COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Russman

I suppose if they did just sign it, it would give the “rushed unproven vaccine” crowd even more reason to not take it.

Spanish Eyes

The way I feel about it is, if Pharma like Moderna, Astra and Pfizer want their vaccines to be problematic, it's all over for the shareholders isn't it?

Go for it you people, we need you no matter what. LOL.

scooby77

A bit of light relief. Not surprisingly Trump has announced that "Pfizer and others even decided to not assess the results of their vaccine, in other words not come out with the vaccine, until just after the election.”
(This, after announcing, mistakenly, that his government had funded Pfizer's work. Pfizer didn't join "Warp Speed")

podgeandrodge

It's still possible that the other vaccines, if they catch up, that don't have as much temperature storage issues, could overtake Pfizer if they get approval in the near future no? Could Pfizer end up with a great vaccine that isn't needed, or only needed short term until others arrive?

ACitizenErased

podgeandrodge wrote: »

It's still possible that the other vaccines, if they catch up, that don't have as much temperature storage issues, could overtake Pfizer if they get approval in the near future no? Could Pfizer end up with a great vaccine that isn't needed, or only needed short term until others arrive?

thats what could happen with the oxford vaccine yes. Who's going to say no to a vaccine tho?

Russman

podgeandrodge wrote: »

It's still possible that the other vaccines, if they catch up, that don't have as much temperature storage issues, could overtake Pfizer if they get approval in the near future no? Could Pfizer end up with a great vaccine that isn't needed, or only needed short term until others arrive?

From what I’ve read (mostly on here in fairness), the Pfizer & Moderna ones are much quicker to manufacture than the other candidates.

lbj666

hmmm wrote: »

A week or two of a delay will be better than listening to endless anti-vax youtube videos about how it was not properly reviewed by regulators It's important to be able to say all the safety and regulatory steps were taken to give people confidence.

Exactly ignoring the anti vaxx which i plan to,
Any rush in approvals that could lead to more vacine hesitants the line down then it could prove counterproductive.

Spanish Eyes

Reckon it could be a year or so before the so called "non vulnerable" will have access to the vaccine.

Should be enough time to evaluate the efficacy and side effects.

But hey, the vulnerable will be protected so the rest of us can just do what we want in the meantime, correct?

Professor Moriarty

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Reckon it could be a year or so before the so called "non vulnerable" will have access to the vaccine.

Should be enough time to evaluate the efficacy and side effects.

But hey, the vulnerable will be protected so the rest of us can just do what we want in the meantime, correct?

Because it's only a flu if you're not vulnerable?

Micky 32

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Reckon it could be a year or so before the so called "non vulnerable" will have access to the vaccine.

This must be true? Seeing that some random internet poster claims this? Great to see the experts on here tonight.

Cork2021

So we’re possibly looking at 3 vaccines been given EUA approval in the EU, UK and US.
How many have they each produced so far for distribution?
Pfizer
Moderna
Oxford

lbj666

Germany will be ready to squeze the syringe the second the a vacine is approved. Same EU deal as us....

First question in the press conference tomorrow

"Zara King Virgin Media News .... what is you view on scenes of crowds in cork appearing on social media over the weekend "

Call me Al

hmmm wrote: »

"Trust but verify" as we say. They trust the data they've been given is correct, but their job is to double-check. Apparently applications like this can run into thousands of pages so it takes time even to read it all.

Better to follow everything to the letter, and be able to prove such, than give anti-vaxxers even more of an opportunity to double-down with their negative media.

Deeper Blue

ACitizenErased wrote: »

News circulating that the UK may approve Pfizer's vaccine by Friday. Massive news.

....and our taskforce haven't even met. Jokeshop.

We need to be ready to go the second it's approved for use.

Westernworld.

El Sueño wrote: »

....and our taskforce haven't even met. Jokeshop.

We need to be ready to go the second it's approved for use.

How long before we have vaccines after approval

Mark1916

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635

Covid-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford is 70% effective, large scale trial shows.

Add this into Pfizer and Moderna and we’re seriously getting there. Some people may be disappointed by the 70% but it’s a truly an amazing feat in that timeframe

Intriguingly, the effectiveness rose to 90% in a group of volunteers who were given an initial half dose, followed by a full dose. It's not clear why there is a difference.

Mark1916

Mark1916 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635

Covid-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford is 70% effective, large scale trial shows.

Add this into Pfizer and Moderna and we’re seriously getting there. Some people may be disappointed by the 70% but it’s a truly an amazing feat in that timeframe

Intriguingly, the effectiveness rose to 90% in a group of volunteers who were given an initial half dose, followed by a full dose. It's not clear why there is a difference.

The 70% is figure is an average based off two dosing regimens. The two full dose model only yielded 62%. The half dose followed by a full dose model yielded 90%. Think its a no brainer which will be the preferred option.

One important thing I don't see mentioned in the article. No one who received the vaccine suffered from a severe case or was hospitalised. The AZ vaccine is significantly cheaper than Pfizer or Moderna with no major storage requirements so overall it's great news.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Hardyn wrote: »

The 70% is figure is an average based off two dosing regimens. The two full dose model only yielded 62%. The half dose followed by a full dose model yielded 90%. Think its a no brainer which will be the preferred option.

It's a smaller test group with the half dose full dose approach so it may take a little longer to gather data for approval.

Very promising news that they have something. Even if it's rejected in europe and sold off to India and Africa it's still a positive step.

Westernworld.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Very promising news that they have something. Even if it's rejected in europe and sold off to India and Africa it's still a positive step.

I wouldn't call that positive if it transpired

funnydoggy

Absolute breakthrough for science. Three vaccines a year after it was declared a pandemic.

F*ck yes. Absolutely amazing.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Westernworld. wrote: »

I wouldn't call that positive if it transpired

Considering that many people have spoken about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as being too expensive for some countries the fact that something cheap is showing some level of success is a good thing.

Moderna and Pfizer obviously have the advantages of having 90%+ success with the main dosage tried. Oxford have a sub group with 90% success but would need a lot more testing at that dosage level. It will take a lot of time more for approval.

Russman

Good news indeed !

From an administering point of view, does a half dose/full dose regimen make it logistically harder ?
I’m just wondering if it’s up to the person giving the jab to withdraw X amount into the syringe or if vaccines come in disposable “one and done” vials ? If AZ have millions of doses already made would they be in ready to jab vials and they might need to source smaller vials or would it matter ?

JacksonHeightsOwn

funnydoggy wrote: »

Absolute breakthrough for science. Three vaccines a year after it was declared a pandemic.

F*ck yes. Absolutely amazing.

Possibly one of the greatest scientific marvels in the history of the planet.

Oddly enough, who'd have ever thought convincing the masses to take the vaccine would be actually a tougher job than creating one........

I for one am counting form the days to get it.... :-D

Russman

Presumably this AZ one, if approved, will be the one that’s given to GPs to distribute a la the flu jab.

seamie78

Forgive y ignorance if I am completely wrong. with oxford on board will it make sense to give the pfzier and moderna ones to at risk through vaccination hubs and with it easier to store the oxford one maybe pharmacies could administer the oxford ones to groups less at risk.

WoollyRedHat

Russman wrote: »

Good news indeed !

From an administering point of view, does a half dose/full dose regimen make it logistically harder ?
I’m just wondering if it’s up to the person giving the jab to withdraw X amount into the syringe or if vaccines come in disposable “one and done” vials ? If AZ have millions of doses already made would they be in ready to jab vials and they might need to source smaller vials or would it matter ?

Would they not dispatch in same size vials with different measurements and label accordingly?

Thierry12

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Considering that many people have spoken about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as being too expensive for some countries the fact that something cheap is showing some level of success is a good thing.

Moderna and Pfizer obviously have the advantages of having 90%+ success with the main dosage tried. Oxford have a sub group with 90% success but would need a lot more testing at that dosage level. It will take a lot of time more for approval.

Do we need to relax on these percentages?

70%,90%, 94%

Less than 100 infected people in those trials

Blind trials as well, none of them deliberately infected with the virus in a challenge trial, most statistically never encountered the virus in day to day life.

How can we accurately say those small non challenge trials will scale up linerally to 7.5 billion people and remain 90% efficacious?

conor_mc

Thierry12 wrote: »

Do we need to relax on these percentages?

70%,90%, 94%

Less than 100 infected people in those trials

Blind trials as well, none of them deliberately infected with the virus in a challenge trial, most statistically never encountered the virus in day to day life.

How can we accurately say those small non challenge trials will scale up linerally to 7.5 billion people and remain 90% efficacious?

Statistically it’s the same for both vaccine and placebo groups, most (29,900-odd) did not contract Covid, only 100-odd did. That’s why you have big trial populations and it’s why you have a placebo group.

braychelsea

Thierry12 wrote: »

Do we need to relax on these percentages?

70%,90%, 94%

Less than 100 infected people in those trials

Blind trials as well, none of them deliberately infected with the virus in a challenge trial, most statistically never encountered the virus in day to day life.

How can we accurately say those small non challenge trials will scale up linerally to 7.5 billion people and remain 90% efficacious?

Statistics. Might be a small number but they are statistically significant and can be calculated with 99.999% certainty.

funnydoggy

seamie78 wrote: »

Forgive y ignorance if I am completely wrong. with oxford on board will it make sense to give the pfzier and moderna ones to at risk through vaccination hubs and with it easier to store the oxford one maybe pharmacies could administer the oxford ones to groups less at risk.

I know the woman who gave me my flu jab in Boots on Friday was saying they were happy to help. Could be a good idea!