Nothing to do with Boris. Turn your vaccination down if you aren’t satisfied. Someone else can have it.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
the BBC later added that the England part of that study was based on subjects given the Pfizer vaccine, the Scottish part was based on both vaccines.
PHE PHS.
I think we are taking about two different priorities. The U.K.’s early priority is to prevent hospitalisation and death, not infection. Once that’s achieved, and the signs ate starting to look very very good, we will focus more on suppressing infection.
However, the AZ vaccine seems to be highly effective in preventing infection and preventing transmission after the one dose. (PHS and PHE).
I know you’ll scour the Internet to find some dark corner which contradicts the above. But after you have publicly soiled yourself, you will then be forced to eat humble pie when what I quote turns out to be true and you are wrong. It’s a monotonous and repetitive process as far as you are concerned.
not contradicting but needing clarifications.
The study on efficacy of single jabs was widely used to justify and laud the success of BJ's strategy on singe jab. When you look into this, the BBC and newspapers mentioned only briefly that the second jab increases protection by 15%. On the face of it, people would think that 15% increase on 80% is not a huge, and government is justified for going single jab.
However, if people see that the second jab reduces the number from 20 hospitalisations to 5, they may not think that the single jab strategy is so right.
It's the same with mixing the results of both vaccines. On the face of it, both vaccines give great results. However, if people see that out of 100 hospitalisations, you have 10 with single jab Pfizer and 30 with AZ - it does not seem great anymore for the vast majority given the AZ.
If ordinarily, 10000 people would have gone into hospital had there been no vaccine and now one jab of AZ means that less than 3000 go into hospital, that’s a good result. Forget preventing infection at this stage, that comes later.
My wife had her second jab (Pfizer) yesterday morning. She started feeling a bit dizzy and light headed last night, and does not feel quite right this morning. She did not have this light headedness with the first jab, just a sore arm.
One of her team members had the second jab last week and has been feeling really unwell ever since, again this person had no problems with the first jab just a sore arm.
A few people have told me that you are more likely to have side effects with the second jab than the first, does anyone know if this is correct?
One of her team members had the second jab last week and has been feeling really unwell ever since, again this person had no problems with the first jab just a sore arm.
A few people have told me that you are more likely to have side effects with the second jab than the first, does anyone know if this is correct?
It has been claimed all over the place - but, from what I have read, seemed to be a rumour rather than verified information.
The data for the study saying the protection was so high came from a Scottish study.
The same Scotland that only a couple of weeks ago had only managed to vaccinate 15% of the top priority group.
In other words their sample was too small and the sampling period far too short to be so certain about the over 80s.
Once again, propaganda in support of the political desire.
.
Last edited:
This sort of response does you no credit
"But after you have publicly soiled yourself, you will then be forced to eat humble pie "
When someone quotes facts from what they perceive to be a reliable source, the veracity of someone who was sufficiently wrong to vote for this government is not qualify them to use remarks like this
"when what I quote turns out to be true and you are wrong. It’s a monotonous and repetitive process as far as you are concerned."
Especially when he is doesn't desperately try to justify what this government is doing when it is clearly a gamble taken for the sake of looking good to those desperate to believe in them
(Which has clearly worked in this case)
There is clearly cause for concern over the dosing interval and all the BS of what a wonderful job "we" are doing is not going to eliminate that, only proven facts.
"Try searching some dark corner of the internet" for them to prove your case, such as actual casualty figures post first injection, not merely handy opinions.
Rolling out a partially effective vaccine regime (single instead of double jabs) at the height of a spike promotes mutation, vaccine resistance. More so when one adds in decreased social distancing, a higher r. It increases chances of a dangerous mutation exponentially. Dont take my word for it, leading virologist like paul biesniasz and others agree. You really do need to put a check on buying boris' bs hook line and sinker
I agree with most of that. There is an enhanced risk of a dangerous mutation. We need to move fast and start getting those second jabs rolled out. That should start soon.
Did you know that there is an egg shortage? The reason is because it’s all over yours and the Leprechaun’s face.
The U.K. vaccination process is a marvellous success and you don’t like it. You are trying to politicise it, and it’s not a political triumph.
I'm afraid you're wrong. As robertson Sewell et al in latest copy of the Lancet prove government assertions about efficacy of delayed second dose (including pfizer) is deliberately very misleading. Vaccine is much less effective as a result of delayed second dose.
It's is political because ultimately Boris (World King) / cabinet / Boris, Hancock & Zahawi*, chose to delay second dose.
Why did the govt decide to delay the second dose
The government initially planned to give people their second dose within three weeks of their first dose, following the evidence collected in trials. In early January, following advice from the JCVI and the chief medical officers of the four nations, it decided to delay the second dose to within three months, in order to give more people a first dose more quickly.
The JCVI cited studies, including of the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines, which suggested the first dose alone offers good protection in the short-term, while the second dose offers longer durability. But epidemiologists are divided, with some, including the World Health Organization, arguing this evidence is too patchy and advocating for additional research and a more cautious approach. Companies, including Pfizer, have also expressed doubts over diverging from the timeline they tested.
One risk is that the single dose may prove to be less effective, with immunity lapsing quickly. The government’s judgement is that – given the current scale of transmission and hospitalisation in the UK, the potential benefit of the “first dose first” strategy, and its ability to monitor efficacy – this is a risk worth taking.
Another is that half-vaccinating people could encourage more vaccine-resistant strains of the virus. While it appears current vaccines will be effective against the variant that emerged in Kent, their effectiveness against the South African variant is unclear. A key question this year will be whether vaccines can stay ahead of further mutations.
Politicians’ appetite for risk will be influenced by factors including the severity of the crisis they are facing. The US, also suffering from a spike in cases and hospitalisations, is considering a “first dose first” strategy like the UK’s, as are Germany and Ireland. Other countries facing a less perilous situation – including Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and Japan – have opted to wait for more data as populations around the world begin to react to vaccination.
Coronavirus vaccine rollout | Institute for Government
The vaccine rollout is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk
*In December, the prime minister appointed Nadhim Zahawi as minister for Covid-19 vaccinations, based in the health department. The prime minister and Matt Hancock, the health secretary, will also be held accountable for oversight of the programme.
A political triumph is exactly what it is in one part, the speed of rollout of the first dose.
In terms of the remaining two active parts, adhering to the age band program and equitable distribution of the vaccine, it's been a failure.
And the efficacy of the fourth part, the second jabs, is very much in doubt due to the interval delay policy.
.
I don't deny the benefit of the vaccines.
we all knew how important the vaccines are and nobody expected our government not to vaccinate at the earliest possible time and we'll have to pay more or less whatever the asking price, no vaccine is not an option.
The point is should we trust our scientists' presentation at Covid briefings when they are employees of the state? From what I see, they are there to sell government's policies.
I fully agree. And nobody on this site is in disagreement. I can even go further, and if there is less hospital intervention , there will be less volume of virus material floating about. So it is a win all around.
The evidence arising is that in the case of the Pfizer , (AZ is to early to include) that whereas at 1 month you only get your 3000 as hospital cases , at 3 months ,without the booster it is now 6000 and at 5 months maybe worse. ( Note the numbers and time scales are estimates not calculations ) Whereas if you get the second jab on schedule it remains at 3000 or maybe improves to 1600.
But if we had given the second dose, today there would be 8500000 more people in the vulnerable category without any protection at all. Because of the delayed second dose, those 8500000 people are now over 70% less likely to die and in a few weeks, will be fully vaccinated.
I’m very happy to have my second injection delayed and be exposed to a slightly raised risk so that others can receive some level of protection more quickly. Perhaps that makes me more of a socialist than the fakes who haunt this thread.
Last edited:
Wales seems to be doing quite well.
Wales has effectively stopped recording excess deaths, says ONS
Wales had effectively stopped recording excess deaths by early February, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. But in the week ending Friday 12 February deaths in all regions of England were still well above the five-year average for this time of year, and overall deaths in England and Wales were running at 28.8%.
Of the 15,354 deaths in England and Wales in the week ending 12 February, 37.1% involved Covid (in that it was mentioned on the death certificate).
This chart illustrates the trend with excess deaths.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/feb/23/uk-covid-live-public-backs-johnsons-plan-for-lockdown-easing-in-england-polls-suggest
Wales has effectively stopped recording excess deaths, says ONS
Wales had effectively stopped recording excess deaths by early February, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. But in the week ending Friday 12 February deaths in all regions of England were still well above the five-year average for this time of year, and overall deaths in England and Wales were running at 28.8%.
Of the 15,354 deaths in England and Wales in the week ending 12 February, 37.1% involved Covid (in that it was mentioned on the death certificate).
This chart illustrates the trend with excess deaths.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/feb/23/uk-covid-live-public-backs-johnsons-plan-for-lockdown-easing-in-england-polls-suggest