It is the current argument for further doses - that the antibody level will drop with time. It becomes a different argument for me if we are talking about a modified vaccine capable of giving greater protection against currently circulatiing variants. The risk/reward though of just dosing everyone with more of the same changes according to current protection (antibody levels) and known side effects. This is the current argument against vaccinating children - you might kill the odd one with the vaccine and so far the risk of serious illness in children doesn't warrant that risk.

I've seen it suggested that those who have been infected with the disease could maybe get away with just one dose. The real world figures I've seen do suggest (scream) that's the case. What I can't find anywhere is a number for the level of antibodies considered worthwhile protection. Of course the anonymised tables of figures from the lab are a vanishingly small study as they only consist of those who have paid for tests. That in itself may mean a bias one way or another. I'd also love to understand if measurable antibody levels are what matters long term. There are jabs we get or diseases we've had which confer long term protection, some supposedly for life. Is my blood still rife with measurable levels of all of those?

Absolutely. The lab I use provides figures along with your individual results which shows numbers of people tested against antibody numbers. This is how I know I have not had the virus and that I was at the low end of +ve after a first jab. Antibody levels are stratospheric for those who have had the virus.

This is something I wish I could get more hard info on. Nowhere can I find info such as 'after X months protection has waned by Y%'. Does such information exist or are governments working on the idea that it's a good idea to just keep shoving more of the same into people because they have it sitting spare?

Problem is we'll be playing catch up with variants. By the time they manage to modify a vaccine for a current variant another will have taken over as the dominant strain. With flu vaccine they pick the one each year which they consider most likely to be effective against a predicted strain. We're a long way off being there with Covid jabs yet.

Minus your costs of raising them to eight weeks of course. Are you a registered dog breeder, do this as a living? If so, and you can show that the lost pups would more than likely have lived/thrived then I can see why you'd be looking at a case for loss of income. If you're an enthusiast/hobby breeder then I'm not sure you'd have the same argument. Whichever, it would be an uphill struggle. Sue a vet and your defendant is an expert witness. It isn't impossible but you do need a strong case.

I know you're in shock and very upset. I would be too and for the moment I wouldn't rush anything. I'd say if you can leave it at the £500 without much further argument then you are probably doing as well as you're going to. If there's one phrase which drives me up the wall at the moment it's 'due to covid...' but it will be the excuse. Under normal circumstances a breeder would stay during a c-section, if only in the waiting room, and take mum and pups home asap. Unfortunately that just isn't how it happens at present. Honestly I'd give yourself time and say as little as possible if the vet phones you. Just say you're still very upset and not fit to discuss it. Get your complaint in writing and send it in but don't rush it. Is there a reason this was a booked section? Is it a breed which has difficulty whelping?

I did the one test around four weeks post 2nd vax and that's the one where levels had gone up by 100x. They aren't joking when they say how important it is to get that second dose. What I can't know is how important the interval is, if at all. Mine was twelve weeks and they're now running at eight weeks I believe. I did two tests after the first jab, one four weeks after and one just before the second. My levels had doubled in those eight weeks. I can't say if they were static, still rising or falling at that point. Much as I'd love to know of further change I'm holding back until there's reason to spend more money. If there's a drive to pump more of the same vaccine into us in the autumn I'll probably check again to decide if I want/need to.

I agree with you that this wasn't an adequate standard of care. Out of interest was it OOH? Had they scanned and knew (roughly) how many pups they were going to have to deal with? I know these questions don't seem relevant to what happened but it does all help with the overall picture of care and competence.

It's always been this way. All anyone has to say is that they're 'exempt' and that's the end of it. Can't question them, can't ask them to prove it. You don't even need anything to get an official looking badge or lanyard other than just asking for it or buying one off Amazon.

I know but I got the AZ which did not fill me with confidence

Nothing more than curiousity (worry) prompted by my complete lack of any reaction to the vaccine. At the time the media, including any doctor who could get on tv, were really pushing the idea that side effects meant protection.

Absolutely which is why I can be pretty sure I never had the virus - my first test post first jab would not have returned such a low result if I had. There is no LFT for antibodies HB, only to give a preliminary result for current infection. To check antibody levels I have to stick myself and fill a vial with blood to send off to a lab.

It's the Roche test HB. A fairly blunt instrument in that it gives nothing more than current antibody levels. It doesn't give any indication of priming T cells which could be far more important for long term protection.

I have all sorts of questions round that. Do we need to have measurable levels of antibodies to mount a response if we've primed the system with two doses? Tailoring booster vaccines to deal with dangerous variants is a very different thing from just shoving more of the same into everyone. I believe Pfizer claims it is producing a booster against current variants but couldn't that be redundant as soon as it's available?

Should add - the interval between jabs for me was twelve weeks and that seems reasonable considering how my numbers doubled in that time. It seems counter intuitive to hold back second doses for at least eight weeks but timing could be crucial looking at my results.

Firstly I'll make the point that it isn't immunity, it's protection from severe disease. Maybe we should be managing expectations by not using the term immunity - again probably down to the media. How long it lasts? As the nerd who is tracking her own levels, I'll keep you informed. So far, Four weeks after my first jab of AZ I showed as +ve for antibodies at the low(ish) end. A couple of days before my second that figure had doubled. Four weeks after my second dose my antibody level had increased to over 100 times the previous test.

The removal of legal requirement to wear face coverings is a good example of the way anything to do with Covid is viewed and reported in extremes. You’d think we were about to go from 100% to zero overnight. We’re not. Many never did because they don’t have to. Many will carry on wearing one sometimes and plenty will continue on as we’ve been. Some will continue wearing face coverings over and above what’s been required. The headlines of course are shouting that scrapping masks will mean we’re all doomed and I don’t think they’re necessary or helpful.

It isn’t so much a digital will or won’t continue to wear one, at least not for me. It’s a case of being able to remove a mask legally for periods on a longer journey or not having to put one on to take the few steps from table to door when leaving a near empty restaurant. It doen’t have to be all or nothing.

I plan on doing so soon. Comfortable? I will obviously be more aware of risk than before. Will I continue to wear a mask? Maybe. Probably. Might depend on length of journey. Fifteen minutes on the tube, yes. Ninety minutes on a longer train journey, probably not. Knowing my antibody levels does affect my attitude. If I did not have this information I would probably be more worried.

More deadly matters very much if that means vaccines are rendered useless. More transmissable is not necessarily the same concern. Measuring the efficacy of a vaccine against rate of infection only doesn't give a true picture if the vaccine is still giving adequate protection from severe disease - as appears to be the case so far in Israel from what I've read. I'm not trying to argue that we're out of the woods and all is fine. I do though think it's time for the media to stop using soundbites from 'experts' to make headlines.

It's a sixth of the life years lost to Covid when Covid was a new virus sweeping the planet with little effective treatment and no vaccine. I completely accept that. Going forward that is unlikely to continue to be the case. That figure is roughly what we had last year isn't it in a completely unvaccinated population?

I said accepted, not acceptable. I don't know offhand what the flu death rate is but it's in the thousands most years isn't it?

Allowing people to mix at all is building variant factories. They're going to be with us for evermore. We live with them for flu - that's not the same as saying Covid is the same as flu btw. We tailor vaccines year on year which work for the majority and we have an accepted death rate. I can't see how living with Covid can be any different.

Did you need access via your neighbour's land prior to constructing the conservatory or did you assume she would sunsequently have to limit what she did on her property to accommodate you?