolled their sleeve up for a vaccine unlicensed at this dose schedule. For which they did not consent. This is a scandall.”
Aside from a lack of evidence about immunity, Dr Toberty said the logistical challenge of contacting thousands of elderly patients to change their appointments would be time consuming, impractical and cause anxiety for many.
Dr Richard Vautrey, chair of the British Medical Association’s (BMA) GP committee, said it was “grossly and patently unfair to tens of thousands of our most at-risk patients” to try and reschedule their appointments.
Pfizer said in a statement: “Data from the phase 3 study demonstrated that, although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95 per cent.
“There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”

However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the JCVI, insisted that extending the period between doses was “just pragmatic” and that there was “no plausible likelihood” it would leave people unprotected.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It would be absurd to suggest that the protection from the first dose simply evaporates after the first dose and people are left vulnerable. It’s clear that the immune response is very strong.”
An NHS spokesperson said: “The MHRA, JCVI and UK Chief Medical Officers have updated the second dose timing guidance which the NHS has to follow, so as to increase the number of vulnerable people protected against covid over the next three months, potentially saving thousands of lives.
“The NHS immediately informed GPs on the day the revised instruction was given, with extra financial and logistical support now being provided to help ensure thousands more receive the vaccine quickly.”
Related Topics
 
'The public will understand and thank us'
Not those of us who have had their first injection and due for the booster next weekend, although currently there's been no communication to any of the NHS staff saying that their 2nd injection has been delayed.

The fact that Pfizer themselves say that there has been no testing outside of the 21 day gap, means this is basically guessing and hoping that a 12 week delay will be OK.
 
How is delaying the second injection any better than doing it within the recommended time frame ?

if there are say one million people that need two injections its still two million injections. I’m guessing it’s just some sort of misguided attempt at getting ticks in boxes (one million people injected in this case rather than 500 thousand immunised )

anyhoo, happy new year all, I’m off home, last call out of the year. Well I guess its now the first callout of the year
 
If they can achieve 2 million injections per week, thats about 24 million given the first dose by near the end of March before they need to start giving second injections.
 
yeah but how is that better than 12 million getting both injections?

unless the first injection give some level of immunisation. The length of time to do 24 million is the same whatever way you cut it (unless both given consecutively, which is of little use) so doing the second injection within the recommended time frame has to be a better plan
 
Seems like they are gambling that the vaccine will provide reasonable protection with only one dose. 24m people getting 70% protection is better than 12m getting 95% in the short term at least.
 
Just spoken with my sister in NYC. A Dr there she knows personally had the first jab, then a week later caught Covid and is now in hospital fighting for his life.
If only 1 jab was really needed to be effective, why would ALL of the different manufacturers of the vaccines state 2 were needed?

I really hope the government reviews this decision and changes their mind.
Let's not fúck this up when we are so close to a solution.
 
The first jab (of the Pfizer vaccine) offers 90% chance of protection.

A single dose also helps reduce the worst effects of the virus, making it more survivable

That's why they are suggesting to get as many first jabs as possible done. It won't be as perfect as the recommended dosing, but it means more people have less chance of dying

I'm no scientist, but I guess one danger of this approach is that the 10% gap in immunity might allow the virus to mutate inside a vaccinated host, and become resistant to the vaccine? However I haven't seen or heard anyone talking about this, so that's just my speculation
 
Last edited:
The first jab (of the Pfizer vaccine) offers 90% chance of protection.
I haven't seen anything, from anyone, saying that a single dose offers 90% protection.
“There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”
Pfizer themselves say that there is no data to support prolonged protection.

I understand the idea that it is better to have twice as many people with some protection, as opposed to half the amount with more protection, but as there is no evidence to support this I suggest it is more about the government being able to say that they've vaccinated 2mil people rather than 1mil people.

Let's just keep our fingers crossed that that is the case rather than relying on test data.
 
Its pretty simple do nothing and watch the deaths ramp up, if you have a loved one that started to asphyxiate because of covid in the next three of four weeks time at the current rate they won't get into a hospital and likely die in the ambulance or hospital car park. Or do this and slow the death rate down even if it was twenty percent that would be huge and maybe they get into A&E. I thought the first jab was 60%..

So if the government had done this 6 months ago 4 of the people that I know that have kicked the bucket, 2 of them might still be alive... Sounds like a risk worth taking. Even in Wayne's example above, there is nothing to say that if he had had both doses that covid wouldn't have still killed that person as this isn't a 100% vaccine.

Neil.
 
I haven't seen anything, from anyone, saying that a single dose offers 90% protection.

https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAttachment.aspx?Attachment_id=103741
(That's a direct link to the pdf, which is listed as an attachment on this page: https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAlert.aspx?AlertID=103132)

"Short term vaccine efficacy from the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is calculated at around 90%, short term vaccine efficacy from the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine is calculated at around 70%"
 
https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAttachment.aspx?Attachment_id=103741
(That's a direct link to the pdf, which is listed as an attachment on this page: https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAlert.aspx?AlertID=103132)

"Short term vaccine efficacy from the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is calculated at around 90%, short term vaccine efficacy from the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine is calculated at around 70%"
Reading some of the comments in Annex A.2 would concern me as a statistician trying to justify my findings/recommendations.

~"After 10 days the placebo and vaccinated diverge, therefore it would be appropriate to calculate the VE after 10 days".
~"a reasonable period would be 》14 days"
That's almost a 50% increase. With the numbers being comapred so small (n=37, N=21054) that 50% increase is likely to make a significant difference to the findings.

It also states that ~"VE is not comparable between Pfizer and AstraZeneca", but later states ~"there is currently no strong evidence to suggest that the immune response from Pfizer would differ substantially from the AstraZeneca ". Which is it?

Other statements such as "Unfortunately, this analysis is not presented in this paper" and "however, these data do not provide sufficient information" do not inspire confidence.

As the MHRA based their approval on the data submitted regarding a 21 day 2nd dose regime, IMHO, this seems a very rushed study to justify a predetermined opinion.
 
Apparently “following the science” only works if science happens to say what you want to hear. I shudder to think how confused someone in their 80s will be by this latest change. Initially they are told they will die if they venture out through a series of highly effective TV adverts in the spring, then it’s fine as they have their injections booked, now the 2nd injection is pulled. Communicating this message is going to be tough.

Working with the elderly or children is not the same as working with normal adults. They process things differently. I’ve spent the last week trying to reassure children that there is a plan for them to return to schools. It’s a hard sell to tell them that whilst the government have told them they can’t return to secondary / primary school due to high levels of infections (even before yesterday’s changes) they will also be absolutely fine to return to exactly the same computer classrooms in four days time to sit their January public exams.

I’ve got at least 3 kids diagnosed positive in the last week and there still isn’t any official way to deal with them missing exams except “they can resit at some stage in the future”. (Which ignores rolling periods of isolation and the need to move onto new units). An adult may be able to rationalise this as being challenges that get thrown at you but children can’t. Inevitably we will have kids coming in for their exams who are likely to be infectious and others being held off from coming in by families who are scared.
 
my daughter is at uni,but has been working part time in care and as a key worker had been given her first jab,she didn't expect to get the 2nd one now after the announcement,but has just had it confirmed she is getting the 2nd one next week,so who knows whats going on
 
Goodness only knows why they do not have the staff ready to either:
1 - Open the nightingale hospitals.
2 - Open the nightingales as vaccination centres (it would not take masses of training to show people how to do an injection, they are simple - I do 5 a day on myself).

Clealry the goverment either:
1 - do not have the quantities of vaccines they said they have.
2 - have not made provisions to staff places.

I remember hearing from an expert on radio 2 it was essential the jabs are given 3 weeks apart.

My sister is a nurse who works with people with mental health/eating disorders. She has been offered the vaccine, and she booked the appointment at the QE2 hospital in birmingham. She was given the choice of many slots. They have also booked her in for the 2nd one 22 days after.

Anyway - posting on here is not going to change anything for people so we just have to see what shyte shower is round the corner.
 
Now even Pfizer are criticizing the UK Govs plan to go to 12 weeks between jabs. They say its been tested and recommended for 21-28 days and protection from 1 jab is not as high as they are claiming and there is no evidence to suggest that the first dose jab will be even sustained after 21 days if not topped up with the second Jab.

There has been no testing even carried out for 12 week gaps.
 
Now even Pfizer are criticizing the UK Govs plan to go to 12 weeks between jabs. They say its been tested and recommended for 21-28 days and protection from 1 jab is not as high as they are claiming and there is no evidence to suggest that the first dose jab will be even sustained after 21 days if not topped up with the second Jab.

There has been no testing even carried out for 12 week gaps.
Crazy really - the assumptions they have made in the above paper just don't hold up to logical scrutiny.

They assume that the 2nd jab offers the same benefits/protection as the first jab - it simply can't do, or we would need to have a booster jab every 21 days.

I imagine likening it momentum/acceleration. If you apply a certain force to a static object it will start moving at a certain speed, if you then apply the same force again it will end up travelling more than twice the initial speed because friction has already been overcome.
Likewise the initial jab could be likened to overcoming the friction, where the immune system is spending 'energy' figuring out how to attack the virus, and the second jab (once the body has come up with an answer) is ramping up the already started learning process.

Obviously this could all be complete and utter BS and the new paper's assumptions are correct - the point is there is no evidence to approve/disprove either claim as there haven't been those studies undertaken.

In other news, I was due for my 2nd jab this Saturday, it has now been pushed back to 20th Feb - exactly 10 weeks after the first jab.

To end on a positive. Walsall Manor has, as of yesterday, administered just over 10k vaccinations so far. 3k more than any other Trust in the country, despite being considerably smaller than most of the vaccination hubs.
 
Back
Top Bottom