Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[DelayRepay]

Is it not intended that you have your second vaccination at the same centre as the first to ensure you get the same type ?

I wonder how that will work for the very recent pop-up no appointment vaccination centres at major sports stadiums etc. Maybe it is expected that the second vaccination will be booked and the system will know which vaccine was given and hence only offer centres administering that vaccine ?

You don't have to go to the same centre. In some cases you won't be able to as the centre may have switched to a different type of vaccine.

The type of vaccine is recorded on your NHS record. When you book or re-book a second appointment, you are only offered appointments where the same type of vaccine will be available. And the staff at the second appointment also double check your NHS records before administering the jab.

For the pop up centres, it would not surprise me if they just run them again at the same places in eight weeks time.

 

[david1212]

You don't have to go to the same centre. In some cases you won't be able to as the centre may have switched to a different type of vaccine.

The type of vaccine is recorded on your NHS record. When you book or re-book a second appointment, you are only offered appointments where the same type of vaccine will be available. And the staff at the second appointment also double check your NHS records before administering the jab.

For the pop up centres, it would not surprise me if they just run them again at the same places in eight weeks time.

i had not considered that a centre might change to only administering a different vaccine.

So long as the system works and people do not arrive then be told we do not have that vaccine here fine.

Certainly a possibility although I wonder how may will be prepared to queue again presuming ' Freedom Day ' was 4 or more weeks ago and no intentions to introduce restrictions again unless the infection and / or hospital admission rate decreases significantly. Rather they will want a quick appointment or just decide not to bother with the second dose at all.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Is it not intended that you have your second vaccination at the same centre as the first to ensure you get the same type ?

My first one was at Epsom Racecourse.

That centre closed to permit the Derby festival to proceed; my second one was at Leatherhead hospital as a result.

It is logged on the central system which one you had and also that is repeated on the card they gave you at the first one, which they will look at before stabbing you in the arm for the second time.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is it not intended that you have your second vaccination at the same centre as the first to ensure you get the same type ?

When I first booked my jabs my only choice was two different venues (some sixty miles apart) for the first and second jabs. I've since rebooked to get an earlier second jab and the venue I went to for my first jab was now available so I've ended up going to the same one in the end but originally I was very much going to a different ones!

 

[david1212]

My first one was at Epsom Racecourse.

That centre closed to permit the Derby festival to proceed; my second one was at Leatherhead hospital as a result.

Thinking local to me initially one centre that was used for bookings via the local GP practices but not available using the national online system was a golf club. Once that could reopen it moved to a hotel a mile or so away. Here though from an administrative viewpoint intended for the same people.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I se e n ITV breakfast that the next level or predicted vaccination has started.

They are discussing the vaccination of 16 & 17 year olds

Another good reason to delay the lifting of restrictions is building

 

[Dent]

I se e n ITV breakfast that the next level or predicted vaccination has started.

They are discussing the vaccination of 16 & 17 year olds

Another good reason to delay the lifting of restrictions is building

How is this a "another good reason to delay the lifting of restrictions"? This is ridiculous, we need to stop this endless moving of the goalposts, and get on with rebuilding what is left of the country.

 

[LAX54]

How is this a "another good reason to delay the lifting of restrictions"? This is ridiculous, we need to stop this endless moving of the goalposts, and get on with rebuilding what is left of the countr

I thought we were locked-down' to protect the elderly, then the NHS and the vulnerable....all those have now had their jabs, and by now should have had both, is there a reason we are still doing what we are doing ?

 

[VauxhallandI]

How is this a "another good reason to delay the lifting of restrictions"? This is ridiculous, we need to stop this endless moving of the goalposts, and get on with rebuilding what is left of the country.

I've no idea, this is where the conspiracies are born. Who knows but the step after this is that all of Europe will need jabbing then the final step will be the World.

After that who knows what!

 

[kristiang85]

I managed to get my vaccination rebooked for earlier, which is great as I'll now be in the +2wk window post vaccination for when I supposedly go to Portugal.

If anybody is having trouble, the dates they show you after cancelling are the valid dates - beforehand there's still a bug where it's in the next few days. I did it late at night just in case it went wrong, and there's less risk of losing my old slot, but it was fine.

 

[Dent]

I've no idea, this is where the conspiracies are born. Who knows but the step after this is that all of Europe will need jabbing then the final step will be the World.

After that who knows what!

You were the one who claimed in this thread that is was "another good reason to delay the lifting of restrictions".

 

[VauxhallandI]

You were the one who claimed in this thread that is was "another good reason to delay the lifting of restrictions".

No I was suggesting what "they" would do! i.e what is the next narrative they are "building"

 

[35B]

I thought we were locked-down' to protect the elderly, then the NHS and the vulnerable....all those have now had their jabs, and by now should have had both, is there a reason we are still doing what we are doing ?

If herd immunity is at 85% of the population, then where vaccination is concerned, yes.

 

[Bantamzen]

If herd immunity is at 85% of the population, then where vaccination is concerned, yes.

Where is it mandated that we can only protect the NHS and vulnerable through vaccinated induced herd immunity, and that level is considered at least 85% of the entire population? Asking for the fans looking for the goalposts that seem to have been not only moved on the pitch, but moved out of the stadium and even the city.....

 

[VauxhallandI]

If herd immunity is at 85% of the population, then where vaccination is concerned, yes.

I'm calling it, you are Matt Hancock!

 

[MikeWM]

Where is it mandated that we can only protect the NHS and vulnerable through vaccinated induced herd immunity, and that level is considered at least 85% of the entire population? Asking for the fans looking for the goalposts that seem to have been not only moved on the pitch, but moved out of the stadium and even the city.....

In any event, even if we accept 85% as the herd immunity figure, and accept that reaching it is necessary, and accept this sixteenth-or-so moving of the goalposts - the latest ONS survey states that 86.6% of the population currently have antibodies, so even by this extreme metric we appear to be done.

 

[Dent]

The way herd immunity is being discussed, and this figure of 85%, sounds like meaningless pseudoscience anyway. Why would herd immunity be like a switch that suddenly comes on when a particular threshold is passed, as opposed to a continuous scale where any level of herd immunity has an effect?

 

[Bantamzen]

In any event, even if we accept 85% as the herd immunity figure, and accept that reaching it is necessary, and accept this sixteenth-or-so moving of the goalposts - the latest ONS survey states that 86.6% of the population currently have antibodies, so even by this extreme metric we appear to be done.

Ah but naturally acquired immunity, be it through direct infection or through exposure to other coronaviruses doesn't count! And I'm pretty sure sure once we do reach the magical 85%, they won't count either because people will need a 3rd / 4th / 5th jab because as we all know none of our immune systems can deal with the virus after so many months after a jab, because you know, covid or something....

The way herd immunity is being discussed, and this figure of 85%, sounds like meaningless pseudoscience anyway. Why would herd immunity be like a switch that suddenly comes on when a particular threshold is passed, as opposed to a continuous scale where any level of herd immunity has an effect?

it doesn't, its why the goalposts keep moving. But no-one wants to be the one to stay get on with it just in case someone blames them for something....

 

[35B]

I'm calling it, you are Matt Hancock!

I'll take some insults, but that...

Where is it mandated that we can only protect the NHS and vulnerable through vaccinated induced herd immunity, and that level is considered at least 85% of the entire population? Asking for the fans looking for the goalposts that seem to have been not only moved on the pitch, but moved out of the stadium and even the city.....

In any event, even if we accept 85% as the herd immunity figure, and accept that reaching it is necessary, and accept this sixteenth-or-so moving of the goalposts - the latest ONS survey states that 86.6% of the population currently have antibodies, so even by this extreme metric we appear to be done.

Unfortunately, experience shows that there is more to immunity than just the percentage of people with antibodies, so that 86.6% figure isn't there. The percentage required for herd immunity is based on the mathematics of a disease's R0 - herd immunity arises when the number of people with effective immunity in the population is greater than that figure, so the disease cannot spread.

As for why it matters - surely you can see the impact community spread has had even in part vaccinated populations, and hence why long term containment relies on herd immunity.

 

[Bantamzen]

Unfortunately, experience shows that there is more to immunity than just the percentage of people with antibodies, so that 86.6% figure isn't there. The percentage required for herd immunity is based on the mathematics of a disease's R0 - herd immunity arises when the number of people with effective immunity in the population is greater than that figure, so the disease cannot spread.

As for why it matters - surely you can see the impact community spread has had even in part vaccinated populations, and hence why long term containment relies on herd immunity.

You are absolutely right, antibodies are not the only thing to immunity. Our immune systems have shown time and again that they can quickly adapt to new & variant viruses, and that antibodies are not produced ad nauseum. In fact we wouldn't want them to be, if we retained levels of antibodies for every threat known to our systems we'd have little room for anything else in our bloodstreams. This is why T & B cells retain memory of both infecting agent and response (which might not always be antibodies either). It also explains how some samples of people's blood without any known exposure due to having been taken long before the virus was known could show resistance to it.

Now of course none of this means that there will be no reinfection or transmission, even with antibodies present we can still feel the effects of the disease as well as transmit, however the number of people testing positive is no longer the primary metric. Going once again back to the prime directive of all restrictions, the key metrics are around the impact on the health services. If this does not become an overwhelming problem, then the justification for further or prolonged restrictions falls apart, especially when you start to factor in the economic implications. And you may have noticed some rather dark clouds forming over the Treasury & No.10 in the last few days. You won't have time to gather data on this, that storm is inevitable and will have drastic consequences on a lot of people, perhaps even you and me.

 

[Dent]

As for why it matters - surely you can see the impact community spread has had even in part vaccinated populations, and hence why long term containment relies on herd immunity.

"Long term containment" is a major shift of goalposts from just keeping hospital occupancy at a manageable level, which is what actually matters and what was the entire objective of restrictions.

The fact that the objective was already met months ago by vaccinating everyone at any significant risk of requiring hospital treatment, yet the restrictions are still in place and being endlessly extended with endlessly moving goalposts, is a serious cause for concern.

 

[yorkie]

The way herd immunity is being discussed, and this figure of 85%, sounds like meaningless pseudoscience anyway. Why would herd immunity be like a switch that suddenly comes on when a particular threshold is passed, as opposed to a continuous scale where any level of herd immunity has an effect?

There is absolutely a continuous scale where levels of population immunity will take effect; we are absolutely seeing it now.

We know from the existing Coronaviruses that people who have pre-existing adaptive immunity against viruses such as Sars-CoV-2 are far less likely to become infectious than people who don't, but the nature of the virus is that it will still spread, causing mild infections, in a state of seasonal endemic equilibrium.

There is a lot of confusion about the term "herd immunity" and no universally accepted definition of what it means; for a great example of that, see this video:

Video shows an interview with Professor Paul Hunter, East Anglia University, Medical Epidemiologist and Dr John Campbell, in which Jay Richards initially suggests they are in disagreement with each other but once Paul Hunter explains his position, Dr John Campbell indicates he is in agreement.

This example of confusion over semantics and terms such as "herd immunity" demonstrates how people can get confused and can sometimes end up talking at cross purposes.

I tend to avoid using the term personally; it is my firm belief that we are heading for a state of endemic equilibrium with Sars-CoV-2 as the fifth commonly circulating human Coronavirus. I am yet to see any credible evidence to the contrary, but if anyone has any, I am prepared to listen to their evidence...

 

[yorkie]

Mixing Covid jabs has good immune response, study finds

Any combination of Pfizer or AstraZeneca for first and second doses works, a study suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Com-Cov trial looked at the efficacy of either two doses of Pfizer, two of AstraZeneca, or one of them followed by the other.
All combinations worked well, priming the immune system.

The Com-Cov study, which looked at giving the doses four weeks apart in 850 volunteers aged 50 and above, found:

• AZ followed by Pfizer induced higher antibodies and T cell responses than Pfizer followed by AZ
• Both of these mixes induced higher antibodies than two doses of AZ
• The highest antibody response was seen after two doses of Pfizer, and the highest T cell response from AZ followed by Pfizer

Still too early to draw firm conclusions over which is "better", though given many experts say the T cell response is of particular importance, it sounds to me like whatever combination gives the highest T cell response is likely to be "better", but I am not sure how they are measuring this, and a broader T cell response may be "better" than one that is "higher".

If I had the choice, I'd be wanting to get a different vaccine for my second shot, and the reality is I won't get that choice but it doesn't matter: two doses of any of the vaccines gives excellent protection against severe symptoms, which is what really matters!

 

[The Ham]

Mixing Covid jabs has good immune response, study finds

Any combination of Pfizer or AstraZeneca for first and second doses works, a study suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

Still too early to draw firm conclusions over which is "better", though given many experts say the T cell response is of particular importance, it sounds to me like whatever combination gives the highest T cell response is likely to be "better", but I am not sure how they are measuring this, and a broader T cell response may be "better" than one that is "higher".

If I had the choice, I'd be wanting to get a different vaccine for my second shot, and the reality is I won't get that choice but it doesn't matter: two doses of any of the vaccines gives excellent protection against severe symptoms, which is what really matters!

I suspect that the research will be used to allow any booster program (not sure one is needed this year, but could be one is needed in the future - even in saying that it could be that one is never needed) the ability to use whatever there is stock of rather than being tied to repeating what was given before.

 

[Silver Cobra]

Looks like a third jab for those aged 50 and over is now more likely than not, as the NHS is preparing plans for rolling out a booster program before winter:

Covid: NHS plans booster jab for those 50 and over before winter

The UK's vaccine committee says winter could see spikes in flu and Covid, putting pressure on the NHS.

www.bbc.co.uk

The NHS has been given the green light to start planning a Covid vaccine booster programme in the UK ahead of this winter.

A bigger flu season than normal is expected, meaning extra protection against Covid is likely to be needed.

More than 30 million of the most vulnerable should receive a third dose, vaccine experts are advising.

They will include all adults aged 50 and over, and anyone younger who qualifies for a flu jab.

Health service bosses had previously said they needed lots of warning of an autumn Covid-19 booster rollout in order to plan the logistics alongside vaccinating millions of people against flu.

Interim advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that boosters will help maintain protection against Covid-19 and new variants for those most at risk, before winter comes.

The vaccines are thought to protect most people against serious illness for at least six months, but a lack of data on exactly how long immunity lasts is prompting a safety-first approach.

No decisions have yet been made on which vaccines will be used.

 

[87electric]

The BBC might as well announce every morning “Good day everybody, you’re one step closer to your grave, but don’t worry”. Hopefully, many are tuning out of this scaremongering every single day.
Life is for living and not cowering in fear.

 

[Mintona]

I’ve booked my second vaccine for next week, which will be under six weeks since the first. Seems early to me but had a text inviting me to do so so thought I may as well.

The news above about 50+ year olds needing a booster is perfectly timed to not allow a major lifting of restrictions until that’s done I guess.

 

[bramling]

Looks like a third jab for those aged 50 and over is now more likely than not, as the NHS is preparing plans for rolling out a booster program before winter:

Covid: NHS plans booster jab for those 50 and over before winter

The UK's vaccine committee says winter could see spikes in flu and Covid, putting pressure on the NHS.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is a bit of a concern really. It seems to introduce the scope for “we need to lock down during autumn whilst people have their boosters”.

It also runs the risk of starting a narrative that the current two shots aren’t enough - we’ve already seen elements of that with “it’s only xx % effective” or “it doesn’t work for people with major health conditions” or “it doesn’t work on people who want to continue working from home”, et cetera. (Okay I made the last one up!).

For now the big thing has to be July going ahead, the more entrenched that becomes the harder it will be for a “lockdown over autumn to save the NHS” to gain traction. Any talk of boosters is a threat, IMO.

 

[Yew]

This is a bit of a concern really. It seems to introduce the scope for “we need to lock down during autumn whilst people have their boosters”.

It also runs the risk of starting a narrative that the current two shots aren’t enough - we’ve already seen elements of that with “it’s only xx % effective” or “it doesn’t work for people with major health conditions” or “it doesn’t work on people who want to continue working from home”, et cetera. (Okay I made the last one up!).

For now the big thing has to be July going ahead, the more entrenched that becomes the harder it will be for a “lockdown over autumn to save the NHS” to gain traction. Any talk of boosters is a threat, IMO.

That is very concerning, the vaccines are incredibly effective, and this talk of boosters is based in reassuring the hypochondriacs, rather than in medical need.

 

[bramling]

That is very concerning, the vaccines are incredibly effective, and this talk of boosters is based in reassuring the hypochondriacs, rather than in medical need.

This is my thought. A booster so soon after two shots seems quite disproportionate.