Vaccine- who will have it?

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, Hmmmm said:

Don't understand the lack of political pressure in regard to the two week vaccine break.  It really is a tremendous own goal just as travel restrictions are eased.  If anything they should be increasing with available stock.  Ashford and Quayle should be put on the spot re this and the late roll out of Moderna.  I can not think of any valid reason to just stop for two weeks.

No one seems to understand it but them. Its completely baffling 

[trmpton]

15 minutes ago, Hmmmm said:

Don't understand the lack of political pressure in regard to the two week vaccine break.  It really is a tremendous own goal just as travel restrictions are eased.  If anything they should be increasing with available stock.  Ashford and Quayle should be put on the spot re this and the late roll out of Moderna.  I can not think of any valid reason to just stop for two weeks.

Its a lack of pressure from anywhere.

No political pressure, no public pressure, no press pressure.

People just don't seem to care as long as we aren't in lockdown.  It will soon become a talking point again when the inevitable cases get back out there.  I give it 10 days, which will be bang in the middle of the vaccine hubs holidays.

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, trmpton said:

Its a lack of pressure from anywhere.

No political pressure, no public pressure, no press pressure.

People just don't seem to care as long as we aren't in lockdown.  It will soon become a talking point again when the inevitable cases get back out there.  I give it 10 days, which will be bang in the middle of the vaccine hubs holidays.

Yes and everyone's summers will be ruined again. Both hospitality here and the populous that will be stopped from travelling freely on and off Island because of a stupid decision that has put us in a terrible position. Something that we had been seen coming for weeks and failed to (and still failing to) react to.

[Cambon]

2 hours ago, trmpton said:

Its a lack of pressure from anywhere.

No political pressure, no public pressure, no press pressure.

People just don't seem to care as long as we aren't in lockdown.  It will soon become a talking point again when the inevitable cases get back out there.  I give it 10 days, which will be bang in the middle of the vaccine hubs holidays.

I think it will take 2-3 weeks because of half term. The spread, if or when it happens will be through the schools. The unvaccinated. 

[Cambon]

14 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

This is wrong.  Someone (of any age) who has just had their first jab will be less protected than someone who had it several weeks ago - it takes two to three weeks for it to provide much protection.  This report for example say "one dose gave 46% protection after two weeks, rising to 67% after three to six weeks".  

The real query is just how long a single dose will continue to provide the more limited protection it does.  There was some indication of a fall-off towards 12 weeks in trial data I looked at, but it was difficult to be conclusive.  But we don't really know how much it would take for it to wear off.

They aren't giving anyone of under 40 vaccinations at the moment (with the usual tiny number of exceptions) and they warned this would be the case several weeks ago.

And there aren't tens of thousands of doses in stock either - probably not much over 10,0000 after this week's second doses.  And if there were only about 3500 delivered last week as John suggested earlier those may have to be kept back given the number of second doses that are due.

Actually, he is correct. The young person who has just had his jab is building up resistance, whilst the older persons resistance is dropping off. 

It will be interesting to see how it turns out. The CDC recommend that the second Pfizer jab is given within six weeks, and if left linger than 12 weeks, should be administered as a first dose. I wonder if this is where the original 10 week gap that was dreamt up came from? 

[TheTeapot]

4 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Actually, he is correct. The young person who has just had his jab is building up resistance, whilst the older persons resistance is dropping off. 

 

Where have you got this from? Any actual real world confirmed evidence? 

[Happier diner]

40 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Where have you got this from? Any actual real world confirmed evidence? 

If you read up there are lots of lots of experts urging second jabs - - urgently

Funnily enough he doesn't recommend taking two weeks off

Good argument for caution' over Indian variant, scientist says

Today Programme

BBC Radio 4

Prof Andrew Hayward, a member of New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme that people who have only had one dose of the vaccine could end up in hospital, even if they are young.

He says the country has seen a doubling of cases of the variant first discovered in India every week - with about 7,000 cases last week.

"It only takes five or six doublings for that to get up to, say, a quarter-million cases, and then you could set the pressure on the NHS and avoidable illnesses," he warns.

He says when more restrictions are lifted "instead of doubling every week it's likely to double more frequently than that of course".

Because of this, "there is a good argument for caution until such time as we've got a much higher proportion of the population double vaccinated", Hayward says.

Many people could still work from home "without it having any economic impact", which would reduce transmission, he adds.

[TheTeapot]

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

If you read up there are lots of lots of experts urging second jabs - - urgently

 

I know that. What I was questioning was the claim that the level of initial incomplete protection quickly tails off. 

[Happier diner]

4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I know that. What I was questioning was the claim that the level of initial incomplete protection quickly tails off. 

I think that this information is just emerging. You are correct that we get conflicting information but you have to remember that never in the history of the world has such an real time experiment in public health been carried out. There have never been people with one jab for such long periods so no one ever knew. 

The expert view seems to be that there are alarming number of one jabbers that are getting ill. I don't think there is enough data to work out a % so people are quoting using words like 'appears' indications are' 'around' and 'as little as'

What is clear though is that there are hardly any people getting ill that have had two jabs

Yes its irksome that the lady from Ireland is speaking out when she has just got here. But really how long she has been here is irrelevant. Her point is right. I just wish she had stressed the need for two jabs and quickly.

I am like a dog with a bone I know, but someone with some power needs to grab Ashford by the balls and get him to wake up smell the coffee - quickly. (I'll make the coffee BTW)

[TheTeapot]

Just now, Happier diner said:

I think that this information is just emerging. You are correct that we get conflicting information but you have to remember that never in the history of the world has such an real time experiment in public health been carried out. There have never been people with one jab for such long periods so no one ever knew. 

The expert view seems to be that there are alarming number of one jabbers that are getting ill. I don't think there is enough data to work out a % so people are quoting using words like 'appears' indications are' 'around' and 'as little as'

What is clear though is that there are hardly any people getting ill that have had two jabs

Yes its irksome that the lady from Ireland is speaking out when she has just got here. But really how long she has been here is irrelevant. Her point is right. I just wish she had stressed the need for two jabs and quickly.

I am like a dog with a bone I know, but someone with some power needs to grab Ashford by the balls and get him to wake up smell the coffee - quickly. (I'll make the coffee BTW)

But weren't you one of the people a few months back that was strongly arguing FOR the 12 week gap?

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

But weren't you one of the people a few months back that was strongly arguing FOR the 12 week gap?

 I wasn't arguing for it. I am not an expert in the field but I was explaining that the reason for the JVCI advice at that time was, for the UK position of widespread infection it made sense to protect as many vulnerable people (O50s) as quickly as possible to 70% (the quoted effectiveness for one jab) rather than protect half as many to 90% - more bang for bucks

I also said that the vaccines were only tested for up to six weeks and there was no manufacturers instruction.

We are now in a different position. All the O50's who chose to have it, have had it,  that so we are in a new era. 

This a new world and clever countries like Jersey have moved and adapted and constantly followed latest JVCI advice. They (and Guernsey) are in a massively better position than we are now

If you back read my posts you will see that I said about 4 weeks ago we needed to urgently change to 8 weeks (in line with what everyone else was doing and new JVCI advice and not because I am an expert). We didn't. Manx Solutions to create Manx problems. Its probably too late now and certainly will be if we needlessly fritter away 2 weeks. That will be summer gone.

[Happier diner]

6 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

He'd rather you forgot about that.  Thanks.

Wrong

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Hmmmm said:

Don't understand the lack of political pressure in regard to the two week vaccine break.  It really is a tremendous own goal just as travel restrictions are eased.  If anything they should be increasing with available stock.  Ashford and Quayle should be put on the spot re this and the late roll out of Moderna.  I can not think of any valid reason to just stop for two weeks.

Well I've explained the reason for it,which was that they were blindly following what the UK did, and extended the gap to 12 weeks which automatically meant there was a two week gap ten weeks later after the date they changed.  Whether this was a good idea or not is another matter, but some of those complaining loudest about the gap were also those demanding that the gap should be maximised so more people could receive the first jab earlier.  You can't have both.

We also don't know what the situation is with vaccine stocks expected in the next few weeks.  It's possible there is a drop expected and in that case not bringing second doses forward might be sensible or you end up rescheduling people twice.  If there were only 3500 delivered last week that might hint at an expected temporary shortage.

It's very difficult to find out what the situation is with Moderna because the UK doesn't provide statistics on stocks or even how many have received each vaccine, so we can't do a pro-rata.  We do know that they actually ordered few than of other vaccine types:

so it may simply be that not enough have been delivered up to now (if any depending on batch size).

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 but some of those complaining loudest about the gap were also those demanding that the gap should be maximised so more people could receive the first jab earlier. 

Some of those complaining were talking about 050s which is now done. Some of those complaining accept that in an ever changing world you adapt to information as it becomes available you don't just stick to your plan when it goes out of date.

5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

so it may simply be that not enough have been delivered up to now (if any depending on batch size).

I'll agree with that. But why don't they tell us so that we know. @John Wright pointed out that the mysterious 10,000 (that disappeared before our eyes) might be the Moderna stock. We are in the dark though and have learned not to trust what we are told even less than what we are not told.

[TheTeapot]

11 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 I wasn't arguing for it. I am not an expert in the field but I was explaining that the reason for the JVCI advice at that time was, for the UK position of widespread infection it made sense to protect as many vulnerable people (O50s) as quickly as possible to 70% (the quoted effectiveness for one jab) rather than protect half as many to 90% - more bang for bucks

 

I was never convinced the JVCI was acting correctly there, I thought and still do that they took that approach because of political pressure. There wasn't much evidence around, even though it seems that getting a huge amount of 1st doses done was the correct thing to do. That they've since changed their advice on the 2nd shows that it was a gamble not based on fact but theory. A huge experiment.