• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Coronavirus Lockdown Chat

www.thetimes.co.uk

Single dose of Pfizer-Biontech vaccine may not protect elderly from Covid-19 infection

A significant proportion of people over 80 may have only a “poor” immune response after a single dose of the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine, researchers have said.Thre
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk

Pfizer BioNTech vaccine likely to be effective against B1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2 | University of Cambridge

www.cam.ac.uk www.cam.ac.uk

The seven individuals who were unable to neutralise the virus after the first dose (of Pfizer) were all aged over 80 years old. This accounts for almost half of the 15 individuals in this age group. However, at a follow-up visit after these individuals had received their second dose (given at three weeks), they were all able to neutralise the virus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There remains a risk, for everyone, even after two jabs - what matters is how much risk and is that amount of risk acceptable to the individual. All the public health people care about is whether the jab reduces the risk sufficiently that the hospitals are no longer overwhelmed.
 
Scrat said:
According to #481, you are at risk with that vaccine until you receive the second dose.
Click to expand...
According to post #481 you may be at risk. From what is visible without a subscription the first reference does not appear to clarify, or even speculate, how much of the risk reduction after 3 weeks is due to the 1st dose having an increased impact, and how much is due to having a second dose. The second reference certainly does not clarify.
 
Luke said:
According to post #481 you may be at risk. From what is visible without a subscription the first reference does not appear to clarify, or even speculate, how much of the risk reduction after 3 weeks is due to the 1st dose having an increased impact, and how much is due to having a second dose. The second reference certainly does not clarify.
Click to expand...
The quote is from the second reference, and the first reference is based on the second. It looks like the Pfizer vaccine, unlike AZ, needs the second vaccine dose to be given at 3 weeks, to protect older people, and possibly younger too. There will not be a cliff edge at age 80.

If you read the papers referenced in 2, you will see that in older individuals, over 65, the effectiveness against one mutation was down tenfold between vac1 and vac2, and it seems to imply that, as with antibiotics and bacteria, this could select for more resistant strains. If I read that right, it is worrying: over 65s being at very high risk, and acting as breeding grounds for more resistant strains in the 12 week lag.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I booked my jab for Tuesday at the GP, well, not mine, as they are operating 3 miles and a few steep hills away. However, Mrs Scrat qualifies too, but still has no letter from the GP.

In the end, I cancelled my jab next Tuesday and booked us both in at the Sheffield Arena on Thursday instead. We can travel together, only one trip instead of two. The same in late April.

Someone said, if you take the GP appointment you have to sit in a freezing cold tent afterwards for 15 minutes.
 
Sounds like an ill informed Karen on TwitFace. It depends on which jab you have not where you have it.
 
Scrat said:
Someone said, if you take the GP appointment you have to sit in a freezing cold tent afterwards for 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
Trev said:
Sounds like an ill informed Karen on TwitFace.
Click to expand...
No, that's probably right. Post-jab "they" are required to monitor the patient for 15 mins to ensure there are no adverse reactions. If there is not adequate space indoors to seat the throughput with social distancing and cleanup afterwards, it will have to be outside.
 
Black Hole said:
Post-jab "they" are required to monitor the patient for 15 mins to ensure there are no adverse reactions.
Click to expand...
I believe that's only for the Pfizer one, where they have had some allergic reactions. SWMBO had the AZO and was thrown out promptly afterwards.
 
Does anybody understand this Handforth Parish Council Zoom Meeting fiasco that's all over the news today? It seems there's general support for that Weaver woman, but it seems to me she was only the Zoom facilitator and had no right to be controlling the actual meeting itself.
 
Black Hole said:
Does anybody understand this Handforth Parish Council Zoom Meeting fiasco that's all over the news today? It seems there's general support for that Weaver woman, but it seems to me she was only the Zoom facilitator and had no right to be controlling the actual meeting itself.
Click to expand...
De facto control, she could boot them out of her meeting.

Yesterday's news. As always with newspapers as opposed to TV news.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just because she could, doesn't mean she was entitled to. Was it supposed to be a proper council meeting, or was it something she had called masquerading as a council meeting?
 
Last edited:
Curious that it does not show what led up to the chair and vice-chair becoming so irate with the woman in the first place that gave her a reason (she would make a good American cop) to pull the trigger.
 
It was amusing to see them going ballistic about procedural rules though.
 
Procedural rules are essential. I take it you've never been part of any committee. If I'd been on that parish council, I would have gone ballistic too.

The problem was that the actual chairman had no control over the Zoom session, which was in the hands of somebody not even on the council. Totally doomed unless that person understood their role - which she didn't.

What I'm saying is that it, so far as I can tell, is being presented completely opposite to the truth (so what's new).
 
Last edited:
Black Hole said:
Procedural rules are essential. I take it you've never been part of any committee.
Click to expand...
Lots. In this case, the rules were self contradictory.

In the previous meeting, members were disruptive, and the chair and vice chair were thrown out for being disruptive. She was brought in from above to oversee the meeting.

What do you do if the chair of a meeting refuses to start it, and argues that any vote on starting is invalid, because the meeting hasn't started yet?🤣🤣🤣
 
Scrat said:
In the previous meeting, members were disruptive, and the chair and vice chair were thrown out for being disruptive. She was brought in from above to oversee the meeting.
Click to expand...
That's the information I was asking for and explains everything. Belated thanks.

I've been a member of clubs where 1) a chairman rewrote the rules and then put it to a SGM to wave them through without permitting any open discussion beforehand; 2) a chairman decided to just abandon elderly non-internet members by making club materials only available on-line; and 3) a chairman wouldn't stick to club rules or even the law (I was on that committee and resigned).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top