https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-31/pfizer-backs-two-dose-vaccine-schedule-after-u-k-shift

 

I hope Bloomberg is valid enough as a source

Brits are making another big mistake. 

16 minutes ago, Ebumbu said:

Brits are making another big mistake. 

 

I was surprised the Pfizer vaccine was selected for this strategy.  However it appears to be right for the Oxford jab which appears to gain from the delay.

 

British scientists do seem to be a bit more dynamic than their US counterparts, however.

Given that the data provided on which approval for use of the vaccine was  based on two shots to obtain best immunity then IMO is a strange  idea given it goes  against the science.

 

 

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

I was surprised the Pfizer vaccine was selected for this strategy.  However it appears to be right for the Oxford jab which appears to gain from the delay.

 

British scientists do seem to be a bit more dynamic than their US counterparts, however.

Was it a  "delay" or was it different quantities of injection, the first being less than the second?

I am surprised that their immunologists dont know (or maybe they just dont care) that the first jab is to prime the cells that make the antibodies, and it is the second one that challenges them that really gets Ab production going.

 

Seems they prefer to be able to say they have jabbed the highest number of people in a given time frame rather than following the manufactures' recommendation.

25 minutes ago, poskat said:

I am surprised that their immunologists dont know (or maybe they just dont care) that the first jab is to prime the cells that make the antibodies, and it is the second one that challenges them that really gets Ab production going.

 

Seems they prefer to be able to say they have jabbed the highest number of people in a given time frame rather than following the manufactures' recommendation.

No, not at all.  The reason why manufacturer is pushing its dosing schedule is because that is what it tested and showed effective in clinical trial. manufacturer does not want liability claims. 

As experience with the vaccine  progresses they will find out whether longer interval is ok. The  extended period between  doses is based upon experience with other vaccine.

-Shingrix is 3 month interval.

-HPV vaccine is 12 weeks between the second and third doses, and 5 months between the first and third doses.

the clinical trial demonstrated that using a 21 day interval was effective. The government using the vaccine outside of that interval wouldnt open up the manuf to liability, because it was not used a directed by the manuf.

 

longer or shorter intervals need to be evaluated in a study, not just as determined by the government on its own.

 

if it turns out that the longer intervals just guessed at dont work, all those doses given to that goup will have been wasted.

any deaths in that group can be directly and justifiably laid on the government.

3 hours ago, poskat said:

 

 

if it turns out that the longer intervals just guessed at dont work, all those doses given to that goup will have been wasted.

any deaths in that group can be directly and justifiably laid on the government.

Indeed, in the case of AstraZeneca there at least some data suggesting that a 12-week interval between jabs is more effective than 3 weeks (this based on the inadvertent infamous half dose-full dose, which was originally intended as a trial with a single dose. When the half dose error was noticed, some 8-12 weeks had already passed so a full dose was then given after this period). Actually what they are doing now, a full dose followed by another one after 12 weeks has apparently NOT been tested.

    The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is firstly a different type of vaccine and secondly any proof that it gives good protection after 3 weeks is lacking as noted by the company (see reference in the original post) . But authorities are really desperate now and they try to give as many high-risk groups one shot in the face of limiting vaccine supplies. 

There is also no evidence to demonstrate that protection isn't sustained either.  Pfizer covering themselves, a newspaper making a negative out of it and doctors/scientists/experts putting themselves at the sharp end and making decisions for the good of the nation, based on their training and knowledge of the subject.  Who would you trust more?

a classic.

 

politicians: "we need to push up vaccination numbers so we look good in the news, vaccinating properly would halve the numbers" ...