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

Hmmzis

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Sure.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vaccines-how-do-the-moderna-and-pfizer-coronavirus-jab-candidates-compare-12134062

Admittedly information is sketchy in this story but I do recall a mention in some news story about the vaccine not being as straightforward to administer as traditional ones.

Honestly, that's the first time I'm seeing anyone mention anything like this. I haven't seen any other sources mentioning that. Will keep an eye out just in case.

hmmm

Russman wrote: »

Is there any indication when these might have data ?

J&J I think were officially saying at the start of next year, but if there's a lot of cases in the trial group it could be before the end of the year. The rapid spread in the US is helping these trials. Novavax is early next year.

Hmmzis

hmmm wrote: »

Yes. There's too much noise around AZ at the moment and the wood is being missed from the trees. Worst case scenario the trial was 70% effective with no severe Covid cases in the vaccinated group - those are still great results. Even better if they can move it up towards the 90% in time by running a bigger trial of the half/full dosing, but with the Moderna & Pfizer vaccines being redirected towards the highly vulnerable it should be good enough. We still have J&J and Novavax to come.

I think the press are going overboard a bit here. It's not like the half dose was discovered just now, it's been in the trial since June. The half dose itself was a manufacturing issue where they used two different ways how to measure the vector particles in the dose. For those initial 2.7k participants it ended up being a half dose prime. The MHRA deemed it fine to continue with the trial with the half/full regimen being treated as a separate trial arm.

The trouble with the half/full trial arm is that at the moment it lacks statistical power to say for sure that it's better than the full/full regimen, especially if the age cohorts are not matched. They'll have to go through the data in detail to see if they can get any further with it or do they have to wait for more cases to come in or even extend the trial. To me it looks like the half/full regimen is at least not inferior to the full/full one, so could be a way to do dose sparing at least, but I'll let the regulators crunch the numbers on the full data set here.

J&J and Novavax are expected to have a readout early next year, with J&J maybe squeezing something in just before this year is out. Sanofi and CureVac are a good bit further behind.

hmmm

Hmmzis wrote: »

The trouble with the half/full trial arm is that at the moment it lacks statistical power to say for sure that it's better than the full/full regimen, especially if the age cohorts are not matched. They'll have to go through the data in detail to see if they can get any further with it or do they have to wait for more cases to come in or even extend the trial. To me it looks like the half/full regimen is at least not inferior to the full/full one, so could be a way to do dose sparing at least, but I'll let the regulators crunch the numbers on the full data set here.

Agreed. I suppose the point I'm making is that this is being presented by some as a "problem with the trial" which is going to lead some people to think there is a safety issue or a fake result (certain groups opposed to vaccines are already leaping on this argument).

Even if you ignore the two different datasets and just look at the Astra Zeneca results as a whole, you still get 70% efficacy in a trial of 30,000 people of various ages. It's more than sufficient to proceed with deploying the vaccine.

dominatinMC

Hmmzis wrote: »

I think the press are going overboard a bit here. It's not like the half dose was discovered just now, it's been in the trial since June. The half dose itself was a manufacturing issue where they used two different ways how to measure the vector particles in the dose. For those initial 2.7k participants it ended up being a half dose prime. The MHRA deemed it fine to continue with the trial with the half/full regimen being treated as a separate trial arm.

Wouldn't be like them....:pac:

timsey tiger

Irish Stones wrote: »

I wonder why the vaccination plans aren't starting the same day across Europe.
Over here the vaccinations should begin end of January, and it seems it will be mandatory to everyone.

In Ireland, don't be mental that's not happening. We wouldn't even stop people drinking on the streets.

Edit, sorry I assumed you were in Ireland

seamie78

timsey tiger wrote: »

In Ireland, don't be mental that's not happening. We wouldn't even stop people drinking on the streets.

this poster is Italian, with a love for boards for some reason, also to read his posts you would swear he was irish

Marhay70

seamie78 wrote: »

this poster is Italian, with a love for boards for some reason, also to read his posts you would swear he was irish

But we are lovable. I , for one, welcome all nationalities, colours and creeds and would like to commend Irish Stones on his command of the English language which is far better than many "native" speakers and infinitely better than my command of Italian.:)

[Deleted User]

Have Oxford/Astra Zeneca given the regulators an awkward decision? The full dose regimen still meets the minimum efficacy requirements, and presuming safety data is fine can be approved. But do you actually give people the full two doses?

There doesn't seem to be enough data on the half dose, full dose regimen, yet it is likely the best option for the general population under 55.

Would governments take a chance and go with this option for healthy and younger individuals to get better population coverage quicker (and save Pfizer and Moderna for older and high risk individuals).

Hmmzis

Deleted User wrote: »

Have Oxford/Astra Zeneca given the regulators an awkward decision? The full dose regimen still meets the minimum efficacy requirements, and presuming safety data is fine can be approved. But do you actually give people the full two doses?

There doesn't seem to be enough data on the half dose, full dose regimen, yet it is likely the best option for the general population under 55.

Would governments take a chance and go with this option for healthy and younger individuals to get better population coverage quicker (and save Pfizer and Moderna for older and high risk individuals).

Those are the exact questions everyone wants now answers to. Nobody wants to waste doses unnecessarily and have higher reactogenicity at the same time if just adjusting the prime dose gives 33% better coverage and makes the first dose less fur ruffling for individuals. That's assuming the efficacy turns out to be the same for both regimens (it's not very likely, but can't be excluded for sure at the moment).

The good thing here is that the data set is quite large and detailed, they even did weekly swabs in the UK trial to catch asymptomatic people. That could factor in narrowing down the confidence intervals of both regimens. Just getting the extra 33% free coverage would be a huge deal, in Ireland that would mean about 800k more people could get the vaccine earlier.

speckle

Been just a tad buzy last week so has the data from phases been released yet from the front runners?

Irish Stones

timsey tiger wrote: »

In Ireland, don't be mental that's not happening. We wouldn't even stop people drinking on the streets.

Sorry, forgot to say that my country is Italy.

Irish Stones

seamie78 wrote: »

this poster is Italian, with a love for boards for some reason, also to read his posts you would swear he was irish

I would never pass me off as Irish, I have no right to do so

Irish Stones

Marhay70 wrote: »

But we are lovable. I , for one, welcome all nationalities, colours and creeds and would like to commend Irish Stones on his command of the English language which is far better than many "native" speakers and infinitely better than my command of Italian.:)

I would like to thank you for you lovely words.
You are all lovable, despite some obvious difference of opinion on a few subjects.

Back to topic, the government of my country said that the vaccine will be mandatory for all health staff, starting from the end of January, and it will be very likely mandatory for the rest of the population. The words were:
"The vaccine will be on a voluntary bases, provided that at least 70% of the population get it. We're working on persuasion and we hope people will get persuaded. If they don't, we'll find a way to have them take the vaccine"
Which can be read as "it will be mandatory".

My wife is a health worker, but suffers from an autoimmune disease which would entitle her not be forced to take the vaccine. I wonder if there are some exemptions for particular conditions.

[Deleted User]

Irish Stones wrote: »

I would like to thank you for you lovely words.
You are all lovable, despite some obvious difference of opinion on a few subjects.

Back to topic, the government of my country said that the vaccine will be mandatory for all health staff, starting from the end of January, and it will be very likely mandatory for the rest of the population. The words were:
"The vaccine will be on a voluntary bases, provided that at least 70% of the population get it. We're working on persuasion and we hope people will get persuaded. If they don't, we'll find a way to have them take the vaccine"
Which can be read as "it will be mandatory".

My wife is a health worker, but suffers from an autoimmune disease which would entitle her not be forced to take the vaccine. I wonder if there are some exemptions for particular conditions.

Part of the requirement for a minimum coverage level is to ensure that those that cant get the vaccine for health reasons dont need to

Russman

I doubt any vaccine will be mandatory, but I'd say there will be enough "discretionary" things you won't be allowed to do if you don't have one, that it will effectively be mandatory without the hassle of drawing up regulations & laws.

JDD

My wife is a health worker, but suffers from an autoimmune disease which would entitle her not be forced to take the vaccine. I wonder if there are some exemptions for particular conditions.

Jesus, I feel sorry for anyone who has an autoimmune disease and works in a healthcare environment. It must be very worrying that you might pick up something that you can't fight off. Unless of course she works in a physical rehabilitation hospital or something.

It certainly possible that vaccination could become mandatory here. I know we have a right to bodily integrity under the Constitution, but like everything in the Constitution, the right is limited by the words "as far as practicable". So when you're weighing up an individual's right to bodily integrity, with a larger groups constitutional right to health, it's likely that the court will decide in favour of the larger group. I think there have in fact been some previous court decisions that have touched on the topic of vaccinations in the context of contagious diseases, and have stated that mandatory vaccinations could be allowable under the Constitution.

That's a last resort though. If 70-80% choose to get vaccinated over the course of next year, they probably will have no need for legislation.

So, if I were an anti-vaxxer, I'd be studiously posting on this website extolling the virtues of taking the vaccine. The more other people take it, the less likely the anti-vaxxer will be forced to get it themselves.

Irish Stones

JDD wrote: »

Jesus, I feel sorry for anyone who has an autoimmune disease and works in a healthcare environment. It must be very worrying that you might pick up something that you can't fight off. Unless of course she works in a physical rehabilitation hospital or something.

Thank you for your thought!
She's a nurse in a few wards according to the needs of the day.
She has to wear the whole protective gear (two masks, face shield, cap, double gloves and so on), and she also got the virus herself, and I with her, a few months ago.

It certainly possible that vaccination could become mandatory here. I know we have a right to bodily integrity under the Constitution, but like everything in the Constitution, the right is limited by the words "as far as practicable".

I would like to say, in the case you lost this bit of info, that we're Italian in Italy, but I'm quite sure that our constitution isn't much different than yours in this matter.

We have a law that forbids us to go around with our faces covered with masks, scarves or other items that would make us not recognizable, bu the same law says "unless required by health resons and emergencies".

So, if I were an anti-vaxxer, I'd be studiously posting on this website extolling the virtues of taking the vaccine. The more other people take it, the less likely the anti-vaxxer will be forced to get it themselves.

This is a smart move!

timsey tiger

Irish Stones wrote: »

I wonder why the vaccination plans aren't starting the same day across Europe.
Over here the vaccinations should begin end of January, and it seems it will be mandatory to everyone.

UK aren't in "Europe" (EU) anymore.

is_that_so

Russman wrote: »

I doubt any vaccine will be mandatory, but I'd say there will be enough "discretionary" things you won't be allowed to do if you don't have one, that it will effectively be mandatory without the hassle of drawing up regulations & laws.

That's a field day for lawyers and very shaky legal ground! We don't make any form of vaccination mandatory and it's a very arbitrary form of discrimination.

Irish Stones

timsey tiger wrote: »

UK aren't in "Europe" (EU) anymore.

You are right!
But I also think that neighbour countries should have a common plan for vaccinations, or they will end up with different steps of progress in the fight or control of the disease.

Pasteur.

Russman wrote: »

I doubt any vaccine will be mandatory, but I'd say there will be enough "discretionary" things you won't be allowed to do if you don't have one, that it will effectively be mandatory without the hassle of drawing up regulations & laws.

Quite obviously this is the way it wlll go

And rightly so

JPup

Irish Stones wrote: »

My wife is a health worker, but suffers from an autoimmune disease which would entitle her not be forced to take the vaccine. I wonder if there are some exemptions for particular conditions.

But if she has an autoimmune disease isn't that all the more reason to get vaccinated? i.e. if she gets sick with Covid-19 she would be particularly vulnerable. Or am I understanding you wrong?

Irish Stones

JPup wrote: »

But if she has an autoimmune disease isn't that all the more reason to get vaccinated? i.e. if she gets sick with Covid-19 she would be particularly vulnerable. Or am I understanding you wrong?

Yes, what you say makes sense.
As for the coronavirus, she (and I) has got it already, with very few symptoms.
But she wouldn't like to be exposed to other stuff if she can avoid it. She's very cautious even with normal meds and tends not to take pills or else unless it is strictly necessary. Her boss and HR are aware of her condition, but so far they took no precautions for her daily tasks, like having her do less risky activities. She would like to pass this vaccine, at the moment.

stephenjmcd

So AZ & Oxford will run another trial for the half dose full dose regime.

Personally I cant see this changing things too much. They’ve got the full dose data already which is for the large proportion of the trial. 70% effiency would probably still get approval, likely you could target the less vulnerable population (younger) with AZ/Oxford so that Pfzier & Moderna could be for vulnerable and older persons, just my thoughts on it given the initial effiency readouts.

2 months ago anyone would have bitten your hand off for 70%. The main issue seems to be how the trial was conducted in the USA.

"Soriot said he didn’t expect the additional trial to hold up regulatory approvals in the U.K. and European Union. Clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration may take longer because the regulator is unlikely to approve the vaccine on the basis of studies conducted elsewhere, especially given the questions over the results, he said. Authorization in some countries is still expected before the end of the year, he said.

https://twitter.com/johnfraher/status/1331997179431579650?s=19

polesheep

Pasteur. wrote: »

Quite obviously this is the way it wlll go

And rightly so

Quite obviously this is the way you would LIKE it to go.

It won't.

Pasteur.

polesheep wrote: »

Quite obviously this is the way you would LIKE it to go.

It won't.

It's already started

Approved User Assesment

is_that_so wrote: »

That's a field day for lawyers and very shaky legal ground! We don't make any form of vaccination mandatory and it's a very arbitrary form of discrimination.

Mandatory in all but name.

The legal side is interesting. Heard it said the Geneva Convention protects those whom wish to refuse any type of medical treatment upon their person. Also that anyone making this choice,(for whatever reason), should also be free from persecution including discrimination or 'exclusion' and so on as a result of this personal choice.

Could indeed be a field day for lawyers, but likely covid will be given some 'special' status.
And Mary/Joe whom does not want it, shall not go to the ball after all.

hmmm

Approved User Assesment wrote: »

The legal side is interesting. Heard it said the Geneva Convention protects those whom wish to refuse any type of medical treatment upon their person.

I've heard it all now, the Geneva convention - I ask you.

There's nothing in Irish discrimination laws about vaccinations and businesses refusing service to people who are not vaccinated. There may be some argument under the Constitution in respect of access to certain services (e.g. education), but it's a limited subset.

polesheep

Pasteur. wrote: »

It's already started

Do you have examples?