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

hmmm

Roger_007 wrote: »

It doesn’t seem to bother any of the celebrity epidemiologists that the error with the Oxford AZ vaccine was made in the manufacturing process. It seems that the quality control was deficient.
I wonder what would have happened if they had manufactured double doses by mistake instead of half doses.).

It was a small number of doses, caught early in the process and part of why trials are conducted. The lack of side effects in the group getting the half dose was noticed and investigated. The error was then reported to regulators, who agreed with AZ that they could continue with the half/full dose regime because of the unexpectedly good results.

"Dead in the water" - you're having a laugh. Even at 70% with no evidence of severe disease it is good news, and if they can get it up towards 90% even better. Plus it is being sold at cost, and will be the vaccine of choice for those countries who can't afford the mRNA vaccines. I'd take the vaccine tomorrow if it was offered.

stephenjmcd

Roger_007 wrote: »

It doesn’t seem to bother any of the celebrity epidemiologists that the error with the Oxford AZ vaccine was made in the manufacturing process. It seems that the quality control was deficient.
I wonder what would have happened if they had manufactured double doses by mistake instead of half doses.
Given the scale of manufacturing that is going to be required, it would not inspire confidence that the quality control is up to spec.
Even at this early I would guess that the Oxford AZ vaccine is dead in the water, (lower efficacy and dodgy manufacturing = loss of confidence).

Dead in the water.... give us a break. A 70% effective vaccine would have been praised a month ago.

There currently isn't anything impending EMA or UKMA approval that's cropped up. It was submitted to the UKMA to start the approval process today. Regulators were made aware of the half dose full dose error previously and trials were allowed to continue.

A best guess would be AZ/Oxford is perfectly acceptable to vaccinate those not classed as vulnerable, takes a bit of pressure off on the Pfizer & Moderna supply demands in that case.

The new study is to tick a box on FDA requirements only.

ixoy

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Yes it doesn't look great for them. The higher the efficacy the sooner life returns to normality, travel, hospitality, retail opening up, etc. The lower the efficacy the longer all that takes.

70% is great and it looks like it could be a lot higher. Coupled with lower costs and easier transport logistics, how does it not look great?

Roger_007

hmmm wrote: »

It was a small number of doses, caught early in the process and part of why trials are conducted. The lack of side effects in the group getting the half dose was noticed and investigated. The error was then reported to regulators, who agreed with AZ that they could continue with the half/full dose regime because of the unexpectedly good results.

"Dead in the water" - you're having a laugh. Even at 70% with no evidence of severe disease it is good news, and if they can get it up towards 90% even better. Plus it is being sold at cost, and will be the vaccine of choice for those countries who can't afford the mRNA vaccines. I'd take the vaccine tomorrow if it was offered.

Public confidence is the key here. The perception will be that the OxAZ vaccine is deficient compared to the others. Nobody will opt for it. If you are going to the trouble of being vaccinated, you will want the best one on the market. AZ are already down on the stock markets.

AdamD

Roger_007 wrote: »

Public confidence is the key here. The perception will be that the OxAZ vaccine is deficient compared to the others. Nobody will opt for it. If you are going to the trouble of being vaccinated, you will want the best one on the market. AZ are already down on the stock markets.

Mate you aren't going to get a choice in what vaccination you're given..

hmmm

Roger_007 wrote: »

Public confidence is the key here. The perception will be that the OxAZ vaccine is deficient compared to the others.

The only person giving that perception (deliberately) is yourself. Regulators will scrutinise the data to see if they have any concerns.

Micky 32

El Sueño wrote: »

Is there some news out there today that I'm not hearing??

Dead in the water? Come on

More like wishful thinking or someone has a shiney crystal ball.

Roger_007

AdamD wrote: »

Mate you aren't going to get a choice in what vaccination you're given..

Of course everyone will have a choice. Either they get the vaccine they want or they opt not to be vaccinated at all.
Given that the chances of anyone in reasonable health becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid are vanishingly small anyway, why bother with a second rate vaccine?

Icantthinkof1

I have what is probably a very stupid question but I’ll ask it anyways....
If someone gets vaccinated I know they are protected against the virus to some degree but does it stop the person vaccinated passing Covid onto someone who is not vaccinated?
Like say for eg my mum gets the covid vaccination could I be in close contact with her and not get it?

Irish Stones

AdamD wrote: »

Mate you aren't going to get a choice in what vaccination you're given..

We're not?

Deep Thought

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

I have what is probably a very stupid question but I’ll ask it anyways....
If someone gets vaccinated I know they are protected against the virus to some degree but does it stop the person vaccinated passing Covid onto someone who is not vaccinated?
Like say for eg my mum gets the covid vaccination could I be in close contact with her and not get it?

No, that’s what why need as many as possible vaccinated, and if nothing else than to protect us from the anti vaccine gob****es who won’t take it

dominatinMC

Irish Stones wrote: »

I think that masks will be a part of our life for many years more. Along with distances and other measures, like staggered people in the shops and long queue at services.

I don't have problems with distancing, because I've never been a social animal, I am better off with few people around me.

But I have already give in to the idea that travelling abroad as I used to do will be a thing of the past, and it is more than likely that I won't ever be able to visit Ireland, which has been my holiday destination for the past 25 years, again.

As for me, as long as shops will keep this one-person-at-the-time rule, they will never get a cent from me.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.

Reading through the thread and abrupty stopped at this. Are you purposely trolling or what? What the **** is the point in everyone taking the vaccine if things don't return to normal?! Look at what a lot of experts are saying - a gradual return to normality next year, possible full normality end of 2021/2022. Of course, there will be some behavioural changes, mostly minor, but distancing still in place? Come off it, that single measure is costing governments billions!

Icantthinkof1

Deep Thought wrote: »

No, that’s what why need as many as possible vaccinated, and if nothing else than to protect us from the anti vaccine gob****es who won’t take it

It was wishful thinking on my part so.
I am high risk and working in the healthcare sector however I don’t work for the HSE so I don’t think I would be one of the 1st to be offered the vaccine.
My mum is elderly and high risk so I think (hope) she would be offered it before me and I was hoping I would have been able to see her then but I will have to hold on and wait a little bit longer until that can happen

stephenjmcd

Roger_007 wrote: »

Of course everyone will have a choice. Either they get the vaccine they want or they opt not to be vaccinated at all.
Given that the chances of anyone in reasonable health becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid are vanishingly small anyway, why bother with a second rate vaccine?

You aren't getting any choice on which vaccine is assigned to you. That'll be a clinical decision. You can't walk in a select which one you want.

Irish Stones

dominatinMC wrote: »

Reading through the thread and abrupty stopped at this. Are you purposely trolling or what? What the **** is the point in everyone taking the vaccine if things don't return to normal?! Look at what a lot of experts are saying - a gradual return to normality next year, possible full normality end of 2021/2022.

I would like to be in March 2022 now and see who's right.
I am not that sure that things will go back to normal is such a short time. Mainly because I don't see how a huge majority of the world population is going to be vaccinated within 12 months or less.
In my country (Italy), for instance, according to the government's plan for vaccination, it should take nearly 2 years to give the vaccine to the *whole population*. The current plan is of 300k per week. In a year we would be only halfway through that plan.

I can't imagine what might happen if something goes wrong along the path.
So, no, I don't see anything that resembles normal in 12 months.

Of course, there will be some behavioural changes, mostly minor, but distancing still in place? Come off it, that single measure is costing governments billions!

Distancing is probably the less expensive measure in place.

Deeper Blue

Countries won't need to vaccinate the entire population to get things back to normal

Irish Stones

El Sueño wrote: »

Countries won't need to vaccinate the entire population to get things back to normal

OK, but a very good part of the population must get the vaccine in order to have it effective.
Say what, 70% of the population? We're talking about 60-65% of efficacy?

dominatinMC

Irish Stones wrote: »

I would like to be in March 2022 now and see who's right.

So it's your opinion vs. the likes of Sir John Bell (Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, suggested life could be back to normal by spring) or Ugur Sahin (and I quote directly "I'm confident that...we could have a normal winter next year").


Okay then :rolleyes: Wallow in the negativity all you want, but the rest of us will trust these people.

Micky 32

dominatinMC wrote: »

So it's your opinion vs. the likes of Sir John Bell (Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, suggested life could be back to normal by spring) or Ugur Sahin (and I quote directly "I'm confident that...we could have a normal winter next year").


Okay then :rolleyes: Wallow in the negativity all you want, but the rest of us will trust these people.

These days i just ignore all the doom and gloom nonsense posts. I’m quite confident a lot a normality will return this coming year.

Irish Stones

dominatinMC wrote: »

So it's your opinion vs. the likes of Sir John Bell (Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, suggested life could be back to normal by spring) or Ugur Sahin (and I quote directly "I'm confident that...we could have a normal winter next year").


Okay then :rolleyes: Wallow in the negativity all you want, but the rest of us will trust these people.

We also have professors in my country, believe it or not, and one of them, in a TV interview, stated that the vaccines currently under the phase of approval might not be safe, and he publicly said that he's not going to take any of them.
Unfortunately, he's the most regarged virologist in this country, he has a remarkable experience in this field and was taken as an example at the beginning of the pandemic even in other parts of the planet, and chances are that most of us will follow his example, leading to a non completed plan of vaccinations within the year, unless something safer (in his highly regarded opinion) comes up later in 2021.

tobefrank321

ixoy wrote: »

70% is great and it looks like it could be a lot higher. Coupled with lower costs and easier transport logistics, how does it not look great?

70% effective. Even if it reached a 70% takeup by a certain date, say May 1st, which would be pretty decent, you're looking at only 49% coverage. Realistically you need 60% minimum for successful herd immunity and likely higher.

Even with 80% takeup, you are still only at 56% coverage. You're stuck with restrictions.

Taking a 90% effective vaccine over a 70% vaccine for the elderly regardless of cost or logistics is an absolute no brainer.

CIARAN_BOYLE

tobefrank321 wrote: »

70% effective. Even if it reached a 70% takeup by a certain date, say May 1st, which would be pretty decent, you're looking at only 49% coverage. Realistically you need 60% minimum for successful herd immunity and likely higher.

Even with 80% takeup, you are still only at 56% coverage. You're stuck with restrictions.

Taking a 90% effective vaccine over a 70% vaccine regardless of cost or logistics is an absolute no brainer.

Restrictions will ease the more people get vaccinated.

Utilising all manufacturing capacity to get people vaccinated sooner makes sense imo.

So let's day in 6 months time we have 25% vaccinated with 90% effective vaccines and 50% vaccinated with 70% effective vaccines we are ahead of just having 25% vaccinated with the 90% effective vaccines.

Aren't we?

tobefrank321

Roger_007 wrote: »

Public confidence is the key here. The perception will be that the OxAZ vaccine is deficient compared to the others. Nobody will opt for it. If you are going to the trouble of being vaccinated, you will want the best one on the market. AZ are already down on the stock markets.

Ignore the others, your point is perfectly valid. There's a lot of noise on this thread, from people pretending to be scientifically trained.

A 70% vaccine is no good to an elderly person because they cannot be certain with a high degree of confidence they are actually protected. And this means they cannot be certain they won't be infected at some stage which in turns means they will live in doubt.

A 90% effective gives far more confidence and peace of mind to the elderly.

I hope our government and HSE aren't stupid enough to opt for a 70% vaccine over a 90 or 95% one to vaccinate the elderly.

Sconsey

Roger_007 wrote: »

Of course everyone will have a choice. Either they get the vaccine they want or they opt not to be vaccinated at all.
Given that the chances of anyone in reasonable health becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid are vanishingly small anyway, why bother with a second rate vaccine?

You're right, it's all about those healthy people, as long as they are ok then balls to everyone else.

I hope you won't be one of the people moaning about endless restrictions as the pandemic drags on into the future because the 'reasonably healthy' are too selfish to get vaccinated.

funnydoggy

Irish Stones wrote: »

We also have professors in my country, believe it or not, and one of them, in a TV interview, stated that the vaccines currently under the phase of approval might not be safe, and he publicly said that he's not going to take any of them.
Unfortunately, he's the most regarged virologist in this country, he has a remarkable experience in this field and was taken as an example at the beginning of the pandemic even in other parts of the planet, and chances are that most of us will follow his example, leading to a non completed plan of vaccinations within the year, unless something safer (in his highly regarded opinion) comes up later in 2021.

He shouldn't be on TV spouting this nonsense.

Hmmzis

tobefrank321 wrote: »

70% effective. Even if it reached a 70% takeup by a certain date, say May 1st, which would be pretty decent, you're looking at only 49% coverage. Realistically you need 60% minimum for successful herd immunity and likely higher.

Even with 80% takeup, you are still only at 56% coverage. You're stuck with restrictions.

Taking a 90% effective vaccine over a 70% vaccine for the elderly regardless of cost or logistics is an absolute no brainer.

It's not quite so binary. While the symptomatic disease prevention outcome is the reported efficacy, there are other endpoints that come into play.

You are completely correct if the end goal would be to prevent symptomatic disease. With a 70% effective vaccine and 70% uptake, there will be still plenty of symptomatic cases around.

Next is the hospitalizations endpoint. So far we have none in the Moderna and Oxford trials and one case in the Pfizer/BNT trial. This is regardless of the primary endpoint efficacy. If we pool all the hospitalizations together form the placebo groups, we get statistical significance I think. Wide margins, but it looks like the vaccines reduce hospitalizations and therefore deaths. This is important as it reduces chances of a vaccinated person being hospitalized even if the vaccine didn't prevent symptomatic disease.

The secondary No 1 endpoint is the asymptomatic case reduction. This was only actively checked in the Oxford trial in the UK. They noticed reduced incidence of asymptomatic cases in the vaccine arm(s). With the 95% primary efficacy in Monderna's and Pfizer's trials it would be incredibly strange if those vaccines didn't do even better here. This is important as well as it lowers the overall transmission rate from people who might be infected but not showing any symptoms.

If you take that together even a 60-70% effective vaccine, as defined by symptomatic disease, can have an enormous impact on the overall transmission of the virus and the healthcare system burden.

tobefrank321

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Restrictions will ease the more people get vaccinated.

Utilising all manufacturing capacity to get people vaccinated sooner makes sense imo.

So let's day in 6 months time we have 25% vaccinated with 90% effective vaccines and 50% vaccinated with 70% effective vaccines we are ahead of just having 25% vaccinated with the 90% effective vaccines.

Aren't we?

25 x 90 = 22.5% coverage
50 x 70 = 35% coverage

That's 57.5% coverage which is still not enough.

I'm not sure what the full rollout schedule is, but honestly we are better to get the 90 or 95% vaccine and be done with and over, the sooner the better.

Messing around with 70% vaccines would be a bit daft. The 70% vaccine would be great if it was the only vaccine on the market, but its not and that is the key point some people are missing.

tobefrank321

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Ignore the others, your point is perfectly valid. There's a lot of noise on this thread, from people pretending to be scientifically trained.

A 70% vaccine is no good to an elderly person because they cannot be certain with a high degree of confidence they are actually protected. And this means they cannot be certain they won't be infected at some stage which in turns means they will live in doubt.

A 90% effective gives far more confidence and peace of mind to the elderly.

I hope our government and HSE aren't stupid enough to opt for a 70% vaccine over a 90 or 95% one to vaccinate the elderly.

I think the Astra Zeneca results have changed the logistics, ideally we should be giving any doses of Pfizer or Moderna we get to the most at risk/vulnerable. So over 65s, very high risk and high risk healthcare workers. That's up to 900,000 people.

Everybody else should get access on a modified priority list to the doses of Astra Zeneca as they come available. So you'd effectively have to operate 2 separate priority lists. Problem is you might get the less effective vaccine to lower risk people ahead of getting the better vaccine to some of the people in risk groups depending on supply.

Irish Stones

funnydoggy wrote: »

He shouldn't be on TV spouting this nonsense.

Why not? His opinion is worth a lot, given his importance in the control and tracing of the pandemic in this country.
He had been praised when back in March he was able to do miracles and his peers said he was the best we had, and now he's been dumped by his peers for his opinion.
It seems that as long as you comform with the thought of the majority, all is well and you're a hero, and as soon as you say something out of the common thought, you lose your value.

Deeper Blue

Irish Stones wrote: »

We also have professors in my country, believe it or not, and one of them, in a TV interview, stated that the vaccines currently under the phase of approval might not be safe, and he publicly said that he's not going to take any of them.

Well the last time you quoted one of these professors he said there'd be no vaccine until 2023. About two hours later Pfizer made their announcement so forgive me if I don't pay any heed to the people you're quoting.