nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Masala

Today being Paddy Day 2020... when do you think we will have a ‘flu jab’ / pill / syrup that we can take to make us immune/ les likely to catch this 19 virus?.

Mod: The purpose of this thread is baked into the title - COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures - it's not a platform to push an anti vaccination agenda. If posters wish to discuss the perceived cons of vaccinations, or push various theories regarding 'the agenda' (whatever that is supposed to mean), open a thread elsewhere on it.

Threadbanned Users:
3xh
Dr.Frost
kingbhome
nannerbenahs
skooterblue2
Fodla
Caraibh
drunkmonkey
lawrencesummers
Howard Beale

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JDD

I stood in front of a rack of masks on Friday, considering should I buy another couple for myself and the kids.

Then I thought, f*ck it, it'll only be another few months until we get roll out of the vaccine. We can put up with the stock of masks we have right now.

Then I went off and bought a dress that's essentially for the office.

I'm already winding down this whole pandemic thing in my head.

[Deleted User]

What would be great to see, once the vaccines are approved, is a well thought out, proper roadmap from the government.
I'm not anti government by the way. I think they're doing alright

People need to see the plan.
Here is what we expect to receive in dosages.
Here is who we plan to administer them to first
Here is how people will go about getting vaccinated

And put a positive spin on it for ****s sake. People have had an absolutely miserable year, and need some hope

leahyl

JDD wrote: »

I stood in front of a rack of masks on Friday, considering should I buy another couple for myself and the kids.

Then I thought, f*ck it, it'll only be another few months until we get roll out of the vaccine. We can put up with the stock of masks we have right now.

Then I went off and bought a dress that's essentially for the office.

I'm already winding down this whole pandemic thing in my head.

stephenjmcd

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 its not 70% its 90% on a different dosing regime. 70 is just the average between both doses, trust the media to latch onto that. Pretty much nailed on that it'll be half dose full dose regime for vaccination.

As for who will take it, chances are your not going to know which one your getting, to be honest why should you ? Not something that you can pick and chose oh I don't want that vaccine I want this one. It'll be a clinical decision

dominatinMC

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The media have latched onto the 70% big time

I just don't get it. Why the endless obsession with misery

Russman

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Well its not 70% its 90% on a different dosing regime. 70 is just the average between both doses.

As for who will take it, chances are your not going to know which one your getting, to be honest why should you ? Not something that you can pick and chose oh I don't want that vaccine I want this one. It'll be a clinical decision

If you're getting it it your GPs you'll know its likely not the Pfizer one though, no ?

Actually, as an aside, would the government be tracking which vaccine everyone who took one got ? To help with further evaluations on each candidate, like a massive extension of Phase 3 ?
Its ok, GDPR heads, don't lose your sh1t because someone asked the question !

ACitizenErased

You’ll know which one you get because you get the HPRA leaflet after every vaccination

stephenjmcd

Russman wrote: »

If you're getting it it your GPs you'll know its likely not the Pfizer one though, no ?

Actually, as an aside, would the government be tracking which vaccine everyone who took one got ? To help with further evaluations on each candidate, like a massive extension of Phase 3 ?
Its ok, GDPR heads, don't lose your sh1t because someone asked the question !

Nope sure you'll be able to get the Pfizer & Moderna one through GPs also, its storage isn't as difficult as some make out.

Yeah the government and dept of health will probably know, like other vaccines the particulars would be noted against your PPS number

stephenjmcd

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You’ll know which one you get because you get the HPRA leaflet after every vaccination

Yes but pre vaccination, the suggestion that someone could pick and chose what one in advance. It'll be turn up for your appointment and whatever is assigned to you

tobefrank321

plodder wrote: »

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

That would be a spanner in the works alright. It will be interesting to see what view regulators take of it - will they authorize it as is, or ask for more trials of the low dose/high dose combination. I think they'd need 94 cases from this combination to make a judgement. Personally I can't see why they wouldn't authorize as is, but then again I'm not a regulator!

But there's plenty more vaccines so its not a huge deal.

plodder

Hmmzis wrote: »

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.

Yes, I see now that both dosing regimens were used in the phase 3 trial.

This is all very encouraging. As someone who had a very mild dose of the bug, I was glad to learn that getting a vaccine can produce a much stronger immune response than from having had the infection. I wouldn't be convinced that I'd never get a bad dose of it (without getting the vaccine).

opinionated3

Ftse100 is up since the announcement but why would astrazeneca drop by 1.5%.....??

stephenjmcd

opinionated3 wrote: »

Ftse100 is up since the announcement but why would astrazeneca drop by 1.5%.....??

Because its not being seen as great news for some reason as the headline is 70% efficacious, despite 90% being seen. Markets comparing v moderna and Pfizer announcements.

Alot to do with how certain media elements are reporting it.

tobefrank321

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Because its not being seen as great news for some reason as the headline is 70% efficacious, despite 90% being seen. Markets comparing v moderna and Pfizer announcements.

Alot to do with how certain media elements are reporting it.

I think someone on here mentioned before that a lot of selling and buying of shares is done by AI scanning of news headlines or something like that! Definitely feels like someone selling based purely on a headline without reading the full story.

hmmm

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Because its not being seen as great news for some reason as the headline is 70% efficacious, despite 90% being seen. Markets comparing v moderna and Pfizer announcements.

Plus I think the mRNA platforms have blown everyone else out of the water and to the interested observer (which financial markets are) they look like the future. Oxford may be in an unfortunate situation where brilliant science has been surpassed by even more brilliant science.

Roger_007

hmmm wrote: »

Plus I think the mRNA platforms have blown everyone else out of the water and to the interested observer (which financial markets are) they look like the future. Oxford may be in an unfortunate situation where brilliant science has been surpassed by even more brilliant science.

It’s like the old battle between VHS and Betamax. (Younger posters should ask their parents to explain).

stephenjmcd

hmmm wrote: »

Plus I think the mRNA platforms have blown everyone else out of the water and to the interested observer (which financial markets are) they look like the future. Oxford may be in an unfortunate situation where brilliant science has been surpassed by even more brilliant science.

Yup its a weird one, 3 weeks ago 70% would have been seen as outstanding but here we are with some disappointed.

Anyway personally I think its great that they do have 90%, at the end of the day we've 3 viable vaccines now.

Thierry12

hmmm wrote: »

Plus I think the mRNA platforms have blown everyone else out of the water and to the interested observer (which financial markets are) they look like the future. Oxford may be in an unfortunate situation where brilliant science has been surpassed by even more brilliant science.

If you look at the data it could be the opposite?

Pfzier and Moderna didn't include asymptomatic as an infection

Oxford did it seems

Oxford has 0 severe sick and 0 moderately sick I believe ( no hospital )

Other 2 did

This percentage thing is very misleading until all data is out

It doesn't look like for like to me

Bargain_Hound

dominatinMC wrote: »

I just don't get it. Why the endless obsession with misery

Misery sells newspapers, unfortunately

Once that has been exploited, round two containing the truth of ~90% effectivity will sell more newspapers.

tobefrank321

Thierry12 wrote: »

If you look at the data it could be the opposite?

Pfzier and Moderna didn't include asymptomatic as an infection

Oxford did it seems

Oxford has 0 severe sick and 0 moderately sick I believe ( no hospital )

Other 2 did

This percentage thing is very misleading until all data is out

It doesn't look like for like to me

If they did, it might boost the efficacy even more, although there's likely to be asymptomatic in the non vaccine group too.

Pfizer and Moderna were only interested in severe disease progression which is what healthcare systems need to be worried most about.

Stark

It looks like Astrazenaca tested two dosing regimes. One dosing regime had 63% efficacy, the other had 90% efficacy. The 70% quoted was the average of the two. So really it's 90% effective if you go with the better dosing regime.

Also the Astrazenaca vaccine has the advantage that it's easier to store and distribute for now. (I'm sure there'll be improvements with the mRNA vaccines over the coming years that will make them easier to store and distribute also).

ixoy

At least the Independent's headline is actually reporting what the data appears to say:

"Oxford University vaccine shows up to 90 pc effective against Covid-19, data suggests"

Stheno

ixoy wrote: »

At least the Independent's headline is actually reporting what the data appears to say:

"Oxford University vaccine shows up to 90 pc effective against Covid-19, data suggests"

Same with the Irish Times

Feeling hopeful today

Hmmzis

Thierry12 wrote: »

If you look at the data it could be the opposite?

Pfzier and Moderna didn't include asymptomatic as an infection

Oxford did it seems

Oxford has 0 severe sick and 0 moderately sick I believe ( no hospital )

Other 2 did

This percentage thing is very misleading until all data is out

It doesn't look like for like to me

All efficacy data is based on symptomatic infections, that's the primary endpoint for all the trials.

What Andrew Pollard was commenting on was a look at the secondary endpoint of reducing transmission and they saw a significant enough decrease of asymptomatic infections in the low/high dosage group. That would be adding to the statistical significance as well of that trial arm.

Personally, I'd be stumped if the regulators would go for the high/high dose regimen, the data for the low/high looks to be at least non-inferior, good chance it's better, there is noticeable transmission reduction as well in that arm and it also allows for more doses to be manufactured and distributed.

[Deleted User]

it's all a bit of a mess though

*up to 90% effective

not the sort of asterix-ed claim you want when you're going for a coronavirus vaccine is it?

the Moderna one is the most expensive one but also seems to have the best efficacy and reasonably easy (compared to the Pfizer one) in terms of storage - one month at fridge temperature

I suppose that we should be grateful that there are options out there with such high efficacy but I'd rather be getting the one with highest efficacy

also the Astrazenna one uses a Chimpanzee cold-virus as its delivery mechanism. the mRNA ones seem less likely to produce side-effects as they are not using a live virus to produce a response.

lbj666

Thierry12 wrote: »

If you look at the data it could be the opposite?

Pfzier and Moderna didn't include asymptomatic as an infection

Oxford did it seems

Oxford has 0 severe sick and 0 moderately sick I believe ( no hospital )

Other 2 did

This percentage thing is very misleading until all data is out

It doesn't look like for like to me

Ya i dont think this is going to be apples and apples comparison with the mRNA vaccines at all. Oxford has given more indication that the severity of the disease would be diminished, whiles its still vague/unclear with the mRNAs, although it should.
Didnt 1 of the 9 in the Pfizer trial group get a severe dose? same proportion as their placebo group?

If time wasn't of the essence authorities could mull over the data for another few months but they cant, while in retrospect the chosen option could prove not the best one. They will be deciding based present day evidence which has the best chance of ending up being the best approach, a few actuarial minds would come in handy.

Stark

Interesting that of the two dosing regimes, the half dose followed by full dose performed better than two full doses.

[Deleted User]

All the pre orders were based on full doses weren't they? So that means the 300m doses for the EU would now cover 200m people (presuming zero waste). And the UK have pre ordered 100m, so that would cover 66m, or basically their entire population.

This is really good in terms of timescales. Hopefully the safety data is close to being ready for submission.

afatbollix

Matt Handcock was on the Chris Evens Breakfast show this morning. That political radio show that gets all the big names :pac: But he does lead them into a false sense of security and asked the questions that we really want to be answered.

He said that with the Oxford results out they expect to start giving them out in December. They have ordered 100 million of it.

He said that the most vulnerable and NHS workers to be vaccinated by the end of the year and the majority of the population in the first couple of months of next year. He expects that we will be back to normal by Easter. BY EASTER!

He was over the moon with the results of the 3 big vaccines and that we will be back to normal soon. You could hear the joy in his voice.

Even Chris said for the head of the NHS to be saying this was extraordinary.

I just canceled my flight home for Christmas to show my new Daughter to her Grandmother and great grandmother and rebooked an extra week off for Easter.

[Deleted User]

Stark wrote: »

Interesting that of the two dosing regimes, the half dose followed by full dose performed better than two full doses.

It seems the first dose teaches the body how to attack the viral vector too well, so this reduces the impact of the second dose. Great that they had planned for this outcome and had structured their study to take account of this possibility.