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

Russman

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

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

Possibly they could. I just had no idea what way they were packed/used etc. and was thinking if each dose was a single use unit and AZ have several hundred million already made, would these now become "Dose No.2" and would they need to now start making their "Dose No.1" batches.

Hmmzis

This is fantastic news from AZ/Oxford! I think there is no way they will go with the high-high dosage regimen, it's less effective and outright wasteful. The low-high dose regimen is a very obvious approach to take.

My 0.02$ speculation on this dosage effect is that the high initial dose creates too many antibodies and T cells against the vector, diminishing the effect of the second dose. The low dose initially primes the immune system just enough for the second dose to have a substantial boost effect.

Bring on the jabs and sore arms.

WoollyRedHat

Hmmzis wrote: »

This is fantastic news from AZ/Oxford! I think there is no way they will go with the high-high dosage regimen, it's less effective and outright wasteful. The low-high dose regimen is a very obvious approach to take.

My 0.02$ speculation on this dosage effect is that the high initial dose creates too many antibodies and T cells against the vector, diminishing the effect of the second dose. The low dose initially primes the immune system just enough for the second dose to have a substantial boost effect.

Bring on the jabs and sore arms.

Is this common phenomenon with other vaccination programmes?

mountgomery burns

Anyone know what the EU have agreed to purchase from AZ for 2021?

ACitizenErased

mountgomery burns wrote: »

Anyone know what the EU have agreed to purchase from AZ for 2021?

300 million + option for 100 million

plodder

Russman wrote: »

Possibly they could. I just had no idea what way they were packed/used etc. and was thinking if each dose was a single use unit and AZ have several hundred million already made, would these now become "Dose No.2" and would they need to now start making their "Dose No.1" batches.

Apparently, the Pfizer vaccine is distributed in vials with 5 doses in each.

Thierry12

conor_mc wrote: »

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.

Let's be honest and relastic here, the majority of that 20,000 vaccinated and 10,000 placebo did not come into contact with Covid, absolutely they didn't and we have no idea of viral load needes
d to get infected or time

If they did using that 90%

10,000 would be infected in placebo group and 2,000 in vaccinated

We would have seen deaths, hospitalisation the lot in vaccinated then

Until they do challenge trials we should be realistic on those percentages

These trials proves vaccines were safe

CIARAN_BOYLE

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?

It's worth noting that when the Pfizer vaccine study went from 94 infections to 164 the efficacy increased free from 90% to 95%.

Heres hoping they all fail to scale like the Pfizer vaccine.

plodder

Hmmzis wrote: »

This is fantastic news from AZ/Oxford! I think there is no way they will go with the high-high dosage regimen, it's less effective and outright wasteful. The low-high dose regimen is a very obvious approach to take.

My 0.02$ speculation on this dosage effect is that the high initial dose creates too many antibodies and T cells against the vector, diminishing the effect of the second dose. The low dose initially primes the immune system just enough for the second dose to have a substantial boost effect.

Bring on the jabs and sore arms.

Would they not have to repeat the whole phase 3 again with this dosage?

hmmm

Pfizer & Moderna for the high-risk groups, Astra Zeneca and hopefully J&J for everyone else. Job done.

I'm hopeful that AZ have a big vault full of this pre-manufactured - from their press release "it will be affordable and globally available, supplying hundreds of millions of doses on approval.”". And 3 billion doses promised next year.

Russman

hmmm wrote: »

Pfizer & Moderna for the high-risk groups, Astra Zeneca and hopefully J&J for everyone else. Job done.

I'm hopeful that AZ have a big vault full of this pre-manufactured - from their press release "it will be affordable and globally available, supplying hundreds of millions of doses on approval.”". And 3 billion doses promised next year.

It'll be a bit like everyone claiming to be an essential worker, everyone will now claim to be high risk !:D

Thierry12

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It's worth noting that when the Pfizer vaccine study went from 94 infections to 164 the efficacy increased free from 90% to 95%.

Heres hoping they all fail to scale like the Pfizer vaccine.

Hopefully

Ye might think I am trolling because I am a bit negative, but until large scale use I wouldn't be overly gone on percentages

Some of ye have already wrote off Oxford ffs

Its going to Africa

Come on lads

hmmm

https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1330804166537699330

Hmmzis

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Is this common phenomenon with other vaccination programmes?

Viral vector vaccines haven't been used in anger all that much. The only one's ever licensed have been against Ebola. They have been used in other therapies and this effect has been noticed.

The Chinese noticed the same effect with their CanSino Ad5 vectored vaccine where seroconversion to SARS-cov-2 was diminished in recipients who had Ad5 antibodies. The Russians are using two different Ad strains (Ad5 and Ad26) in the prime and boost for this very reason. Another aspect to keep in mind is that the 2nd dose comes just 4 weeks after the 1st, that's near the peak of the immune response for both the target and vector. I'm quite sure that waiting longer between the doses would be far more beneficial regardless of the dose sizes (see latest J&J paper on that, they used 8 weeks between doses with much improved results).

Thierry12

hmmm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1330804166537699330

Nice

Reasoning to the madness

lbj666

Off course our beloved media spear headed by RTE are taking the fatalism disguised as caution approach as usual.. 70% in their headlines, 90% plugged in the UK

Marhay70

It's making me smile this morning, the people disappointed with the 70% efficacy of the AZ vaccine. I remember Anthony Fauci a few months ago saying they were hoping for 50-60% and would be delighted with 70% It's amazing how peoples' expectations can be raised, it's like your team barely avoiding relegation last season and being disappointed when they finish third this season.

Cork2021

FÛCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mitch Connor

lbj666 wrote: »

Off course our beloved media spear headed by RTE are taking the fatalism disguised as caution approach as usual.. 70% in their headlines, 90% plugged in the UK

BBC gave the same headline figure of 70% in their headline.

daydorunrun

Marhay70 wrote: »

It's making me smile this morning, the people disappointed with the 70% efficacy of the AZ vaccine. I remember Anthony Fauci a few months ago saying they were hoping for 50-60% and would be delighted with 70% It's amazing how peoples' expectations can be raised, it's like your team barely avoiding relegation last season and being disappointed when they finish third this season.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Comments in The Journal this morning under the '70%' article about the Oxford Vaccine-

'UK back the wrong horse again':rolleyes:

tobefrank321

Amazing to think 70% efficacy is considered disappointing, and I include myself in that bracket.

You'd wonder who will take up the Oxford vaccine now. Obviously the higher the efficacy the more normality can return. Leaving 30% at risk without knowing which 30% is at risk is the problem.

Hopefully more data will follow. If it turns out the 30% not protected are elderly or with poor immune systems, then the other vaccines should cover them.

Vicxas

If the Oxford one is easier to manufacture and distribute then it theoretically should be used at the start for the masses while the higher efficacy ones are used on the vulnerable.

Cork2021

No push notification from RTÉ either.

Hmmzis

plodder wrote: »

Would they not have to repeat the whole phase 3 again with this dosage?

Nope, they'll just keep going with the current one and get some lab results back to confirm one way or another of why the mixed doses appear to do better.

CIARAN_BOYLE

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Amazing to think 70% efficacy is considered disappointing, and I include myself in that bracket.

You'd wonder who will take up the Oxford vaccine now. Obviously the higher the efficacy the more normality can return. Leaving 30% at risk without knowing which 30% is at risk is the problem.

Hopefully more data will follow. If it turns out the 30% not protected are elderly or with poor immune systems, then the other vaccines should cover them.

Well they have 90% with a different dosing regimen.

The numbers involved there are probably too low to consider worthwhile.

Are going to extend their trial or will they be able to get approval for the promising dose off of this?

Mitch Connor

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Amazing to think 70% efficacy is considered disappointing, and I include myself in that bracket.

You'd wonder who will take up the Oxford vaccine now. Obviously the higher the efficacy the more normality can return. Leaving 30% at risk without knowing which 30% is at risk is the problem.

Hopefully more data will follow. If it turns out the 30% not protected are elderly or with poor immune systems, then the other vaccines should cover them.

The 30% at risk bit needs to be understood better as well.

IIRC on at least one of these vaccine trials they said that no one who was infected (while taking the vaccine) got a severe case or required hopitalisation. If that holds true (and it may not do) then if the vaccine either stops you getting it or reduces the symptoms to such a level that the effect of the infection is low, then in reality I would see it as a total win.

Sure, it doesn't mean it is wiped out - but if it effectively removes the mortality aspect or serious cases then that is what people should have been hoping for in the first place.

tobefrank321

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Well they have 90% with a different dosing regimen.

The numbers involved there are probably too low to consider worthwhile.

Are going to extend their trial or will they be able to get approval for the promising dose off of this?

Sorry yeh, just read that on the BBC website now.

I made the mistake of reading independent.ie first!

CIARAN_BOYLE

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It's worth noting that when the Pfizer vaccine study went from 94 infections to 164 the efficacy increased free from 90% to 95%.

Heres hoping they all fail to scale like the Pfizer vaccine.

If they are using statistical confidence statements to establish these numbers, which they probably are, that suggests for 95% confidence that 3 of 94 initial infections were in the vaccine group and 3 of the 164 final total were in the vaccine group

This is more great news.
Still need all vaccines to get final approval, but it will be wonderful when this happens.
Can really see a path out of this **** then.

Can't wait to burn my masks, congregate in crowds again.

ACitizenErased

The media have latched onto the 70% big time