Coronavirus

[Rojo]

Don't think you've quite understood what i meant there and maybe I didn't word it very well. I'm certainly not against the vaccine or vaccines in general. I wouldn't have had mine if I was. I'm not anti booster either. Personally don't see any harm in giving the 1% a booster as they had their doses earlier than all of us so they are due one now.

I'm just saying I'm potentially onto my 3rd jab within 6 months. That's the bit I don't get. Why would I need a booster so soon? I had my 2nd dose end of July and it's now only end of November? It's the logic and timing I'm questioning not the actual vaccine itself really.

This is the way I see it...

We're getting boosters ahead of the period where people mix more and more indoors, plus now we have a new variant of concern. Having increased efficacy for December means we don't have to go out over Xmas and into the colder months, I also suspect volunteer numbers and people willing to go out in Christmas week is lower. Getting people out sooner and picking up people not having their first jab makes sense to me, plus there is probably issues with demand, spreading out vaccines across the UK and reducing wastage due to shelf-life.

As far as I can tell no-one is forcing us to have a booster (yet), we are being offered and recommended one. So you can wait up to 6 months if you wish but if I was 50+ or immuno-compromised, I would be taking it as soon as offered.

The government has been heavily criticized for failing to act quickly and not shutting down the borders fast enough (remember how the borders stayed in open during Kumbh Mela). I think this time they've responded appropriately.

 

[Benjsh]

Found the graph I was looking for. This is why boosters are important

Then why is a 4th dose already being spoken about? A booster to the booster if you will.

If what they are saying above is true then amazing news but I'm fairly confident they will move the goalposts again and again.

 

[Jb85]

Then why is a 4th dose already being spoken about? A booster to the booster if you will.

If what they are saying above is true then amazing news but I'm fairly confident they will move the goalposts again and again.

The booster to the booster is likely to be needed to tweak the current vaccines against new variants

it will be just like the flu jab eventually…. That’s different every year but no real drama is made over that.

the reason we need so many jabs atm is that this is a fast moving new decease

 

[pluk]

If what they are saying above is true then amazing news but I'm fairly confident they will move the goalposts again and again.

Who is they? Responding to changes in circumstance and virus is hardly 'moving the goalposts' with all the negative connotations that come with that phrase. The exciting randomness and unknowns of life move the goalposts, those responding to changes aren't moving anything.

 

[JAperson]

The idea we might need booster jab's every year is quite possible but I think it will all depend on the infection rate. If the infection rate is low we are less likely to see mutations, the higher it gets the more likely mutations are. If it stays fairly low most of the year we might well be able to avoid mutations for longer periods of time. I expect winters for the foreseeable future will likely result in higher infections and therefore a possible mutation. I think that's where the vaccines comes in, the more effective against different variants the better. I suspect we'll have jabs that cover different variants specifically in time that will hopefully reduce the chance of mutation by making people less infectious to others.

So realistically, it's a big waiting game to find out what different vaccines the scientists make and how they react to different variants and how long the immunity lasts with them.

 

[Alsty]

I'm just saying I'm potentially onto my 3rd jab within 6 months. That's the bit I don't get. Why would I need a booster so soon? I had my 2nd dose end of July and it's now only end of November? It's the logic and timing I'm questioning not the actual vaccine itself really.

Because the immunity wanes over time. Even small changes have big effects when measured across millions of people.

Let me give an example.

Assumptions:

• You are in the 30-39 age group
• The risk of you dying from Coronavirus if you are unvaccinated is 0.5% (link). That's 5 people in every 1,000.
  
• After two doses the vaccine has reduced your risk of death by 97% (for Pfizer, link), so your risk of dying is now 0.015%. That's 15 people in every 100,000.
  
• Three months have passed since the second dose. I'm going to guess and say the risk of dying from Coronavirus after three months from the second dose is 95% (Pfizer is 90% after six months, link). This means your risk of dying would have increased to 0.025%, which is 25 people in 100,000.

For every 100,000 people in this age group who get Coronavirus, ten of them would avoid death as a result of the booster being given now. That's not insignificant, especially when you consider there are seven million people in the UK in this age group.

As for the Omicron variant, the vaccines are potentially less effective but it's assumed they will still offer some protection. Therefore the higher your immunity the better, for the same reasons as above.

 

[Benjsh]

Because the immunity wanes over time. Even small changes have big effects when measured across millions of people.

Let me give an example.

Assumptions:

• You are in the 30-39 age group
• The risk of you dying from Coronavirus if you are unvaccinated is 0.5% (link). That's 5 people in every 1,000.
  
• After two doses the vaccine has reduced your risk of death by 97% (for Pfizer, link), so your risk of dying is now 0.015%. That's 15 people in every 100,000.
  
• Three months have passed since the second dose. I'm going to guess and say the risk of dying from Coronavirus after three months from the second dose is 95% (Pfizer is 90% after six months, link). This means your risk of dying would have increased to 0.025%, which is 25 people in 100,000.

For every 100,000 people in this age group who get Coronavirus, ten of them would avoid death as a result of the booster being given now. That's not insignificant, especially when you consider there are seven million people in the UK in this age group.

As for the Omicron variant, the vaccines are potentially less effective but it's assumed they will still offer some protection. Therefore the higher your immunity the better, for the same reasons as above.

Thanks for this

I will be getting it at some point ( I think ) i'm just curious as to why they said the booster was just for the over 50's to start with and probably wouldn't be needed for our age group and also then they changed the 6 months to 3 months waiting time.

It's way too much chopping and changing. No wonder we have so many vaccine sceptics.

 

[jon81uk]

It's way too much chopping and changing

The virus is also chopping and changing, we are up to the fifth major variant of concern.


They said it was just for over 50s and those who are healthcare workers and vulnerable because those were the first people to get initial doses last Jan/Feb and therefore most likely to be well over six months from second dose. Also AstraZenica loses the protection far quicker than Pfizer so the booster is more valuable for those who got it as their first.
I don't think it was ever said won't be needed for other age groups.
I had my second dose in July so will reach the six months in January, it now actually feels like it might be sensible to have the booster before Christmas socialising, which I expect is why they have shortened the requirement.

Also worth noting nothing has actually been said about when those under 40 can book the booster, there will be a statement at 4pm today. So much isn't really know anyway.

Edit to add at the conference today it is still only vulnerable and over-40s, rest will be rolled out by age group same as first doeses https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/59473695

 

[Benjsh]

The virus is also chopping and changing, we are up to the fifth major variant of concern.


They said it was just for over 50s and those who are healthcare workers and vulnerable because those were the first people to get initial doses last Jan/Feb and therefore most likely to be well over six months from second dose. Also AstraZenica loses the protection far quicker than Pfizer so the booster is more valuable for those who got it as their first.
I don't think it was ever said won't be needed for other age groups.
I had my second dose in July so will reach the six months in January, it now actually feels like it might be sensible to have the booster before Christmas socialising, which I expect is why they have shortened the requirement.

Also worth noting nothing has actually been said about when those under 40 can book the booster, there will be a statement at 4pm today. So much isn't really know anyway.

No they specifically said they didn't know whether under 50's would need a booster at all at one point. This is what i mean. Total and utter shambles with communication.

 

[rob666]

They said they didn't know.
Because they didn't know.
They now know it is beneficial for the under fifties.
So they recommend it for the under fifties.

Can not see the problem.

 

[Benjsh]

They said they didn't know.
Because they didn't know.
They now know it is beneficial for the under fifties.
So they recommend it for the under fifties.

Can not see the problem.

If only they had been as black and white as you were.....they weren't by the way.

 

[jon81uk]

If only they had been as black and white as you were.....they weren't by the way.

I'm still failing to grasp the problem?

"We don't know" means just that. Then more information comes along and things change.

Edit to add, been looking at initual news about boosters from September.
From Covid booster vaccine rollout to begin across UK next week - BBC News talking to JCVI chairman Prof Wei Shen Lim.
"He said those under 50 were likely to have a more long-lasting immune response to the first two doses of vaccine so may not need a booster - although he did not rule it out happening completely."

and now two months on with the evidence on how the booster affects immunity and a new variant it has been decided that more people with boosters is probably a good thing.
Not quite sure its mixed messaging, just changing due to new evidience.

 

[Alsty]

No they specifically said they didn't know whether under 50's would need a booster at all at one point. This is what i mean. Total and utter shambles with communication.

I get that the government have made plenty of cock-ups and u-turns along the way. For example when they said schools would re-open, and then about two days later they decided to close them. That is an example of incompetence because the material facts and science didn't change in those two days. They just made the wrong decision and backed down on it.

However that is not what is happening here. The landscape has changed. This time last week, nobody even knew about the Omicron variant and that includes the people who make these decisions. You seem to be suggesting either (a) the government should have previously reduced the vaccine boosters to three months before there was any reason to do so, or (b) the government said six months before and they should stick to it even when there's new evidence that it should be reduced to three?

 

[JAperson]

I get that the government have made plenty of cock-ups and u-turns along the way. For example when they said schools would re-open, and then about two days later they decided to close them. That is an example of incompetence because the material facts and science didn't change in those two days. They just made the wrong decision and backed down on it.

Or the time they told us for months that masks didn't make any difference and then all of a sudden they made a difference. Even if the scientists weren't 100% sure it would help in a global pandemic things like this that might have just helped a little wasn't considered.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

Side-effects from both jabs forced me to take time off work. This is one of the reasons I won’t be having a booster. But the real concern is how this could tie in with (what almost feels inevitable at this point) the prospect of vaccine passports or mandatory vaccinations - both of which have already been implemented in Western countries.

The balance between civil liberties and health is being eradicated. Medical procedures should always be done with consent and not coercion.

 

[pluk]

Side-effects from both jabs forced me to take time off work. This is one of the reasons I won’t be having a booster.

Side effects from covid with no jab might force you to have time off life. A lot of time. All of it in fact. You might be young with no underlying conditions, I wouldn't know, and if you are the odds are in your favour. But it's still a roll of the dice. Good luck.

Medical procedures should always be done with consent and not coercion.

This is nothing new, historically that hasn't been the case, and vaccination relies on sufficient uptake. Forcing that can absolutely be the right thing to do. If that attitude had prevailed historically we would be dying with plenty of nasty things which we currently have the luxury of living without.

OPPOSITION TO VACCINATION
In the 1800s, some people objected to compulsory vaccination because they felt it violated their personal liberty. The Vaccination Act of 1853 introduced mandatory smallpox vaccination in England and Wales for infants up to three months old. The Act was met with opposition from people who demanded the right to control their bodies and those of their children.

The Anti Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed in response to the mandatory laws, and numerous anti-vaccination journals sprang up. After a visit to New York, in 1879, by prominent British anti-vaccinationist William Tebb, The Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded.

Despite the opposition to vaccination by some, smallpox was completely eradicated from the world 100 years after the Anti-Vaccination League was set up.

Try and be on the right side of history, and the right side of the grass.

 

[Skyscraper]

Don't think anyone will be surprised, but the quarantine rules are actually in law until March, not three weeks. Who wants to bet that masks will be in force till then as well?

 

[GaryH]

Mandatory vaccines across the EU? Watch this space!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...uss-mandatory-vaccinations-von-der-leyen-says

 

[Skyscraper]

Mandatory vaccines across the EU? Watch this space!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...uss-mandatory-vaccinations-von-der-leyen-says

Would that include the UK though? Have we actually left the EU yet?

 

[Thameslink Rail]

Would that include the UK though? Have we actually left the EU yet?

No and Yes
We left 31st January 2020, the transition period ended 31st December 2020.