• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

Booster vaccinations?

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
706
However, the fact that this rule exists suggests that there's a possibility that the vaccine's effectiveness might wear off after a year and therefore people need to be vaccinated every year.
Rules (by any government or organisation) do not constitute scientific evidence.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
10,512
I was listening to Radio 5 live on the wireless in the car today, so I can’t quote it, but some professor whom the BBC seem to respect was saying the boosters may be unnecessary.
Think it was Andrew Pollard.
I'm not sure I'd want both at the same time. I felt awful for a couple of days after my first Covid jab and I wasn't alone. I've never bothered with a flu jab but most people I know who have report feeling like they've got flu for a couple of days after.

So if you have both together, are you likely to have a couple of really unpleasant days dealing with two lots of side effects?

An academic question for me, really, as I'm not in the age group that will be offered a Covid booster, unless they extend them to younger people for some reason.
I've only once had the slightest reaction to a flu jab (had about seven) but did get mild flu-like symptoms after both covid jabs, lasting exactly twenty four hours in each case: Astra Zeneca by the way.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
1,843
Location
Surrey
Another example of the West looking after itself at the expense of the rest of the world. The priority needs to be getting the global population vaccinated first so we reduce the scale of transmission and thus possible mutations and get unrestricted travel back.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,132
Location
Yorkshire
Y Alimi et al performed a systematic review and meta analysis of 28 studies looking at the aetiology of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) and the role that co-infection of bacterial and viruses. They found that only 29% (via Polymerase chain reaction) of CAP patients suffered from viral pneumonia with influenza being the most common virus at between 7 and 12% of patients within the studies. Coronaviruses only accounted for 4% of the CAP.


Lieberman et al (2010) studied a variety of pneumotic and non-pneumotic lower respiratory tract infection (NPLRTI) patients and found Coronavirus was only identified in 13.1% of cases of CAP and 10.4% of NPLRTI whilst influenza accounted for 8% and 31% of CAP and NLPRTI respectively.

Seema Jain summarises the US-based study EPIC (Etiology(sic) of Pneumonia In the Community) showing that in 81% of children where a pathogen was identified, coronaviruses accounted for 5%. In 38% of adults where a pathogen was detected, coronaviruses were detected in 2% of cases.

rticles/PMC7115731/#!po=0.847458

Won, Il Choi (2021) demonstrated that of 1689 patients, only 77 had HCOV43 infection.


Whilst they don’t discuss whether this is due to immunity or not, Chan, Tsung Yen (2020) state that OC43 pneumonia is rare in children with cancer, suggesting that even in these extremely vulnerable groups, infection was rare and unlikely to lead to pneumonia.

Patric D. (2003) cite an outbreak of HCOV43 in an aged-care facility where deaths were restricted to just 6 of 95 residents that tested positive for the infection.

So looking at just those three studies (albeit dated and not taking into account pneumonia infection with COVID-19) coronaviruses accounted for a low proportion of pneumonia samples detected and whi
As you say, "...they don’t discuss whether this is due to immunity or not".

By the way I am not sure you wrote all that text; if there is any text you did not write, please can you use the quote button to ensure that any quoted text is in quote tags please (any questions regarding this please contact us directly); many thanks :)


The podcast you quoted they give no data for, no studies or anything to back up their statements that, in their opinion as far as I’m concerned, boosters are/aren’t needed.
That's fine; you are welcome to dismiss the professional judgement of some of the most experienced virologists in the world.

Do you have any data to back up any claims that boosters are needed? and how do you define needed, and how do you determine that this need is greater than the need of countries with much lower vaccination supplies/rates?
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,462
Location
Leeds
As you say, "...they don’t discuss whether this is due to immunity or not".

By the way I am not sure you wrote all that text; if there is any text you did not write, please can you use the quote button to ensure that any quoted text is in quote tags please (any questions regarding this please contact us directly); many thanks :)



That's fine; you are welcome to dismiss the professional judgement of some of the most experienced virologists in the world.

Do you have any data to back up any claims that boosters are needed? and how do you define needed, and how do you determine that this need is greater than the need of countries with much lower vaccination supplies/rates?
They are my words, thus me not quoting them. If you’d read the article you’d know why.
For the second point, I’m not going to provide data. You demand quotes and references and data from others and you’ve been called up on it now and said ‘dismiss the professional judgment of some of the most experienced virologists in the world. If that’s going to be your answer, then why are we not agreeing for the JCVI to push forward with boosters given their expertise? Not having it.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
1,632
Location
First Class
Going back to the financing of these vaccines, did the UK (or indeed any other country) pay “up front” for X number of doses? Or, enter a contract to buy X number of doses that requires us to take more than we already have?
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,893
Location
East Midlands
Going back to the financing of these vaccines, did the UK (or indeed any other country) pay “up front” for X number of doses? Or, enter a contract to buy X number of doses that requires us to take more than we already have?
Much is shrouded in 'Commercial Sensitivity' but I suspect contracts will have been conditional on a number of factors.

I have found this which dates back to late January 21 and published in the British Medical Journal which shows, even back then, we had 'secured' doses for the entire population x4.
How much 'optimism bias' there was in the UK figure of £11.7bn we will no doubt see in due course. The average projected cost was just under £10 per shot (vaccine alone), for the 2022 booster order from Pfizer (upthread) it will be £22.
Vaccine prices are only one factor in the cost of immunisation campaigns. Of the £11.7bn that the UK expects to spend on its vaccination programme, £2.9bn buys vaccines, securing 267 million doses of five different types, according to the National Audit Office.2

Even the priciest vaccines repay their cost many times over in economic growth from a reopening economy. Affluent governments could well be tempted to bid higher if supplies tighten.

Reading the full article shows just how potentially divisive the 'charges' are for vaccines along with the inequality of availability to some less well off nations. And that it is in the firm interest of wealthy nations, both morally and financially, to ensure a more equable outcome.

Controversial bit:
We really must do much more than we currently seem to be doing. Hoarding Covid vaccines should be a crime against humanity.

Full article (quite long):

Covid-19: Countries are learning what others paid for vaccines​





A string of revelations about vaccine prices has focused attention on a practice considered normal in the drug industry but often frowned on elsewhere: charging different prices to different customers for the same product.
South Africa’s government found itself on the defensive this week after a senior health official revealed that 1.5 million doses of the Oxford and AstraZeneca vaccine just purchased for use among health workers would cost $5.25 (£3.84; €4.32) a dose, more than twice what the European Union is paying at $2.15.
The EU figure is known because Belgium’s budget secretary inadvertently revealed the EU’s negotiated prices for every major vaccine on Twitter last month.1 The EU had undertaken to keep the prices confidential in return for discounts.
South Africa’s deputy director general of health, Anban Pillay, said his government had been told that $5.25 was the set price for a country classified by the World Bank as upper-middle income. “The explanation we were given for why other high-income countries have a lower price is that they have invested in the [research and development], hence the discount,” he added.
That principle has also been applied to the biggest players. The EU financially supported the development of the BioNTech and Pfizer vaccine and has obtained a lower price per dose ($14.70 than the US ($19.50). The Moderna vaccine’s development was subsidised by the US government, and it will cost the US about $15 a dose, while the EU is paying $18.
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is much cheaper, although neither the UK nor the US can match the EU’s $2.15 deal: they are expecting to pay about $3 and $4, respectively, per dose.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, expected to announce phase III results imminently, is also much cheaper, costing the EU $8.50, with each dose going twice as far as the other brands, since it is a single shot vaccine.
AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have committed to not making a profit from the pandemic, while Moderna and Pfizer did not. AstraZeneca reserved the right, however, to declare the pandemic phase over and take profits from later vaccine sales.
Vaccine prices are only one factor in the cost of immunisation campaigns. Of the £11.7bn that the UK expects to spend on its vaccination programme, £2.9bn buys vaccines, securing 267 million doses of five different types, according to the National Audit Office.2
Even the priciest vaccines repay their cost many times over in economic growth from a reopening economy. Affluent governments could well be tempted to bid higher if supplies tighten.
Israel, which is on course to vaccinate all its citizens before any other country—having denied responsibility for vaccinating the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories—this month acknowledged paying $23.50 per dose on average to Pfizer and Moderna to obtain early shipments. Even at this high price, vaccinating the entire population of Israel costs the economy only as much as two days of lockdown. Uniquely, Israel agreed to give Pfizer anonymised health data from all of its citizens as part of the deal.

Africa secures doses​

For South Africa, more troubling than the high dose cost has been an inability to secure enough vaccine. The government planned to vaccinate 40 million of its 58.5 million people but has only enough vaccine on order for 10 million.
Covax, the World Health Organization’s multilateral vaccine distribution programme, has set aside 600 million doses for Africa, enough to vaccinate a quarter of the continent’s 1.2 billion population. But South Africa’s status as an upper-middle income nation makes it ineligible for Covax assistance.
At a 26 January virtual meeting of the World Economic Forum, the country’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, called on rich nations to give up their surplus doses, noting that “some countries even acquired up to four times what their population needs.”
On 28 January the African Union of 55 countries announced that it had secured 400 million extra doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, bringing its total order to 670 million. South Africa is likely to be a key beneficiary. Africa now has enough vaccine ordered to vaccinate half its population. The UK has ordered enough to theoretically vaccinate about three times its population.
Rich nations would reap huge economic benefits if they paid the roughly $27bn needed to fully fund the COVAX programme to vaccinate populations of developing nations, concluded a study commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce Research Foundation.3 Failure to vaccinate those nations would cost the global economy up to $9.2 trillion, the report found, with half of that cost falling on wealthy nations.

WHO’s secretary general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commented, “I believe the world faces a catastrophic moral failure in equal access to the tools to combat the pandemic. This research shows a potentially catastrophic economic failure.”
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
1,632
Location
First Class
Much is shrouded in 'Commercial Sensitivity' but I suspect contracts will have been conditional on a number of factors.

I have found this which dates back to late January 21 and published in the British Medical Journal which shows, even back then, we had 'secured' doses for the entire population x4.
How much 'optimism bias' there was in the UK figure of £11.7bn we will no doubt see in due course. The average projected cost was just under £10 per shot (vaccine alone), for the 2022 booster order from Pfizer (upthread) it will be £22.


Reading the full article shows just how potentially divisive the 'charges' are for vaccines along with the inequality of availability to some less well off nations. And that it is in the firm interest of wealthy nations, both morally and financially, to ensure a more equable outcome.

Controversial bit:
We really must do much more than we currently seem to be doing. Hoarding Covid vaccines should be a crime against humanity.

Full article (quite long):

Thanks. I agree we shouldn't be hoarding vaccines, that goes without saying. It raises the question of why we procured so many in the first place? Was the money required to finance vaccine development? If so are we now stuck with vaccines we don't need? And again if so, what do we do with them? The two options seems to be jab children and administer boosters to use them up, or give them away. I suspect we'll do whatever is politically expedient but whatever happens I don't think the government are going to admit to having spent billions of pounds needlessly. I would like to see an open and honest conversation take place in this regard but I shan't hold my breath!
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,010
Location
nowhere
I believe it was to guard against one or more of the brands being later shown not to be effective?

Not so much if they are ineffective as if they just fail trials completely, see Sanofi/GSK as a prime example!

Vaccine development is a tricky business, that we've had so many successful & safe vaccines come to market is positively miraculous
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
5,415
Location
Nottingham
I notice some countries are allowing quarantine free entry only if the vaccine was administered less than a year ago. So, unless this changes, many people will want another dose or doses to enable foreign travel next summer.
And as a nation we should be calling out and sanctioning countries that persist with such vaccine denial.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,010
Location
nowhere
Sanofi/GSK is proceeding to phase 3 trials. See assorted May 2021 press releases.

Ah so it is. I was thinking of the Pasteur Institute vaccine, which was abandoned in January. General point still stands around the inherent unpredictability behind vaccine development
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
1,632
Location
First Class
I believe it was to guard against one or more of the brands being later shown not to be effective?

Not so much if they are ineffective as if they just fail trials completely, see Sanofi/GSK as a prime example!

Vaccine development is a tricky business, that we've had so many successful & safe vaccines come to market is positively miraculous

That makes sense actually as we did order them early on, thanks.
 

londonteacher

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2018
Messages
452
If we get to the point of boosters being offered, like with the original doses it is down as a choice. No one has to have it.

I have had my vaccines and for the first time this year will be going for a flu jab and if there is a need then I would have a booster.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
1,637
If we get to the point of boosters being offered, like with the original doses it is down as a choice. No one has to have it.

I have had my vaccines and for the first time this year will be going for a flu jab and if there is a need then I would have a booster.

I'm not eligible for a flu jab on the NHS, but my employer gives out vouchers so we can get free ones through Boots. I've never bothered before but I may this year. I tried last year, but they ran out of vouchers due to higher than normal demand. Flu's never really affected me badly and this year it will be less of a problem given I can now do all my job from home. So not sure if I'll get one.

For Covid I don't think I'd be eligible for a booster. If I was, I probably wouldn't bother unless there was a good scientific reason why it was needed. E.g. if they had re-formulated the vaccine to be more effective against Delta. But I am not that bothered and I say that as someone who was keen to have my first and second doses (I booked both as soon as I was eligible).
 
Joined
23 Jan 2016
Messages
131
If we get to the point of boosters being offered, like with the original doses it is down as a choice. No one has to have it.

I have had my vaccines and for the first time this year will be going for a flu jab and if there is a need then I would have a booster.

I’d never had a flu jab until last year. If I’m offered one this year I’ll take it.

I really want a Covid-19 booster jab as I was immunocompromised when I had my first two. My immune system should be normal or close to it by now, so I hope that a booster would give me the same amount of protection as it would had I not been on chemotherapy earlier in the year. I’ll even pay for the booster if needed.
 

londonteacher

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2018
Messages
452
I’d never had a flu jab until last year. If I’m offered one this year I’ll take it.

I really want a Covid-19 booster jab as I was immunocompromised when I had my first two. My immune system should be normal or close to it by now, so I hope that a booster would give me the same amount of protection as it would had I not been on chemotherapy earlier in the year. I’ll even pay for the booster if needed.
That's my thing to.

I'll pay for the flu jab if I need to and would consider paying for the covid booster if it was proven to be effective.
 

Top