Interesting situation pends.

[excoriator]

We have 10 million half-vaccinated people now and three months after the start of teh program (1st April??) there will - according to what I can extrapolate - about 35 million half vaccinated people like us beginning to turn up for their second dose.

So the facilities which will no doubt be jabbing people morning noon and night will suddenly be faced with millions of olf farts like me - who I guess will have to be given priority for the second dose - leaving no capacity for new doses!

Either they shut down new jabs entirely or increase probably overstretched resources, but to maintain the level of new jabs at that time will require sustainingly doubling the rate of vaccination!

A pro-active government with its feet on the pedals would have foreseen this need for a sudden escalation, but given we have the piss-poor lot we have I am not optimistic that it has occurred to them at all. They seem far too busy crowing about the magnificent world-beating half-vaccination program to consider its implications, and we can look forward to Hancock with an even more shell-shocked hangdog expression than is usual trying to explain away the impending 'glitch' in the program!

The fun never ends!

[jonjel]

Please Exco. Give the government just an ounce of credit. To vaccinate 10 million people in the time they have done so, from a standing start is a pretty good effort. And if you can vaccinate 35 million in the time you have stated, then you can do it all again with the second dose. The logistical problems which have been overcome so far are in my view mind blowing.

I had my first jab a week ago and was given the time and place of my second one while I booked the first.

[excoriator]

I just think they've made a huge stick for theior owmn backs.

Had mthey followed the Manufacturer's instructions, we'd have 5 million properly vaccinated now, not, like you and me, given SOME protection but unknown and less than optimal quite possibly going to a low level or zero before the end of the 12 weeks. But the 'second dosers' would have been far fewer in number, coming two weeks later, and easily integrated into the vaccination program with little effect on new doses.

As it is, they are going to have to do 500,000 ADDITIONAL shots a day to the second dosers from April, and this will invole doubling the size of the vaccination program in weeks and or cutting back the rate of new doses.

Basically, someone had a wheeze that allowed them to boast about the number of 'vaccinations' whilst putting the health of the nation at risk, and as ever, it was a no-brainer for them and boasting won. Unfortunately the implications of it were not properly thought through. Expect a major Glitch in April.

[skylark]

Round here we are not given a date for our second dose, which means the surgery staff will be busy in a few weeks phoning around to book for the second. But yes, it seems logical to say that first time jabs will have to stop or reduce to a minimum in the near future.

My neighbour and close friend, a retired army captain and nurse, has got extraordinarily wound up about the whole thing. OK, she has got reduced immunity, but she worried before her first jab and is now worried that the UK may not get enough of the Pfizer vaccone she had to meet demand for booster doses.

I am worried that my OH, still in his 60s and with an underlying heath condition, won't get his jab before the clock stops.

[excoriator]

I was told that they'd 'be in touch' about the second shot in 12 weeks and that they 'didn't mix brands' but I notice that we are being softened up for this in the press with an announcement that research being done to find out whether it is actually BETTER to mix brands.

It will come as no surprise that indeed it has proved that it IS better to get a Pfizer shot and twelve weeks later, an AZ one! Choose the right way of doing the research and you can prove black is white!

What lucky folk we are to be able to take advantage of this finding, and how grateful should we be to our world beating government for introducing this clever 12 week delay!

And you can't question this either. They have 'followed the science' so shut up and be grateful!

What the world really needs is a virus that affects only politicians, making them feel quite ill when they tell half-lies and throw up when they tell full ones.

[jonjel]

Feb 4, 2021 17:20:32 GMT excoriator said:

I just think they've made a huge stick for theior owmn backs.

Had mthey followed the Manufacturer's instructions, we'd have 5 million properly vaccinated now, not, like you and me, given SOME protection but unknown and less than optimal quite possibly going to a low level or zero before the end of the 12 weeks. But the 'second dosers' would have been far fewer in number, coming two weeks later, and easily integrated into the vaccination program with little effect on new doses.

As it is, they are going to have to do 500,000 ADDITIONAL shots a day to the second dosers from April, and this will invole doubling the size of the vaccination program in weeks and or cutting back the rate of new doses.

Basically, someone had a wheeze that allowed them to boast about the number of 'vaccinations' whilst putting the health of the nation at risk, and as ever, it was a no-brainer for them and boasting won. Unfortunately the implications of it were not properly thought through. Expect a major Glitch in April.

I am a bit time poor this morning Exco, but I disagree.

No vaccine for any disease is ever 100% effective. Flu vaccine is reckoned to be only around 50% effective, but I would wager you had yours this year. It may not stop you getting ill, but it probably will stop you being very ill. And the people who say they have had flu outnumber the peole who have had real flu by about 30:1 I suspect.

If (and I cant remember the figures exactly) he first dose gives a theoretical immunity of 60%, and if followed by a second dose that immunity goes up to say 80% then it seems to me that the more 60% 'ers you can have the better. What you seem to be saying is it is better for example out of 1000 people to have 800 fully protected as opposed to 600 partially protected.

[excoriator]

What I'm saying is that you should not play fast and loose with the way a vaccine is prescribed. By doing so you are taking a risk, and for all you know one that will considerably dam age the protection the product is designed to give. This is particularly the case when the manufacturer, when asked, declined to opine on the matter. They don't know and if they don't neither does anyone else.

Additionally, I think it is very ill advised as it means down the line (in April) on top of any new vaccinations you are trying to do, you now have a cohort of people needing a second dose. By my figures this will amount to about 35 million spread over three months. As the system is pumping out jabs at a rate of a bit under 500,000 a day, and the additional load is about 100% of that. There will either have to be a big slowdown in new jabs or the service will have to double in capacity.

Interesting the delay in people geting their first sho will be exactly that gained by the 12 week delay allowing people to be half-innoculated early! Overall, nothing has been gained, except ministers crowing about how many jabs have been given. It does make live difficult for those doing the jabs though!

People don't seem to realise that 67 million innoculations means 134 million jabs, however you arrange it. No political stunts are going to change that.

[skylark]

The Astrazeneca people seem to be saying that waiting 12 weeks is a jolly good thing. Pfizer is saying just the opposite, and I can't believe that both are right, because the vaccines do the same thing even though they are produced differently.

[jonjel]

Feb 5, 2021 15:23:53 GMT skylark said:

The Astrazeneca people seem to be saying that waiting 12 weeks is a jolly good thing. Pfizer is saying just the opposite, and I can't believe that both are right, because the vaccines do the same thing even though they are produced differently.

They work in different ways Larkers.

[excoriator]

I suspect political considerations may well have affected the UK science!

I'm sceptical about politicians that follow the science but I'm pretty sure the opposite is the case. Remember who holds the purse.

Few question whether what is true of one virus automatically applies to another one that is quite different is rarely asked and never answered either.

[jonjel]

Feb 5, 2021 16:17:09 GMT excoriator said:

I suspect political considerations may well have affected the UK science!

I'm sceptical about politicians that follow the science but I'm pretty sure the opposite is the case. Remember who holds the purse.

Few question whether what is true of one virus automatically applies to another one that is quite different is rarely asked and never answered either.

You will never cease to amaze me Exco. To politicise something as massive as a totally new and unexpected pandemic is really going well below the bottom of the barrel. Next thing you will be telling us is that left wing scientists views and opinions are far more reliable than right wing scientists.

I have worked with some of these guys and have not got a clue if they vote for or support the Monster Raving Loony party. They are scientists and pretty good at what they do.

If your hated politicians were getting things so wrong don't you think the world of academia would be down their throats quicker than a lightning strike?

[excoriator]

Its easy Jonjel. Here's an example.

If I'm a politician who wants (for my own reasons) to find microplastics in our cells I fund a group to do this. They will no doubt find it. Result!

But If I'm a politician who wants to show (for my own reasons) that its harmless, I fund a group to look at ALL foreign matter in cells and Bingo, they find far more 'natural' foreign matter likeparticles of silicon, various metallic oxid eparticle. plastic is there too, of course but in minute quantities compared to ultrafine sand particles! Result!

No corrupt scientists or fiddling of results needed.

The most interestong and relevant result is from a few months back when quite a large study of people who had recovered from the disease was conducted by one of teh London Univerities, They found antibodies died away completely aftr three months, and if that applies to the antibodies generated from the first shot too, the second shot will add very little to it. I suspect that antibodies peak at about the time the second shot should be given, giving agood reason for teh body to produce more so the immunity is longer lasting.

Not holding the purse strings, however, there is no way I can prove this.

In the particular case of the report on AZ, the politicians have made sure that the study was done on the AZ vaccine NOT the Pfizer one. It is part of their political skill set to lead the gullible into believing that the result is true for the Pfizer one too, without ever actually saying so. In this case, Pfizer have no reason to do other than say they don't know what the effect of the extra delay is and I would tend to believe them.

[skylark]

Feb 5, 2021 16:10:04 GMT jonjel said:

Feb 5, 2021 15:23:53 GMT skylark said:

The Astrazeneca people seem to be saying that waiting 12 weeks is a jolly good thing. Pfizer is saying just the opposite, and I can't believe that both are right, because the vaccines do the same thing even though they are produced differently.

They work in different ways Larkers.

Yes, but both vaccines have the aim of triggering an immune response, and once the body has produced the right antibodies and T cells why would it matter which method was used to create them?
Having said that, I had been hoping to get the Astrazeneca version simply because it has given the assurance that a 12 week delay gives good protection, whereas Pfizer has not.

I didn't.