Honestly, it the other way around. They don't think. Their cohort gets sick, they couldn't care less.
'Well informed, highly educated people obviously think it’s unsafe to
have a party so how can the cabinet justify this idiocy'? Johnson won't wear a mask in the Commons, in a theatre or in a hospital. He is not any kind of role model. He's stuck in the clown-entertainer role, singing that it will all be over by Christmas. Again. No need to worry. Again. Meanwhile thousands - still - are dying.
I don't think they think they're safe as much as they think they're entitled and untouchable and so far they are. About time some of those pigeons came to roost.
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
So there is a news conference to bring us up to speed on what is happening re Omicron, and introducing Plan B. We have senior medical experts there to provide in depth knowledge and answer questions, and members of the press and media there presumably to clarify and disseminate this information to the public. Except the press were fixated on what is essentially a separate political matter. I thought that was an insult to Whitty and Vallance. I wanted to hear their views, not listen to a lot of political point scoring when there is a pandemic to worry about.
I have a couple of questions I haven't been able to suss out from all the info out there.
1. Has the gap between 2nd jab and booster been reduced solely in order to get more people jabbed sooner, or has the efficacy of the double jab now been shown to reduce significantly by 3 months? And does it all even out after 3, or is there an overall lessening dependent on timing? In other words, are those who have the booster after 3 months better protected than those who had it after 6? Or is the end result the same?
2. Three doses of Pfizer apparently 'neutralises' Omicron. But from what I can tell, very few people in a quite wide age range (not sure where the cut offs were) will have had that. They will either have had two AZ then Pfizer/Moderna booster, or two Pfizer then Pfizer/Moderna booster. Are those who have never had Pfizer, or only a Pfizer booster significantly less protected than those who happened to have Pfizer all the way through, or are today's Pfizer details more about comparing 2 jabs with 3 than what type of jab it was?
Does anyone have any pointers?
'If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.'
So far as I know, immunity begins to wane after about 3 months , but it would drop quite slowly, though individual responses would vary a lot. I think the reduction to 3 months is mostly about getting more peple jabbed sooner. As for part 2 we don't really know. The experiment was done by pfizer in their labs so it is only an indication of what they tested. I would guess that if like me you had 2 AZ then pfizer booster you should be well protected. I suspect, it's more about comparing 3 vs 2 as you say. Antibodies alone don't provide all the protection the T cell response is just as important. I think I read that AZ gives a better T cell response, as the vector is a whole virus. I have some knowledge of immunology, but it was not my specialty, so I might have to revise this opinion.
Getting booster sooner-is mainly to get people sorted sooner.
The 3 dose thing is a bit misleading, it is only a lab based study, and on a tiny number, so I think not very meaningful. At the moment all we can say is: any combination of vaccines works for Delta, where 3doses are certainly better than 2, for Omicron, we are not sure how effective, but 3 doses of any combination should be better than 2. No study available on any other combination of 3 vaccines.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
I don’t have any pointers but I would be interested in your 2nd point. I didn’t want the AZ when they were first offered, I’d much prefer the Pfizer having read up on both of them but had to have what was on offer at the time, so I too have had 2 AZ’s and one Pfizer. 6 people in our immediate family have had COVID recently, not hospitalised some more sick than others, surprising our two daughters were the worse and one man who was a heavy smoker up to a couple for years ago, but the girls are only young. I think the Pfizer offers the best protection.
Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor.
Thanks everyone for your expertise & opinions, very useful.
For what it's worth, I've had two AZ with Moderna booster, as has OH. So no Pfizer at all. Not hearing much about Moderna at the moment. Older daughter has had two Pfizer but doesn't qualify for a booster until late January (3 months). Younger daughter has had one Pfizer and will qualify for a second dose also in January (12 weeks, as she's 15... she'll be 16 by then, but I assume that doesn't change anything). Older daughter also had COVID, almost certainly Delta, prior to getting her first jab. Keeping up with who is having what and when is confuzzling, especially when the rules keep changing! We've all had flu jabs too, the first time for three of us. Pincushions all!
'If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.'
All 3 vaccines have been Pfizer as that's all they seem to have round here. I wanted the AZ but at the time of my first there were worries in France about effects on over 60s and by the time they realised they were mistaken it was too late. OH and Possum have also had just Pfizer cos by the time Possum got her first dose they thought it was bad for people under 30.
However, at least we are all vaccinated (Possum gets her 3rd on the 17th) and there have been no problems with access to vaccines and boosters here. Still being careful about who and how we meet up with others.
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
Posts
Except the press were fixated on what is essentially a separate political matter. I thought that was an insult to Whitty and Vallance. I wanted to hear their views, not listen to a lot of political point scoring when there is a pandemic to worry about.
1. Has the gap between 2nd jab and booster been reduced solely in order to get more people jabbed sooner, or has the efficacy of the double jab now been shown to reduce significantly by 3 months? And does it all even out after 3, or is there an overall lessening dependent on timing? In other words, are those who have the booster after 3 months better protected than those who had it after 6? Or is the end result the same?
2. Three doses of Pfizer apparently 'neutralises' Omicron. But from what I can tell, very few people in a quite wide age range (not sure where the cut offs were) will have had that. They will either have had two AZ then Pfizer/Moderna booster, or two Pfizer then Pfizer/Moderna booster. Are those who have never had Pfizer, or only a Pfizer booster significantly less protected than those who happened to have Pfizer all the way through, or are today's Pfizer details more about comparing 2 jabs with 3 than what type of jab it was?
Does anyone have any pointers?
As for part 2 we don't really know. The experiment was done by pfizer in their labs so it is only an indication of what they tested. I would guess that if like me you had 2 AZ then pfizer booster you should be well protected. I suspect, it's more about comparing 3 vs 2 as you say. Antibodies alone don't provide all the protection the T cell response is just as important. I think I read that AZ gives a better T cell response, as the vector is a whole virus.
I have some knowledge of immunology, but it was not my specialty, so I might have to revise this opinion.
Getting booster sooner-is mainly to get people sorted sooner.
The 3 dose thing is a bit misleading, it is only a lab based study, and on a tiny number, so I think not very meaningful.
At the moment all we can say is: any combination of vaccines works for Delta, where 3doses are certainly better than 2, for Omicron, we are not sure how effective, but 3 doses of any combination should be better than 2.
No study available on any other combination of 3 vaccines.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
I didn’t want the AZ when they were first offered, I’d much prefer the Pfizer having read up on both of them but had to have what was on offer at the time, so I too have had 2 AZ’s and one Pfizer.
6 people in our immediate family have had COVID recently, not hospitalised some more sick than others, surprising our two daughters were the worse and one man who was a heavy smoker up to a couple for years ago, but the girls are only young.
I think the Pfizer offers the best protection.
For what it's worth, I've had two AZ with Moderna booster, as has OH. So no Pfizer at all. Not hearing much about Moderna at the moment. Older daughter has had two Pfizer but doesn't qualify for a booster until late January (3 months). Younger daughter has had one Pfizer and will qualify for a second dose also in January (12 weeks, as she's 15... she'll be 16 by then, but I assume that doesn't change anything). Older daughter also had COVID, almost certainly Delta, prior to getting her first jab. Keeping up with who is having what and when is confuzzling, especially when the rules keep changing! We've all had flu jabs too, the first time for three of us. Pincushions all!
However, at least we are all vaccinated (Possum gets her 3rd on the 17th) and there have been no problems with access to vaccines and boosters here. Still being careful about who and how we meet up with others.