COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Cork2021 · 25-01-2021 10:11PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Well then....
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1353809710596685825?s=19

Christ!!!
I just can’t for one second believe the brits are giving an 8% efficacious vaccine to the over 65’s!! They cannot be that thick!

Happydays2020 · 25-01-2021 10:11PM

Company acts the Boll1x with production schedules. Someone else acts the boll1x leaking selective info about said company’s product to the media. Perhaps lowering expectations on the vaccine and at the same time a bit of nationalism thrown in there with a competing product.

titan18 · 25-01-2021 10:14PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Trouble here is if you don't have data it works for over 65s how confident can you be that it works for medically vulnerable under that age? Particularly immuno comprised individuals.

That said we're getting ahead of ourselves. The US data may yet show it works in the older cohorts. The EMA can only approve based on the data AZ submitted.

Ya, you probably can't give it to anyone over 60 or immuno compromised people really. And if the data isn't great, groups might feel like guinea pigs if you give it to them. Could be a car crash if it's all true.

Azatadine · 25-01-2021 10:14PM

What an irresponsible thing to release to the public arena. Totally irresponsible.

Faugheen · 25-01-2021 10:16PM

Azatadine wrote: »

What an irresponsible thing to release to the public arena. Totally irresponsible.

Why?

I’d much rather know this than not know this. It’s 100% in the public interest

Azatadine · 25-01-2021 10:17PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Why?

I’d much rather know this than not know this. It’s 100% in the public interest

Because its not true. Read back on earlier posts.

Happydays2020 · 25-01-2021 10:17PM

Cork2021 wrote: »

Christ!!!
I just can’t for one second believe the brits are giving an 8% efficacious vaccine to the over 65’s!! They cannot be that thick!

Lots of info here

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

wheresthebeef · 25-01-2021 10:18PM

We could finish the frontline and second line Healthcare workers with AZ and start routing Pfizer/Moderna to the elderly. Then go back to doing high risk, other essential workers, 50-60’s with AZ.

If the efficacy is poor for over 65’s, I wonder does it also call into question the effectiveness of other viral vector vaccines e.g J&J, Novavax etc...
Perhaps mRNA was the right horse to bet on all along.

Turtwig · 25-01-2021 10:20PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Why?

I’d much rather know this than not know this. It’s 100% in the public interest

It's in the public interest alright. The first we should have heard of it was from the EMA itself. If they publish something different to the leaked report it'll be the fuel that lights conspiracy fires the world over.

JTMan · 25-01-2021 10:20PM

Azatadine wrote: »

Because its not true. Read back on earlier posts.

Just because someone deleted a tweet does not mean that it is not true. It is published by what is normally a reliable publication. It is unconfirmed. It could be true.

https://twitter.com/Mark_Coughlan/status/1353814330505093121

Amirani · 25-01-2021 10:20PM

Azatadine wrote: »

Because its not true. Read back on earlier posts.

https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353796533246976000

That was just another journalist saying they wanted more concrete detail on sources. This journalist seems to be doubling down on it.

Hurrache · 25-01-2021 10:21PM

Gael23 wrote: »

Any update from this evenings meeting?

That was the update. They're still not happy with any explanation given.

Danzy · 25-01-2021 10:22PM

DaSilva wrote: »

Honestly I think its a score against the anti-vaxxers, a lot of the more "respectable" anti-vax rhetoric I've been hearing lately is based on the idea that the vaccines wouldn't be allowed fail, that they would be given out as "hopium" regardless of efficacy. The EMA not approving when the data doesn't add up shows they have scientific integrity. Failures in this rapid vaccine creation process demonstrates the authenticity of it in my opinion.

I know what you mean though, some of the lower grade anti-vaxxers will still use this as proof they are right

The EMA, no disrespect to it, would not be considered in the same league as it's British counterpart.

It's like bawdy humour and dirty military operations, they are world class from exceptional experience and research.

Amirani · 25-01-2021 10:23PM

Danzy wrote: »

The EMA, no disrespect to it, would not be considered in the same league as it's British counterpart.

It's like bawdy humour and dirty military operations, they are world class from exceptional experience and research.

But you've already said that the US regulator is better, and they've said the available trial data isn't good enough.

How do you reconcile that?

Azatadine · 25-01-2021 10:23PM

Amirani wrote: »

https://twitter.com/washingtonski/status/1353796533246976000

That was just another journalist saying they wanted more concrete detail on sources. This journalist seems to be doubling down on it.

Fair enough. 8% is so hard to believe....

Danzy · 25-01-2021 10:24PM

The vaccine should still be rolled out to the groups where it has proven efficacy.

If this story is correct.

It may be spin as well.

lbj666 · 25-01-2021 10:26PM

titan18 wrote: »

Ya, you probably can't give it to anyone over 60 or immuno compromised people really. And if the data isn't great, groups might feel like guinea pigs if you give it to them. Could be a car crash if it's all true.

The MHRA approved for over 65 on the basis there was no loss of efficacy in 55 with underlying conditions which is a grouping that would have similar vulnerability. It's a bit of a leap, but bigger leaps have been made on emergency approval (like H1N1 here).

8% is a load of bollocks, no graph is going to fall that much off a cliff. I imagine, it would be unprecedented for any vacine but someone can correct me on that.

The bild, seriously?

Danzy · 25-01-2021 10:28PM

Amirani wrote: »

But you've already said that the US regulator is better, and they've said the available trial data isn't good enough.

How do you reconcile that?

There are different categories, clinical, emergency, etc. Some more strident than others, the yanks are looking at full approval. Not unusual for more information to be requested, unusual for it not to be.

The CDC is accepted to be the best in the world at this.

British next, that doesn't mean that they are infallible or always correct.

A key problem for the EMA is the best talent in it was British and left with Brexit. Not a skill set that can be quickly replicated or replaced.

In years to come they will probably be just as good.

Chris_5339762 · 25-01-2021 10:31PM

Hopefully this is just a translating error from German to English and that everyone ACTUALLY means 80%.

Amirani · 25-01-2021 10:31PM

Danzy wrote: »

There are different categories, clinical, emergency, etc.

The CDC is accepted to be the best in the world at this.

British next, that doesn't mean that they are infallible or always correct.

A key problem for the EMA is the best talent in it was British and left with Brexit. Not a skill set that can be quickly replicated or replaced.

In years to come they will probably be just as good.

But the CDC doesn't approve vaccines? I feel like you may be making some of this stuff up.

redarmy · 25-01-2021 10:32PM

Cabinet meeting in the morning expected to sign off on extending level 5 restrictions until March 5th.

ACitizenErased · 25-01-2021 10:34PM

Astrazeneca statement just released saying 8% is completely incorrect

giveitholly · 25-01-2021 10:36PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Astrazeneca statement just released saying 8% is completely incorrect

Yeah hopefully this is true
https://twitter.com/fxmacro/status/1353816858038833155?s=19

25-01-2021 10:36PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Next EU meeting Wednesday

https://twitter.com/SKyriakidesEU/status/1353805555048075264?s=19

So the EU come out rather guns blazing this evening and looks like they've given Astrazenica a week to come back with a delivery plan. Assuming the EU are hoping the pressure they've put on will result in a very different looking schedule next week

stephenjmcd · 25-01-2021 10:37PM

AstraZeneca very quick to hit back

https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1353816318571663361?s=19

ACitizenErased · 25-01-2021 10:38PM

What are the Germans up to

they seem to be very emotional with the vaccines

D.Q · 25-01-2021 10:38PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Astrazeneca statement just released saying 8% is completely incorrect

Really crazy and irresponsible if it's untrue.

Funny to see certain posters reactions though. Not quite joyous revelling but close enough

nommm · 25-01-2021 10:38PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

AstraZeneca very quick to hit back

https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1353816318571663361?s=19

Does’t actually say what efficacy in this group is though. Dying for EMA verdict now.

Danzy · 25-01-2021 10:39PM

Amirani wrote: »

But the CDC doesn't approve vaccines? I feel like you may be making some of this stuff up.

It's a typo.

25-01-2021 10:43PM

Danzy wrote: »

It's a typo.

The FDA are not the toughest regulatory agency, with the very top experts. They just have the biggest clout. Their agents are not particularly well paid civil servants who when they reach a certain level move to the private sector

COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Comments