Access to vaccine on way to court
Oh here we go. A committee at Maimonides has hired Julius Grey to prepare to sue for their second doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
Pfizer is also saying that the second shot should be given after 3 weeks and it doesn’t support changing the dosing schedule. Maimonides has a case.
Chris 11:38 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
ffs. 99.9% of Canadians have had zero shots, but wah wah we got one, but insist of two, while the rest of you get nothing.
Kate 11:39 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
Well, they were told to expect a second dose, and that residence had a lot of deaths in the first wave. I can see why, if you were told to expect the second shot and then had it taken away, you might be angry and not see the bigger picture.
Chris 11:48 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
It wasn’t “taken away”. You can’t take away something you never had. And it’s not like they’re never getting their second dose. It’s merely been delayed because there’s lots of other places that have had many infections that have received nothing yet. That’s how rationing works. But no one is used to rationing anymore, in our world of plenty. And they’re greedy and self-entitled to boot. But yes, I can imagine they are angry/disappointed, that’s human nature.
Well, if these folks think suing is right, maybe health care workers should up their game and so on strike until they get a first dose.
Kate 11:50 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
Chris, I’ve added a second part to the post that shows the Maimonides folks have a case. Pfizer says the second dose needs to be given 3 weeks later, not randomly.
dwgs 11:51 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
As It Happens interviewed a local Dr. who was to have received her second dose this week, the discussion includes some input from Pfizer, it’s worth a listen. Relevant bit begins at 10:15 or so. https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens/clip/15816766-assuaging-assange
ant6n 11:55 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
The promise of a second dose was taken away. What will happen with the half-vaccinated people? Will they need to get two shots later, or will they always just be half-protected?
Given that the pandemic will disproportionally kill certain groups, it probably makes sense to properly protect them. It’s not like spreading the vaccine will help herd-immunity a lot (if double the people have half the protection, the virus should approx. permeate at the same rate).
Joey 12:02 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
Not sure such thing as “half” the protection really exists – I can see how it’s tempting to assume that half the required dose = “half” the protection, but I don’t think it actually works that way. My understanding, and it’s likely wrong, is that the first dose triggers an immune response and the second dose makes that immune response memory last long term. Now, there may be considerable protection from just one dose, and there may be the possibility of getting the same benefit of the second dose even if it’s administered later – but the clinical trials didn’t test for that so we can’t know for sure. The risk that the improperly administered/delayed second dose will cancel out the benefits of the first dose in the medium term (and therefore effectively “waste” both doses in the long term) is real, and seems unnecessary given the marginal benefit of administering somewhat more first doses more quickly.
I think governments may have been overly cautious in reserving half of all received doses given the slowy rampling up of the vaccine supply and were right to start administering more first doses with the epxectation that enough supply would arrive to administer the second doses on schedule. But this doesn’t seem like that.
Bert 12:09 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
They allowed the pharmas to fast-track the vaccines. Now they want to disregard, ignore, deny the manufacturer directives which are based on testing, albeit limited, fast-tracked, etc. How many times have governments gotten things wrong on this… No masks…. Masks. Small groups…. No groups. Classes…. No classes.
I am glad someone s standing up for the citizen. Though I am far down the list, They can have my first dose if ti gives them their second.
Blork 12:13 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
Here’s a ridiculous analogy, because that’s the only way I can parse these things:
Let’s say you have two starving people who must eat something within 24 hours or they will die. Two bananas (each) will save them, but one banana will extend their life by another 24 hours. You have only two bananas, but you expect to get more within 20 hours.
Do you:
(a) Give each person one banana, which relieves their hunger and extends their lives to 48 hours, and hope the second batch of bananas arrives on time or at least within 48 hours? (If the second batch never arrives, both people will die.)
(b) Give one person two bananas, thus saving them indefinitely, and let the other one keep starving and hope the rest of the bananas arrive before that person dies?
There are flaws aplenty with that analogy, but in broad strokes it’s one way to look at this.
Chris 12:18 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
>The promise of a second dose was taken away
No, it’s merely been delayed.
>Though I am far down the list, They can have my first dose if ti gives them their second.
No one is proposing that people ‘far down the list’ get their first shot before people ‘high on the list’ get their second. The idea is to get everyone high on the list a first dose. There are lots of long term care folks and health workers that have had no doses. And there are thousands of vaccines sitting in freezers helping no one.
> How many times have governments gotten things wrong on this
And indeed they at first were hoarding doses, and have now corrected.
The probability of just one dose being beneficial is high. The probability of more vaccines arriving soon is high. There are vaccines in freezers doing nothing for no one. The best course is Blork’s (a).
Bert 12:44 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
The “thousands of vaccines sitting in freezers” are there to help people in 3 weeks. To complete the protocol developed by the experts, those delegated the responsibility to develop them.
Blork’s example is a classic “trolley car” thought experiment. IMO, the government should have o say in the application of the result, at the least, should not override decisions that have been authorized beforehand.
Blork 13:02 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
I’m undecided on what’s the best way to go, but please bear in mind that some “experts” agree with the idea of giving twice as many people the first dose now because that effectively vaccinates twice as many people, ASSUMING the second doses come in on time. It’s a risk, but presumably a calculated risk.
And also bear in mind that most of the “experts” who disagree are people from Pfizer, because they are concerned about liability. However, it’s a backwards objection because if the plan to use all available doses goes ahead, and ANYTHING GOES WRONG ANYWHERE, Pfizer is off the liability hook because they can just blame the government for not following the protocol. I would not be surprised if the lawyers and executives of Pfizer are HOPING the government goes that way for exactly this reason.
So the safe, sensible, by-the-book, according-to-the rules route is to store the second doses and administer them on time. The risky and maverick route is to use them all for first dose and hope that re-supply arrives in time.
That second route has a much better payoff IF the second doses arrive on time. So it’s a gamble, but a gamble with a big win if it works, and an unknown loss if it doesn’t (although the loss will likely not be huge because by most accounts half a vaccine is still pretty good.)
Michael Black 13:14 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
This is complicated because there’s also the stories of the process being slow. Not just because the vaccine is coming slowly, but because the process of getting it into people’s arms is slow. Holding back half the doseage is not the problem. Three weeks has already gone by, finish what was started. If these are “the most vulnerable”, then keep them safest. Wait, and they may get lost (they were previously worried that people might not come back for the second shot), or some excuse will come later to eliminate the second dose.
A second dose seems pretty common. I can vaguely remember “booster shots” as a kid. And both the shingles and pneumonia vaccine I got last year came twice. If they didn’t see value, why bother doing it twice?
dwgs 14:22 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
If I had any faith in our government being organized and capable I would say by all means go ahead and give single doses all around. Unfortunately nothing that I have seen over the last 10 months gives me any faith in those running things so the only sane course of action is to follow the manufacturer’s directions and give both doses to fewer people.
Kevin 14:24 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
I’m surprised by the number of people with PhDs in vaccine development commenting on this thread.
jeather 15:15 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
Are we sure this change was supported with people with PhDs in vaccine development?
ant6n 18:19 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
If one dose is 50% effective, and the second makes it 90% effective, then one is effectively half as effective as two.
Joey 19:40 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
@ant6n but (correct me if I’m wrong) they didn’t study whether one does is 50% effective in the long term – only until the second dose was administered. We don’t know how long that 50% effectiveness lasts without a second dose. It may be that, six weeks after administration, the effectiveness of one dose alone is 0%.
Kevin 20:52 on 2021-01-06 Permalink
jeather
It is not supported by any that I know, and I know quite a few.
ant6n 06:22 on 2021-01-07 Permalink
@Joey
I think I misunderstood you: I thought you say that the first dose may give you more than 50% protection.
Joey 09:41 on 2021-01-07 Permalink
@ant6n good question – what do we mean when we say the first dose “provices 50% protection”? I think – and again, correct me if I’m wrong, we mean that, compared to the control group, the recipients of the vaccine were were half as likely to get COVID-19 following the first dose. However, because they received the second dose within 28 days, we can’t measure the value of the first dose alone beyond that (since after 28 days there are *no people* who have only received one dose). My concern is that we don’t know how long the benefit of a single-dose vaccine lasts becuase it hasn’t been studied. Hope this is clearer.
david44 15:27 on 2021-01-07 Permalink
I’m constantly amazed by how Julius Grey still gets so much work. Also mildly strange is that every attorney at his firm is a young woman.