|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 3, 2021 16:49:20 GMT
Not because it's the 'wrong' thing to do then, just chicken? What should they do in the UK if they don't know what vaccine you had before (or it's not available) not offer you anything? Would that be better? Giving guidance on what to do in various circumstances seems sensible, rather than waiting until it happens, which it will with 10's of millions of doses of vaccine being given. It should be so rare that they don't need to contemplate it. What happens if the nurse giving the injection has a fit half way through giving it so it is not known how much has been adminsitered? What happens if ..... The problem with stating the scenario up front about what happens if we don't know who the patient is or we are unable to obtain any more of a specfic vaccine because all the manufacturer's facilities have exploded including the one where they keep the recipe should not be contemplated. In other words, if there is no vaccine left, we buy some more, make some more, buy the company that makes it and essentially pull out ALL the stops to get some. Stating up front what to do makes people more relaxed about it. "No more in the fridge until next Wednesday....lets give her the other one....." That is a scenario we do not want to encourage. I think the "not available" statement as verbally given is probably unhelpful. Guidance on what to do if the initial dose is unknown is however almost certainly going to be needed by the troops on the ground given the sheer scale of the required program. The guidance in the 'green book' is however somewhat more guarded: both the 'unknown' and the 'unavailable' guidance are caveated with "This option is preferred if the individual is likely to be at immediate high risk or is considered unlikely to attend again". So it is positioned very much as a worse case option.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 3, 2021 16:59:20 GMT
It’s almost as if the EU isn’t the secure, mutually-beneficent, bureaucratic-paralysis-free, well-oiled machine that we’d been led to believe… You may need to explain how we get to there from individual governments cocking things up...? I mean, it's not as if our own handled everything perfectly up until 11pm Thursday, is it? - The EMA got hacked - BionTech has had a go at the EU for not ordering enough - Italy has had a go at Germany for getting more vaccine & seemingly for ordering extra vaccine outside of the EU collective ordering systemDoesn't sound like individual governments to me, more like EU processes... with the exception of self-serving countries like Germany once more with its snout deep in the trough. The only surprise to me is that France wasn't there alongside them.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 3, 2021 17:13:31 GMT
You may need to explain how we get to there from individual governments cocking things up...? I mean, it's not as if our own handled everything perfectly up until 11pm Thursday, is it? - The EMA got hacked - BionTech has had a go at the EU for not ordering enough - Italy has had a go at Germany for getting more vaccine & seemingly for ordering extra vaccine outside of the EU collective ordering systemDoesn't sound like individual governments to me, more like EU processes... with the exception of self-serving countries like Germany once more with its snout deep in the trough. The only surprise to me is that France wasn't there alongside them. The EMA hack has been known about for nearly a month. Not exactly news. www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/cyberattack-european-medicines-agencyAnd if you really think that there's not been any cyberattacks against UK agencies... www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55368213Biontech are having a mutter at the EU ordering scheme not ordering enough of their particular vaccine... Yet a fortnight ago, Pfizer stated that the EU had ordered 200m doses with an option on 100m more. 300m doses, 150m people - against a population of 450m. One third of the population. The UK ordered 40m doses, 20m people, for a population of 65m. A little under a third of the population. www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-receive-authorization-european-unionIf Pfizer really are surprised that they might have to up production and supply a bit more than they initially thought, then...? www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/01/france-to-step-up-covid-jabs-after-claims-of-bowing-to-anti-vaxxersItaly could have ordered outside, too... Again, it's not news - the German health minister announced it a month ago. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-02/germany-seeks-covid-vaccine-doses-beyond-eu-deal-allocation
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 897
|
Post by JamesFrance on Jan 3, 2021 17:39:33 GMT
I would have thought they would have recommended starting again with 2 doses if the previous one was in doubt. Last winter we had been given the flu jab in France but when we came back to England our surgery here gave us another one in case it was different, saying it wouldn't be a problem either way. I see it is Van Tam who is saying the Pfizer has now been found to give 90% protection 15 days after the first dose after the Vac Committee studied additional information.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,338
Likes: 2,754
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jan 3, 2021 17:48:17 GMT
Not because it's the 'wrong' thing to do then, just chicken? What should they do in the UK if they don't know what vaccine you had before (or it's not available) not offer you anything? Would that be better? Giving guidance on what to do in various circumstances seems sensible, rather than waiting until it happens, which it will with 10's of millions of doses of vaccine being given. It should be so rare that they don't need to contemplate it. What happens if the nurse giving the injection has a fit half way through giving it so it is not known how much has been adminsitered? What happens if ..... The problem with stating the scenario up front about what happens if we don't know who the patient is or we are unable to obtain any more of a specfic vaccine because all the manufacturer's facilities have exploded including the one where they keep the recipe should not be contemplated. In other words, if there is no vaccine left, we buy some more, make some more, buy the company that makes it and essentially pull out ALL the stops to get some. Stating up front what to do makes people more relaxed about it. "No more in the fridge until next Wednesday....lets give her the other one....." That is a scenario we do not want to encourage. Rare could be one in a thousand or one in ten thousand in 10s of millions and the options need to be considered. Nurse faints everyone already knows what to do another nurse takes over. If you had your first dose in a London Hospital with -70 degrees available and you are in the highlands and islands for your second dose with no -70 degrees available you might get the choice of go back to Edinburgh or somewhere to get that jab or have the one we have, your choice. No one is saying you will routinely get a different second dose (or would have to accept that if you were offered, come back next Wednesday in your scenario) the clue is in the 'rare occurrence'. Alternatively if you don't know what you had first time it's going to be pot luck either way. Pull out all the stops for each 'rare' individual affected? OK you need to live in the USA and be very very rich!
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 3, 2021 17:51:13 GMT
Shock, horror. Germany finds a way to excuse itself for purchasing outside the EU collective ordering system (and thereby pi$$ing off other EU member states). In other news, Volkswagen mpg figures may have dodged around the spirit of EU agreements.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 3, 2021 18:13:22 GMT
Absolutely. But I don't think that should stop us from also applying rigour and scrutiny to decisions made by UK authorities, especially when they diverge from what e.g. the US and EU are doing. I entirely agree. Which is absolutely why the increased interval should be critically assessed/questioned. The 'sub thread' here though followed the statement made in this post p2pindependentforum.com/post/415066 stating "The switch to initial single dose and subsequent mix & match vaccines.. "
That was the second time I had effectively seen that posited as a matter of fact, and hence my question as to where it was coming from - as I had not previously been successful in finding an original source for it. Turns out there is a reason for that.... The story was initially reported by the New York Times, pointing out that US authorities explicitly stated that "COVID-19 vaccines are not interchangeable", because "The safety and efficacy of a mixed-product series have not been evaluated".
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,463
Likes: 2,904
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 3, 2021 18:43:50 GMT
It should be so rare that they don't need to contemplate it. What happens if the nurse giving the injection has a fit half way through giving it so it is not known how much has been adminsitered? What happens if ..... The problem with stating the scenario up front about what happens if we don't know who the patient is or we are unable to obtain any more of a specfic vaccine because all the manufacturer's facilities have exploded including the one where they keep the recipe should not be contemplated. In other words, if there is no vaccine left, we buy some more, make some more, buy the company that makes it and essentially pull out ALL the stops to get some. Stating up front what to do makes people more relaxed about it. "No more in the fridge until next Wednesday....lets give her the other one....." That is a scenario we do not want to encourage. Rare could be one in a thousand or one in ten thousand in 10s of millions and the options need to be considered. Nurse faints everyone already knows what to do another nurse takes over. If you had your first dose in a London Hospital with -70 degrees available and you are in the highlands and islands for your second dose with no -70 degrees available you might get the choice of go back to Edinburgh or somewhere to get that jab or have the one we have, your choice. No one is saying you will routinely get a different second dose (or would have to accept that if you were offered, come back next Wednesday in your scenario) the clue is in the 'rare occurrence'. Alternatively if you don't know what you had first time it's going to be pot luck either way. Pull out all the stops for each 'rare' individual affected? OK you need to live in the USA and be very very rich! Well as mrk puts it and far more succinctly than I, the American regulator doesn't allow it because no tests have been carried out to prove it is safe so why should we? CDC
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 3, 2021 19:37:42 GMT
Germany finds a way to excuse itself for purchasing outside the EU collective ordering system Umm, if it was compulsory, then the UK wouldn't have been able to order outside it until Thursday night.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,338
Likes: 2,754
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jan 3, 2021 20:02:29 GMT
Rare could be one in a thousand or one in ten thousand in 10s of millions and the options need to be considered. Nurse faints everyone already knows what to do another nurse takes over. If you had your first dose in a London Hospital with -70 degrees available and you are in the highlands and islands for your second dose with no -70 degrees available you might get the choice of go back to Edinburgh or somewhere to get that jab or have the one we have, your choice. No one is saying you will routinely get a different second dose (or would have to accept that if you were offered, come back next Wednesday in your scenario) the clue is in the 'rare occurrence'. Alternatively if you don't know what you had first time it's going to be pot luck either way. Pull out all the stops for each 'rare' individual affected? OK you need to live in the USA and be very very rich! Well as mrk puts it and far more succinctly than I, the American regulator doesn't allow it because no tests have been carried out to prove it is safe so why should we? CDC Because the alternative is what?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 3, 2021 20:03:37 GMT
I would have thought they would have recommended starting again with 2 doses if the previous one was in doubt. Last winter we had been given the flu jab in France but when we came back to England our surgery here gave us another one in case it was different, saying it wouldn't be a problem either way. I see it is Van Tam who is saying the Pfizer has now been found to give 90% protection 15 days after the first dose after the Vac Committee studied additional information. Though of course that leads one down the same route of "they haven't tested the safety of mixing" ie a zero sum game, with the addition of "they haven't checked the result of having 3 jabs" :-) Anyway, the guidance on simply taking the plunge appears to be caveats with only if the recipient is unlikely to return or is in immediate danger. The former would in effect rule out a start again strategy.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 3, 2021 22:39:40 GMT
Germany finds a way to excuse itself for purchasing outside the EU collective ordering system Umm, if it was compulsory, then the UK wouldn't have been able to order outside it until Thursday night. I thought the UK had declined to partner with the EU in pre-purchasing arrangements? So what the UK did is its own business and we owe no explanation to EU member states. Either way, the difference with Germany is the UK isn’t pretending to be an altruistic member of the EU, spinning their usual ‘best collective interest of all 27 members’ tosh, whilst simultaneously scheming behind the scenes to increase its share of the vaccine pie. From a mid-December EU press release:- “Once authorised, when will vaccines be available in the EU? In line with the EU vaccine strategy agreed with Member States, once authorised and produced, each vaccine will be available to Member States at the same time and at the same conditions.“ Except for Germany, it would seem.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 4, 2021 7:33:12 GMT
Umm, if it was compulsory, then the UK wouldn't have been able to order outside it until Thursday night. I thought the UK had declined to partner with the EU in pre-purchasing arrangements? So what the UK did is its own business and we owe no explanation to EU member states. Either way, the difference with Germany is the UK isn’t pretending to be an altruistic member of the EU, spinning their usual ‘best collective interest of all 27 members’ tosh, whilst simultaneously scheming behind the scenes to increase its share of the vaccine pie. From a mid-December EU press release:- “Once authorised, when will vaccines be available in the EU? In line with the EU vaccine strategy agreed with Member States, once authorised and produced, each vaccine will be available to Member States at the same time and at the same conditions.“ Except for Germany, it would seem. So, just to be clear, you wanted the EU purchasing scheme to be absolutely compulsory and binding on all members...? Including the UK? Because, right now, you seem to be having a pop at Germany for having the same options as the UK did. The UK could have partaken, gone outside, or done both. Germany chose to do both. The UK chose completely outside (and is paying far, FAR more as a result).
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 4, 2021 9:35:23 GMT
I thought the UK had declined to partner with the EU in pre-purchasing arrangements? So what the UK did is its own business and we owe no explanation to EU member states. Either way, the difference with Germany is the UK isn’t pretending to be an altruistic member of the EU, spinning their usual ‘best collective interest of all 27 members’ tosh, whilst simultaneously scheming behind the scenes to increase its share of the vaccine pie. From a mid-December EU press release:- “Once authorised, when will vaccines be available in the EU? In line with the EU vaccine strategy agreed with Member States, once authorised and produced, each vaccine will be available to Member States at the same time and at the same conditions.“ Except for Germany, it would seem. So, just to be clear, you wanted the EU purchasing scheme to be absolutely compulsory and binding on all members...? Including the UK? Because, right now, you seem to be having a pop at Germany for having the same options as the UK did. The UK could have partaken, gone outside, or done both. Germany chose to do both. The UK chose completely outside (and is paying far, FAR more as a result). I'm looking at it from the point of view of Italy and the rest. The joint agreement between the 27 (and not including the UK which didn't participate) was per the press release - the strategy was for the vaccine to be available equally to all member states "at the same time and at the same conditions". I would interpret that as equal availability per capita. By purchasing extra outside that agreement, some might say Germany has broken the spirit of the agreement, if not the letter. I've no doubt that's how Italy and others must be viewing it.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 4, 2021 9:37:25 GMT
So why did they not choose to do the same? Or simply order more through the EU scheme?
The Pfizer press release bemoaning "not ordering enough" seems to suggest that they could have ramped production up more, earlier, but didn't because they didn't have enough orders. So if the countries HAD ordered more, jointly or separately...?
|
|