Totally O/T... Bottoms Up!

[Mike McMillan]

So a third vaccine is to become available in the spring butt, doesn’t look
as though one rolls up a sleeve for it...

Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock said: "This is further great
news and another weapon in our arse ‘n’ all to tame this awful disease."
(At least I *think* that is what he said!) ;-)))

[Chris]

Post by Mike McMillan
So a third vaccine is to become available in the spring butt, doesn’t look
as though one rolls up a sleeve for it...
Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock said: "This is further great
news and another weapon in our arse ‘n’ all to tame this awful disease."
(At least I *think* that is what he said!) ;-)))

I’d disown him but there’d be an outcry if I did.

Sincerely Chris

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 17:34:42, Mike McMillan

Post by Mike McMillan
So a third vaccine is to become available in the spring butt, doesn’t look
as though one rolls up a sleeve for it...
Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock said: "This is further great
news and another weapon in our arse ‘n’ all to tame this awful disease."
(At least I *think* that is what he said!) ;-)))

Tweeted (with attribution).

I've been wondering - especially now we have three alternatives -
whether there'll be any adverse effects for people who get two of them,
e. g. for their second dose. I'd be pretty sure little research has been
done into the interaction (if any) between the various vaccines, as
that's not something the researchers will look into; equally, I'm sure
the NHS and associated bodies will do their best to prevent it. But with
tens of millions of us, it's going to happen - not least because some
will seek it, either to get their second dose sooner, or because they
think two vaccines are better than one, or both.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 17:34:42, Mike McMillan

Post by Mike McMillan
So a third vaccine is to become available in the spring butt, doesn’t look
as though one rolls up a sleeve for it...
Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock said: "This is further great
news and another weapon in our arse ‘n’ all to tame this awful disease."
(At least I *think* that is what he said!) ;-)))

Tweeted (with attribution).
I've been wondering - especially now we have three alternatives -
whether there'll be any adverse effects for people who get two of them,
e. g. for their second dose. I'd be pretty sure little research has been
done into the interaction (if any) between the various vaccines, as
that's not something the researchers will look into; equally, I'm sure
the NHS and associated bodies will do their best to prevent it. But with
tens of millions of us, it's going to happen - not least because some
will seek it, either to get their second dose sooner, or because they
think two vaccines are better than one, or both.

There seems to be a theory out there that getting a different vaccine
for your booster may actually increase the effectiveness (I don't know
if it matters which way around you have them). I believe there is a
trial either planned or underway to see what happens when you mix and
match vaccines.

[Penny]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:51:29 +0000, Serena Blanchflower

Post by Serena Blanchflower
There seems to be a theory out there that getting a different vaccine
for your booster may actually increase the effectiveness (I don't know
if it matters which way around you have them). I believe there is a
trial either planned or underway to see what happens when you mix and
match vaccines.

I pleased to hear someone is looking into it.
It seemed inevitable as soon as 'they' decided cancelling the 3-weeks-later
appointments of the first to receive a shot so that more people could have
the initial shot was the way to go.

All this 'follow the science' seems to go away the moment the numbers
people stick their oar in :(

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by Penny
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:51:29 +0000, Serena Blanchflower

Post by Serena Blanchflower
There seems to be a theory out there that getting a different vaccine
for your booster may actually increase the effectiveness (I don't know
if it matters which way around you have them). I believe there is a
trial either planned or underway to see what happens when you mix and
match vaccines.

I pleased to hear someone is looking into it.
It seemed inevitable as soon as 'they' decided cancelling the 3-weeks-later
appointments of the first to receive a shot so that more people could have
the initial shot was the way to go.
All this 'follow the science' seems to go away the moment the numbers
people stick their oar in :(

Eye on Spain did a little survey on whether people prefer one vaccine.
There is other stuff there too if you go back and forward on the item
https://www.poll-maker.com/results3333337xcDd746F2-102?v=99&fbclid=IwAR0uRgkzp7W0-Lkz4_BRNF11pZyqii-na5bskku0sqD1lKY-xTh6s6qvT80#tab-2

[John Ashby]

Post by Penny
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:51:29 +0000, Serena Blanchflower

Post by Serena Blanchflower
There seems to be a theory out there that getting a different vaccine
for your booster may actually increase the effectiveness (I don't know
if it matters which way around you have them). I believe there is a
trial either planned or underway to see what happens when you mix and
match vaccines.

I pleased to hear someone is looking into it.
It seemed inevitable as soon as 'they' decided cancelling the 3-weeks-later
appointments of the first to receive a shot so that more people could have
the initial shot was the way to go.
All this 'follow the science' seems to go away the moment the numbers
people stick their oar in :(

There was a suggestion in a Guardian letter from and Oxford doctor that
a trial should be started where those who had the first dose are
regularly tested for antibody response to see how long the effect lasts
before it needs to be boosted. I haven't seen that picked up, but it
seems very sensible and would allow rapid booster shots if there was a
sign that immunity was compromised after, for example, six weeks.

john

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by John Ashby

Post by Penny
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:51:29 +0000, Serena Blanchflower

Post by Serena Blanchflower
There seems to be a theory out there that getting a different vaccine
for your booster may actually increase the effectiveness (I don't know
if it matters which way around you have them).  I believe there is a
trial either planned or underway to see what happens when you mix and
match vaccines.

I pleased to hear someone is looking into it.
It seemed inevitable as soon as 'they' decided cancelling the
3-weeks-later
appointments of the first to receive a shot so that more people could have
the initial shot was the way to go.
All this 'follow the science' seems to go away the moment the numbers
people stick their oar in :(

There was a suggestion in a Guardian letter from and Oxford doctor that
a trial should be started where those who had the first dose are
regularly tested for antibody response to see how long the effect lasts
before it needs to be boosted. I haven't seen that picked up, but it
seems very sensible and would allow rapid booster shots if there was a
sign that immunity was compromised after, for example, six weeks.

Yes, that would be sensible, as well as actively monitoring any
infections in people who have been vaccinated more than a week or two ago.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by John Ashby

Post by Penny
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:51:29 +0000, Serena Blanchflower

Post by Serena Blanchflower
There seems to be a theory out there that getting a different vaccine
for your booster may actually increase the effectiveness (I don't know
if it matters which way around you have them). I believe there is a
trial either planned or underway to see what happens when you mix and
match vaccines.

I pleased to hear someone is looking into it.

Ditto; certainly seems sensible.

Post by John Ashby

Post by Penny
It seemed inevitable as soon as 'they' decided cancelling the 3-weeks-later
appointments of the first to receive a shot so that more people could have
the initial shot was the way to go.

There was a note from our surgery saying that those who'd had their
first jab, and had been given a three-week (or whatever it was)
appointment for their second one, _should still come for those_, though
those subsequently getting their first would probably get the 12-week
interval.

Post by John Ashby

Post by Penny
All this 'follow the science' seems to go away the moment the numbers
people stick their oar in :(

There was a suggestion in a Guardian letter from and Oxford doctor that
a trial should be started where those who had the first dose are
regularly tested for antibody response to see how long the effect lasts
before it needs to be boosted. I haven't seen that picked up, but it
seems very sensible and would allow rapid booster shots if there was a
sign that immunity was compromised after, for example, six weeks.
john

If they do (find that), I hope it's only a between-two-jabs thing -
otherwise we'll all be on a six-week cycle, for ever.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by John Ashby
There was a suggestion in a Guardian letter from and Oxford doctor
that a trial should be started where those who had the first dose are
regularly tested for antibody response to see how long the effect
lasts before it needs to be boosted. I haven't seen that picked up,
but it seems very sensible and would allow rapid booster shots if
there was a sign that immunity was compromised after, for example, six
weeks.
john

If they do (find that), I hope it's only a between-two-jabs thing -
otherwise we'll all be on a six-week cycle, for ever.

I have heard some people (who seem to think they know what they're
talking about but I can't be sure that they're right about that ;) ) say
that, for a lot of jabs, having a longer period between the first and
the booster may actually improve the effectiveness. They have suggested
that the reason Pfizer et al went for the three week gap, which is the
shortest likely to work, was to allow them to get the tests through as
quickly as possible. Adding in trials with longer periods would have
delayed the introduction of the vaccine.

If this is correct, the delay shouldn't be a problem and may even
improve matters but it should certainly be checked out with further
trials as soon as possible. Any long term decisions on what the gap
should be should be based on the results, not just on expediency.

[BrritSki]

Post by John Ashby
There was a suggestion in a Guardian letter from and Oxford doctor that
a trial should be started where those who had the first dose are
regularly tested for antibody response to see how long the effect lasts
before it needs to be boosted. I haven't seen that picked up, but it
seems very sensible and would allow rapid booster shots if there was a
sign that immunity was compromised after, for example, six weeks.

<LW>