PFIZER WARNING

Pfizer warned today there is 'no data' to show a single dose of its coronavirus vaccine provides long-term protection, after the UK scrapped its original jab rollout plan.

The UK medical regulator is now recommending Covid jabs are given in two doses three months apart, rather than over the intended four-week period, to allow millions more people to be immunised over a shorter time period.

The strategy will apply to both Pfizer/BioNTech's vaccine and the newly approved jab by Oxford/AstraZeneca, despite limited data around the effectiveness of the initial doses.

It is a direct response to spiking Covid cases and hospitalisations across the UK that are being driven by a new, highly-infectious strain that emerged in the South East England in September.

Virtually the whole of England is facing brutal lockdown until the spring, with Covid vaccines the only hope of ending the devastation.

Health bosses now want to give as many people as possible an initial dose, rather than holding back the second doses, so more of the population can enjoy at least some protection.

AstraZeneca praised the move and revealed it had tested the three-month strategy on a small sub-group of trialists in its studies.

But Pfizer said there was 'no data' in its studies to show its vaccine protects against Covid when taken 12 weeks apart.

In a thinly-veiled swipe at the UK, the US firm warned that any 'alternative' dosing regimens should be closely monitored by health authorities.

'Data from the phase three study demonstrated that, although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficiency of 95 per cent,' Pfizer said in a statement.

So is there no data, limited data, or enough to know it offers partial protection?

So is there no data, limited data, or enough to know it offers partial protection?

Nope!

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

I understand that, but the protection offered by the first jab so we are told is not that high, if it was surely there would not be a need for a second jab?

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

yes but they produced and tested this as 2 jabs in i think 21 days not in 12 weeks...

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

I understand that, but the protection offered by the first jab so we are told is not that high, if it was surely there would not be a need for a second jab?

The figures I saw one scientist quote was that the first jab gives you 70% protection against the virus. But it also gives you 90%+ protection against serious illness leading to hospitalisation and that is the key behind the approach.

The 2nd jab then gives you 90%+ protection against the virus.

There is good reasoning behind this approach in that it will relieve the pressure on the NHS as well as reducing infection rates over a longer period.

Years ago I had jabs to protect against HepA. The way it was explained at the time was that the first jab would protect you for up to a year. The second follow up jab would then give me protection for 10 years or more.
So as with a lot of these vaccines, the first jab will give you protection, but no idea for how long hence the argument.

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

I understand that, but the protection offered by the first jab so we are told is not that high, if it was surely there would not be a need for a second jab?

The figures I saw one scientist quote was that the first jab gives you 70% protection against the virus. But it also gives you 90%+ protection against serious illness leading to hospitalisation and that is the key behind the approach.

The 2nd jab then gives you 90%+ protection against the virus.

There is good reasoning behind this approach in that it will relieve the pressure on the NHS as well as reducing infection rates over a longer period.

I just heard something very similar on the radio. Both vaccines will offer a minimum of 80% protection from a single dose over a 12 week period. The 2nd vaccine will then bump up the protection to the stated level. Those that have the 1st vaccine and then contract the virus will in all probability have a less severe attack.

The logic seems sound

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

I understand that, but the protection offered by the first jab so we are told is not that high, if it was surely there would not be a need for a second jab?

The figures I saw one scientist quote was that the first jab gives you 70% protection against the virus. But it also gives you 90%+ protection against serious illness leading to hospitalisation and that is the key behind the approach.

The 2nd jab then gives you 90%+ protection against the virus.

There is good reasoning behind this approach in that it will relieve the pressure on the NHS as well as reducing infection rates over a longer period.

pfizer say there is zero evidence to suggest protection from 1 dose lasts more than 3 weeks.... one minute they are miracle workers the next its ...reasonable ..to ignore them...

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

I understand that, but the protection offered by the first jab so we are told is not that high, if it was surely there would not be a need for a second jab?

The figures I saw one scientist quote was that the first jab gives you 70% protection against the virus. But it also gives you 90%+ protection against serious illness leading to hospitalisation and that is the key behind the approach.

The 2nd jab then gives you 90%+ protection against the virus.

There is good reasoning behind this approach in that it will relieve the pressure on the NHS as well as reducing infection rates over a longer period.

If you look into what is being told to us, you will find that the first jab will give you 40% to 62% it is nowhere near 80% if that was the case there would be not much point in a second jab as the figures being issued after the second jab could be up to 90/95 and those higher figures are a medical guesstimate.

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

I understand that, but the protection offered by the first jab so we are told is not that high, if it was surely there would not be a need for a second jab?

The figures I saw one scientist quote was that the first jab gives you 70% protection against the virus. But it also gives you 90%+ protection against serious illness leading to hospitalisation and that is the key behind the approach.

The 2nd jab then gives you 90%+ protection against the virus.

There is good reasoning behind this approach in that it will relieve the pressure on the NHS as well as reducing infection rates over a longer period.

If you look into what is being told to us, you will find that the first jab will give you 40% to 62% it is nowhere near 80% if that was the case there would be not much point in a second jab as the figures being issued after the second jab could be up to 90/95 and those higher figures are a medical guesstimate.

whats being said is wrong on so many levels.... its a brand new product with the only trials of any length being done by its manufacturers.... who are spelling it out... yet being ignored.. its suppose to be a life saving vaccine and you have yesmen lining up to make claims you wouldnt say about a washing machine... when is the inanity going to end..

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

I understand that, but the protection offered by the first jab so we are told is not that high, if it was surely there would not be a need for a second jab?

The figures I saw one scientist quote was that the first jab gives you 70% protection against the virus. But it also gives you 90%+ protection against serious illness leading to hospitalisation and that is the key behind the approach.

The 2nd jab then gives you 90%+ protection against the virus.

There is good reasoning behind this approach in that it will relieve the pressure on the NHS as well as reducing infection rates over a longer period.

If you look into what is being told to us, you will find that the first jab will give you 40% to 62% it is nowhere near 80% if that was the case there would be not much point in a second jab as the figures being issued after the second jab could be up to 90/95 and those higher figures are a medical guesstimate.

I omitted to say that the 2nd dose offers the longevity as well as topping up the amount of protection. Its just what i heard on a Radio Wales phone in with a Doctor. I personally have no idea of the levels of protection offered and as such im just passing on what i've heard. As they say on share dealing sites, don't rely on my evidence and do your own research.

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

yes but they produced and tested this as 2 jabs in i think 21 days not in 12 weeks...

That's what they said - 2nd jab 21 days later back last month .

Like everyone else on this forum I have no idea whether one jab will work. However the statement refers to long term protection. The current policy is to give a short term protection with one jab and a second jab 12 weeks later thus ensuring long term.

I understand that, but the protection offered by the first jab so we are told is not that high, if it was surely there would not be a need for a second jab?

The figures I saw one scientist quote was that the first jab gives you 70% protection against the virus. But it also gives you 90%+ protection against serious illness leading to hospitalisation and that is the key behind the approach.

The 2nd jab then gives you 90%+ protection against the virus.

There is good reasoning behind this approach in that it will relieve the pressure on the NHS as well as reducing infection rates over a longer period.

pfizer say there is zero evidence to suggest protection from 1 dose lasts more than 3 weeks.... one minute they are miracle workers the next its ...reasonable ..to ignore them...

But the Pfizer vaccination isn't the one that will have a major impact in the UK We only have 40 million of the Pfizer vaccination which is enough to vaccinate 20 million people whereas we have 100 million of the Oxford vaccination enough to vaccinate 50 million adults..

The Oxford vaccine is the one that we have enough of to vaccine the majority of the population and it's a lot easier to store and administer as it doesn't have to be kept at -70 degrees.

3rd one on the go soon ....