The other major reason is that for the non-mRNA, a mutation to resist the vaccine is a massive setback, potentially back to square one. The mRNA vaccines can be modified fairly quickly to adjust what they target.
Plus you get better wifi with the microchip they put in your DNA…
Their calculations logistically are going to have to be very good if they only have 40M doses. There’s risk and panic involved I wouldn’t like to countenance. I think a 3 month delay for the 2nd dose is excessive with unnecessary risks tied to it. Then again what do I know it’s not like the UK hasn’t shown incompetence before is it?
I would be horrified if France went down this route, then again in France they can not even get the vaccine campagne underway.
Add to that I’m already hearing from loads of people who say they won’t take the Astra Zeneca one, because they consider it to be ‘second rate’…Apparently people want the new hip shit.
Wow! amazing what can get thrown out there!
For me Pfizer is best if the liquid nitogen needed is ignore but of the 'western vaccines there isn’t much in it from what we know. I wish Sanofi had done better then cost would come into the discussion as well.
I’m not surprised at the bun fights going on. We essentially need to vaccinate the entire world in a short period of time which is the greatest manufacturing and logistical challenge of all time. Countries and Unions like the EU will all be arguing amongst themselves and manufacturers about who pays what, who gets what and when they get it. Big tech will also see this as the most golden of golden opportunities as will the corrupt in procurement and distribution of the vaccines. I’ll just be happy if it gets rolled out relatively efficiently relatively quickly so that life can return to some semblance of normal.
Having bungled their way through the crisis basically from day one the UK finally seems to be getting something right in their rollout. I hope everyone else can get into gear soon as well.
Worth acknowledging that the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine does already provide greater protection than the seasonal flu jab. It’s just that the second dose gets it to 90%+ so I can totally understand prioritising getting the first jab into as many people as possible. Not sure what the difference is with AZ.
It would be interesting to know the proportion of vaccinations given in the UK as broken down between Pfizer and AZ.
It does have lower effectiveness than others. Some reports only 70% officially between 62 and 90% I presume the 90% is for under 50 year olds and the 62% for over 80 year olds. Appears to have problems like those of Sanofi but they took a different course in this case of inaction rather than action obviously having very different criteria of an effective vaccine than Sanofi.
I mean lets be honest 62% effectiveness after 2 doses is fucking crap. (That would be well less than 50% for 1 dose).
If my assumptions are correct it shouldn’t get the go ahead imo.
Was there not something about the AZ vaccine that although it had a lower efficacy than the Pfizer or Moderna, it still stopped all those that tested positive for covid from serious illness and dying.
Or is the efficacy the only thing we should be looking at?
I’d take it tbh, certainly a lot better than nothing. mRNA ones for the high risk and very old people and the other ones for the rest could be a reasonable compromise for example. But I have no real clue about all that tbh
Is that after 1 or 2 doses as the arguement for delaying the 2nd dose is that 1 dose of Pfizer or Moderna stopped serious illness and death to a large extent?
Please define what they mean by efficacity. (Where’s @Limiescouse when you need him, HELP).