Delay second vaccination dose....or not?

Primrose · 2 January at 3:41PM

Am interested in peoples' views on this.

There are still so many unknowns about this virus. So much effort has gone into developing these vaccines I'm worried that unless the recommended advice is followed, those getting only once vaccination will not have the confidence to expose themselves to the wider world, or their close relatives until they,ve had the second jab so any benefits will be totally lost.

Am I being unduly pessimistic? I wonder if the vaccine developers have even been consulted on this idea..

unforeseen · 2 January at 3:57PM

Which is better? 2 million people with 50-55% protection or 1 million with upto 95% protection?
Surely, the sooner more people can get some level of protection, the better it is for all.

Spoonie_Turtle · 2 January at 7:23PM

The vaccine hasn't been tested with the delayed second dose. I won't say what I think of the idea to change the schedule but I do think people would be foolhardy to rush out and increase potential exposure for the sake of a couple of months until they've had the second dose (plus the relevant time frame for the body to become immune). Even then we don't yet know for sure whether it prevents transmission - although logically it should at least lessen transmission due to a decreased viral load - so precautions are still necessary to protect those around us. And until we know what level of protection the vaccine gives with the government's schedule, as opposed to the tested and approved schedules, it's still better to be safe than sorry.

Hopefully in the long run protection will eventually be the same level after the second dose, and ultimately if the first dose is 50% effective that halves the number of very ill patients and hopefully the number of people that will die too. So personal benefits may be minimal for a while due to lesser protection, but it shouldn't be totally useless on the whole. I hope.

unforeseen · 2 January at 7:52PM

Delaying the second and giving more people the first should help reduce the impact on hospitals which is the aim.

Toothsmith · 2 January at 9:39PM

I think it's hugely sensible.

What we need is something to get as many people as possible with significant protection for the next 2-3 months. Then it the spring, rates will naturally fall back anyway, and we have the whole spring and summer to worry about optimising protection for the most vulnerable and covering those in the lower priority categories.

sheramber · 2 January at 11:13PM

The vaccination will not prevent you catching the virus. It will reduce the effects if you do, so there is less load on the NHS.
iT has already been said the restrictions will still apply, probably for up top a year, until the level of virus has dropped sufficiently. 70-80% need to be vaccinated for that to happen which will take several months.
It is not a case of you get vaccinated and 2 seeks later you can forget about restrictions.
It is not a magic bullet..

Morrigan_2020 · 3 January at 12:43AM

unforeseen said:

Which is better? 2 million people with 50-55% protection or 1 million with upto 95% protection?

It depends on how long that 50-55% protection lasts, and if the delay in the second dose reduces the overall efficacy.

Hopefully we won't have wasted millions of doses of a precious vaccine.

Delay second vaccination dose....or not?

MSE Newsflash 4/3

Delay second vaccination dose....or not?

Replies

Quick links