WHO experts weigh in on COVID-19 vaccine dose interval

The World Health Organization (WHO) vaccine advisory group today (1/5/2021)
 weighed in with recommendations for delivering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine
, urging the vaccine doses be given 21 to 28 days apart in most circumstanc
es, but in certain situations allowing for an interval of up to 6 weeks.

"Countries experiencing exceptional epidemiological circumstances may consi
der delaying for a short period the administration of the second dose as a  
pragmatic approach to maximizing the number of individuals benefiting from  
a first dose while vaccine supply continues to increase. WHO?s reco
mmendation at present is that the interval between doses may be extended up
 to 42 days (6 weeks), on the basis of currently available clinical trial d
ata. Should additional data become available on longer intervals between do
ses, revision of this recommendation will be considered. Countries should e
nsure that any such programme adjustments to dose intervals do not affect t
he likelihood of receiving the second dose.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-vaccines-SAGE_recomme
ndation-BNT162b2-2021.1

I have upgraded and my old pick and place machine is available.
I am in the St. Louis, MO area, the machine is a Philips CSM84 (made by  
yamaha) in 1995.  It is an old-school machine with centering jaws, but built  
like a tank, and in perfect working condition.  I have 50 assorted feeders  
for it, and some feeder rails from a scrapped machine that you can use to  
make a feeder storage cart or shelf.  It also has a mechanical alignment  
station for large chips and a vibratory feeder for parts in tubes.
It is very easy to program, too.

Any interest?

Jon

I have upgraded and my old pick and place machine is available.
I am in the St. Louis, MO area, the machine is a Philips CSM84 (made by  
yamaha) in 1995.  It is an old-school machine with centering jaws, but built  
like a tank, and in perfect working condition.  I have 50 assorted feeders  
for it, and some feeder rails from a scrapped machine that you can use to  
make a feeder storage cart or shelf.  It also has a mechanical alignment  
station for large chips and a vibratory feeder for parts in tubes.
It is very easy to program, too.

Any interest?

Jon

On 18/01/2021 15:16, Jon Elson wrote:


You might do well to ask on the eevblog forums. Surely someone there  
will want to one-up someone else who has a smaller pick and place  
machine, whether or not they can use it.

Chris Jones wrote:



I have, got a few inquiries, but nobody took it.  That was several months  
ago.  I really want to get it out of here.

Jon

John Doe wrote:


Those are not great pictures, more about the ordeal of getting it in that  
the machine itself.  I can supply better pics if there is interest.

Jon

Jon Elson wrote:



Here are some better pics :

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/philips-csm84-pp-available/

Jon Elson wrote:


Hmm, a message seems to have gone away.

Here are some better pics :
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/philips-csm84-pp-available/

Also, I wanted to mention that this machine could be an excellent base to  
start a retrofit with a modern control and vision.  Since it will come with  
over 50 feeders, you don't need to fool around with mickey-mouse strip  
feeder contraptions.

Jon

On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 11:00:55 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote:


One thing I have learned is that old assembly equipment is pretty much wort
hless just like chair lifts.  If the original owner has no use for it, then
 it is either so out of date as to be not worth the bother of using it, or  
it is worn out enough that it will never work well enough to pay its way.  
  

In any event, why break into a thread that is completely unrelated to post  
this?  The thread is off topic and many who peruse these posts won't even b
other reading an off topic thread.  Why not make a post with a subject of "
For sale:..."?  

That's a polite way of saying, "What the fuck is wrong with you?"  

On 2021/01/17 2:37 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:

d in with recommendations for delivering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, urg
ing the vaccine doses be given 21 to 28 days apart in most circumstances,
 but in certain situations allowing for an interval of up to 6 weeks.

ovid-19-vaccine-dose-interval

onsider delaying for a short period the administration of the second dose
 as a pragmatic approach to maximizing the number of individuals benefiti
ng from a first dose while vaccine supply continues to increase. WHO?
?s recommendation at present is that the interval between doses may be  
extended up to 42 days (6 weeks), on the basis of currently available cli
nical trial data. Should additional data become available on longer inter
vals between doses, revision of this recommendation will be considered. C
ountries should ensure that any such programme adjustments to dose interv
als do not affect the likelihood of receiving the second dose."


Is that an apology for the followup comment you made about my saying  
that Dr. Gottlieb may have a valid point that he was tweeting about?

If so, then apology accepted. See? I am easy to get along with!

John :-#)#

On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 7:26:47 PM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:

d in with recommendations for delivering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, urgin
g the vaccine doses be given 21 to 28 days apart in most circumstances, but
 in certain situations allowing for an interval of up to 6 weeks.  

ovid-19-vaccine-dose-interval

onsider delaying for a short period the administration of the second dose a
s a pragmatic approach to maximizing the number of individuals benefiting f
rom a first dose while vaccine supply continues to increase. WHO?s  
recommendation at present is that the interval between doses may be extende
d up to 42 days (6 weeks), on the basis of currently available clinical tri
al data. Should additional data become available on longer intervals betwee
n doses, revision of this recommendation will be considered. Countries shou
ld ensure that any such programme adjustments to dose intervals do not affe
ct the likelihood of receiving the second dose."  


Not sure, but it does mean the UK plan and proposed US plan do not conform  
with WHO guidelines. Dunno about UK, but US FDA may have problems authorizi
ng any plan deviating from WHO recommendation. And this may be grounds for  
public interest advocates to sue both those governments to hold their wildl
y unscientific plans.

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 11:43:56 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:


m with WHO guidelines. Dunno about UK, but US FDA may have problems authori
zing any plan deviating from WHO recommendation. And this may be grounds fo
r public interest advocates to sue both those governments to hold their wil
dly unscientific plans.

Fred's idea of what "wildly unscientific" means has to be reconciled with h
is somewhat bizarre ideas about what the science is.

Slowing down vaccination because there are discussions about the best inter
val between two shots of vaccine isn't a remotely good idea, and any ration
al court is going to throw out any such frivolous case.

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 8:07:36 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

  

orm with WHO guidelines. Dunno about UK, but US FDA may have problems autho
rizing any plan deviating from WHO recommendation. And this may be grounds  
for public interest advocates to sue both those governments to hold their w
ildly unscientific plans.

 his somewhat bizarre ideas about what the science is.  

erval between two shots of vaccine isn't a remotely good idea, and any rati
onal court is going to throw out any such frivolous case.  

LOL- well that's just it. The plan is not real vaccination, and will most c
ertainly exacerbate the damage because it will produce several hundred mill
ion idiots who will think they are protected and act accordingly which will
 be catastrophic.