royfellows
Well-known member
mrodoc said:
I agree, I was wondering about it and read it several times. The clue was in the last line.
Boosterism
- Thread starter Fjell
- Start date
I agree, I was wondering about it and read it several times. The clue was in the last line.
ttxela2
Active member
PeteHall said:
Yes, but I still had mine......
I'm 49 and had a message come through that I was at 'increased risk' I don't really regard my health problems, whilst they cause me some inconvenience, as being particularly serious but I guess someone does.
I can't think of anything else that requires such frequent vaccination, 3 in the space of a year so far, can anyone explain in simple terms why the effectiveness wanes so quickly? I guess in terms of poorer countries this will also be an issue, I've heard statistics of 40% effectiveness lost in a few months?
paul
Moderator
mrodoc
Well-known member
Regarding the frequency of immunisation you only have to look at the fact that annual flu vaccinations are required and the fact that there is no vaccine for the common cold as there are so many variants. There are also many viral infections we contract that we are unaware of as they are so benign.
pwhole
Well-known member
I contacted my local GP about getting a flu jab, and they said they're only doing over-65s at the moment - I told them I'd had a text from the NHS telling me to book an appointment with them and they told me to ignore it, and they'd contact me when they were ready! I did ask them if they were in the NHS, but they didn't seem to get the joke. I had one at the pharmacy next door last year, just on-the-hoof, so maybe I'll ask them again, but I'm pretty low-risk, living on my own I guess. I don't qualify for a booster until after Dec 14th, but even so, I'd rather give it to someone more deserving, but I guess it doesn't really work like that. I could be paired with little Abdul in Sudan, etc. Breakfast telly loves stuff like that.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
ttxela2 said:
Rabies vaccine is 3 doses, normally given over a minimum of 28 days.
Google suggests Tetanus vaccine is given (to unvaccinated adults) as three doses, two close together and one 6-12 months later. WHO guidelines are 6 doses total: three doses in early childhood, one booster aged 12-13 months, one aged 4-7 years and then one aged 9-15 years, plus adult boosters every 10 years.
I imagine there are others where you get many injections (e.g. pertussis?).
I think part of the reason is that we are aiming for very high levels of immunity.
pwhole
Well-known member
Wow - I had one tetanus jab at school (74-79), one in the early 90s and one three years ago when I broke a footbone (internally). The x-ray nurse insisted I have a booster when I told her about the early 90s one. But I had no idea six was recommended. I have spent most of my life covered in some sort of filth though, so I may just have a good immune system.
mrodoc
Well-known member
I wouldn't worry provide you had primary courses of tetanus and then a booster. I looked into it many years and gave up having 10 yearly boosters and made the same recommendations to my patients. However, If you get a filth laden wound that needs treatment then you would probably get a booster then. And if you have never had a course of tetanus shots you are dicing with death!
ttxela2
Active member
pwhole said:
So is that because there is a shortage of vaccine, a shortage of NHS funds to purchase it, or a shortage of staff capacity to give it?
I recently had my flu jab at Boots using a voucher that my company provided and encouraged me to use. I suspect the motive being at lease partially to protect the company against losses should lots of staff be off sick with the flu!
If there is a shortage of vaccine to protect truly vulnerable folk (rather than the profits of corporations) I now feel a little guilty......
ttxela2
Active member
andrewmc said:
I'm not really querying the number of initial injections, I am used to that with various things for travel/work etc. However once the course is complete there is usually a bit longer before a booster is necessary, it's just a few months since my second vaccine but now a booster is required. How long until another booster is needed or is that it?
If we are to have one every few months the point about other poorer countries not getting their share is less likely to be quickly resolved?
pwhole
Well-known member
A useful follow-up on the discussion about the ethics of boosters vs. worldwide vaccination policy, from Gordon Brown:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/26/new-covid-variant-rich-countries-hoarding-vaccines
The result is that even now only 3% of people in low-income countries are fully vaccinated, while the figure exceeds 60% in both high-income countries and upper-middle-income countries. Every day, for every vaccine delivered as first vaccines in the poorest countries, six times as many doses are being administered as third and booster vaccines in the richest parts of the world. This vaccine inequality is the main reason why the WHO is predicting 200 million more cases on top of the 260 million so far. And after 5 million deaths to Covid, another 5 million are thought to be possible in the next year and more.
What?s most galling is that this policy failure is not because we are short of vaccines or manufacturing contracts to secure them. The problem is not now in production (2 billion doses of vaccine are being manufactured every month), but in the unfairness of distribution. The stranglehold exercised by the G20 richest countries is such that they have monopolised 89% of vaccines, and even now, 71% of future deliveries are scheduled for them. As a result, the global vaccine distribution agency, Covax, has been able to secure only two-thirds of the 2bn vaccines promised to poorer countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/26/new-covid-variant-rich-countries-hoarding-vaccines
The result is that even now only 3% of people in low-income countries are fully vaccinated, while the figure exceeds 60% in both high-income countries and upper-middle-income countries. Every day, for every vaccine delivered as first vaccines in the poorest countries, six times as many doses are being administered as third and booster vaccines in the richest parts of the world. This vaccine inequality is the main reason why the WHO is predicting 200 million more cases on top of the 260 million so far. And after 5 million deaths to Covid, another 5 million are thought to be possible in the next year and more.
What?s most galling is that this policy failure is not because we are short of vaccines or manufacturing contracts to secure them. The problem is not now in production (2 billion doses of vaccine are being manufactured every month), but in the unfairness of distribution. The stranglehold exercised by the G20 richest countries is such that they have monopolised 89% of vaccines, and even now, 71% of future deliveries are scheduled for them. As a result, the global vaccine distribution agency, Covax, has been able to secure only two-thirds of the 2bn vaccines promised to poorer countries.
ChrisJC
Well-known member
The thing about that is that although it's almost certainly true, it alludes to a huge moral dilemma.
The vaccine was developed and paid for by the richer nations. And to be frank, when it comes to life and death, I want the vaccine first because I've paid* for it. Once I have had my jabs, then people who haven't paid for it can have theirs.
Or should I compromise my chances of survival for somebody else? :-\
Chris.
*paid in the sense of supported a society that is able to develop technology like the vaccines.
The vaccine was developed and paid for by the richer nations. And to be frank, when it comes to life and death, I want the vaccine first because I've paid* for it. Once I have had my jabs, then people who haven't paid for it can have theirs.
Or should I compromise my chances of survival for somebody else? :-\
Chris.
*paid in the sense of supported a society that is able to develop technology like the vaccines.
pwhole
Well-known member
I would argue that citizens of poorer countries haven't had much opportunity to support their societies to enable them to develop vaccine technology as they had no money, and we all know that can of worms. One comes out of the other. We're very lucky to live here in a stable environment, in comparative wealth, and with relatively easy ways to make a decent living, so 'paying for it' is kind of built-in - you can't choose not to pay for it, for example.
Also as we're seeing elsewhere, underfunding and underdevelopment just brings everything crashing down, and in the terms of a pandemic, poorer countries with low-budget or non-existent healthcare are far more likely to generate endless new mutations and variants, as we're seeing now. And they will come into the country and potentially wreak havoc with our vaccination programme, and our manifestly unfit population. Unlike most South Africans, who are younger and skinnier demographically, and more likely to survive long-term.
So yes, I think everyone should be considering compromising their chances of survival for somebody else, because the previous methods based on selfishness are clearly not working. It's an investment in our futures as much as theirs, especially if we all want (apparently) to do foreign travel as a lifestyle experience again. Doesn't have to be 100% compromised - what about just 90%?
Also as we're seeing elsewhere, underfunding and underdevelopment just brings everything crashing down, and in the terms of a pandemic, poorer countries with low-budget or non-existent healthcare are far more likely to generate endless new mutations and variants, as we're seeing now. And they will come into the country and potentially wreak havoc with our vaccination programme, and our manifestly unfit population. Unlike most South Africans, who are younger and skinnier demographically, and more likely to survive long-term.
So yes, I think everyone should be considering compromising their chances of survival for somebody else, because the previous methods based on selfishness are clearly not working. It's an investment in our futures as much as theirs, especially if we all want (apparently) to do foreign travel as a lifestyle experience again. Doesn't have to be 100% compromised - what about just 90%?
South Africa is not actually short of vaccine, but they have massive vaccine hesitancy which got out of hand when certain people were saying the AZ vaccine was bad for you.
India has vaccinated more people than Europe and North America combined, as has China by far. So people need to be a little careful about glib comparisons. Not that will stop people obviously.
India has vaccinated more people than Europe and North America combined, as has China by far. So people need to be a little careful about glib comparisons. Not that will stop people obviously.
Boy Engineer
Active member
ChrisJC said:
This is the most depressing thing I?ve read on here for a while. Not sure that I can say much in response (and suspect that PWHole will put it more succinctly). The accident of birth that has resulted in our enjoyment of all that Western Europe provides (in terms of civil society, life opportunities etc) shouldn?t be at the expense of others who haven?t had such luck, should it?