Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, nomad098 said:

but when all said and done we all just part of a global "Phase IV Clinical Trial" maybe Canada's part is to trial 16 week dosing regime. 

If that were true, then government should be saying as much.  Not operate in secrecy or obfuscation.  Wouldn't that be something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jagoffee said:

Based on the fact that there was (and is) a very limited vaccine supply, and there is science and/or belief that a significant portion of the benefit comes from the first doses, certain health agencies felt they could save more lives/reduce hospitalizations by giving twice as many people only one dose initially.

I can understand some stretching of the mfr minimum guideline, but 16 weeks is beyond the pale IMO, compared to other recommendations (this is for the Pfizer vaccine).

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

In the case of the UK, I believe they had data to support their decision.  I would hope the focus was on saving lives.   It is not like they are not doing second doses, the just put a priority on the first dose. AZ mostly.  
Moderna says you can get the second dose 12 weeks later and still receive the full benefit.

 

Neither of us live in the UK or Canada, so our opinions do not really matter.  
 

edit to add:  see above.  Wowzz opinion does matter.

 

Just to clarify, 12 weeks for Moderna may be fine, but this is not the case for Pfizer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Well, here you are. And, thanks to the UK policy regarding vaccinations, our death rate and hospitalisation rates are plummeting. A scientific decision was made, based on the available evidence and the results  are irrefutable.  You might care to look at the rising death rates in France and Germany,  and decide if they made  the  right decisions. 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00528-6/fulltext

And Boris got his first jab last week. You really are paranoid!

And the above reference is about AstraZeneca.  I have not seen anything similar for Pfizer vaccine - just six weeks maximum (but eight probably fine).

Edited by Steelers36
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nocl said:

Since dosing information comes from clinical trials, has there been a trial for the AZ vaccine that shows efficacy when the doses are given 12 weeks apart?

I am in the AstraZeneca trial in the US and the shots were administered 4 weeks apart.   Don’t know if I got the real think, will find out April 6.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steelers36 said:

And the above reference is about AstraZeneca.  I have not seen anything similar for Pfizer vaccine - just six weeks maximum (but eight probably fine).

12 weeks is fine as well. Just Google for data.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wowzz said:

12 weeks is fine as well. Just Google for data.

Well, first, 12 weeks does not equal nor mean 16 weeks.  Heck, why not go 20 then?  When does pushing the envelope stop?  (I know, I should be railing against my medical & political authorities and am raising the issue). 

 

Second, Googling again does not unearth a case for Pfizer to by anything close to 16 weeks and I don't believe there is consensus for 12. 

 

Another point - this Canadian NACI group stated the higher gap limits were for shortages in supplies.  Supposedly our supplies are supposed to be rolling in now like nobody business, so perhaps certain authorities will make a change.

 

Another thing that is found in searching literature, is that delaying second Pfizer dose for so long is not a good idea for seniors.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steelers36 said:

Well, first, 12 weeks does not equal nor mean 16 weeks.  Heck, why not go 20 then?  When does pushing the envelope stop?  (I know, I should be railing against my medical & political authorities and am raising the issue). 

 

Second, Googling again does not unearth a case for Pfizer to by anything close to 16 weeks and I don't believe there is consensus for 12. 

 

Another point - this Canadian NACI group stated the higher gap limits were for shortages in supplies.  Supposedly our supplies are supposed to be rolling in now like nobody business, so perhaps certain authorities will make a change.

 

Another thing that is found in searching literature, is that delaying second Pfizer dose for so long is not a good idea for seniors.

 

Well, the death rate for our oaps after one dose has tumbled, so make of that what you may. Sometimes you just have to follow the science!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jagoffee said:

In the case of the UK, I believe they had data to support their decision.  I would hope the focus was on saving lives.   It is not like they are not doing second doses, the just put a priority on the first dose. AZ mostly.  
Moderna says you can get the second dose 12 weeks later and still receive the full benefit.

 

Neither of us live in the UK or Canada, so our opinions do not really matter.  
 

edit to add:  see above.  Wowzz opinion does matter.

 

I cannot find any release from Moderna stating the 12 weeks information.  It would unusual for a company to do such a release outside of their product label. Do you have a link?

 

 

 

This is what the FDA has to say on the subject

 

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-statement-following-authorized-dosing-schedules-covid-19-vaccines

 

 As the first round of vaccine recipients become eligible to receive their second dose, we want to remind the public about the importance of receiving COVID-19 vaccines according to how they’ve been authorized by the FDA in order to safely receive the level of protection observed in the large randomized trials supporting their effectiveness.

 

We have been following the discussions and news reports about reducing the number of doses, extending the length of time between doses, changing the dose (half-dose), or mixing and matching vaccines in order to immunize more people against COVID-19. These are all reasonable questions to consider and evaluate in clinical trials. However, at this time, suggesting changes to the FDA-authorized dosing or schedules of these vaccines is premature and not rooted solidly in the available evidence. Without appropriate data supporting such changes in vaccine administration, we run a significant risk of placing public health at risk, undermining the historic vaccination efforts to protect the population from COVID-19.

 

The available data continue to support the use of two specified doses of each authorized vaccine at specified intervals. For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the interval is 21 days between the first and second dose. And for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the interval is 28 days between the first and second dose. 

 

The CDC allows Moderna to be pushed out by two weeks and Pfizer by 3 weeks up to a total of 42 days max.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7011e2.htm

COVID-19 Vaccine Second-Dose Completion and Interval Between First and Second Doses Among Vaccinated Persons — United States, December 14, 2020−February 14, 2021

 

 

 

n December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration.*,† Both vaccines require 2 doses for a completed series. The recommended interval between doses is 21 days for Pfizer-BioNTech and 28 days for Moderna; however, up to 42 days between doses is permissible when a delay is unavoidable.

 

Edited by nocl
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, beg3yrs said:

And I read it as K.T.B. feels that by 2023 everyone will be vaccinated and that's why restrictions could be eased. We will never get to the point where everyone is vaccinated and if K.T.B. thinks that can happen, well ....

 

Hey, it's up to you if you want to be a responsible human being or not.  As for me, I've gotten vaccinated (1st dose) and my wife goes in on Tuesday.  We want to cruise.  We want to be safe.  We will do what we need to do to remain safe.  If that means being slightly inconvenienced in having to wear a mask part of the time, so be it.  If that means following the rules the cruise lines put forth, I'll do it.  If by what I'm doing prevents the spread of a virus, I'll do it.  I'm not just doing this for me, I'm doing it because it's what we need to do to get our lives back to normal.  Easing restrictions too soon prevents this; being vaccinated or wearing a mask does not.

 

IMO, I will not sail unless I know the cruiseline is enforcing a 100% compliance in passengers and crew being vaccinated.  NO one is forcing anyone to get a vaccination, that is your choice, but cruising is not right it's a privilege.  And the sooner people realize this, the sooner they can start sailing again.  You can make the choice of either traveling or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Hey, it's up to you if you want to be a responsible human being or not.  As for me, I've gotten vaccinated (1st dose) and my wife goes in on Tuesday.  We want to cruise.  We want to be safe.  We will do what we need to do to remain safe.  If that means being slightly inconvenienced in having to wear a mask part of the time, so be it.  If that means following the rules the cruise lines put forth, I'll do it.  If by what I'm doing prevents the spread of a virus, I'll do it.  I'm not just doing this for me, I'm doing it because it's what we need to do to get our lives back to normal.  Easing restrictions too soon prevents this; being vaccinated or wearing a mask does not.

 

IMO, I will not sail unless I know the cruiseline is enforcing a 100% compliance in passengers and crew being vaccinated.  NO one is forcing anyone to get a vaccination, that is your choice, but cruising is not right it's a privilege.  And the sooner people realize this, the sooner they can start sailing again.  You can make the choice of either traveling or not.


Well said. Taking the topic back to cruising. Very clear now & I agree with you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jagoffee said:

True.

 

 Based on the fact that there was (and is) a very limited vaccine supply, and there is science and/or belief that a significant portion of the benefit comes from the first doses, certain health agencies felt they could save more lives/reduce hospitalizations by giving twice as many people only one dose initially.   It will be an interesting study, when they evaluate how it worked.  The UK does certainly have a much higher portion of their population with just on dose.

 

A virus evolves to be vaccine resistant when the variations that survive the vaccine can replicate.

 

Although a significant portion of the benefit comes from a first dose and the full benefit of protection can come at four weeks or instead at 12 weeks, the delay of 8 more weeks to get the second dose means the virus has 8 more weeks to possibly evolve in a partially potected body.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

A virus evolves to be vaccine resistant when the variations that survive the vaccine can replicate.

 

Although a significant portion of the benefit comes from a first dose and the full benefit of protection can come at four weeks or instead at 12 weeks, the delay of 8 more weeks to get the second dose means the virus has 8 more weeks to possibly evolve in a partially potected body.

Or you couid argue that by vaccinating at 4 weeks, there will be twice as many people not being vaccinated at all, leading to far more deaths. Which is the better choice - more deaths or a possibility of new strains, although I am doubtful about the science behind your claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nocl said:

I cannot find any release from Moderna stating the 12 weeks information.  It would unusual for a company to do such a release outside of their product label. Do you have a link?

 

 

 

This is what the FDA has to say on the subject

 

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-statement-following-authorized-dosing-schedules-covid-19-vaccines

 

 As the first round of vaccine recipients become eligible to receive their second dose, we want to remind the public about the importance of receiving COVID-19 vaccines according to how they’ve been authorized by the FDA in order to safely receive the level of protection observed in the large randomized trials supporting their effectiveness.

 

We have been following the discussions and news reports about reducing the number of doses, extending the length of time between doses, changing the dose (half-dose), or mixing and matching vaccines in order to immunize more people against COVID-19. These are all reasonable questions to consider and evaluate in clinical trials. However, at this time, suggesting changes to the FDA-authorized dosing or schedules of these vaccines is premature and not rooted solidly in the available evidence. Without appropriate data supporting such changes in vaccine administration, we run a significant risk of placing public health at risk, undermining the historic vaccination efforts to protect the population from COVID-19.

 

The available data continue to support the use of two specified doses of each authorized vaccine at specified intervals. For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the interval is 21 days between the first and second dose. And for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the interval is 28 days between the first and second dose. 

 

The CDC allows Moderna to be pushed out by two weeks and Pfizer by 3 weeks up to a total of 42 days max.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7011e2.htm

COVID-19 Vaccine Second-Dose Completion and Interval Between First and Second Doses Among Vaccinated Persons — United States, December 14, 2020−February 14, 2021

 

 

 

n December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration.*,† Both vaccines require 2 doses for a completed series. The recommended interval between doses is 21 days for Pfizer-BioNTech and 28 days for Moderna; however, up to 42 days between doses is permissible when a delay is unavoidable.

 

You are correct, it states 6 weeks for both.  I was confused, I should not have said 12 weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jagoffee said:

You are correct, it states 6 weeks for both.  I was confused, I should not have said 12 weeks.

And in

Ontario Canada we are going 16 weeks between 1st & 2 Nd shots based on studies here & UK. Not my choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dave_k58 said:

I read that some cruise lines are considering reservations for bars and the casino to maintain social distancing

That might be interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wowzz said:

Or you couid argue that by vaccinating at 4 weeks, there will be twice as many people not being vaccinated at all, leading to far more deaths. Which is the better choice - more deaths or a possibility of new strains, although I am doubtful about the science behind your claim.

So going outside the recommendations of the companies that developed the vaccines is all about rationing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

NO one is forcing anyone to get a vaccination, that is your choice, but cruising is not right it's a privilege.  And the sooner people realize this, the sooner they can start sailing again.  

First Amendment

First Amendment Annotated:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

So going outside the recommendations of the companies that developed the vaccines is all about rationing.

Not rationing, purely dealing with the logistics of vaccinating millions of people as rapidly as possible. The more people you can vaccinate with one dose,  the quicker the death rate reduces.  If you look at the decline in the UK death rate from CV19,  where over 50% of the adult population have received one injection, compared to the rising death rates in the EU, where less than 15% of the population have been vaccinated, the UK approach has been thoroughly vindicated.

And don't forget, the four week gap between injections, was an arbitrary period, taken to ensure that the vaccine trial period was completed as quickly as possible. With more time, research would have been done on varying time periods, but this was not done on this occasion for matters of expediency. Four weeks is not set in tablets of stone. It is merely the period determined by the manufacturer for research purposes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dog said:

And in

Ontario Canada we are going 16 weeks between 1st & 2 Nd shots based on studies here & UK. Not my choice. 

What studies?  There were no studies in Ontario or Canada for sure.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wowzz said:

Or you could argue that by vaccinating at 4 weeks, there will be twice as many people not being vaccinated at all, leading to far more deaths. Which is the better choice - more deaths or a possibility of new strains, although I am doubtful about the science behind your claim.

Perhaps, but if the supplies are there, then rationing issue largely goes away.  Not necessarily "far more deaths" - and how do you measure scenario 1 vs 2 without being able to go back in time and have a do-over?  It is also possible that overly delaying doses will partially or largely invalidate the vaccine effect.  Again, we don't know for sure as there have not been trials and tests.  Another poster pointed this out as well. 

 

Various governments have made their choices and will have to live with them as time goes on - or adjust if they stay on to of information and data.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Hey, it's up to you if you want to be a responsible human being or not.  As for me, I've gotten vaccinated (1st dose) and my wife goes in on Tuesday.  We want to cruise.  We want to be safe.  We will do what we need to do to remain safe.  If that means being slightly inconvenienced in having to wear a mask part of the time, so be it.  If that means following the rules the cruise lines put forth, I'll do it.  If by what I'm doing prevents the spread of a virus, I'll do it.  I'm not just doing this for me, I'm doing it because it's what we need to do to get our lives back to normal.  Easing restrictions too soon prevents this; being vaccinated or wearing a mask does not.

 

IMO, I will not sail unless I know the cruiseline is enforcing a 100% compliance in passengers and crew being vaccinated.  NO one is forcing anyone to get a vaccination, that is your choice, but cruising is not right it's a privilege.  And the sooner people realize this, the sooner they can start sailing again.  You can make the choice of either traveling or not.

I'm glad you clarified that you meant everyone on the ship, passengers and crew, need to be vaccinated. The way I read your original post was that everyone, everywhere had to be vaccinated. This clarification makes much more sense and is certainly feasible and sensible. And yes, I'm halfway through the vaccination process myself and DW is on the list to get started. Arizona recently opened up vaccinations to everyone over 16 and now there's a bit of a wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

First Amendment

First Amendment Annotated:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.  

Yes Daniel but you don't have the right to assemble on private property without the permission of its owner. If the owner of the cruise ship doesn't want you on board, you don't go on board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

Yes Daniel but you don't have the right to assemble on private property without the permission of its owner. If the owner of the cruise ship doesn't want you on board, you don't go on board.

Agreed, but last I checked the owners of the cruise ships want us to come on board.  It is the government that says we cannot assemble on their private property.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Ponant Cruises & Expeditions - Return to Europe!
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...