What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

astrofool · 25-02-2021 05:03PM

Aegir wrote: »

it isn't a gotcha moment at all, I am just wondering on what basis you believe that the JCVI, which includes pretty extraordinary levels of knowledge on vaccinations and and medicines in general, is doing the wrong thing.

I've outlined why, panic and hospitals being overrun, there is no good reason not to follow the manufacturer dosing schedule, especially for a brand new medicine.

To follow your tactic, do you believe the JCVI know more about the Pfizer vaccine than Pfizer does? Given that Pfizer have repeatedly said that the dosing schedule should be followed.

The JCVI decision was driven by panic. Good decisions are not made during panic. They may end up getting away with it.

Call me Al · 25-02-2021 05:14PM

DaSilva wrote: »

Let me ask you a simple question. Given all the knowledge we have about vaccines and immunity from all the different vaccines, dosing regimes and dosing schedules, would you say, we have 0 evidence that the Pfizer vaccine given at 12 weeks will work effectively?

I say that going by a study from Scotland released this week I think (edit yet to be peer-reviewed) , we definitely have reason to question exactly how efficacious it still is by then. I think their study showed it had dropped from 90%+ efficaciousness down to between 60 and 65% at 5 weeks.
Great that they've got so many vaccinated with one dose. Some of my own family are included in those numbers. I'm thrilled for them. But I stand by my assertion that by extending the time between doses the UK government is effectively doing running a massive trial. Let's just hope it works. If it does then we are all winners, if it doesn't then who knows.

eastie17 · 25-02-2021 05:16PM

astrofool wrote: »

I've outlined why, panic and hospitals being overrun, there is no good reason not to follow the manufacturer dosing schedule, especially for a brand new medicine.

To follow your tactic, do you believe the JCVI know more about the Pfizer vaccine than Pfizer does? Given that Pfizer have repeatedly said that the dosing schedule should be followed.

The JCVI decision was driven by panic. Good decisions are not made during panic. They may end up getting away with it.

And if they dont it will be the EUs fault, media seem perfectly happy to make everything about that over there at the moment. Bizzare

DaSilva · 25-02-2021 05:24PM

Call me Al wrote: »

I say that going by a study from Scotland released this week I think, we definitely have reason to question exactly how efficacious it still is by then.
Great that they've got so many vaccinated with one dose. Some of my own family are included in those numbers. I'm thrilled for them. But I stand by my assertion that by extending the time between doses the UK government is effectively doing running a massive trial. Let's just hope it works. If it does then we are all winners, if it doesn't then who knows.

I am not suggesting it's a risk free decision, I'm just arguing that it isn't a crazy gamble based on nothing but a political desire for higher numbers. There is strong scientific evidence that their approach is going to work fine. You can use whatever language you want I guess, but using that same way of thinking then the Irish government is also doing it's own trial, since the vaccines weren't tested on Irish people who have typical medical histories like Irish people who live an Irish environment. We can though make an educated decision and extrapolate from existing knowledge to say that it is worth it to use this vaccine in Ireland.

25-02-2021 05:37PM

astrofool wrote: »

To follow your tactic, do you believe the JCVI know more about the Pfizer vaccine than Pfizer does? Given that Pfizer have repeatedly said that the dosing schedule should be followed.

do they know more? probably not. Do they know as much? probably as they have access to the full details of the trials and the drug itself.

Would Pfizer come out and say not to change the dosing schedule? no, of course not. They can't recommend anything that they haven't trialed. They are a private company and would make themselves effectively liable.

Call me Al · 25-02-2021 05:41PM

DaSilva wrote: »

I am not suggesting it's a risk free decision, I'm just arguing that it isn't a crazy gamble based on nothing but a political desire for higher numbers. There is strong scientific evidence that their approach is going to work fine. You can use whatever language you want I guess, but using that same way of thinking then the Irish government is also doing it's own trial, since the vaccines weren't tested on Irish people who have typical medical histories like Irish people who live an Irish environment. We can though make an educated decision and extrapolate from existing knowledge to say that it is worth it to use this vaccine in Ireland.

I answered your very straightforward question as you asked. I never mentioned politics....

And as for language? This is a study done on Scottish people who have been given only one Pfizer jab... language has nothing to do with it!

And trying to extrapolate out that extending the duration of between doses is just as material as administering to an Irish population... well j just don't know where to begin with that lol!

There's a reason why Pfizer are advising against it for now. They havent trialled it. They can't say how much protection is provided after 12 weeks of one dose.
Data will start to emerge as the weeks progress and we will see exactly how successful the trial/rollout is working.
And sure we are winners all round if it works out.

astrofool · 25-02-2021 05:45PM

Aegir wrote: »

do they know more? probably not. Do they know as much? probably as they have access to the full details of the trials and the drug itself.

Would Pfizer come out and say not to change the dosing schedule? no, of course not. They can't recommend anything that they haven't trialed. They are a private company and would make themselves effectively liable.

It's classic bias, in your mind they are both equally proficient (in mine, I would side with the creator and manufacturer but whatever), yet you'll happily go along with the side that suits your narrative not to follow the dosing guidelines.

However, at least you understand why all other countries that weren't in panic mode are following the guidelines? Everyone but the UK is sticking to the schedule.

AngeloArgue · 25-02-2021 05:47PM

is_that_so wrote: »

it's a pretty awful message.

I wonder where that "message" originated from

AngeloArgue · 25-02-2021 05:54PM

deeperlearning wrote: »

This is NOT vaccine hesitancy. In fact, it is the opposite.

It is a union advocating for a BETTER vaccine for its members.

So should the NIAC withdraw approval for AstraZeneca?

Bearing in mind it is due to contribute 1 million+ doses to our national vaccination campaign?

is_that_so · 25-02-2021 05:55PM

AngeloArgue wrote: »

I wonder where that "message" originated from

Is that a question or a comment?

iamwhoiam · 25-02-2021 05:56PM

AngeloArgue wrote: »

So should the NIAC withdraw approval for AstraZeneca?

Bearing in mind it is due to contribute 1 million+ doses to our national vaccination campaign?

If the HCW dont want it I would happily take their dose

AngeloArgue · 25-02-2021 06:04PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Is that a question or a comment?

An observation of how health agencies, political leaders and media messaging can lead to vaccine hesitancy.

The Irish frontline HCWs that don't want to take the AZ vaccine didn't lick their attitude towards it off a stone

25-02-2021 06:16PM

astrofool wrote: »

However, at least you understand why all other countries that weren't in panic mode are following the guidelines? Everyone but the UK is sticking to the schedule.

A risky decision that may end up costing thousands of people their lives.

astrofool · 25-02-2021 06:46PM

Aegir wrote: »

A risky decision that may end up costing thousands of people their lives.

At least we finally agree that the UK decision is risky.

DaSilva · 25-02-2021 06:54PM

Call me Al wrote: »

I answered your very straightforward question as you asked. I never mentioned politics....

And as for language? This is a study done on Scottish people who have been given only one Pfizer jab... language has nothing to do with it!

And trying to extrapolate out that extending the duration of between doses is just as material as administering to an Irish population... well j just don't know where to begin with that lol!

There's a reason why Pfizer are advising against it for now. They havent trialled it. They can't say how much protection is provided after 12 weeks of one dose.
Data will start to emerge as the weeks progress and we will see exactly how successful the trial/rollout is working.
And sure we are winners all round if it works out.

I am not going to get into one of these bad faith online debates with you. You answered a slightly different question so you could promote your narrative and then pretend you answered what I asked, bad faith.

I wasn't drawing an equivalence of the change in dosing regime in the UK to the administering of a vaccine in Ireland that was trialled in the UK in terms of how big a risk it is, I was drawing the equivalence that there is always some risk in a public health program like is going on.

I have never defended what the UK are doing as some risk free perfect solution, all I have said is, despite the hyperbole of some people in here, it is not a completely crazy idea, and it is based on a scientific understanding and scientific evidence of how vaccines and immunity work, and that it is completely understandable in a crisis to have to take a potentially riskier decision.

In an ideal world we would trial every single combination of dose quantity, dose schedule, but we are not in an ideal situation. We are even comfortable administering different vaccines to the population where some have actual demonstrated different levels of efficacy.

astrofool wrote: »

At least we finally agree that the UK decision is risky.

The alternative approach is not risk free either.

DaSilva · 25-02-2021 07:16PM

Just to add to this, check out this table and article from the CDC about general vaccination best practices.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/timing.html#t-01

Note how there isn't a single vaccine on that list with a recommended dose interval of 3 weeks, and notice how not a single vaccine lists a maximum interval but all have a minimum interval, which is 4 weeks at the lowest. The article talks about how vaccines doses administered too close together are considered invalid, but says nothing about wider dosing schedules. Lets not pretend what the UK are doing is purely political.

Why would the covid vaccines have such short intervals in their trials? Probably because they wanted to design vaccines with the good efficacy (the 2 doses) in as short a schedule as possible, its probably not the case that 3 weeks is the optimum, but rather its a super short interval while still maintain excellent efficacy

Call me Al · 25-02-2021 07:17PM

DaSilva wrote: »

I am not going to get into one of these bad faith online debates with you. You answered a slightly different question so you could promote your narrative and then pretend you answered what I asked, bad faith.

I wasn't drawing an equivalence of the change in dosing regime in the UK to the administering of a vaccine in Ireland that was trialled in the UK in terms of how big a risk it is, I was drawing the equivalence that there is always some risk in a public health program like is going on.

I have never defended what the UK are doing as some risk free perfect solution, all I have said is, despite the hyperbole of some people in here, it is not a completely crazy idea, and it is based on a scientific understanding and scientific evidence of how vaccines and immunity work, and that it is completely understandable in a crisis to have to take a potentially riskier decision.

In an ideal world we would trial every single combination of dose quantity, dose schedule, but we are not in an ideal situation. We are even comfortable administering different vaccines to the population where some have actual demonstrated different levels of efficacy.

The alternative approach is not risk free either.

I don't have a "narrative". What I'm saying is that the UK government are running a massive trial on their population. Will it work, won't it work... we will know in a few months. And there is reason to question the efficacy at 12 weeks going by data (yet to be peer-reviewed) released by the Health services in Scotland.

And I really resent what you're accusing me of.

astrofool · 25-02-2021 07:30PM

DaSilva wrote: »

Just to add to this, check out this table and article from the CDC about general vaccination best practices.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/timing.html#t-01

Note how there isn't a single vaccine on that list with a recommended dose interval of 3 weeks, and notice how not a single vaccine lists a maximum interval but all have a minimum interval, which is 4 weeks at the lowest. The article talks about how vaccines doses administered too close together are considered invalid, but says nothing about wider dosing schedules. Lets not pretend what the UK are doing is purely political.

Why would the covid vaccines have such short intervals in their trials? Probably because they wanted to design vaccines with the good efficacy (the 2 doses) in as short a schedule as possible, its probably not the case that 3 weeks is the optimum, but rather its a super short interval while still maintain excellent efficacy

Yet the US is following the 3-4 week dosage schedule, because that is what was tested and verified, when other schedules are tested, than data can be compared and schedules adjusted accordingly.

It's amazing the speed that the vaccines have been developed, to then disregard all the testing and trials that has been done is a huge risk, both from a public confidence point of view, and from a public health point of view. Again, there's a reason nobody else in the world is following the UK's lead in this area.

Call me Al · 25-02-2021 07:40PM

DaSilva wrote: »

Just to add to this, check out this table and article from the CDC about general vaccination best practices.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/timing.html#t-01

Note how there isn't a single vaccine on that list with a recommended dose interval of 3 weeks, and notice how not a single vaccine lists a maximum interval but all have a minimum interval, which is 4 weeks at the lowest. The article talks about how vaccines doses administered too close together are considered invalid, but says nothing about wider dosing schedules. Lets not pretend what the UK are doing is purely political.

Why would the covid vaccines have such short intervals in their trials? Probably because they wanted to design vaccines with the good efficacy (the 2 doses) in as short a schedule as possible, its probably not the case that 3 weeks is the optimum, but rather its a super short interval while still maintain excellent efficacy

And yet for Pfizer CDC recommends 3 weeks, very maximum 6 weeks where unavoidable, due to limited data.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

mick087 · 25-02-2021 07:41PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

If the HCW dont want it I would happily take their dose

Me to if anyone refuses then there should be a list of people who will.

robinph · 25-02-2021 07:59PM

Call me Al wrote: »

And yet for Pfizer CDC recommends 3 weeks, very maximum 6 weeks where unavoidable, due to limited data.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

On reading that my reading was drawn to the bit about people with autoimmune conditions, as that covers me, and they say that no testing was done but sure give it to them anyway because we've never seen anything previously to suggest there might be any issues even though nobody actually tested it.

Perfectly valid for them to say whack it into those peoples arms who we didn't test this one on them. But for some reason when all the historical data they have saying that there isn't likely any negative impact from doing a 12 week gap between doses it's suddenly the most dangerous thing ever done with a vaccine program.

It's outside of the trial data to have that gap, but it's also not covered for any trials for them to stick the vaccines in my arm. I'll be round there like a shot the moment they get round to calling me in though.

kingtiger · 25-02-2021 08:22PM

getting my first dose of AZ tomorrow, absolutely delighted

brickster69 · 25-02-2021 08:32PM

New figures for EU uptake

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/acceptance-problem-as-most-oxford-covid-jabs-delivered-to-eu-not-yet-used?CMP=share_btn_tw

astrofool · 25-02-2021 08:33PM

robinph wrote: »

Perfectly valid for them to say whack it into those peoples arms who we didn't test this one on them. But for some reason when all the historical data they have saying that there isn't likely any negative impact from doing a 12 week gap between doses it's suddenly the most dangerous thing ever done with a vaccine program.

I don't think anyone is saying it's the most dangerous thing ever done.

What most people (and countries) are saying is that it's an unnecessary risk only being taken by one country which is in a position of serious weakness towards the virus due to previous mishandling.

What's also interesting is that they are saying it's because they're not in the EU, when the UK would have been completely free to pursue this strategy when within the EU as well (similarly to their wrong shade of blue passports).

AngeloArgue · 25-02-2021 09:43PM

brickster69 wrote: »

New figures for EU uptake

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/acceptance-problem-as-most-oxford-covid-jabs-delivered-to-eu-not-yet-used?CMP=share_btn_tw

And now it's millions of vaccines go left unused on shelves in Europe

And yet:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/eu-leaders-to-pledge-quicker-provision-of-covid-vaccine

Ursula up to her usual form of blaming AstraZeneca for Europe's slow start and again threatening shut off them supplying the UK from Europe

brickster69 · 25-02-2021 09:53PM

Worlds leading Virologist confirms "In view of the latest scientific studies, the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine has been proven,"

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/macron-says-he-would-take-astrazeneca-vaccine-if-it-was-offered/ar-BB1e1xYK?ocid=st

deeperlearning · 25-02-2021 09:57PM

The fact that Switzerland refused to authorise the AZ vaccine has had a major influence on the German public:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/switzerland-declines-to-authorise-astrazeneca-vaccine-over-insufficient-data-1.4475250

"If it is not good enough for the Swiss, why should it be good enough for me", would be the attitude of the average German.

AngeloArgue · 25-02-2021 10:07PM

deeperlearning wrote: »

The fact that Switzerland refused to authorise the AZ vaccine has had a major influence on the German public:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/switzerland-declines-to-authorise-astrazeneca-vaccine-over-insufficient-data-1.4475250

"If it is not good enough for the Swiss, why should it be good enough for me", would be the attitude of the average German.

Both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) approve AstraZeneca for all ages and yet some individual countries decide to reject it outright.

brickster69 · 25-02-2021 10:11PM

AngeloArgue wrote: »

Both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) approve AstraZeneca for all ages and yet some individual countries decide to reject it outright.

Maybe people know better.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/no-one-in-government-has-appetite-to-push-back-against-holohan-1.4477368

McGiver · 25-02-2021 10:57PM

AngeloArgue wrote:

Ursula up to her usual form of blaming AstraZeneca for Europe's slow start and again threatening shut off them supplying the UK from Europe

Does any other vaccine in the portfolio have a shortfall of 100m doses?

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments