I am worried about what will happen re. second doses, as they seem to be totally focussed on first doses. Those who had their first dose appointment via their GP weren't given a second date, just told to wait until we're contacted. I wonder if longer than 12 weeks will make it not so effective, given that it was originally meant to be three weeks.
This has been discussed elsewhere, so at the risk of repeating myself:
There is no evidence that immunity will wane after 12 weeks; indeed it takes time for our immune response to fully develop.
The only reason it was "meant to be three weeks" is because three weeks is the absolute minimum for a booster to be effective and we did not want to delay the trials! Many boosters are done many months after the initial shot, not just a few weeks. In general a longer period between booster doses (up to a point) is more effective than a shorter gap.
The main purpose of a booster is for longer term immunity, as well as making your immune system realise that this is not a one-off threat and to ensure the threat is remembered long term.
Our memory B & T cells have a long lasting memory; people who go on about "antibodies waning" generally don't really know what they are talking about. I've listened to numerous podcasts with various experts, including virologists among others, and they all agree a longer gap is likely to be more effective than a shorter gap, and there really isn't anything to worry about if the gap is longer than 12 weeks.
I hope this sets your mind at rest.
I'm a bit concerned about that as well especially having the Pfizer and the EU antics. Interestingly I have a relative in the 90 plus group who was called up yesterday to get the second Pfizer jab today which is I think about 2 and half weeks before she was due for the second one.
There is nothing to be concerned about; there is not going to be any reduction in longer term immunity by waiting an extra couple of weeks. It probably won't make any difference, but if there is a difference, there is a greater chance of having better results, than worse results, by waiting a little longer.
So...UK more than happy as are other Countries to carry on with the AZ vaccine, Mainland EU have stopped using the AZ as they say it's 'not safe', yet they are blocking unused / unwanted vaccines to the UK (and elsewhere) !
or have I got that wrong ?
My understanding is that this is correct in terms of
some countries (
not the whole EU though!) pausing the AZ vaccine, while there are
threats to block vaccines arriving in the UK (but this is not happening
yet, and hopefully won't ever happen).
Some countries appear to be playing a ridiculous political game with vaccines, which is unacceptable in my opinion.
I suppose it's typical that everything slows down just before I'm due to have one.
You're cursed! I predict the 55-59 Railcard will be announced soon after you turn 60
Not quite correct. The original study was designed with a three week interval. It was not intended to study effectiveness with different intervals.
There is actually a trial underway to study effectiveness with combining different vaccines and also different intervals; check out this post
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...al-and-deployment.211585/page-69#post-5026194 ( #2062)
Why was three weeks picked ? I don't know. My involvement in clincal trials was limited to keeping the computers that processed the data running.
Because it was the shortest period of time possible and we needed the results quickly.