It's not like healthcare provide and pharmacists aren't busy enough already, now they have to keep track who gets what dose:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-moderna/u-s-may-cut-some-moderna-vaccine-doses-in-half-to-speed-rollout-official-says-idUSKBN2980NW

Also, it's not going to help people's reluctance to take a vaccine if your telling them you're only going to give them half the recommended dose (even if it works or not).

Quote:

---

"We know that for the Moderna vaccine, giving half of the dose to people between the ages of 18 and 55, two doses, half the dose, which means exactly achieving the objective of immunizing double the number of people with the doses we have," Slaoui said.

"We know it induces identical immune response" to the full dose, he added.

---

Que?

Leave it to the government that has completely botched this so far to decide to administer a medicine going against the manufacturers recommendations and all clinical trials. I get this may work, but do we really want to guess at this point?

This.

I think the goal needs to be get as many shots in arms as you can, and eliminate severe covid infections.

Do I get a refund if I already got the first dose with the assumption I'd be getting the second also!?

TexjbA&M said:

---

vaccinating faster vs selective vaccination might be the way to go.

---

It might be. It might not. Do we really want to set president of throwing out the clinical trials and just hoping it works?

Here is a good thread outlining the potential issues.

ETA - this thread is on the Pfizer vaccine, maybe the Moderna one is different WRT science around this? Anyone know?

The clinical trials did calculate efficacy after one dose and it's pretty high.

None of this is optimal, but it's clear that the current strategy has failed. We've got 16 million doses just sitting in storage as we try 50 different ways to prioritize who gets what.

amercer said:

---

The clinical trials did calculate efficacy after one dose and it's pretty high.

None of this is optimal, but it's clear that the current strategy has failed. We've got 16 million doses just sitting in storage as we try 50 different ways to prioritize who gets what.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all those people got the 2nd dose at the proper 21 or 28 day date, so we know how it worked up until the 2nd dose. We have no idea how it did after. Unless we had a control and some only receive the single dose.

What scares me here is immunity is much less with one and the booster is less effective (or ineffective) causing us to need to vaccinate 2x what we'd need.

I completely get the need to get people vaccinated. Frankly, the rollout is awful and an embarrassment. We've had months to plan this. I've been pretty lenient that the feds couldn't have done much to prevent where we're at, but the could have done a much better job here working with the states on a consistent rollout plan with the number one goal being to maximize doses given over all these "fairness" restrictions in place (I'm looking at you Cuomo).

ORAggieFan said:

---

Leave it to the government that has completely botched this so far to decide to administer a medicine going against the manufacturers recommendations and all clinical trials. I get this may work, but do we really want to guess at this point?

---

It doesn't go agaisnt all clinical trials. The phase 1 trial tried 25, 100, and 250. I don't recall if they settled on 100 or 50 in the phase 3, but the 25 dose showed a strong immune response in the phase 1.

Pretty sure Moderna's phase 3 was 100 ug per dose.


They reported the following from their phase 1 trial:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2022483

The new strain has heads of state terrified. The hope is that knowing many more will get sick, hopefully fewer in total will require hospitalization.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Yeah, not sure I agree that this approach is good for a multiple reasons
1) There's no evidence it will work - though it's reasonably likely it will since the Pfizer vaccine is 1/3 the dose of Moderna
2) It's not going to fix the distribution problem we're facing, nor the reluctance for some people to get the vaccine
3) Again, inconsistent messaging from government authorities just leads to more conspiracy theories and mistrust

---

Just curious where this distribution problem exists? I have not heard of any major ditribtuion problems.



Also, I am 43, and I would take the vaccine tomorrow if they would let me.

TexjbA&M said:

---

This. Let's get this thing in Arms ASAP. If splitting hairs over who and how, gets in the way of getting it out there then throw that aside and just vaccinate whoever wants it.

The goal is to stop the spread. If reduced cases and deaths is the goal, vaccinating faster vs selective vaccination might be the way to go.

---

vaccinate whoever wants it should have been the role out plan all along.

Where do you live? I know it takes hours to possibly locate a vaccine in north Texas.
My major healthcare provider (BSW) doesn't have them for patients. We called close to 20 pharmacies who are listed on the DSHS provider map. They are either out, haven't received theirs yet, or have allocated all vaccines.
We got lucky and found a random practice in Mesquite who made an appointment for us for later this week. I hope they actually have it when the day comes.

They should continue rolling out the vaccine with the 2 doses as planned and start another Phase III trial in parallel with a single dose. They should have data for another phase III trial in a little over 2 months, right?

It's the best middle ground in my opinion and you would have solid evidence to move to single doses assuming the trial comes out as expected.

Edit: And once the trial ends, you could just tell those who got the vaccine within the past 28 days not to come back for their second dose, saving additional vaccines and time; Effectively shortening the Phase III trial even further.

Everyone still needs 2 doses. They are suggesting just giving half of the initial amount each time

Or delaying the second dose so more people get the first one sooner.

People over 65 already get double the dose for flu shots. Makes sense a younger person could get half. Might end up needing a 3rd dose later.

agsalaska said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Yeah, not sure I agree that this approach is good for a multiple reasons
1) There's no evidence it will work - though it's reasonably likely it will since the Pfizer vaccine is 1/3 the dose of Moderna
2) It's not going to fix the distribution problem we're facing, nor the reluctance for some people to get the vaccine
3) Again, inconsistent messaging from government authorities just leads to more conspiracy theories and mistrust

---

Just curious where this distribution problem exists? I have not heard of any major ditribtuion problems.



Also, I am 43, and I would take the vaccine tomorrow if they would let me.

---

Maybe I should have said administration problem. What I meant was getting shots into arms. There have been something like 13 million doses distributed, but only 4+ million administered.

The bottleneck right now appears to be in getting enough vaccine to the administration sites and getting people that need it there. In some case demand vastly exceeds supply, in others it's the opposite.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Yeah, not sure I agree that this approach is good for a multiple reasons
1) There's no evidence it will work - though it's reasonably likely it will since the Pfizer vaccine is 1/3 the dose of Moderna
2) It's not going to fix the distribution problem we're facing, nor the reluctance for some people to get the vaccine
3) Again, inconsistent messaging from government authorities just leads to more conspiracy theories and mistrust

---

Just curious where this distribution problem exists? I have not heard of any major ditribtuion problems.



Also, I am 43, and I would take the vaccine tomorrow if they would let me.

---

Maybe I should have said administration problem. What I meant was getting shots into arms. There have been something like 13 million doses distributed, but only 4+ million administered.

The bottleneck right now appears to be in getting enough vaccine to the administration sites and getting people that need it there. In some case demand vastly exceeds supply, in others it's the opposite.

---

In the time frame involved that doesn't really sound like a bottleneck to me. At least considering how unique these circumstances are. It will ramp up quite a bit in the coming weeks.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Everyone still needs 2 doses. They are suggesting just giving half of the initial amount each time

---

OK, so this varies from the UK which I believe is pausing the second Pfizer dose.

Where is Pizer and Modena's input on this? That's great that a bunch of government's are popping off on it, but what is the drug maker's stance on this?

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Yeah, not sure I agree that this approach is good for a multiple reasons
1) There's no evidence it will work - though it's reasonably likely it will since the Pfizer vaccine is 1/3 the dose of Moderna
2) It's not going to fix the distribution problem we're facing, nor the reluctance for some people to get the vaccine
3) Again, inconsistent messaging from government authorities just leads to more conspiracy theories and mistrust

---

Just curious where this distribution problem exists? I have not heard of any major ditribtuion problems.



Also, I am 43, and I would take the vaccine tomorrow if they would let me.

---

Maybe I should have said administration problem. What I meant was getting shots into arms. There have been something like 13 million doses distributed, but only 4+ million administered.

The bottleneck right now appears to be in getting enough vaccine to the administration sites and getting people that need it there. In some case demand vastly exceeds supply, in others it's the opposite.

---

If you pay attention to how these things are counted, there is about a week lag between those two number and they probably aren't as far off as it seems.

Distributed is counted the day it ships out. Figure at least a day travel time. Not sure how much advanced knowledge a site might have, but assume a lot won't be making appointments until it is received. So another day to process the package and get people lined up. Then another 3 days for the site to report to county and county to report to state. And then maybe another day for states to report to feds.

cc_ag92 said:

---

Where do you live? I know it takes hours to possibly locate a vaccine in north Texas.
My major healthcare provider (BSW) doesn't have them for patients. We called close to 20 pharmacies who are listed on the DSHS provider map. They are either out, haven't received theirs yet, or have allocated all vaccines.
We got lucky and found a random practice in Mesquite who made an appointment for us for later this week. I hope they actually have it when the day comes.

---

Bell County

My wife just registered us on the Bell Co website. She is a teacher so she should get it before I do.

mts6175 said:

---

Where is Pizer and Modena's input on this? That's great that a bunch of government's are popping off on it, but what is the drug maker's stance on this?

---

Legally they can't recommend anything other than what the FDA has approved. Since this is an extraordinary situation I would hope that governments are talking to them, but the company hands are very much tied on what they can say publicly.

Only if Bell County set different standards than the state of Texas or if she has an underlying condition. Texas didn't follow the CDC plan.

Nonetheless, I hope your access to a vaccine is simpler than it's been in some parts of the state.

I have hope that they will get this worked out soon. I know it's early.

cc_ag92 said:

---

Only if Bell County set different standards than the state of Texas or if she has an underlying condition. Texas didn't follow the CDC plan.

Nonetheless, I hope your access to a vaccine is simpler than it's been in some parts of the state.

I have hope that they will get this worked out soon. I know it's early.

---

The CDC plan reeks of politicalization. 1b includes old people and frontline essential workers and leaves the not quite as old people with high risks until later and adds "other essential workers". Texas went with 1b including all those with health risks old and less old with risk factors. Medically, those are the people who should be getting it first as it provides maximum reduction of risk of hospitalization and death. The distinction between "front line essential" and "other essential" also seems very political, with teachers and Ag workers in the first group and food service and energy workers in the second group. Why? What makes a teacher more at risk than a waitperson? What makes a rural farmer/rancher more at risk than a roughneck working on a oil rig?

It is all a game of prioritization, and we could argue forever about who should be 1b vs 1c, and everyone will bring different opinions and biases. Should risk of exposure be the deciding factor? Should health risk be deciding factor? CDC went with some combination of both where Texas went more heavily with health risk.

The desire to go half doses seems to be a solution looking for a problem. By all accounts, the vaccinations are trailing the distribution significantly. Some of that is time lag in reporting, but it doesn't seem to be a shortage of vaccine doses, but rather the administering (or possibly an allocation problem).

Cutting the dose would mean more people per vial, but if places are already vaccinating random people outside the prioritization to avoid wasting doses, I'm not sure increasing the doses per vial helps that much other than more random people that happen to be in the right place at the right time get lucky.