500K patients who already have the first dose had their appointments for the second delayed.

Pfizer says this is bad medicine, their vaccine is approved and tested to work with the second dose at 3 weeks.

NHS decided, at odds with science, that getting the first jab into more people, and delaying the second, would do more to stop the spread

Per The Guardian

Fauci and others say this is not a good idea

I'm with Fauci on this one. We don't really know everything about what would happen if the second dose is delayed; for sure it might give lesser effectiveness for the vaccination, and the last thing we want is for people who've been vaccinated going around thinking that they're protected, when in fact they aren't.

Also it raises the question of whether there could be increased risk of selecting for some mutations when someone has been only partially vaccinated: [journals.plos.org]

Edit-- a useful infographic I ran across:

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2020 01:59PM by PeterB.

I worry that since we are having such difficulties getting the first dose to people, how screwed up will things be in a few weeks when the second dose is due? That will effectively double the workload (since people will still be getting the first dose, and now everyone who got it already will need it again). That means doubling the number of people able to give a shot.

I have not seen any indication that the system is close to being ready.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

Growing older is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

Quote
Ombligo
I worry that since we are having such difficulties getting the first dose to people, how screwed up will things be in a few weeks when the second dose is due? That will effectively double the workload (since people will still be getting the first dose, and now everyone who got it already will need it again). That means doubling the number of people able to give a shot.

I have not seen any indication that the system is close to being ready.

Exactly

But the second shot has to be prioritized, or we risk spoiling the effect of the first.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2020 02:23PM by Lemon Drop.

I hope the delay can’t in any way strengthen the virus.

---

Where is there dignity unless there is also honesty? - Cicero

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. —Wendy Mass

Quote
PeterB
I'm with Fauci on this one. We don't really know everything about what would happen if the second dose is delayed; for sure it might give lesser effectiveness for the vaccination, and the last thing we want is for people who've been vaccinated going around thinking that they're protected, when in fact they aren't.

Also it raises the question of whether there could be increased risk of selecting for some mutations when someone has been only partially vaccinated: [journals.plos.org]

Edit-- a useful infographic I ran across:

Cool graphic

Was just reading in ny times that there this a fair amount of vaccine hesitancy among health workers who are supposed to be getting shots now. They want to wait and see if others have problems.

We need a big info campaign on this, asap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2020 02:42PM by Lemon Drop.

fwiw, there were a number of discussions about the possibility of delaying the second dose to get more people vaccinated quickly. Especially in hot spots. The incidence graph after one dose spawned the discussion.




From the NYT article by Mina and Tufeckci:

Quote

While we know that the single dose can protect against disease, we don’t yet know how long this immune protection will last, and at what level. However, there is no rule that says that vaccines must be boosted within weeks of each other. For measles, the booster dose is given years after the first dose. If the booster dose could be given six months or a year after the first dose, while maintaining high efficacy before the second dose, that would allow twice as many people to get vaccinated between now and later next year, accelerating herd immunity — greatly helping end the crisis phase of the pandemic in the United States.

My guess is that the UK is thinking along these lines.

Quote
numbered
fwiw, there were a number of discussions about the possibility of delaying the second dose to get more people vaccinated quickly. Especially in hot spots. The incidence graph after one dose spawned the discussion.




From the NYT article by Mina and Tufeckci:

Quote

While we know that the single dose can protect against disease, we don’t yet know how long this immune protection will last, and at what level. However, there is no rule that says that vaccines must be boosted within weeks of each other. For measles, the booster dose is given years after the first dose. If the booster dose could be given six months or a year after the first dose, while maintaining high efficacy before the second dose, that would allow twice as many people to get vaccinated between now and later next year, accelerating herd immunity — greatly helping end the crisis phase of the pandemic in the United States.

My guess is that the UK is thinking along these lines.

As I see it, the problem with that argument is two-fold:

1) We just don't know what will happen if people don't get the second dose on time. All the trials were done with the regimen that is now being followed, so you're introducing another unknown variable into the equation by not doing the followup shot. For all we know, immunization with one shot will give about 3-5 months protection, by which time ... those individuals will need another shot, AND we'll still have the people who need their first shot.

2) The herd immunity thing again is mostly theoretical ... I've heard numbers ranging from 50-80% needing to be immune to even have a chance of getting herd immunity, and we're obviously nowhere near that (and this all assumes corona is like other viruses, which may not be completely true)... and if by only giving the first shot, you're decreasing the chance of someone being immune, then you're really being penny-wise, pound-foolish.

If the companies have done the studies to know that you only need one shot, fine. Otherwise, it seems that these folks are second-guessing the drug companies, clinical trials, etc.

Bottom line: would you want to be 80.2 - 88.9% protected? Those remaining 11.1 - 19.8% people can continue to spread the disease, get sick and die, etc. And the worst part is that they may behave in ways that increase risk for everybody, because they think they're protected.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

....it's like gettin' married......but never consummating the nuptials........

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

I'm so effing tired of all of this. I'm tired of living in a country where the insane, the amoral, the cruel, and the greedy decide who will live and who will die.

---

Quote
$tevie
I'm so effing tired of all of this. I'm tired of living in a country where the insane, the amoral, the cruel, and the greedy decide who will live and who will die.

Did you just get here?

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

This was inevitable.

We will hear more about this in the US, too. The squabbling over who gets the vaccine has already started in my backyard.

Pfizer says there is no data to support delaying the second shot.
I think it's irresponsible for a doctor or other scientist to claim otherwise and recommend a delay. Certainly without a clinical trial based on a single dose regimen.

[www.google.com]

Bloomberg article on Pfizer statement

These vaccines and the experimental study were based on two-shots given in a certain time-period. That's science. Whether one shot will work as well is a completely different experiment…

Quote
Lemon Drop
Pfizer says there is no data to support delaying the second shot.
I think it's irresponsible for a doctor or other scientist to claim otherwise and recommend a delay. Certainly without a clinical trial based on a single dose regimen.

[www.google.com]

Bloomberg article on Pfizer statement

There it is. My problem with this is that you're monkeying around with something that we're already not totally sure will work the way we expect it to ... we're all assuming that what you see in stage 3 trials can be extrapolated to millions, maybe billions of people ... and that everything else involved in the process (storage, distribution, administration, etc.) works like clockwork, which we already know is NOT happening.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
bfd
These vaccines and the experimental study were based on two-shots given in a certain time-period. That's science. Whether one shot will work as well is a completely different experiment…

I guess the UK and a few Canadian provinces are going to do that experiment the hard way.