1/2 A Loaf ?

[Canary42]

Barmy Blair at it again - why can't he keep quiet now he's out of office. What's the point of embarking on a vaccination regime then abandoning it before completion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55410349

[woofgang]

idiot then idiot now.

[ichkeria]

He isn't suggesting abandoning it, but accelerating it.
I don't know if he's right or not but you can be damn sure you are at last on a winner with this one.
By post 10 if not before we'll have bliar and war criminal ...

[woofgang]

he's proposing abandoning the regime.

[bednobs]

he has a point.
Imagine you had 10 doses to disribute
you get 52% immnue after 1 dose and 95% after 2 doses.
If you gave 10 people 1 dose each, you'd get more immunity than giving 5 people 2 doses

[ichkeria]

He is suggesting speeding up the programme. If you only vaccinate people once you can do a lot more people for only a small percentage increase in effectiveness.
That is his atgument, anyway. I have no idea whether it's a "good thing"

[bednobs]

ps i also have no idea if it's a good idea or not there's probably a whole raft of reasons why it isnt- just saying he has a point

[Paigntonian]

His time would be better spent counting his money.

[woofgang]

I don't think he does have a point....its not immunity as an abstract concept that we need to look at, its the liklihood of hospitalisation death and so on.

[woofgang]

PS, how can he have a point if its not a viable idea?

[ichkeria]

"its not immunity as an abstract concept that we need to look at, its the liklihood of hospitalisation death and so on. "

Eh?
I think they are linked you know.
Anyway, what both bedknobs ane I are saying is that on the face of it it is a sensible thought, but I personally am not an epidemioligist or a medical man (and neither is Blair of course) so wouldn't go any further.

[bhg481]

I think it's a good idea. Get the population vaccinated in half the time and, even if it's not as effective, you can start returning life to something more like normal. How many people here would rather get a degree of immunisation in the next few weeks than waiting for months and still not be certain the protection is 100%?

[shoota]

If you increase the number of people you vaccinate you begin to vaccinate those who would probably survive anyway and leave those most vulnerable less protected.

[ichkeria]

No you don't.
You merely plough through the mosrt vulnerable more quickly before starting on everyone else

[bhg481]

Let's put it this way: being older than my wife I will be eligible for the vaccine one group earlier than her. I would willingly have 1 dose if she could have the other one allocated to me.

[Chinajan]

woofgang - what's your avatar a picture of?

Sorry for tangent OP. :0)

[TheChair]

His proposal was backed up by Professor David Salisbury, the man in charge of immunisation at the Department of Health until 2013.

He told Today the numbers were "straightforward".

"You give one dose you get 91% [protection] you give two doses and you get 95% - you are only gaining 4% for giving the second dose," he said.

[Electrochem]

The Chair beat me to it with his answer containing the quote from Professor David Salisbury. Once again, we have people castigating politicians from all parties without looking at the facts.

[rockyracoon]

How long is the immunity with one dose? If it's only a few weeks then the whole idea is no good. If it's months then it would be practical.

[pastafreak]

I just read in that article that there is only 52% protection between the first and second doses. That's an appreciable difference. It's only after the second jab that it jumps over 90%.
Am I misunderstanding it?

[Sunk]

He is right.
One dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 90% effective. So we should roll out one dose to twice as many people. They can have the second dose when stocks become available later on.

Double the amount of people get 90% protection.