Who should reveive the Covid vaccine?

[UncleB]

I'm not sure if you are all aware that the vaccine is primarily designed to stop you getting the symptoms, but you can still catch and transmit the infection.

This is why so many in the medical community are worried about people developing a false sense of security in that they think they are not getting infected when they are.

This means the shop workers / health care workers are still as likely to be the plague spreaders as before.

So this brings us back to the question on who to vaccinate first - and it remains the people most likely to be affected by catching it since they are at highest risk of death / long term illness.

That is my understanding of the situation - there is some background on this in the link below:
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/cente ... ssion.html

Happy to hear other views, preferably with some research to back the opinions.

[Richard]

UncleB,

Thanks for your post,

I don't believe that link was particularly helpful or endorsed by medical opinion.

Dead flu particles are injected, in a vaccine, in order to prime the antibodies in the human body to produce mechanisms to kill the flu proper. Not to alleviate the symptoms.
It may take several weeks before full defence mechanisms are ready to go on the full offensive against the flu, so in the mean time you may still transmit the flu.

Alleviating the symptoms alone would not be worth the huge amount of research into vaccines just to produce a palliative. That would be silly.
That article is just throwing too many variables in the hope that some may ring true.

I agree the most vulnerable should be protected but many adults with families are just stupid and still allow visits by younger offspring, living elsewhere, and this is a real concern, people just can't change their nature.
Even allowing workmen they know into their house without face-mask protection.

[UncleB]

Hello Richard, do you have any links that contradict this?

I can't find any of the medical establishment sites that say this as the info is not available to say it yet.

The New York Times covers this subject quite well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/heal ... -mask.html

The upshot is there is no clear evidence one way or another at this stage, so the sensible thing to do is err on the side of caution and limit contact (through masks and visors for customer facing staff expecially in our context).

The vaccines don't simply use a dead flu particles - there are a range of techniques to encourage the body to create an immune response to it - see: https://wellcome.org/news/what-differen ... -are-there

However it remains unclear it this will stop you from being a carrier of the virus - only empirical research can show this.

I'm not an anti-vaxer in case you were wondering. I'm due to get mine in March.

[Richard]

Hello UncleB

Well commented, vaccines don't always use dead virus particles.
Genetic codes sequences can be used instead, for that reason vaccines have recently been concocted in record time. There was a frisson of excitement in the press about this development.


It is unclear to what extent asymptomatic people can transmit the virus, versus those who have had the vaccine and recovered.
The relations between viral load, viral shedding, infection, infectiousness, and duration of infectiousness are not well understood.

There are a whole bunch of articles here if you care to fish about:

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

[number9]

I am not an anti-vaxer but I am starting to have concerns about which vaccine might be best.

Now there is a Kent variant & a South Africa variant which seem to be mutations of the original virus and the government making random tests in a few areas around the country to find these new variants.

Then we have experts saying things like the vaccine we are being given:
1) will give some protection but cannot say how much protection because they don't know
2) not as effective but cannot yet say how effective....is this less than 50% ?

Seems like the safe thing to do is delay my injection until there is more clarity.

[Richard]

As people have to complete a course of two vaccinations and the programme will be delivered in a phased approach to ensure those most at risk are vaccinated first, it is not possible to choose one vaccine over another.
Surely what is on offer is better than waiting for the best possible protection at an unknown date?

[UncleB]

Seems like the safe thing to do is delay my injection until there is more clarity.

If you are comfortable with the risk this presents to you personally and to those around you (that is the pinch!) then by all means wait until there is more info, but I personally think that Richard is right - it is much better to take one if offered and later on if another proves much more effective then try to get that as well.

I expect each vaccine with have its strengths and weaknesses but all are better than none at all, and none prevent you having a different vaccine later on. If you don't want to pay for the vaccine of your chosing then that is your perogative, but don't expect the NHS to let you pick and choose.

It is most reassuring to read in the news today that evidence is emerging that at least one of the vaccines prevents the transmission of the virus:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55913913

Lets hope this is the beginning of the end of the worst of the virus impact.

[Richard]

Germany, France and Sweden are currently not recommending the AstraZeneca vaccine to over-65s, saying there is not enough trial data on this age group.

[Richard]

Of course the vaccine will slow the spread of the virus if it kills the virus in those vaccinated.
That stands to reason.
The 'fly in the ointment' is where new strains arise that are resistant.
The more we kill it off by vaccination the less the chance of mutations arising.
I think Germany, France and Sweden are playing with fire in delaying deployment.

[number9]

The South African & Brazil variants (Brazil variant is not in UK) both have a mutation called E484K which changes the spike protein in a way that makes the vaccine less effective.
AstraZeneca are hoping a new vaccine to tackle mutated variants will be ready by autumn.


As Richard has said there is a growing list of countries that are saying they do not want people over 65 to have the AstraZeneca vaccine until more data shows them to be effective:
France,Germany,Sweden,Italy,Poland & Belgium.

Now, Switzerland has said they will not approve the Oxford/AstraZenica vaccine
The Swiss Medical Regulator claimed there was a lack of data to reach conclusions on its efficiency.

So as i said in my earlier post....maybe I'll wait until things get clearer
What's the point of having a jab that might not be up to the job and for those who say ...
well something is better than nothing, you have a point but it still might not offer the protection I had hoped for. There are other vaccines on the way that might be better.