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

stephenjmcd wrote: »

So could be looking at if the Oxford vaccine mitigates against the serious affects of covid being given it, say it lasts for 1-2 years, getting everything back to mostly normal and then down the road being given the J&J vaccine as your booster per say

I don't think it's ideal, but the impression I get is that something like this is a likely scenario. A vaccination that buys us time, and either a booster a year or two later for extended protection or another vaccination entirely from someone like J&J or Merck.

There's also the possibility that some of the front-leading vaccine candidates don't do well in trials. J&J are now moving pretty aggressively, and have spent a lot of time on the research phase getting the target right.

stephenjmcd

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think it's ideal, but the impression I get is that something like this is a likely scenario. A vaccination that buys us time, and either a booster a year or two later for extended protection or another vaccination entirely from someone like J&J or Merck.

There's also the possibility that some of the front-leading vaccine candidates don't do well in trials. J&J are now moving pretty aggressively, and have spent a lot of time on the research phase.

Yeah not ideal but it would be an acceptable stop gap I feel. Gives more time to R&D also.

Noticed that with J&J while others were looking to power through the phases they've got much slower with the research.

is_that_so

This link summarises the status of a few of the other potential candidates including the ones mentioned in the last few pages.

https://indianexpress.com/article/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-oxford-moderna-imperial-college-curevac-status-check-6461648/

The whole inactivated versions, like Sinovac, could also provide better and longer protection than ChAdOx, as those simply provide more targets for the immune system to use.

When it comes to boosting an existing vaccine, then anything goes really, mRNA, DNA, whole inactivated, VLP, etc. As long as it forces the immune system to respond at all. The only problematic ones could be the viral vectors as the immune system will develop antibodies against it as well, greatly reducing the response to the intended S proteins.

"Over-50s are to be given priority for a coronavirus vaccine when it becomes available, along with key workers in the health and social care sectors and those with heart and kidney disease, health secretary Matt Hancock has said."

Amazing work by the scientists here:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.17.157982v1.full.pdf+html

They developed a model to produce all possible RBD mutations at the amino acid level and then tested affinity and expression on all of them against ACE2.

That then gave them a map of all the parts in the RBD that can change without affecting its function and more importantly all the parts that it can't change without losing affinity or expression, or both.

Good news is that most of those restricted mutation sites are already targeted by antibodies human immune systems make.
Also good news is that it already has almost as high affnity as it can practically get. The vast majority of mutations available are deleterious for it.
Bad news is that we have one nasty infectious f*&#%r to deal with right now.

The really exciting find, in my laymans opinion, is the site indicated as not able to mutate, but no known antibody is targeting it (Figure 7C). The questions from this are:

1. Why is the immune system not targetting it?
2. Can we create a mAB that targets it and test it out in a lab?
3. If effective, can we design a vaccine in a way that the immune system does produce an antibody type for that area as well?

sunbabe08

Wondering when this vaccine does come in any one know if diabetics abd cancer patients will be first in line along with health care workers??

FutureTeashock

sunbabe08 wrote: »

Wondering when this vaccine does come in any one know if diabetics abd cancer patients will be first in line along with health care workers??

I selected "no" but didn't notice the "I won't be taking any Covid vaccine ever" option, can one of the mods please correct the statistics. Thanks.

[Deleted User]

The Irish government bought a swine flu vaccine that was not licensed for use in the USA. And as a result the same drug destroyed peoples lives in Ireland.

I'm just delighted your taste buds are bursting for a jab of this rushed drug de jour! only about 40% of the applauded front line workers get the seasonal flu Jab despite the campaigns of the HSE, why is that???? what do they know that you and I dont. All this talk of HOPE and B cels and T cell uptake is laughable to be honest, don't ask me , read it for yourself.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/revealed-children-got-double-dose-of-narcolepsy-jab-37191291.html

https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hse-misled-public-on-swine-flu-vaccine-claims-teen-with-narcolepsy-xtbblvmdb

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html

rusty cole wrote: »

The Irish government bought a swine flu vaccine that was not licensed for use in the USA. And as a result the same drug destroyed peoples lives in Ireland.

I'm just delighted your taste buds are bursting for a jab of this rushed drug de jour! only about 40% of the applauded front line workers get the seasonal flu Jab despite the campaigns of the HSE, why is that???? what do they know that you and I dont. All this talk of HOPE and B cels and T cell uptake is laughable to be honest, don't ask me , read it for yourself.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/revealed-children-got-double-dose-of-narcolepsy-jab-37191291.html

https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hse-misled-public-on-swine-flu-vaccine-claims-teen-with-narcolepsy-xtbblvmdb

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html

Right so then take your chances with covid. I can assure you your odds of suffering ill effects from the vaccine are much lower than your chance of dying of covid. I'd assume the low uptake of seasonal flu vaccines by hse staff is more down to them not feeling it's necessary rather than some grand conspiracy. Please reconsider for your own wellbeing.

FutureTeashock

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Right so then take your chances with covid. I can assure you your odds of suffering ill effects from the vaccine are much lower than your chance of dying of covid. I'd assume the low uptake of seasonal flu vaccines by hse staff is more down to them not feeling it's necessary rather than some grand conspiracy. Please reconsider for your own wellbeing.

The approximate mortality rate is 0.26%, so I'll take my chances with Covid over a rushed, improperly tested vaccine that alters my DNA. Thank you very much.:o

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/05/fact-check-cdc-estimates-covid-19-death-rate-0-26/5269331002/

Stark

FutureTeashock wrote: »

The approximate mortality rate is 0.26%, so I'll take my chances with Covid over a rushed, improperly tested vaccine that alters my DNA. Thank you very much.:o

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/05/fact-check-cdc-estimates-covid-19-death-rate-0-26/5269331002/

Our ruling: Partly false

Did you even bother to read what you just linked!?

FutureTeashock

Stark wrote: »

Did you even bother to read what you just linked!?

Did you?

" It is true that the CDC has reported the possibility of a 0.2% death rate for the coronavirus."

Whatever the exact rate is, it's ridiculously low.

They can shove their experimental DNA vaccine!

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Did you?

" It is true that the CDC has reported the possibility of a 0.2% death rate for the coronavirus."

Whatever the exact rate is, it's ridiculously low.

They can shove their experimental DNA vaccine!

Killing you isn't the worst thing covid can do. It can **** up your lungs, it can take people months to fully bounce back. Now the odds are slim depends on your age, health and weight etc but why take the risk?

rusty cole wrote: »

The Irish government bought a swine flu vaccine that was not licensed for use in the USA. And as a result the same drug destroyed peoples lives in Ireland.

I'm just delighted your taste buds are bursting for a jab of this rushed drug de jour! only about 40% of the applauded front line workers get the seasonal flu Jab despite the campaigns of the HSE, why is that???? what do they know that you and I dont. All this talk of HOPE and B cels and T cell uptake is laughable to be honest, don't ask me , read it for yourself.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/revealed-children-got-double-dose-of-narcolepsy-jab-37191291.html

https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hse-misled-public-on-swine-flu-vaccine-claims-teen-with-narcolepsy-xtbblvmdb

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html

So it was the adjuvant. Good to know the SARS-cov-2 candidates are using better known ones, like alum (in use for 80 odd years). Viral vector types don't need one at all as the vector provides enough inflammation for the humoral immune system to react.

Have a read here, it's well explained why the ASO3 adjuvant caused the increased incidence of narcolepsy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413474/

Even then, the odds of 1:18400 for such a side effect and the average odds of 1:200 for death due to SARS-cov-2 infection would indicate vastly better outcomes for the vaccinated people.

As some have already alluded, even in this humble forum, genetics are looking to be playing a notable role in disease severity.

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/06/18/genes-blood-type-tied-to-covid-19-risk-of-severe-disease/

[Deleted User]

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Killing you isn't the worst thing covid can do. It can **** up your lungs, it can take people months to fully bounce back. Now the odds are slim depends on your age, health and weight etc but why take the risk?

You see now the number don't add up, it;s very difficult to sell a vaccine so you need to use the hypothetical. Now you sell the fear of long term damage, it's laughable. Boris Johnson was on his death bed by all accounts, a 55 yrs old obese man, 4 weeks later he's jogging through London. You do know there's such thing as an UNDIAGNOSED UNDERLYING ISSUE, for example heart attacks from SADS.. I suppose if that happens and the victim tests positive for covid in the morgue, that's a heart attack consistent with Covid-19 yes??
or somoene has end stage Aids and they get Pneumonia and then also test positive for Covid-19, that the same?

Yeah big pharma have your interests at heart, so have big business. Getting Pharma companies to even publish their clinical trials is a Gordian knot in itself. take it in the arm and let us know how you get on,

[Deleted User]

Hmmzis wrote: »

So it was the adjuvant. Good to know the SARS-cov-2 candidates are using better known ones, like alum (in use for 80 odd years). Viral vector types don't need one at all as the vector provides enough inflammation for the humoral immune system to react.

Have a read here, it's well explained why the ASO3 adjuvant caused the increased incidence of narcolepsy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413474/

Even then, the odds of 1:18400 for such a side effect and the average odds of 1:200 for death due to SARS-cov-2 infection would indicate vastly better outcomes for the vaccinated people.

All that grey matter and you miss the whole point..The HSE had a choice to buy A drug with infinitesimal chance of developing Narcolepsy. They chose a less expensive version with an ingredient that increased the odds ten fold.
They received fair warning from the Nordic studies and YET they use it and signed an indemnity with the manufacturer for a drug that's not approved by the government in that same manufacturers jurisdiction.

oh and on the payouts??? Big Pharma don't pay out...WE the Irish TAX Payer do!

rusty cole wrote: »

All that grey matter and you miss the whole point..The HSE had a choice to buy A drug with infinitesimal chance of developing Narcolepsy. They chose a less expensive version with an ingredient that increased the odds ten fold.
They received fair warning from the Nordic studies and YET they use it and signed an indemnity with the manufacturer for a drug that's not approved by the government in that same manufacturers jurisdiction.

oh and on the payouts??? Big Pharma don't pay out...WE the Irish TAX Payer do!

Thanks for stating your argument, but given the current data for SARS-cov-2 vaccines there is no reason to think your concerns have a valid base.

ChAdOx - pre-purchased by EU, 400 million doses (hence the one Ireland would be getting as well). Uses a viral vector, no adjuvant. This viral vector has been used for almost a decade without any issues.

Sinovac - an alternative to ChAdOx, give their timelines. Full inactivated virus, uses alum as adjuvant (well known, safe as a house). Can't get more tried and tested than this without going back to variolation. Their data looks very, very good, as would be expected from an inactivaed virus vaccine. Will be used in China first I think.

Both can be used as boosters for each other if needed.

CanSino - similar to ChAdOx, but uses a human adenovirus vector, similar performance to ChAdOx, but harsher on the subjects (more side effects from the vector, unlikely to be suitable for older people).

The myriad of mRNA and DNA - still a ways off, except Moderna, no adjuvants seem to be needed, but higher doses seem to cause some unpleasant side effects (one volunteer fainted). The German Curevac version will use an order of magnitude lower done in phase I, very interested in their data. If they post similar or even better results than Moderna, then it would give Moderna a run for its money.

There are about 150ish or so more candidate vaccines in the works by my last count. The above just seem to be further ahead and have published data.

I think it's good to be cautious, but always double check your sources, especially if the sources confirm your opinion.

Hmmzis wrote: »

Thanks for stating your argument, but given the current data for SARS-cov-2 vaccines there is no reason to think your concerns have a valid base.

ChAdOx - pre-purchased by EU, 400 million doses (hence the one Ireland would be getting as well). Uses a viral vector, no adjuvant. This viral vector has been used for almost a decade without any issues.

Sinovac - an alternative to ChAdOx, give their timelines. Full inactivated virus, uses alum as adjuvant (well known, safe as a house). Can't get more tried and tested than this without going back to variolation. Their data looks very, very good, as would be expected from an inactivaed virus vaccine. Will be used in China first I think.

Both can be used as boosters for each other if needed.

CanSino - similar to ChAdOx, but uses a human adenovirus vector, similar performance to ChAdOx, but harsher on the subjects (more side effects from the vector, unlikely to be suitable for older people).

The myriad of mRNA and DNA - still a ways off, except Moderna, no adjuvants seem to be needed, but higher doses seem to cause some unpleasant side effects (one volunteer fainted). The German Curevac version will use an order of magnitude lower done in phase I, very interested in their data. If they post similar or even better results than Moderna, then it would give Moderna a run for its money.

There are about 150ish or so more candidate vaccines in the works by my last count. The above just seem to be further ahead and have published data.

I think it's good to be cautious, but always double check your sources, especially if the sources confirm your opinion.

Just wondering, would you put much faith in all the doses of the Oxford vaccine being pre-ordered as an indication that it works? Now I haven't a clue but surely there must be some science that indicates that it's effective to some degree. It'd be an awful climb down for Oxford and astrazeneca to say sorry lads but forget about the vaccine. Their respective reputations would never recover.

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Just wondering, would you put much faith in all the doses of the Oxford vaccine being pre-ordered as an indication that it works? Now I haven't a clue but surely there must be some science that indicates that it's effective to some degree. It'd be an awful climb down for Oxford and astrazeneca to say sorry lads but forget about the vaccine. Their respective reputations would never recover.

The pre-ordering is really to pay the costs of manufacturing it now rather than waiting until after the trials are finished. So they are taking a chance. It's on phase 3 trials now, and I'm sure Astra Zeneca don't want a dud, but I was very interested with the interview for the CEO on BBC back in late May where he seemed very confident it would work (even if the protection is only a year initially).

hmmm wrote: »

The pre-ordering is really to pay the costs of manufacturing it now rather than waiting until after the trials are finished. So they are taking a chance. It's on phase 3 trials now, and I'm sure Astra Zeneca don't want a dud, but I was very interested with the interview for the CEO on BBC back in late May where he seemed very confident it would work (even if the protection is only a year initially).

Yeah and considering there's not a whole lot of money in manufacturing vaccines astrazeneca don't really have an incentive to talk up their product when the backlash would be so severe. Also I don't think Oxford would risk damaging their fairly sterling reputation for the sake of a few headlines and share value for AZ.

Gael23

Could it be an annual vaccine you get similar to the flu one?

Another possible treatment that's available already, needs trials:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.19.160879v1

Doesn't seem to cost much either, $50 for a month long course.

The caveats would be that it's prothrombotic and needs relatively early detection.

On the plus side, it could be used as a prophylactic in high risk groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNavonhXyk

Some interesting ChAdOx results - a booster shot providing significantly better protection. Perhaps someone with more knowledge might be able to interpret the results
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.20.159715v1

And this is really interesting if you have the time.

hmmm wrote: »

Some interesting ChAdOx results - a booster shot providing significantly better protection. Perhaps someone with more knowledge might be able to interpret the results
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.20.159715v1

And this is really interesting if you have the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNavonhXyk

The graphs at the end of the paper are rather telling, the prime-boost works like it's supposed to and beating the living cr@p out of the prime only. The antibody titres in figure 2 are nothing to sniff at.
If they reckon the prime only should be enough for a year, then the booster maybe could be enough for the 5-10 years talked about earlier.

Hmmzis wrote: »

The graphs at the end of the paper are rather telling, the prime-boost works like it's supposed to and beating the living cr@p out of the prime only. The antibody titres in figure 2 are nothing to sniff at.
If they reckon the prime only should be enough for a year, then the booster maybe could be enough for the 5-10 years talked about earlier.

Towards the end of the video Professor Gilbert mentions how in their MERS vaccine they saw antibody levels decline over a few months, and then basically flatline for a much longer period. A booster isn't necessarily needed within a year, that's just a working estimate - you might get longer out of the first shot.

Also interesting to hear how the vaccine delivery platform is well tested.

Sanofi & Glaxo expect accelerated approval of their vaccine, aiming for first-half of 2021.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sanofi-vaccine/sanofi-eyes-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-by-first-half-of-2021-idUSKBN23U0JN

It's the first time I've seen a hint of open competition:
"“There are companies moving faster, but let us be brutally clear, speed has three downsides,” he said of competition.

“They are using existing work, in many cases done for SARS; it is likely not to be as efficacious; and there is no guarantee on supply in large volumes,” Hudson said.

The probability of success for Sanofi is “higher than anybody else,” the CEO said.

The comments echoed those of GSK, whose chief medical officer for vaccines told Reuters on Friday the company was aiming at quality before speed."

hmmm wrote: »

Sanofi & Glaxo expect accelerated approval of their vaccine, aiming for first-half of 2021.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sanofi-vaccine/sanofi-eyes-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-by-first-half-of-2021-idUSKBN23U0JN

It's the first time I've seen a hint of open competition:
"“There are companies moving faster, but let us be brutally clear, speed has three downsides,” he said of competition.

“They are using existing work, in many cases done for SARS; it is likely not to be as efficacious; and there is no guarantee on supply in large volumes,” Hudson said.

The probability of success for Sanofi is “higher than anybody else,” the CEO said.

The comments echoed those of GSK, whose chief medical officer for vaccines told Reuters on Friday the company was aiming at quality before speed."

Does anyone have any projected production numbers (Q3 2020 - Q4 2021) for the current vaccine frontrunners? I'm coming up a 'little' short here.

Sanofi/GSK 1.36bln doses per year, starting Q1 2021.
ChAdOx/Astra Zeneca/SII are looking at 1.4bln doses, starting Q3 2020.
Sinovac 0.1bln doses in China (??? in Brazil maybe?)
J&J 1bln doses starting Q1 2021
Pfizer? ("several hundred million")
Moderna?
CanSino?
Sinopharm?

I'm coming up with over 4bln doses by eyeballing some press releases. I guesswe would need about 6-7bln doses to be on the safe side.