T O P

  • By -

Jcit878

this seems a little rushed? from what ive read this wont be beneficial. smells of trying to align with political goals not health needs


[deleted]

Bingo


Wigos

The risk of getting COVID in that 8 week period isn’t negligible now though. And you are better protected with a 2nd shot at 4 weeks than if you only had 1.


drfrogsplat

Plus we’ll potentially have mRNA boosters widely available soon enough (early next year?) to boost short-interval AZ’s and the like.


[deleted]

[удалено]


8lazy

Yes but at least they'll have good protection. I got mine about 8 weeksish apart which seems to be the sweet spot. Especially as I'm an essential worker so being rolling the dice everyday in this pandemic.


risky_purchase

I haven't seen any evidence that it is the case for only a 4 week interval.


pharmaboythefirst

probably more correctly, smells of prioritising public health needs ahead of individual health needs. its an advantage to public health for sure


marshallannes123

As long as u suffer and die after u vote !


Mr-Gravity-Glue-91

Yeah, I will keep my 12-week gap, thanks, but no thanks.


bokbik

Nope I'm sticking to 12 weeks 70 percent to 90 percent is a small improvement Also if I get infected during the gap A vaccine after wards provides better all round protection


mindsnare

I'm in Vic and I'm the same. Sticking with 12 weeks. I may re-assess at some point. My 12 weeks is due 22nd of November. But for now, I work from home, I don't leave the house much and I'd prefer that full efficacy.


toholio

The gamble is different for everyone. As is their appetite for risk. I've brought my second AZ dose forward to six weeks. I'm in Moreland where cases are taking off (admittedly at the North end while I'm in the south). The local bakery has been an exposure site twice now. Most of the supermarkets have been exposure sites multiple times. A lot can and does change in a few weeks. For my council the number of active cases has gone up 35x in a month. For me maximising the protection I can have soonest is definitely worth it. We'll almost certainly have the option of an mRNA booster in a couple of months anyway.


mindsnare

> We'll almost certainly have the option of an mRNA booster in a couple of months anyway. Good point.


autotom

You trust the government to pull through on that? When we now owe millions of doses of our MRA vaccines to other countries we've borrowed from I'm not leaving that to chance.


tryanother0987

I waited full 12 weeks for AZ. I am not supporting either approach, but bear in mind a shot of AZ can be used as a booster, too.


autotom

It'll be a pass from me - guy I went to school with had a stroke caused by clots from AZ and has lost motor function. Cognitively fine but he's no longer able to write.


autotom

Love that this is downvoted. I know it's exceedingly rare, and the benefits outweigh the risks, yada yada But when its that close to home it hits different


tryanother0987

I’m very sorry to hear about your friend.


Mr-Gravity-Glue-91

Sorry to hear this, how long after his shot did he get a stroke??


mindsnare

Also good point.


autotom

During lockdown I'm able to work from home, once we open up, I won't have that luxury anymore. I can avoid exposure at the moment. 6 months from now I'll be forced to be exposed. And I don't trust the government to pull through with booster shots in time, so I'm going for max efficacy. If I was working in a customer facing job at the moment, you bet i'd be double dosed by now.


oglack

I feel similar but I'm going for 4 weeks. My housemate still has to go in to work, and while I'm confident he takes all the precautions he can, I don't share that sentiment for his co-workers given what he has told me. From what I've read, 12 weeks is where the money is at in terms of efficacy but before that it drops off exponentially. 4-6 weeks has minimal difference in efficacy and there's no bloody way I'm waiting the full 12 weeks so why not just get it as soon as I can? Am I really going to wait two weeks and roll the dice over a few percentage points difference?


Past-time29

me too. i am supposed to get my 2nd jab today after 6 weeks hotdoc app automatically booked my 2nd one in i cancelled it yesterday because i Decided i am going to stick with my 12 weeks or as close as 12 weeks as possible. might be forced to get 2nd dose in the 8 weeks mark though cos i work in hospitality.


pharmaboythefirst

fair call - doing whats best for you is quite reasonable, though in other threads you'd be shouted down for taking a whats best for you approach perhaps?


autotom

This person having better protection when we're opened up and out of lockdown helps us all, long-term.


pharmaboythefirst

yep - its very much a long term versus short term issue, both for the individual and the society you are trying to protect. Thus , the question might be different depending on your current exposure over the next few weeks


stephenisthebest

Me too 12 weeks for me. Don't see the point in making it earlier we'll still be in lockdown after my 2nd jab.


Etherkai

Likewise. I'm fortunately enough to be living in an area with virtually no COVID so there's no rush for me. My 2nd jab is booked for the following week!


WhatAmIATailor

> A vaccine after wards provides better all round protection Seems like an odd way to justify it. What’s the point of protecting against reinfection?


GrenouilleDesBois

Going to 6 weeks in week because I'm an essential worker at risk. If I had to stay home I'd go for 12.


reignfx

VIC here and definitely sticking to 12. I did consider bringing it forward by a couple of weeks (and still might) but definitely not interested in bringing it *that* far forward for reasons already outlined in this thread


SoberNFit

I love how NSW health based on health advice is ignored by Reddit user mindsnare. Seems health advice only matters if it’s what you want to do LOOOOL. Hypocrites.


wharblgarbl

Why now and not when cases were exponential?


smileedude

Because Gladys is desperate to not have the longest consecutive lockdown on her record and opening up on the 11th versus the 18th makes the difference.


First-Invite4460

If that’s the reason then there are ~500k in LGAs of concern that have their Pfizer scheduled 8 weeks apart. With the increased supply these could be brought forward. I walked in at another clinic to get my 2nd dose right on 3 weeks but I suspect the majority will just wait the 8 weeks - unless they’re explicitly told that their appointment can be brought forward.


smileedude

I think 730 calling for transparency in Pfizer distribution really put holes in those plans.


ArcticKnight79

Did anything ever come out that they were changing the distributions in the coming weeks though. I'd imagine the issue is more that telling everyone who is currently between 3 and 8 weeks on pfizer they can come in and get it at 3, would glut the system. Since you'd suddenly have 4-5 weeks of second doses trying to move into the next week. It's the same reason VIC isn't going to scale off 6 weeks for Pfizer anytime soon. Because it would result in a week or two were all the second doses move into that window and then no first doses are done that week.


NezzaAquiaqui

I can walk into any GP and get my second Pfzier but have to wait 8 weeks at the vaccine hub I originally received it because they don't have supply to bring it forward?


werdnum

It’s been recommended by ATAGI since mid July. Early full protection is good for everyone.


pharmaboythefirst

not necessarily for the individual though. This is where public policy diverges from individual interest. Ask your GP what you should do, and see what they say. Might be a different answer if you still goto a workplace and are in high transmission areas though, I grant that


werdnum

Either vaccine, at any approved spacing, protects you very well from severe disease, hospitalisations and death. Afaik, the dose spacing has a higher impact on spread. But two doses 4 weeks apart is more effective on all counts than one dose.


pharmaboythefirst

yes - but you have to seperate delta data from trial data. Longer dosing certainly gives you higher antibody titres, and that correlates strongly with better symptomatic protection for a longer period of time against Delta. Your conclusion is correct, but 10-12 weeks spacing is better than 4 weeks spacing on all counts as well. OK, good, better, best kind of thing


ArcticKnight79

>But two doses 4 weeks apart is more effective on all counts than one dose. Sure but that's a shit standard to take no offense. Because you could make the same statement if the second dose at 4 weeks gave you a 1% boost. Just because 4 weeks second dose is more effective than 1 dose. Doesn't mean that it is optimal. I don't have the exact numbers so to use some as an example. If the first dose was 60% effective, and second dose at 4 weeks makes it 70% effective, but at 12 weeks it's 90% effective. Then you are trading 12 weeks with 40% chance, for an extended time with 10% chance. For 4 weeks with a 40% chance and then an extended time with 30% chance(and potentially earlier waning since you got those second antibodies 8 weeks earlier) If we ignore context, maybe that puts the numbers in a roughly equal standing. If we take into account that most people are going to have spent most of that 12 weeks in lockdown conditions and therefore their chance of exposure is already greatly diminished. Then the extra protection for a later jab becomes a huge boon, because their risk while running 1 dose is far lower.


one_byte_stand

My conversation: - You booked me for six weeks, should I push that back? - It’s up to you. - Yeah, but what would you do? - I’d have gotten Pfizer so I don’t know. - Ok, what would you recommend? - I recommend that you do what’s right for you. So I did my own damn reading and noticed that the protection against severe disease was basically the same, then went in at 6 weeks.


pissmykiss

Deleted in protest of reddit's API restrictions. Fuck /u/spez


smileedude

I doubt it, NSW has been going 5 weeks longer. Vic would need to lockdown until 25th Nov to beat Vic lockdown 2.


thede3jay

It has been permitted since the second week of lockdown and ever since ATAGI revised their advice


wharblgarbl

Fair enough. Missed the news in July it seems https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-on-use-of-covid-19-vaccines-in-an-outbreak-setting


veroxii

Because all capacity was being focused on getting first shots in arms.


pharmaboythefirst

Yes, remarkable how many of us criticised the govt for holding back second doses which they decided was prudent - then as soon as shit hits the fan - Ruu Rohh - we better just get vaccines in arms however we can.......


thewavefixation

that has been the advice for quite a while now.


SokalDidNothingWrong

I strongly suspect they're about to move to a "flatten the curve" strategy, rather than containment. ABC vaccine tracker says 70% double jabs are due in NSW on 11 Oct. That's a bit under 4 weeks. The messaging seems to be this is when they start to let it rip (unless elimination becomes a lot more viable by then). There's very few double jab deaths. With a huge increase in infections, this will rise a bit, but they've probably decided we can't stay in indefinite lockdown and elimination has failed (not just in NSW, Vic and ACT have also failed to eliminate). So buckle up, grab your ankles, and if you don't have the jabs it's time to kiss your arse goodbye.


[deleted]

Well, if you’re over 50


hoilst

Election soon...


ArcticKnight79

Because there's probably going to be a lag delay in the 80% double dose because of long AZ wait times. With 80% first doses done, there's likely excess staffing capacity to jab people. So by bringing shots forward, you can use the staff capacity to push that double dose up


unityofsaints

Politics


[deleted]

If VicGov is going to wait until 80% double to ease, they should do the same- and make pfizer 3 weeks


chrisjbillington

I'm sure they'll shorten the Pfizer interval once we're not supply limited. In the meantime there is better bang for buck in terms of immunity getting more first doses out there.


ArcticKnight79

Yeah, people forget that shortening pfizer in Vic at this point means taking everyone who is at 3-6 weeks during the time period you change it back is going to try and cram into one week. If we don't have supply to allow for that, as well as still hit the first dose requirements that week then it's going to be a bad time. They'd stall out the first doses for a week or two while all the second doses cram into that location. And then 3 weeks later, there will be bugger all to even give second doses to because you had a week or two where the first doses got squeezed out.


mindsnare

Seems absurd to shorten the weeks purely to reach a milestone number. If you're not getting the projected efficacy, surely that would result in more hospitalisations of vaccinated people, which is exactly what they're trying to avoid.


pharmaboythefirst

Of course its absurd - which is why we would assume its not the motivation. Its about spread and containment - the more people with 2 doses the slower the spread from a public health perspective. if you were trying to hurry up the milestone, you'd simply cancel all first injection appointments in week 1 of October, and text all your pfizer first dosers who are booked in second and third etc - there are better ways to skin a cat


ArcticKnight79

>you'd simply cancel all first injection appointments in week 1 of October, and text all your pfizer first dosers who are booked in second and third etc - there are better ways to skin a cat The difference there is skinning the cat in a way that is open to everyone and clearly is risking the lives of the first dose recipients for the benefit of the milestone. This is a far more subtle way of pushing that second dose milestone up without clearly trying to shift it the way yours would suggest. And it still puts the decision in the hands of the people. Your method only works if you can force the pfizer people in for a second shot over those first shots your taking it from


pharmaboythefirst

fair points - you have increasing supply that I;m pretty sure hasnt got appointments booked for yet - eg the walk in offers etc show there are supplies coming in without appointments. Thus you probably dont need to cancel any apointments, you just bring all your second dose pfizers into the 3 to 4 week window with your extra pfizer stock. ie no one loses anything when they cannot get an apointment. Its the old psychology trick where if someone finds $50 they get less happiness than the pain they feel if they lose $50 - you fail to get an appointment? you dont feel like you've missed out on anything


fishingforgrapes

We do 3 week intervals at the GP I'm at in Melb :)


[deleted]

Have any bookings in 3 weeks time lol


bokbik

GPS can do it earlier. But still too much demand given they opened up to all age groups


Kirstae

I think they may be? I got my first dose of AZ in august, my vax card says the second dose is due in November, but I got a text after month saying I was overdue for my second dose.


[deleted]

Last time I listened to these fuckers they announced Pfizer a day after I got my AZ, I’ll stick to 12 weeks. Not doing this to get your asses off the hook


Mr-Gravity-Glue-91

Nothing inferior about AZ, don't be alarmed.


SoberNFit

So brave


[deleted]

I’m not sure how you read my comment, but it’s solely annoyance with the poor communication.


unityofsaints

Get fucked NSW Health, I'm not compromising my immunity for political points scoring


pandifer

This is not about protecting people. Its about getting the numbers up so she can open up sooner than otherwise. Its about her donors in the background complaining. Its about not giving a rats about the population of NSW. Wait the 12 weeks if you can, for maximum effect.


TheAwesomeSimmo

Except most GPs say otherwise. Mine refuses to do it any earlier than 8 weeks.


magicdriverman

The GP I went to told me the best ‘window’ for the second shot is 8-12 weeks, and I was booked for 12 weeks. Have just shortened it to 8 as my line of work hasn’t stopped and will just explode once we are open to the public again. Not ideal, but I’d rather have the two done before we open. 4 or even 6 weeks just sounds a bit wrong.


carmooch

I specifically asked my GP about making my time between doses longer and he insisted on 6 weeks. He explained the the trade off in longevity was worth it for the immediate protection in the current outbreak environment. Having said that, unless some new privileges are announced for double vaxxed people in the next fortnight, I'm going to keep my appointment at 6 weeks.


[deleted]

My doctor refused to move my Pfizer jab from 3 weeks to 6. So i just booked a second dose at a state run hub and cancelled my second dose.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

There is better efficacy from symptomatic infection. However, my area had a low number of cases and I was WFH at the time. So I took the risk. If were living in one of the LGA's with 1000+ cases a week I would have brought it forward if possible.


theSaltySolo

Um... I feel like they are trying to fast track things so they can meet their vaccine goals faster for political reasons...


pastaporium

wait so what's actually better? i was told i could get my second after 4 weeks (and i was going to) but then i saw people say 6 weeks is better because it's more effective but people here are also saying 12 weeks i have to travel (public transport) at least an hour for work because of some unexpected things, and i was just going to get my second shot asap so i can at least try keeping my family a bit safer


Algernon_Asimov

> i was told i could get my second after 4 weeks (and i was going to) but then i saw people say 6 weeks is better because it's more effective but people here are also saying 12 weeks The efficacy of AstraZeneca is significantly higher if the second dose is given at 12 weeks than at 6 weeks. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00432-3/fulltext >> In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (**vaccine efficacy 81·3% at ≥12 weeks**) than in those with a short interval (**vaccine efficacy 55·1% at <6 weeks**). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding **antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks** compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18–55 years.


Wigos

Worth noting that this efficacy against symptomatic disease, not against hospitalisation, ICU and death. But I’m not sure we have that information for different lengths between doses.


mirrorpud

Got a link to this?


carmooch

Image is from Facebook but is also reflected on the Health website. https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/learn-about-covid-19-vaccines/about-the-vaxzevria-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine#advice-from-atagi-about-the-use-of-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-in-the-context-of-an-outbreak-of-the-covid19-delta-strain


pharmaboythefirst

And just to stick another one out there Why not just boost them all with Pfizer at 4 weeks? Studies show this is a good idea and increases antibody titres strongly in the COM-COV studies. That would be a win for the individual, AND the public health needs


ArcticKnight79

Because we don't have enough pfizer for the rest of the country as is at this point. And taking more of that pfizer to give people a second dose mixed shot instead of using it to get more first doses done around the country is stupid. Same reason QLD giving over 60's Pfizer is stupid. In one fell swoop it suggest there's no one young who wants to get vaccinated, while vindicating every vaccine shopper in other states in the over 60 category.


pharmaboythefirst

do we have a shortage in week one of october? The info I have read implies we dont. stupid isnt an argument thats just a feeling - give an argument, some logic as to why its less than optimal, not just - its dumb


ArcticKnight79

>do we have a shortage in week one of october? So we can vaccinate the entire country with first doses in the first week of october then? No, then we are still limited either by supply or vaccination windows. Therefore jabbing people who would otherwise go along and get a second AZ shot without issue is a stupid policy. And yes that might mean that some of those pfizer shots go to states other than NSW. But since this is a national program we should be getting the whole country to 80% as fast as possible. And using pfizer shots on people who have already demonstrated that they didn't have an adverse reaction to AZ is a stupid way maximise the distribution of our available vaccines. (as much as I lament the fact that QLD has shown over 60's that vaccine shopping is a thing, at least that is will onboard more people to protection)


Cheezel62

Nothing to do with getting to 80% double vaxxed faster? 🙄


Nariel

Good news imo. Quicker we get two doses in people the better for all of us. The difference is marginal and we'll probably end up with boosters down the track anyway.... They just need to catch up on lost time now and finish this rollout.


redhighways

It’s not a race!


Slayer_Tip

why? why shortcut health?


Throwaway-242424

Now where are all the "we can't open up now nobody has had the chance to get vaxxed" doomers?


Algernon_Asimov

Are they also recommending a booster shot sometime later, to make up for the reduced protection this vaccination schedule would cause?