Should we have fast tracked first doses?

2,387 Views | 26 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Tex117
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
looking at the UK at 50% first doses, but only 12% 2nd doses, now reading through Monica Ghandi's twitter and seeing this:



Hopefully we are soon behind this. I do wonder if we should have fast tracked about 50% of first dose before moving on to 2nd doses as much(other than the most extremely at risk). I guess now it's too late to worry, but I wonder if we are better off using all 3 million doses / resources towards first doses until we get to 60% or so, then getting the 2nd dose in 6 weeks or so. I mean, afterall, first doses after 2 weeks may only be 80% effective at spread/getting the virus, but it still keeps people out of hospitals and practically eliminates deaths.

I think once first doses get to 50% or so, this thing trends downward hard. I'd readjust if possible, but I guess it doesn't necessarily matter. We could be at 55% 1st doses by now, if that many people are/were willing.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We have 190 million doses administered so far (plus however many million today). With a population of 331 million, that's 57.5%. So we're already there anyway.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We have 120mm single doses and 74 million 2nd doses. The point with doing 90% first doses is that we would have hit 50% of our population by now(and about 70% of adults). As it is, we have only hit 36%.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ah, oops.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think we're going to run into too many folks who won't get vaccinated at all real soon. If an overwhelming majority of the population had been willing to get vaccinated, then getting everyone a first dose would make a lot of sense, but, if we're only going to end up with 50% or thereabouts (which is what I suspect), then getting those 50% fully vaccinated is probably the way to go.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
twk said:

I think we're going to run into too many folks who won't get vaccinated at all real soon. If an overwhelming majority of the population had been willing to get vaccinated, then getting everyone a first dose would make a lot of sense, but, if we're only going to end up with 50% or thereabouts (which is what I suspect), then getting those 50% fully vaccinated is probably the way to go.
Polls I've seen suggest closer to 70% than 50%. I'm guessing for adults, it will be 70+% or so. Maybe higher. Then of course children a lot lower, so maybe 60% overall.

Either way, once 1st doses started to be less and less demand which would be easy to see, it would have been easy to begin to schedule all the 2nd doses without missing a beat.

This was on March 5th. I'm sure someone can find an updated poll.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/03/05/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-plan-to-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-or-already-have/#:~:text=Taken%20together%2C%20about%20seven%2Din,to%20get%20vaccinated%20in%20November.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://ktla.com/news/coronavirus/many-americans-still-hesitate-to-get-covid-19-but-reluctance-is-easing-poll-shows/

There's been a slight shift, though, since the first weeks of the nation's largest-ever vaccination campaign, which began in mid-December. An AP-NORC poll conducted in late January showed that 67% of adult Americans were willing to get vaccinated or had already received at least one shot. Now that figure has climbed to 75%.

Although I don't necessarily agree that we need 75-85% like the article says. That completely disregards natural immunity and the fact that children don't spread it as much or have as severe of a disease.

Get to 60%, along with natural immunity, and I think it all works itself out. Variants shmariants.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One thing to keep in mind: the UK was desperate to take pressure off their socialized medicine health care system, which came close to being overwhelmed by covid. A first dose strategy is designed to minimize deaths and serious hospitalizations as quickly as possible, while possibly enduring more spread (but less severe cases).

With the way our health care system has managed covid, and the nonsense we're hearing about what you can and can't do until 2 weeks after fully vaccinated, I'm fine with our approach.
Tex117
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, I got my second dose today.

Come and get me Covid!
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe so. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but both the UK and Israel's deaths and cases both seem to plummet around 45-50% 1st dose vaccinations. Lets hope ours do, too. At 1.5 million first doses per day, we can get to 50% in exactly 30 days. I guess in all likelihood, our deaths and cases are already starting to fall by then. Wouldn't shock me, if Michigan comes down, that overall cases fall in the next 2-3 weeks pretty noticeably. Looking forward to these graphs all plummeting.
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UK just got off of "super lockdown" this week after being completely locked down since January. So, not really looking at them as an example. Their complete lockdown had as much to do with their low numbers as the vaccine rollout did.
ORAggieFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We've already plummeted.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IDK, maybe so. But as we know with lockdowns here, people still gather. Just because you shut down businesses has little to do with people congregating, they just do so privately. Now, maybe they have patrol in the streets keeping people from hanging out in private homes? I really don't know. But after a year of "fatigue" I seriously doubt people were just sitting at their house twiddling their thumbs for the last 3 months waiting it out.

I just know that here, lockdowns don't cause graphs to go to basically zero like they have now in the UK. Vaccines probably can.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some but not like the UK or Israel graphs. I do think we are on our way there in the next 4-6 weeks, for sure. If Michigan gets out of the way
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think we should have, but like everything for the last year politics made that impossible. Think about the timing of when that decision would have been made.

Of course we could change now, delay 2nd doses by an extra month and probably save a bunch of lives, but we won't because absolutely everyone would lose their minds. The fear doomers would be convinced that we were letting killer variants breed in half vaccinated people, the anti vaxxers would use it as "proof" that the vaccines aren't real (or something), and no government scientists would ever be brave enough to call for a change to the fda approved protocol.

So yeah, it would save lives, and no we won't do it. But hey, continuing to give the J&J shot would save lives too....
JP_Losman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems like very little emphasis put on natural immunity gained thru infection over the past 12 months. It's almost as if no experts on TV give that any credit towards herd immunity. Again it's who you listen to or watch I suppose.

Israel seems to be putting strong emphasis on natural immunity being the same as vaccinated
DeangeloVickers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stolen from NYT
In the world of vaccines, are figures like that six out of seven million unusual?

It's just too soon to say that this vaccine raises your risk, even slightly, of blood clots. If there is a risk, it's so incredibly small it's almost impossible for us to imagine. To give you a little context, the risk of getting struck by lightning in a given year is one in 500,000. So people should be careful about getting hit by lightning, but we don't go outside thinking, "Today is the day I'm going to die of lightning strikes."


94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
twk said:

I think we're going to run into too many folks who won't get vaccinated at all real soon. If an overwhelming majority of the population had been willing to get vaccinated, then getting everyone a first dose would make a lot of sense, but, if we're only going to end up with 50% or thereabouts (which is what I suspect), then getting those 50% fully vaccinated is probably the way to go.
I know a lot of college-educated people who do not plan to get it. I don't know anybody with a Ph.D. who plans to avoid it. I'm guessing you're seeing the same thing in your profession?
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DeangeloVickers said:

Stolen from NYT
In the world of vaccines, are figures like that six out of seven million unusual?

It's just too soon to say that this vaccine raises your risk, even slightly, of blood clots. If there is a risk, it's so incredibly small it's almost impossible for us to imagine. To give you a little context, the risk of getting struck by lightning in a given year is one in 500,000. So people should be careful about getting hit by lightning, but we don't go outside thinking, "Today is the day I'm going to die of lightning strikes."



Much less risky than my allergy shots. But still, if the connection has been drawn, and we have 2 other vaccines, why not take a step back? Perhaps it could help us transition to single shot of the other two. There is zero data on what the optimal time interval is anyway.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As long as it doesn't cause a noticeable daily drop off, sure. If we can still pump out 3 million per day the next couple of months to power through as quickly as possible, with two others that are even statistically safer, then no harm done.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
94chem said:

twk said:

I think we're going to run into too many folks who won't get vaccinated at all real soon. If an overwhelming majority of the population had been willing to get vaccinated, then getting everyone a first dose would make a lot of sense, but, if we're only going to end up with 50% or thereabouts (which is what I suspect), then getting those 50% fully vaccinated is probably the way to go.
I know a lot of college-educated people who do not plan to get it. I don't know anybody with a Ph.D. who plans to avoid it. I'm guessing you're seeing the same thing in your profession?
Everyone I've talked to is getting it, but I haven't discussed it with all that many folks.
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
beerad12man said:

IDK, maybe so. But as we know with lockdowns here, people still gather. Just because you shut down businesses has little to do with people congregating, they just do so privately. Now, maybe they have patrol in the streets keeping people from hanging out in private homes? I really don't know. But after a year of "fatigue" I seriously doubt people were just sitting at their house twiddling their thumbs for the last 3 months waiting it out.

I just know that here, lockdowns don't cause graphs to go to basically zero like they have now in the UK. Vaccines probably can.
Vaccines are playing a big part of it no doubt, but their lockdown was very severe, and they were cracking down hard on violators. I would look at a similar comparison in our icemaggedon here in Texas and how cases dropped so quickly over that two week period when people could not get out of their house for a week.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IDK again, icemaggedon strikes me as more of a reporting issue than a quick drop due to cases actually falling off a cliff. If you look at the graph, it's an anomaly, and it appears to follow a more gradual trend if you take out a lag in reporting. Then a quick spike from that lag, and then gradual again.

https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+covid+graph+total+cases&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS872US872&sxsrf=ALeKk0120QhmRzR2_xtOl0ckXspdxZcg_Q%3A1618409984376&ei=APp2YLucD6WC9PwP5Nm9mAc&oq=texas+covid+graph&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYATIHCCMQsAMQJzIHCCMQsAMQJzIHCAAQRxCwAzIHCAAQRxCwAzIHCAAQRxCwAzIHCAAQRxCwAzIHCAAQRxCwAzIHCAAQRxCwAzIHCAAQRxCwAzIHCAAQRxCwA1AAWABgizpoAnACeACAAUKIAUKSAQExmAEAqgEHZ3dzLXdpesgBCsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz#wptab=s:H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgVuLVT9c3NMwySk6OL8zJecTYwMgt8PLHPWGp8klrTl5jLOQS901NyUzOzEt1ySxOTSxO9clPTizJzM8T0uNic80rySypFFLhEpRCNUeDQYqfC1VISI2LA65XiotHikM_V9_APCkepJiLC87j2cXE7ZGamFOSEVySWFK8iFW2JLUisVghOb8sM0UhvSixIEOhJL8kMUchGeiaYgBF6C71wwAAAA
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The week of icemageddon certainly was a reporting issue, but the week after combined with the week of was still more of a drop than what would have been anticipated without a week of a mother nature imposed quarantine.

The idea that quarantines don't work is an interesting hill to stand on. They certainly do work. Now is the cost worth the benefit? That is another debate, and one I likely agree with you on. I don't know that the effort justifies the ends, but they will knock down cases in a hurry.

Our lockdowns last spring certainly lowered cases for the time, with the idea being that our hospitals needed time to determine courses of action, collect ppe, etc. They didn't lower the number of cases in total, but they did lower cases while health care workers caught up.

Same with London's last quarantine. It lowered cases while they could get shots in arms. Now that shots are in arms the quarantine can be pulled back.

I have no illusion or desire for us to ever go back under quarantine, but they are effective in lessening the spread of any virus.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aston94 said:

The week of icemageddon certainly was a reporting issue, but the week after combined with the week of was still more of a drop than what would have been anticipated without a week of a mother nature imposed quarantine.

The idea that quarantines don't work is an interesting hill to stand on. They certainly do work. Now is the cost worth the benefit? That is another debate, and one I likely agree with you on. I don't know that the effort justifies the ends, but they will knock down cases in a hurry.

Our lockdowns last spring certainly lowered cases for the time, with the idea being that our hospitals needed time to determine courses of action, collect ppe, etc. They didn't lower the number of cases in total, but they did lower cases while health care workers caught up.

Same with London's last quarantine. It lowered cases while they could get shots in arms. Now that shots are in arms the quarantine can be pulled back.

I have no illusion or desire for us to ever go back under quarantine, but they are effective in lessening the spread of any virus.
Texas hasn't been on anything approaching "lockdown," other than for the winter storm, since last April. In a true lockdown, you don't leave your house for anything, even shopping. Closing restaurants, theaters, schools, and the like, while a large chunk of the workforce shows up for work in person isn't really a lockdown.
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
twk said:

Aston94 said:

The week of icemageddon certainly was a reporting issue, but the week after combined with the week of was still more of a drop than what would have been anticipated without a week of a mother nature imposed quarantine.

The idea that quarantines don't work is an interesting hill to stand on. They certainly do work. Now is the cost worth the benefit? That is another debate, and one I likely agree with you on. I don't know that the effort justifies the ends, but they will knock down cases in a hurry.

Our lockdowns last spring certainly lowered cases for the time, with the idea being that our hospitals needed time to determine courses of action, collect ppe, etc. They didn't lower the number of cases in total, but they did lower cases while health care workers caught up.

Same with London's last quarantine. It lowered cases while they could get shots in arms. Now that shots are in arms the quarantine can be pulled back.

I have no illusion or desire for us to ever go back under quarantine, but they are effective in lessening the spread of any virus.
Texas hasn't been on anything approaching "lockdown," other than for the winter storm, since last April. In a true lockdown, you don't leave your house for anything, even shopping. Closing restaurants, theaters, schools, and the like, while a large chunk of the workforce shows up for work in person isn't really a lockdown.
Right. What did I say to the contrary?
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think so. From what I can tell, a single shot of Pfizer/Moderna provides 90ish percent efficacy, and the second shot is what enhances long term immune memory. Instead of saving vaccines for second doses, just get as many first doses in arms as possible, and then prioritize second dose based on availability and time since first dose.

But, that would be going against manufacturer recommendations.
Tex117
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bigtruckguy3500 said:



But, that would be going against manufacturer recommendations.
They said themselves that the 28 day later thing was just the quickest they could do and get FDA emergency approval.

But yeah, looks like doing a first jab thing was a good idea.

Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.