Three vaccine doses

[1nvest]

Living with 20 year olds I get to hear some of the banter about both sides - and on the anti-vaccine side there seems to be options to become registered without having actually had the vaccine or using stand-ins - some who may have had their own two jabs and then another in someone else's name.

I guess when you remove all liabilities and push things onto people there's more resentment than if promoted as people wanting the vaccine in their own best interests angle. Compounded with threats of removal of freedoms (no nightclubbing come September unless you're vaccinated etc.) and if anything that seems to heighten resentment/resistance.

Some <30's express the usual 'invincible' characteristic and willingness to have a third vaccine in the name of another which makes me wonder whether there are risks from doing that? Could you OD on Pfizer?

[AWOL]

I have no idea but I got to this age by minimizing the opportunities for winning a Darwin Award.

I would imagine there isn't data to say either. What can be said is that they will be more likely to get side effects.

I am not sure I can get the logic of doing something idiotic to one-self because the system is increasingly trying to protect people from the unvaccinated and make vaccination more attractive for the hesitant. Moreover there are potential legal repercussions for anyone involved in such a fraud particularly if it resulted in harm. I am not familiar with English law but in Scotland there is a thing called Reckless Endangerment for example.

[88V8]

Some <30's express the usual 'invincible' characteristic and willingness to have a third vaccine in the name of another which makes me wonder whether there are risks from doing that?

I was going to remark that the stupid are always with us, but on reflection I must admire their perspicacity and public-spiritedness in putting themselves forward as experimental subjects.

And after three doses if they are not dead they should indeed be pretty much invincible.

V8

[pje16]

seems like 3 are ok for over 50s
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/people ... 021-05-04/

[1nvest]

Moreover there are potential legal repercussions for anyone involved in such a fraud particularly if it resulted in harm. I am not familiar with English law but in Scotland there is a thing called Reckless Endangerment for example.

Whilst drug pushers (government push to enforce vaccination) is of course perfectly legal and acceptable? As is the indemnification (for four years) of their drug suppliers?

Personally I'm indifferent. Prof's have suggested herd immunity will never occur and concentration risk is one if not the greatest risks in most walks of life. Should have the freedom of choice so if something like the vaccines causing blindness or whatever after x years comes to light and there's no legal compensation pathways, then at least some might still be around to assist.

Cigarettes used to be promoted as being good for you, even to the youth and pregnant. Some even had doctors' endorsements. Pfizer/EU have attempted to squash the Oxford competition to facilitate even greater profitability, on the basis of being good for you and endorsed by doctors.

[Julian]

I have no idea but I got to this age by minimizing the opportunities for winning a Darwin Award.

I would imagine there isn't data to say either. What can be said is that they will be more likely to get side effects.

I am not sure I can get the logic of doing something idiotic to one-self because the system is increasingly trying to protect people from the unvaccinated and make vaccination more attractive for the hesitant. Moreover there are potential legal repercussions for anyone involved in such a fraud particularly if it resulted in harm. I am not familiar with English law but in Scotland there is a thing called Reckless Endangerment for example.

There is some data being collected on 3 doses. The UK launched a clinical trial called “cov-boost” in May this year to test safety (by measuring side effects) and immune response (by looking at blood markers as opposed to waiting for enough infections to yield a statistically valid result). Results are expected in September. They are trialing a total of 7 vaccines and in some cases the booster vaccine given is the same as the initial vaccine used in a volunteer so I am pretty sure that the results will include some Pfizer + Pfizer + Pfizer data. Some details here - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/worl ... ches-in-uk

- Julian

[AWOL]

I have no idea but I got to this age by minimizing the opportunities for winning a Darwin Award.

I would imagine there isn't data to say either. What can be said is that they will be more likely to get side effects.

I am not sure I can get the logic of doing something idiotic to one-self because the system is increasingly trying to protect people from the unvaccinated and make vaccination more attractive for the hesitant. Moreover there are potential legal repercussions for anyone involved in such a fraud particularly if it resulted in harm. I am not familiar with English law but in Scotland there is a thing called Reckless Endangerment for example.

There is some data being collected on 3 doses. The UK launched a clinical trial called “cov-boost” in May this year to test safety (by measuring side effects) and immune response (by looking at blood markers as opposed to waiting for enough infections to yield a statistically valid result). Results are expected in September. They are trialing a total of 7 vaccines and in some cases the booster vaccine given is the same as the initial vaccine used in a volunteer so I am pretty sure that the results will include some Pfizer + Pfizer + Pfizer data. Some details here - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/worl ... ches-in-uk

- Julian

seems like 3 are ok for over 50s
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/people ... 021-05-04/

Sorry I could have been clearer. I realise there is some three dose data but I was thinking of data on young people with doses so close together. I was working on the assumption that 20 somethings probably had there last shot very recently so this is more like an overdose scenario.

Although this is drifting close to a side topic which is... is there sufficient data to say that we need a booster yet. This I am sceptical of, as the decline or absence of antibodies does not mean that a cellular immune response wont save you from serious illness.

However there is data and logic showing the chances of a side effect are higher although ultimately the serious side effects are rare so I don't think death is the most likely outcome. Still, why would you!

[AWOL]

Moreover there are potential legal repercussions for anyone involved in such a fraud particularly if it resulted in harm. I am not familiar with English law but in Scotland there is a thing called Reckless Endangerment for example.

Whilst drug pushers (government push to enforce vaccination) is of course perfectly legal and acceptable? As is the indemnification (for four years) of their drug suppliers?

Personally I'm indifferent. Prof's have suggested herd immunity will never occur and concentration risk is one if not the greatest risks in most walks of life. Should have the freedom of choice so if something like the vaccines causing blindness or whatever after x years comes to light and there's no legal compensation pathways, then at least some might still be around to assist.

Cigarettes used to be promoted as being good for you, even to the youth and pregnant. Some even had doctors' endorsements. Pfizer/EU have attempted to squash the Oxford competition to facilitate even greater profitability, on the basis of being good for you and endorsed by doctors.

The government is not pushing an illegal drug here, they are supplying life saving treatment and should be commended for it (if for little else). They are encouraging vaccination for the public good and bearing in mind that those that don't get vaccinated place others at risk, including people like the hospital staff they and those they infect may come into contact with (sorry but I worry about my wife who unlike many of her colleagues has escaped infection to date). Also we have been quite happy for their to be legal sanctions and restrictions on people travelling with communicable diseases before this (see calls for prosecution for the Glasgow nurse who returned with Ebola) so I don't see why we should change our stance now it's us that is being targeted. Anyway I think the government chat is by it's nature political so probably best parked. Also even if the government is wrong, two wrongs don't make a right not in morality or law. So I expect the youths need to consider morality and there duty to others rather than their own gains and losses.

I suspect that trying to convince conspiracy theorists with a stick isn't going to be effective but I am not a psychologist.

Regarding the cigarettes being promoted by doctors, this predates my life, and was in times where there were not the strict rules we have today on commercial incentivisation of medical staff. Moreover a vaccine to be defined as a vaccine has to do more harm than good and be proven to do so. Cigarettes were never required to meet such a standard. We now have a mass of data on the vaccines efficacy and safety. There will always be more to learn but comparing vaccines to cigarettes seams inappropriate.

[88V8]

a vaccine to be defined as a vaccine has to do more harm than good and be proven to do so.

I think this what bothers some people

V8

[AWOL]

a vaccine to be defined as a vaccine has to do more harm than good and be proven to do so.

I think this what bothers some people

V8

With the exception of possibly Sinovac they all have a massive weight of evidence showing this is the case in the approved age ranges. At the moment the evidence doesn't support their use in young children.

[88V8]

a vaccine to be defined as a vaccine has to do more harm than good and be proven to do so.

I think this what bothers some people

With the exception of possibly Sinovac they all have a massive weight of evidence showing this is the case.

We're doomed

V8

[tjh290633]

Regarding the cigarettes being promoted by doctors, this predates my life, and was in times where there were not the strict rules we have today on commercial incentivisation of medical staff. Moreover a vaccine to be defined as a vaccine has to do more harm than good and be proven to do so. Cigarettes were never required to meet such a standard. We now have a mass of data on the vaccines efficacy and safety. There will always be more to learn but comparing vaccines to cigarettes seams inappropriate.

I recall being prescribed penicillin snuff by my doctor long ago. I don't think it worked.

TJH

[Julian]

...
Although this is drifting close to a side topic which is... is there sufficient data to say that we need a booster yet. This I am sceptical of, as the decline or absence of antibodies does not mean that a cellular immune response wont save you from serious illness.
...

That seems to be a very active debate at the moment e.g. this today...

A Covid booster jab will probably be required to protect a small number of the most vulnerable people, but a mass rollout may not be needed, a senior government adviser has said.

Prof Adam Finn, who sits on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said it was still unclear whether all over-50s should be given a third shot after the health secretary, Sajid Javid, said plans were in place to offer the whole cohort a booster.

[ Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... xpert-says ]

But then we have ...

Ministers have started ordering vaccines for a booster campaign in autumn 2022, with Pfizer reportedly being asked to supply the UK with a further 35m doses.

The government has still not give the final go-ahead for the vaccine booster programme expected this autumn, but it is understood to have placed the order with Pfizer despite the company raising its prices.

[ Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... r-campaign ]

My takeaway right now is that boosters look extremely likely for the immunocompromised but beyond that the situation right now is extremely unclear. I suspect they will work at least somewhat further down the top 9 tiers defined for the initial vaccination rollout but there does seem some debate about how far down the list to go. Maybe not all the way down to the 50-somethings?

As I understand it one issue is that scientists are still trying to home in on accurate correlates of protection(CoPs - sometimes also referred to as correlates of immunity) wrt to SARS-CoV-2 with possibly different CoPs specific to different vaccines. Until some of that stuff is better quantified it is quite difficult to make fully informed scientific judgements.

- Julian

[ursaminortaur]

Israel started giving people a third vaccine shot at the end of July.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-begins-administering-3rd-covid-vaccine-dose-to-the-elderly/

Health maintenance organizations on Friday started administering a third COVID-19 vaccine shot to the elderly, making Israel the first country in the world to do so.

The Clalit and Meuhedet HMOs began to vaccinate those over 60 with a third dose on Friday morning, while the Maccabi health provider will begin doing so on Sunday.

Israel’s decision to begin administering third doses came amid a struggle to contain a recent wave of coronavirus infections that has seen case numbers rocket from just dozens a day a month ago, to an average daily caseload of over 2,000 this week.

The third dose is unlikely to halt the rise in cases, but is expected to reduce the risk of serious COVID-19 illness among the elderly population.

This is a third dose of the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/30/israel-to-offer-pfizer-covid-booster-shots-to-people-over-60

[9873210]

My takeaway right now is that boosters look extremely likely for the immunocompromised but beyond that the situation right now is extremely unclear. I suspect they will work at least somewhat further down the top 9 tiers defined for the initial vaccination rollout but there does seem some debate about how far down the list to go. Maybe not all the way down to the 50-somethings?

- Julian

Hopefully they will throw out the tiers and design new criteria based on new evidence. Sticking with the prior system would show at lack of imagination and critical thinking.

The immunocompromised are likely to be up there in any case, but maybe not younger care workers. Particular clinical conditions may show up as positive or negative criteria along with things like "two doses of vaccine X less than 6 weeks apart" .

Also hopefully any third round will not be coincident with a major outbreak and a shortage of vaccines, so no need for strict prioritization of administration.

[1nvest]

They are encouraging vaccination for the public good and bearing in mind that those that don't get vaccinated place others at risk,

Near-as enforcing. Driving a car places others at risk, perhaps cars should be banned in order to better protect the small number that otherwise get seriously injured or killed.

Having vaccinated the most vulnerable they're better protected. There's suggestion that the vaccine is more harmful than protective for children. Others will be somewhere midway between the two and it should be each individuals personal choice of which risk they prefer.

[AWOL]

They are encouraging vaccination for the public good and bearing in mind that those that don't get vaccinated place others at risk,

Near-as enforcing. Driving a car places others at risk, perhaps cars should be banned in order to better protect the small number that otherwise get seriously injured or killed.
.

You raise a good analogy. We are legally required to wear seat belts for the protection of others and drivers who refuse to can be penalised and ultimately banned from driving. When the seat belt law was introduced there was an outcry from some about their freedoms and an insistence that they would never wear one but it seems to me that compliance is high.

Regarding your point about the vulnerable, some people are too vulnerable to be safely vaccinated, for example those who are undergoing treatment for cancer and some Parkinson's patients. Should we not protect the vulnerable? I have heard anti-vaxers argue that these people will die anyway but who are we to pass that judgement. Especially as many of us will one day be in that position and the truth is that many cancers that were once death sentences are often no longer.

[1nvest]

Regarding your point about the vulnerable, some people are too vulnerable to be safely vaccinated, for example those who are undergoing treatment for cancer and some Parkinson's patients. Should we not protect the vulnerable? I have heard anti-vaxers argue that these people will die anyway but who are we to pass that judgement. Especially as many of us will one day be in that position and the truth is that many cancers that were once death sentences are often no longer.

100 million person years in lost freedoms, with massive other knock on additional consequences/costs. Dictatorship vaccinations and planned introduction of identity card type systems !!!

The risk of death halves for each 6 years, so a 20 year old is 0.5^10 less likely to die from Covid than a 80 year old. Risks from the vaccine have already been identified and there are potential yet unknown risk factors involved.

Given the broad suppression/loss of living-life induced by the old/frail upon the young its not unreasonable that youth might be resentful and rebellious. Even the PM wrote off the over 80's and those in care homes when there were largescale exporting of Covid patients into such homes to clear NHS beds. A.k.a Lord Farquaad: Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. So when he says that the young should care and partake in lockdown/vaccinations etc. whilst him and his mates do the complete opposite !!!

[1nvest]

They are encouraging vaccination for the public good and bearing in mind that those that don't get vaccinated place others at risk, including people like the hospital staff they and those they infect may come into contact with (sorry but I worry about my wife who unlike many of her colleagues has escaped infection to date).

My 89 year old mother had a fall in January, was admitted to hospital and her hip operated on within 24 hours. 4 days later whilst still in hospital she tested positive for Covid. Policy was to isolate for 14 days but for 4 days she remained on the same ward alongside other hip-oppers, not even segregated on the ward. They even moved her closer to the nurses desk for 'company', I could hear all the banter/laughter in the background when we talked over the phone. So no doubt any coming in for the same after her at least for those 4 days were entering a Covid infected ward with nurses at their station also having been exposed. With no visitors permitted there was also a distinct more relaxed environment with no outside eyes observing their practices. As it was mum had very very mild symptoms but the blood drained from me upon first hearing that the test was positive and the next few weeks were full of anxiety waiting for a sudden downturn.

[AWOL]

. So when he says that the young should care and partake in lockdown/vaccinations etc. whilst him and his mates do the complete opposite !!!

Because two wrongs don't make a right, because they are better than that, because they care for others.

Things may have changed when I was young, the young had political ideals which meant that we wanted a better society. If what you are saying is true it's now about narrow self interest and spite. I hope that is not true.