Coronavirus

[River Don]

All Oxford today. We actually booked a second jab for April.

All the early ones were Pfizer. Those who were done first will already be due a top up.

[wilts rover]

Who was it that suggested 12 weeks between jabs though.

Well I hope this is the answer you are looking for, because you probably already know, Tony Blair was the first one I heard mention it, but again he’s not an expert

No I didn’t know, which I why I asked.
Blair might have been the first that you heard mention it but I can’t imagine that some other medical experts didn’t make the initial decision.

Ultimately it was Matt Hancock's decision.

As he has said in the Commons, he is guided by the science, not led by it. He makes the decisions, not the scientists or Tony Blair.

[drfchound]

Who was it that suggested 12 weeks between jabs though.

Well I hope this is the answer you are looking for, because you probably already know, Tony Blair was the first one I heard mention it, but again he’s not an expert

No I didn’t know, which I why I asked.
Blair might have been the first that you heard mention it but I can’t imagine that some other medical experts didn’t make the initial decision.

Ultimately it was Matt Hancock's decision.

As he has said in the Commons, he is guided by the science, not led by it. He makes the decisions, not the scientists or Tony Blair.

Yep, I know he makes the decisions.
However, as you say, guided by the science so I assume that experts in that field (scientists) made the twelve week suggestion.
I was asking my question because it was said by Filo that experts have now said that the time difference between jabs should now be six weeks.
Which set of experts are correct I wonder.

[Filo]

Who was it that suggested 12 weeks between jabs though.

Well I hope this is the answer you are looking for, because you probably already know, Tony Blair was the first one I heard mention it, but again he’s not an expert

No I didn’t know, which I why I asked.
Blair might have been the first that you heard mention it but I can’t imagine that some other medical experts didn’t make the initial decision.

Ultimately it was Matt Hancock's decision.

As he has said in the Commons, he is guided by the science, not led by it. He makes the decisions, not the scientists or Tony Blair.

Yep, I know he makes the decisions.
However, as you say, guided by the science so I assume that experts in that field (scientists) made the twelve week suggestion.
I was asking my question because it was said by Filo that experts have now said that the time difference between jabs should now be six weeks.
Which set of experts are correct I wonder.

Given the manufacturer of the vaccine recommends 3 weeks between doses, the experts that suggest 6 weeks are probably nearer being correct than the ones suggesting 12 weeks, however the manufacturer are probably best informed than any independent expert or Govt Minister

[SydneyRover]

And the manufacturers are guided by testing results which say three weeks, the optimum time to have the second jab.

[River Don]

The options aren't as clear cut as you might expect. This from the BMJ.

What’s the evidence for changing the schedule?
There isn’t much for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, as trials did not compare different dose spacing or compare one with two doses. The trials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine did include different spacing between doses, finding that a longer gap (two to three months) led to a greater immune response, but the overall participant numbers were small. In the UK study 59% (1407 of 2377) of the participants who had two standard doses received the second dose between nine and 12 weeks after the first. In the Brazil study only 18.6% (384 of 2063) received a second dose between nine and 12 weeks after the first.3 The combined trial results, published in the Lancet,4 found that vaccine efficacy 14 days after a second dose was higher in the group that had more than six weeks between the two doses (65.4%) than in the group that had less than six weeks between doses (53.4%).

In their joint statement the chief medical officers said that data provided to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) showed that, although optimal efficacy was achieved through two doses, both vaccines “offer considerable protection after a single dose, at least in the short term.”

[BillyStubbsTears]

Very interesting interview with a leading German virologist.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/interview-with-virologist-christian-drosten-i-am-quite-apprehensive-about-what-might-otherwise-happen-in-spring-and-summer-a-f22c0495-5257-426e-bddc-c6082d6434d5-amp?__twitter_impression=true

tl:dr Just read this bit.

     Once the elderly and maybe part of the risk groups have been vaccinated, there will be immense economic, social, political and perhaps also legal pressure to end the corona measures. And then, huge numbers of people will become infected within just a short amount of time, more than we can even imagine at the moment. We won't have 20,000 or 30,000 new cases a day, but up to 100,000 in a worst-case scenario. It will, of course, be primarily younger people who are less likely than older people to have severe symptoms, but when a huge number of younger people get infected, then the intensive care units will fill up anyway and a lot of people will die. Just that it will be younger people. We can cushion this terrible scenario somewhat by pushing the numbers way down now.

This seems to me to be the next vital decision point. What do you do when the most vulnerable have been vaccinated? As he says, there will be enormous pressure to open up society and the economy.

But if everyone over 50, say, has been jabbed, there will still be maybe 25-30 million 20-50 year olds who haven't got immunity. If we totally relax then the virus will rip through that demographic in weeks. Not many of them would normally die but a small percentage will get badly ill and need hospitalisation. And a very small percent of 25 million is WAY more than the NHS can cope with.

Going to take some very careful handling. I wish I could be confident that our Govt will call that right, but they prioritised the economy over virus suppression last March, last September and last December, so I'm not pinning my hopes. 

[River Don]

And how many of those 20-50 year olds would be left we severely debilitating long Covid? Damaged lungs and other vital organs? In my opinion this isn't being taken seriously enough.

Hopefully they will not start lifting restrictions too much until the numbers are looking a lot better and the warmer weather arrives. Given their past performance though, I'm not hopefull.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Precisely RD.

[wilts rover]

Who was it that suggested 12 weeks between jabs though.

Well I hope this is the answer you are looking for, because you probably already know, Tony Blair was the first one I heard mention it, but again he’s not an expert

No I didn’t know, which I why I asked.
Blair might have been the first that you heard mention it but I can’t imagine that some other medical experts didn’t make the initial decision.

Ultimately it was Matt Hancock's decision.

As he has said in the Commons, he is guided by the science, not led by it. He makes the decisions, not the scientists or Tony Blair.

Yep, I know he makes the decisions.
However, as you say, guided by the science so I assume that experts in that field (scientists) made the twelve week suggestion.
I was asking my question because it was said by Filo that experts have now said that the time difference between jabs should now be six weeks.
Which set of experts are correct I wonder.

Before people started going off on tangents I just thought it was worth stating the obvious.

Lots of people, scientists, groups of scientists, politicians, ex-politicians, can make advice and suggestions.

But as regards what we actually do, only one person is making the decisions.

Now WHY he makes the decisions he makes, on what evidence and whether he leans more towards political rather than scientific advice, we can all only guess on that one.

[redarmy82]

I don't see the government opening anything up. Their tone has changed in recent weeks and they're shitting it over new variants.

Don't expect to be in a pub or getting off on holiday in 2021.

[BigH]

Very interesting interview with a leading German virologist.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/interview-with-virologist-christian-drosten-i-am-quite-apprehensive-about-what-might-otherwise-happen-in-spring-and-summer-a-f22c0495-5257-426e-bddc-c6082d6434d5-amp?__twitter_impression=true

tl:dr Just read this bit.

     Once the elderly and maybe part of the risk groups have been vaccinated, there will be immense economic, social, political and perhaps also legal pressure to end the corona measures. And then, huge numbers of people will become infected within just a short amount of time, more than we can even imagine at the moment. We won't have 20,000 or 30,000 new cases a day, but up to 100,000 in a worst-case scenario. It will, of course, be primarily younger people who are less likely than older people to have severe symptoms, but when a huge number of younger people get infected, then the intensive care units will fill up anyway and a lot of people will die. Just that it will be younger people. We can cushion this terrible scenario somewhat by pushing the numbers way down now.

This seems to me to be the next vital decision point. What do you do when the most vulnerable have been vaccinated? As he says, there will be enormous pressure to open up society and the economy.

But if everyone over 50, say, has been jabbed, there will still be maybe 25-30 million 20-50 year olds who haven't got immunity. If we totally relax then the virus will rip through that demographic in weeks. Not many of them would normally die but a small percentage will get badly ill and need hospitalisation. And a very small percent of 25 million is WAY more than the NHS can cope with.

Going to take some very careful handling. I wish I could be confident that our Govt will call that right, but they prioritised the economy over virus suppression last March, last September and last December, so I'm not pinning my hopes. 

Very important this and I have to admit to being more than a little anxious as to our Government's plan for a post-vaccination strategy.

Seems to me that vaccination and the spring/summer months will, in the main, see suppression and buy us time. We can do lots with this, most obviously well and truly embed a test, trace and isolate programme and effect proper border control. Otherwise, we'll get to October and it'll all kick off again.

Johnson and co are incredibly lucky to have the prospect of a second chance. They should use it wisely.

[River Don]

Agree with that H. Though I would say this is their third and perhaps even their fourth chance. Given how things have gone before, I'd say they are incapable of learning the lessons.

If I was putting a bet on it, I'd say they'll go for a return to tier system in March. Which is probably too soon again.

[wilts rover]

This I think sums up where we are perfectly:

We end up with this weird notion floating around that the government is somehow oblivious or indifferent to the manufacturer’s/scientists advice rather than the truth - of course they know the long term risks, they’re desperate (because the virus spread is out of control and overwhelming the NHS) and over a barrel of their own making, not stupid.

https://twitter.com/barneyfarmer/status/1353291538609164288

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

But, I don't think that the public as a whole can take too much more of lockdown positions. Life is for living and there is a limit to how much people can take.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And the alternative BFYP?

[belton rover]

This I think sums up where we are perfectly:

We end up with this weird notion floating around that the government is somehow oblivious or indifferent to the manufacturer’s/scientists advice rather than the truth - of course they know the long term risks, they’re desperate (because the virus spread is out of control and overwhelming the NHS) and over a barrel of their own making, not stupid.

https://twitter.com/barneyfarmer/status/1353291538609164288

I’d never heard of this guy before, Wilts. Looking at that link, I see he writes ‘The Drunken Bakers’ for Viz - one of my all time favourite Viz comic strips: depressing, dark, cynical but very, very funny.

[5minstogo]

But, I don't think that the public as a whole can take too much more of lockdown positions. Life is for living and there is a limit to how much people can take.

I've been very anti this sort of thought but I'm getting to my limit now.

[Not Now Kato]

But, I don't think that the public as a whole can take too much more of lockdown positions. Life is for living and there is a limit to how much people can take.

But there's an even smaller and finite limit to the number of people suffering from C19 that the NHS can take BFYP!

[BigH]

But, I don't think that the public as a whole can take too much more of lockdown positions. Life is for living and there is a limit to how much people can take.

Wouldn't disagree with the 'Life is for living' sentiment. As for how much people can take, it'd be interesting to get the view of a NHS medic.

[pib]

But, I don't think that the public as a whole can take too much more of lockdown positions. Life is for living and there is a limit to how much people can take.

And the alternative BFYP?

Not an alternative or a solution in any way, but I think it's important to consider that for many people this isn't just about life's luxuries, like being able to go to a gig or go away on holiday, it's about a basic human need.

We are social animals and need to have that social interaction with other people, and to feel like we have things in life that we "belong" to and feel part of.

It's all well and good for people who live in a nice big suburban house with a garden and a family around them to overlook this side of it, but this whole crisis is crippling for many people who don't have that. What if you live in a studio flat on the 2nd floor of a building on your own and you can't see the light at the end of the tunnel?

Again, I'm not proposing a solution here but it's just something to think about. There is more to this than graphs and numbers and how many people are getting infected with this disease, and the endless f**king politics. People need some hope.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Pib.

I get all that. But you're talking about social problems that are decades in the making that mean different people have different problems to deal with in this crisis.

I get that. We have a massive job to do to reduce those inequalities. My political and social philosophy my entire life has been that those issues should be prioritised.

But we are where we are now. Using these issues as some do (I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in here, but there are plenty on the far right doing it every day) to argue against lockdowns is, frankly, disgusting. We do not have ANY alternative to lockdown that doesn't result in mass deaths and/or the collapse of the NHS.

[River Don]

Well yes. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Get this vaccination program rolled out as fast as possible. Once there is a level of immunity across the population, then we can lighten up.

[ravenrover]

Thought the 12 week decision was made by the Chief Medical Officer

[River Don]

Thought the 12 week decision was made by the Chief Medical Officer

It was and not without careful consideration. There is evidence to show the second vaccination is actually more effective after that length of time. At least with the Oxford vaccine.

The trade off is, we have many people with a lower level of protection for 3 month. But at least they will have some immunity after three weeks and if they do succumb then they are much less likely to wind up in hospital or the ICU. The danger is it will allow the virus space to mutate again.

[drfchound]

Thought the 12 week decision was made by the Chief Medical Officer

I wondered how long it would be before someone came up with the proper answer Raven.
Glad you didn’t go round the houses like crime others have done.

[BillyStubbsTears]

All decisions by Government organisations are legally made by the relevant Secretary of State. In practical terms, the decision may be devolved to civil servants, but it is ALWAYS the Secretary of State that is legally responsible.

As Thatcher said: Advisors advise. Ministers decide.

[wilts rover]

Thought the 12 week decision was made by the Chief Medical Officer

I wondered how long it would be before someone came up with the proper answer Raven.
Glad you didn’t go round the houses like crime others have done.

Advisors advise - ministers decide

[drfchound]

I notice that you two didn’t correct River Don when he backed up ravens  point that the decision was made by the Chief Medical Officer.

Mind you, he is on your side.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I wasn't correcting anyone Hound. I was stating a fact.