Coronavirus vaccine | Page 23 | Vital Football

Coronavirus vaccine

Baghdad_Rob said:
The argument för The change is simple. It is better to give a single vaccine to 1 million people where statistically 900k will be immune than to give 500k people two vaccines where you'd expect 475k to be immune.
Click to expand...

But it is claimed that 'immunity ' to covid only lasts a limited time. Is that really what the word 'immunity' means ?

Statistically , Sky News tonight announced a total of +/- 73,000 deaths.
So , for numbers sake , let's say the UK's population is 73 million.
That means , after 9 months (officially) of covid , the UK has lost 0.1% of its population , that is one person out of a thousand.
 
valenciagill said:
But it is claimed that 'immunity ' to covid only lasts a limited time. Is that really what the word 'immunity' means ?

Statistically , Sky News tonight announced a total of +/- 73,000 deaths.
So , for numbers sake , let's say the UK's population is 73 million.
That means , after 9 months (officially) of covid , the UK has lost 0.1% of its population , that is one person out of a thousand.
Click to expand...
No one knows exactly how long immunity will last, and the length of time will differ for all of us but I've heard it's likely to be about 3 years from vaccines.
 
When a government (especially this one) starts talking about going against the scientific manufacturers reccommended dosage advice to try and risk stretching out their limited vaccine stocks you have to ask why? Why? When it's been known for months what logistics would be required.
Who benefits the most?
What don't we know about future UK vaccine orders/supplies?
Why are they choosing to kick the logistics of a 2nd jab requirement months down the road?
Why are there suddenly, so many 'pub' experts on what immunity from a single jab might give and for how long!?
 
Vambogills said:
When a government (especially this one) starts talking about going against the scientific manufacturers reccommended dosage advice to try and risk stretching out their limited vaccine stocks you have to ask why? Why? When it's been known for months what logistics would be required.
Who benefits the most?
What don't we know about future UK vaccine orders/supplies?
Why are they choosing to kick the logistics of a 2nd jab requirement months down the road?
Why are there suddenly, so many 'pub' experts on what immunity from a single jab might give and for how long!?
Click to expand...
Where did you get the limited stock nonsense from.
The UK has enough vaccine for everyone, it is the delay of trying to get every one jabbed, the idea is to concentrate on giving everyone a single jab (partial immunity) in that way stopping the spread.
 
Vambogills said:
When a government (especially this one) starts talking about going against the scientific manufacturers reccommended dosage advice to try and risk stretching out their limited vaccine stocks you have to ask why? Why? When it's been known for months what logistics would be required.
Who benefits the most?
What don't we know about future UK vaccine orders/supplies?
Why are they choosing to kick the logistics of a 2nd jab requirement months down the road?
Why are there suddenly, so many 'pub' experts on what immunity from a single jab might give and for how long!?
Click to expand...
I believe it was the experts who advise the government, not the government, who made the change of policy come to fruition.
Other factors, such as blocked hospitals would lead to a change of direction.
 
Whitstabletangerine said:
According to the BBC, four chief medical advisers said giving one jab to as many vulnerable people as possible, was much more preferable.
Click to expand...

So has that advice changed since the vaccine was approved or has that been the scientific advice all along and the government ignored it, or are they/we getting desperate to vaccinate people we're changing tact after recommending one method? (Genuine question). Something has clearly changed. They're now saying they don't get know if having the vaccine will stop you spreading or carrying it, it'll just stop you getting seriously ill with it.

Dont think it does anything for public confidence when you tell people they need two jabs then after giving them one jab you tell them they'll be fine with that.
 
nitram77 said:
Where did you get the limited stock nonsense from.
The UK has enough vaccine for everyone, it is the delay of trying to get every one jabbed, the idea is to concentrate on giving everyone a single jab (partial immunity) in that way stopping the spread.
Click to expand...

If we have 'enough vaccine for everyone' as you say, then why not just jab everyone anyway? Do you mean, we have it on order? If so, are you presuming that it will all turn up this month? Forgive me not taking what we are being told at face value.
 
Already been told that there is a shortage of bottles to store the stuff (ffs). How much pre-planning was needed to know we would need those?
 
Vambogills said:
If we have 'enough vaccine for everyone' as you say, then why not just jab everyone anyway? Do you mean, we have it on order? If so, are you presuming that it will all turn up this month? Forgive me not taking what we are being told at face value.
Click to expand...
The Fizzer vaccine has problems with storage, transport and shelve life.
because 1 jab offers protection at a slightly lower rate, it was decided to get as many people as possible to have 1 jab. this requires everyone trained to give the vaccine concentrating on a large scale inoculation program, not trying to work only where deep freezer capacity, exists.
 
nitram77 said:
Where did you get the limited stock nonsense from.
The UK has enough vaccine for everyone, it is the delay of trying to get every one jabbed, the idea is to concentrate on giving everyone a single jab (partial immunity) in that way stopping the spread.
Click to expand...
I agree with the latest tactic actually. Blair suggested it a couple of weeks ago. Sorry to be pedantic but we don't have enough of the vaccine at the moment. We have ordered enough but as far as I know it is yet to all be produced. Happy to be proved wrong on this.

If the 100 million of the Oxford vaccine existed already then we should all be vacciated in a matter of a few weeks if the government got their act together. Not holding my breath on that one but will be ecstatic to be proven wrong.
 
Gills 58 said:
I agree with the latest tactic actually. Blair suggested it a couple of weeks ago. Sorry to be pedantic but we don't have enough of the vaccine at the moment. We have ordered enough but as far as I know it is yet to all be produced. Happy to be proved wrong on this.

If the 100 million of the Oxford vaccine existed already then we should all be vacciated in a matter of a few weeks if the government got their act together. Not holding my breath on that one but will be ecstatic to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...
Depends what "a few weeks" is.
If "a few" is 3 (for example) that would require 16million jabs per week. Even if "a few" was 6 weeks (to give the benefit of the doubt) that would require 8 million per week.
Thats a massive set of logistics for any government. There aren't enough trained staff to administer it at that rate for a start.
These figures are allowing for approx 48 million over 18s only
 
I was amazed to read that France has only vaccinated just over 300 people so far.
That doesn’t make much sense ??
 
Nobby_66 said:
Depends what "a few weeks" is.
If "a few" is 3 (for example) that would require 16million jabs per week. Even if "a few" was 6 weeks (to give the benefit of the doubt) that would require 8 million per week.
Thats a massive set of logistics for any government. There aren't enough trained staff to administer it at that rate for a start.
These figures are allowing for approx 48 million over 18s only
Click to expand...
Yes, fair comment. 3 weeks would be a miracle. Should aim for a couple of months to get most over 18's done or at least the more vulnerable such as over 50's and those with conditions that make them vulnerable. Should treat it as if we were on a war footing.

As you say, there's a problem with qualified staff. Hope they can overcome this somehow. Anyone know who would be adequate/qualified to administer the jab (with some training)? I assume pharmacists/ nurses/physios. Any others?
 
Gills 58 said:
Anyone know who would be adequate/qualified to administer the jab (with some training)? I assume pharmacists/ nurses/physios. Any others?
Click to expand...

I think that volunteers are being trained up by St Johns Ambulance. If it is just a jab in the skin I imagine anyone can do it, it's the adverse reaction (e.g fainting) that would presumably be the issue.
 
Gills 58 said:
Yes, fair comment. 3 weeks would be a miracle. Should aim for a couple of months to get most over 18's done or at least the more vulnerable such as over 50's and those with conditions that make them vulnerable. Should treat it as if we were on a war footing.

As you say, there's a problem with qualified staff. Hope they can overcome this somehow. Anyone know who would be adequate/qualified to administer the jab (with some training)? I assume pharmacists/ nurses/physios. Any others?
Click to expand...
Phlebotomists could surely? I don't know how much extra training that would require, but surely it's not much.
 
ThreeSixes said:
I think that volunteers are being trained up by St Johns Ambulance. If it is just a jab in the skin I imagine anyone can do it, it's the adverse reaction (e.g fainting) that would presumably be the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes you're correct. The issue is anaphylactic shock.
 
Gills 58 said:
Yes, fair comment. 3 weeks would be a miracle. Should aim for a couple of months to get most over 18's done or at least the more vulnerable such as over 50's and those with conditions that make them vulnerable. Should treat it as if we were on a war footing.

As you say, there's a problem with qualified staff. Hope they can overcome this somehow. Anyone know who would be adequate/qualified to administer the jab (with some training)? I assume pharmacists/ nurses/physios. Any others?
Click to expand...
If I've understood it correctly, this is the reason for the change in time between the first and second dose. The first dose gives a very strong resistance to serious complications so by extending the time between doses one and two, they can get the first dose into many more people.
The whole thing is clearly a juggling act but this decision seems to have been endorsed by the experts meaning (hopefully) most of the vulnerable will have received dose 1 giving them 90% resistance and more importantly, greater resistance to serious illness even if they do catch covid19.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.