UK going against Pfizer recommendation for vaccination

[Morphine Prince 109,726]

 

[xoxo Craig 55,649]

The UK fcking up again... colour me shocked

[Bubblegum Bitch 18,934]

I hope Lizzy will do something about it. 

[pachinko 10,757]

Omg 

[Economy 52,910]

And here in Canada they are debating foregoing the 2nd dose in some Provinces because a single dose has some benefit and that way more ppl can get a shot more quickly

 

Fortunately my Province (Ontario) has so far resisted such an idea and we are following thru the 2 dose recommendation so far

[numb the flame 7,321]

of course the tories yet again fail to do anything properly because why would they. 

[bionic 50,111]

More fuel for people to be anti vax 

[Better Day 5,766]

*pretends to be shocked the tories f**king up* 

This Government is the most incompetent government ever 

[LaLuna 12,732]

I just knew things couldn't possibly go smoothly... 

[REALITY 80,177]

2021 will be a worse year.

[jezze0410 395]

I understand that it is in vogue to disparage anything the UK does at the moment, but this decision was not made by the government—it’s made by the MHRA, the UK’s equivalent of the FDA. So whatever your thoughts on the Tories’ handling of the pandemic or the Tories in general, don’t be so quick to judge this. Furthermore, most of the uproar among GPs and medical experts is not that this approach will not work, but that it causes vast logistical difficulties (having to cancel and rebook thousands of appointments)—but if you look at the official recommendation, clinics delivering vaccines have a great deal of flexibility in deciding when to start implementing the longer gap.

Basically speaking, the AstraZeneca vaccine’s clinical data shows that the lower the level of antibodies remaining after the first vaccine, the more effective the booster dose is, with 12 weeks being an optimal period. While the Pfizer vaccine is of a completely different type, it differs from the AZ only in how the vaccine teaches the body to produce antibodies in response to the virus. So while there is no evidence that the Pfizer will also perform better with a longer gap between doses, there is no significant evidence that it does not perform better with a longer gap between doses, nor that it it will perform worse with a longer gap. 

The MHRA seems to be banking on the longer gap either not affecting the efficacy too negatively or even improving the efficacy. The Pfizer vaccine is 52% effective after the first dose, and that for the AZ vaccine is similar too. The initial policy when just the Pfizer was approved for use was to retain half of all the vaccines procured to ensure that everyone who has received a first dose can receive a booster 21 days layer; now with the AZ vaccine in play too, which can be produced and delivered far more rapidly and will be by far the dominant vaccine in the UK, MHRA has decided to change course and vaccinate basically at the rate at which the vaccines can be delivered; the long gap between doses gives time for more vaccines to be made, improves the efficacy of the AZ, and likely does not significantly negatively impact the efficacy of the Pfizer. 

You’ll likely see news stories about the MHRA allowing mixing and matching different vaccines for the first and second doses soon too, possibly against the will/intention of all the vaccine manufacturers, but I have confidence that the MHRA would never recommend anything that it knows will have a negative impact. As someone who works in the diagnostics industry, I generally criticise the MHRA for too much bureaucracy and being unnecessary stringent with data or document requirements; this is a refreshing change.

Edit: Just wanted to include this link that contains the official press release so people in this thread have a slightly better understanding of the thinking behind this move: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-uk-chief-medical-officers-on-the-prioritisation-of-first-doses-of-covid-19-vaccines

[TaylorSwift 162,746]

They try to vaccinate as many people as possible with first dose and probably think it will stop spreading covid faster than if they give 2 doses to fewer people. They probably don't have enough jabs for all population at the moment.

[spector 1,919]

10 minutes ago, jezze0410 said:

I understand that it is in vogue to disparage anything the UK does at the moment, but this decision was not made by the government—it’s made by the MHRA, the UK’s equivalent of the FDA. So whatever your thoughts on the Tories’ handling of the pandemic or the Tories in general, don’t be so quick to judge this.

Basically speaking, the AstraZeneca vaccine’s clinical data shows that the lower the level of antibodies remaining after the first vaccine, the more effective the booster dose is, with 12 weeks being an optimal period. While the Pfizer vaccine is of a completely different type, it differs from the AZ only in how the vaccine teaches the body to produce antibodies in response to the virus. So while there is no evidence that the Pfizer will also perform better with a longer gap between doses, there is no significant evidence that it does not perform better with a longer gap between doses, nor that it it will perform worse with a longer gap. 

The MHRA seems to be banking on the longer gap either not affecting the efficacy too negatively or even improving the efficacy. The Pfizer vaccine is 52% effective after the first dose, and that for the AZ vaccine is similar too. The initial policy when just the Pfizer was approved for use was to retain half of all the vaccines procured to ensure that everyone who has received a first dose can receive a booster 21 days layer; now with the AZ vaccine in play too, which can be produced and delivered far more rapidly and will be by far the dominant vaccine in the UK, MHRA has decided to change course and vaccinate basically at the rate at which the vaccines can be delivered; the long gap between doses gives time for more vaccines to be made, improves the efficacy of the AZ, and likely does not significantly negatively impact the efficacy of the Pfizer. 

You’ll likely see news stories about the MHRA allowing mixing and matching different vaccines for the first and second doses soon too, possibly against the will/intention of all the vaccine manufacturers, but I have confidence that the MHRA would never recommend anything that it knows will have a negative impact. As someone who works in the diagnostics industry, I generally criticise the MHRA for too much bureaucracy and being unnecessary stringent with data or document requirements; this is a refreshing change.

but the booster shot is needed so that the igg levels can stay up and memory t and b cells can be generated to confirm long-term immunity, no? 

[jezze0410 395]

3 minutes ago, spector said:

but the booster shot is needed so that the igg levels can stay up and memory t and b cells can be generated to confirm long-term immunity, no? 

Well, it is still unknown how responsive various vaccines are to future mutations of the virus (we might end up having to do yearly shots like for influenza), so the booster might not give long-term immunity. But yes, the booster does improve the immune response to the antigen considerably. The trade-off here is between conferring 52% effective immunity to as many people as possible as quickly as possible and conferring 95% effective immunity to half that number.

[Chromatography 10,186]

wow, people being stupid? shocker there. 

24 minutes ago, jezze0410 said:

I understand that it is in vogue to disparage anything the UK does at the moment, but this decision was not made by the government—it’s made by the MHRA, the UK’s equivalent of the FDA. So whatever your thoughts on the Tories’ handling of the pandemic or the Tories in general, don’t be so quick to judge this.

Basically speaking, the AstraZeneca vaccine’s clinical data shows that the lower the level of antibodies remaining after the first vaccine, the more effective the booster dose is, with 12 weeks being an optimal period. While the Pfizer vaccine is of a completely different type, it differs from the AZ only in how the vaccine teaches the body to produce antibodies in response to the virus. So while there is no evidence that the Pfizer will also perform better with a longer gap between doses, there is no significant evidence that it does not perform better with a longer gap between doses, nor that it it will perform worse with a longer gap. 

The MHRA seems to be banking on the longer gap either not affecting the efficacy too negatively or even improving the efficacy. The Pfizer vaccine is 52% effective after the first dose, and that for the AZ vaccine is similar too. The initial policy when just the Pfizer was approved for use was to retain half of all the vaccines procured to ensure that everyone who has received a first dose can receive a booster 21 days layer; now with the AZ vaccine in play too, which can be produced and delivered far more rapidly and will be by far the dominant vaccine in the UK, MHRA has decided to change course and vaccinate basically at the rate at which the vaccines can be delivered; the long gap between doses gives time for more vaccines to be made, improves the efficacy of the AZ, and likely does not significantly negatively impact the efficacy of the Pfizer. 

You’ll likely see news stories about the MHRA allowing mixing and matching different vaccines for the first and second doses soon too, possibly against the will/intention of all the vaccine manufacturers, but I have confidence that the MHRA would never recommend anything that it knows will have a negative impact. As someone who works in the diagnostics industry, I generally criticise the MHRA for too much bureaucracy and being unnecessary stringent with data or document requirements; this is a refreshing change.

this is a very illogical way of thinking. these vaccines are not the same, as you said. and the absence of data is NEVER a conclusion. just because we haven’t seen the other vaccine decrease in efficacy due to longer periods of time between dosing due to lack of data, doesn’t mean that the efficacy remains unchanged. that is the BIGGEST scientific sin.