I would say they're probably making that assessment from the data they've had since the roll out of the programme here. Either way, they've been vaccinating at 12 weeks prior and were finding in a study that certain age groups at that interval stage were showing some 3.5 times more antibodies, than at 3 weeks. In a wider picture, it looks like supply is improving and the race to improve vaccination rates in high risk areas is only a good thing.
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
I would say they're probably making that assessment from the data they've had since the roll out of the programme here. Either way, they've been vaccinating at 12 weeks prior and were finding in a study that certain age groups at that interval stage were showing some 3.5 times more antibodies, than at 3 weeks. In a wider picture, it looks like supply is improving and the race to improve vaccination rates in high risk areas is only a good thing.
We know antibodies increase over time (before decreasing) and antibody levels aren’t a great proxy for efficacy. Plus if everyone’s been getting a 12 week interval then what’s the basis for claiming “8 week best”. Better than 12 weeks, maybe, but how do they know it’s better than 4 when nobody has been getting the 4 week interval yet. How are they making these comparisons?
It’s a bit of a semantic point because the vaccines all seem to work well with varying intervals but it irks me when someone makes a claim like “8 weeks best” in the absence of any robust evidence to support it. The best possible evidence for vaccine efficacy is always a randomised controlled trial. And the trials for all mRNA vaccines involved a 4 week interval.
EDIT: Although if he’s talking about AZ then I can get off my soap box. The intervals in the AZ trials were many and varied. It’s quite possible that data was sliced to demonstrate 8 weeks best.
Last edited:
I don't have a local GP - I moved from Dublin out to Meath about 2 years ago and never bothered registering. I really should. Maybe I will tomorrow
I think the reference is around the specifics on the delta variant, with one dose not providing much impact & then bringing forward the second is more effective or in those words 'best gap' in context of that variant. I'm guessing the data they've seen through the real world data in vaccination in the population, I would trust that the JVCI has a wider view on vaccine data to draw that conclusion.
Is it not a bit of a top trumps discussion point though? The vaccines work, and broadly the difference between 4-8-12 weeks are all giving positive results.
Yeah, definitely. I was triggered by his use of “best” but it’s all just semantics really.
While antibodies are a flawed proxy we do now have some evidence of their use in those kinds of assessments. And while the Oxford trial data was messy, the substantially higher levels of antibodies tied in with the greater efficacy among those with a longer dosing interval was really clear. It's summarised here in Table 3 and the prior paragraph by the MHRA.
Around the time when the MHRA released this, they were asked a lot of questions about the dosing intervals (given it was also a public health policy question) and one of their experts said it was not surprising at all that a longer dosing interval produced a greater immune response, in fact that's the norm for most vaccines that we administer multiple doses for. That is true for some vaccines when they administered them not just weeks apart but months apart, 24 months produced a greater response than 12 months for one of the common childhood vaccines. That is based on trial data and real-world data, and supposedly the theory supporting it is quite straightforward. In general the concern is dosing too close together rather than too far apart, which is discussed a bit more here. I didn't look into the data but he cited many examples and was unequivocal about it.
What we can say is the Pfizer and Moderna trial data provide no insight into whether a longer dosing interval would produce a better response in terms of efficacy (almost impossible, but a few extra % can't hurt) or longevity (very plausible). There is no evidence to suggest it would make things worse. There is some related evidence - the AZ trials, real-world data on their own vaccines, and historical trials on other vaccines - that it may be better.
An interesting thread on the vaccine impact on hospitalisation rate, as cases rises.
mRNA vaccines are a brand new technology. Medicine is littered with stuff which seems counter-intuitive. You expect one thing to happen but the opposite happens instead. And it can take years of research to work out why. Extrapolating from traditional vaccines and expecting this new technology to behave the same isn’t a great idea. Far better to stick with what’s proven to work in the RCTs if you have the option.
Anyhoo. As I said. This is mainly semantics. The interval probably (albeit not definitely) can be extended without any problems. It just grinds my gears when anyone recommends using novel treatments off-license in the absence of rock solid evidence to support the recommendation. Which we’re unlikely to see for a while yet.
Australia's glacial vaccine rollout continues with only 6% fully vaccinated and 18.5% half done. OECD ranking 36/36 
He's an interesting analyst. There's some gloriously counter-intuitive stuff being described by the stats/modelling people now - like the idea that case:hospitalisation rates are about to bottom out, but the rates will then rise again as more people get vaccinated. Which will sound bad in the hands of anti-vaxers, but would actually be a sign of a successful vaccine rollout.
That comes down to the idea that there are lots of cases in the young but few hospitalisations in that group. More vaccines of the young now = fewer cases overall (not just in the young) but the proportion of the old amongst those cases will rise, even if the absolute number doesn't. That said, were still on track for cases doubling in the next couple of weeks and more hospitalisations will follow.
The geek in me is fascinated by the explanations of the statistical modelling of vaccine impacts like this one:
Some good news on the J&J vaccine - seems to be more effective against Delta than the Beta variant. Delta is now the dominant strain in South Africa, as we are going through a catastrophic third wave. Thankfully most healthcare workers have been vaccinated with J&J, so we are seeing far fewer being hospitalised or dying.
I'll be going for my first Pfizer dose tmr.
Should be interesting since I'm also on immunosuppressant medications for my RA.
Should be interesting since I'm also on immunosuppressant medications for my RA.
It was AZ not mRNA but my housemate is also on immunosuppressants as is my boss and one of them felt rough on the first jab (but not outside of the usual reaction) and fine on the second. The other was fine both. So not sure how much it’ll impact it
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0702/1232591-virus-covid-19/
Great news for younger people in Ireland. Hopefully hospitality workers get accelerated to the front of the queue if they are introducing this vaccination cert.
Great news for younger people in Ireland. Hopefully hospitality workers get accelerated to the front of the queue if they are introducing this vaccination cert.
I was actually thinking of this:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55701647/Screen_Shot_2017_07_13_at_1.09.20_PM.0.png)
I might try snag a J&J in a boots or something next week so I can join all the pensioners like yourself in a big fecking orgy in the local pub on July 19th.
So how much exactly are vaccines efficient against the Delta variant, specially the mRNA ones? I keep finding different data, some say they are highly efficient, others say they are not etc.
There's not much data out there yet but what is there seems to be "might be less effective, but only marginally". The real issue with delta is the speed at which it can rip through unvaccinated people.
They are slightly less effective but the reduction is actually not as bad as it was for the Beta variant. mRNA vaccines perform best, and all struggle until the second dose is given.
Most/all of the studies done so far are in a lab setting so data is still a bit limited.
At an individual level they give you decent protection. Certainly against severe illness. The real kick in the balls is that the delta variant is so contagious the vaccines are significantly less effective against transmission. Which means the much talked about “herd immunity” is pretty much off the table now. In Israel they had almost eradicated the virus just by vaccinating adults. Now they’re vaccinating young children and case numbers are still rising.
Aye, heard about Isreal high numbers rise even with so many vaccinated, that's why I was getting worried.
So as a 33 year old would you go with J&J or wait till Friday and register for phizers or moderna
I was a bit wary about J&J but this data is good. I guess a lot depends on your summer plans. If you’re planning on travelling the one shot option is very tempting. At your age your risk of a bad outcomes is extremely low with any vaccine.
Given what we've heard about EU citizens trying to enter the UK I think it's rather far fetched to think that Merkel will give a feck.
My first one was from 4120Z001, looks like I'm staying within these borders for some time to come.
Me and Mumsy had both jabs of AZ between Feb - June. Must have been the EU or British versions as the batch numbers start with AB, PV or PW. Get In. Summer Holidays!!
All the clotting negative news in Europe around that time helped us out big time. There was more for us.
All the clotting negative news in Europe around that time helped us out big time. There was more for us.
Me too. That's because I'm on a vaccine trial and was double jabbed with the still unapproved vaccine - Novavax.
I'm trying not to get too wound up about it, but I am wound up about it. I do think the AZ issue will soon be sorted, but Novavax is still in the realms of ???.
I could have had a real one back in February, but the NIHR asked me to stay in the trial because it should have approval in April. On April Fools Day, at a follow-up checkup, I was told it was "any time now" - I suspect the date should have been a warning to me
It's baffling really if I'm honest, thankfully I've not really made any plans to go overseas till next year at very earliest, and we decided having a honeymoon in the UK later this year. Confident it'll open up as it's a simple administrative policy, I can't imagine any country wanting a two tier system where entry is based upon the location of a vaccine being manufactured.
I'm currently due to go to Ireland early August - on a much delayed part business/part leisure trip. I doubt that will happen with my current status (I don't think that's long enough for a fix to emerge even if Ireland does open up) so my partner may have to do it alone.
I'm due to go Spain in September, again part business/part social with the added incentive of seeing a friend who's just come out of hospital after major cancer surgery. What the rules will be (and what my official vaccine status will be) by then is anyone's guess.
Next year sounds like a better bet (at least in Europe and other highly vaxxed areas)
I think it'll be sorted out quickly as you say, it's kind of an administrative blip rather than a big problem. People have had AZ, that's the bottom line.
edit - along the same lines, are people in the UK just getting a small handwritten card now after vaccination? Has anything with a QR code been issued yet? The EU vaccine cert has loads of info on it.
We have both now, the NHS app has a section in which tells you the date and batch code of both jabs and has a QR code you can scan also
That's good, the card did look a bit easy to falsify!
Who could have ever predicted that leaving the EU might cause Uk citizens headaches when it comes to compliance with EU regulatory standards?
You would have thought we can just brought our own rules over to Europe with us like the Mooslamic Ray Guns and their Shania law.
I'm sure it will be sorted quickly amongst the politicians probably in exchange for something else. If it does need to go through extra approvals it will take a while as the EU is certainly not going to do AZ any favours.
The vaccine cards are one I don't see much flexibility with. They have been pretty clear here that you need some kind of unforgeable proof of vaccination. Those paper cards aren't going to suffice, the NHS digital codes will need to be made accessible by European authorities.