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; } } }

Child Item

COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

Beasty

Thread 1
Thread 2

No anti-vax stuff in this thread - it's to discuss the various vaccines available and how they are getting rolled out, as well as testing procedures

Threadbans carry over

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Vicxas

I'd lick the vaccine off a sweaty boot at this stage

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

I’m not anti fax in any way but I no longer trust AZ

why

Gael23

I’m not anti fax in any way but I no longer trust AZ

robinph

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't think it'll have a huge effect, if you're vaccine hesitant in any way you're not changing your mind. Most others should accept the move on it. I wouldn't push the bad PR too hard as a whole lot of that is hindsight. Like the virus itself the approach has been novel!

Doubt it will make much difference in Ireland, the likes of France have a lot of work to do to get anything in people's arms though. The longer it takes to get them vaccinated the longer it will take to get out of this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/m4vf3c/views_from_a_few_countries_on_the_safety_of_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

Who’s going to take AZ from now on? Going to take slot of work to win back confidence

i'll take it no bother

iamwhoiam

Gael23 wrote: »

Who’s going to take AZ from now on? Going to take slot of work to win back confidence

Me . I am in group 5 and will take AZ if offered it

is_that_so

namloc1980 wrote: »

Me. And I'm in Group 4. The vaccine is perfectly fine, however the messaging and PR around it has been horrendous.

I feel the way all the stuff has been handled by AstraZenica, national governments and the EU, will be a case study in PR for years to come.

I don't think it'll have a huge effect, if you're vaccine hesitant in any way you're not changing your mind. Most others should accept the move on it. I wouldn't push the bad PR too hard as a whole lot of that is hindsight. Like the virus itself the approach has been novel!

robinph

Gael23 wrote: »

Who’s going to take AZ from now on? Going to take slot of work to win back confidence

Me.

Already had my first and the second dose is booked for the middle of May.

mick087

Gael23 wrote: »

Who’s going to take AZ from now on? Going to take slot of work to win back confidence

Me within 5 minutes of getting a call i would take it.

Currently looking if there a way i can get it in the north

namloc1980

Gael23 wrote: »

Who’s going to take AZ from now on? Going to take slot of work to win back confidence

Me. And I'm in Group 4. The vaccine is perfectly fine, however the messaging and PR around it has been horrendous.

I feel the way all the noise about AZ has been handled by AstraZenica, national governments and the EU, will be a case study in PR for years to come.

Gael23

Who’s going to take AZ from now on? Going to take slot of work to win back confidence

Kermit.de.frog

The USA is blitzing ahead.

On average now over 2.4 million doses per day so far.

109 million doses rolled out as of today.

Very impressive.

Danzy

Stark wrote: »

No mention of Novavax anywhere. I wonder did the commission **** up on doing a deal with them.

Still waiting to close the deal.

8 months after the Tans.

The Tans also drove on the vaccine development with support.

"It's just a cough, economic normality can resume in September, no rush" remains the EU mantra.

josip

ACitizenErased wrote: »

They should have signed with Merck. AstraZeneca aren't exactly a vaccine giant.

Was probably the correct decision for them (UK not Oxford) to go with AstraZeneca.
The govt worried that if they went with Merck, it would fall under the US's vaccine nationalisation policy.
So they chose a partner who would prioritise the UK.

is_that_so

Stark wrote: »

No mention of Novavax anywhere. I wonder did the commission **** up on doing a deal with them.

More likely Bloomberg did. Deal not quite wrapped up, but rolling review and late summer approval probably.

Stark

JTMan wrote: »

Bloomberg projections ...

No mention of Novavax anywhere. I wonder did the commission **** up on doing a deal with them.

Danzy

robinph wrote: »

So would Merck producing the same thing have resulted in a different outcome regarding suspension of vaccination due to fears over blood clots?

Probably, AZ and Pfizer have similar figures for embolisms, Pfizer higher in some types.

JTMan

Bloomberg projections ...

EwgZeaZWUAEZcQ9?format=jpg&name=large

JPup

Russman wrote: »

So, if my crude understanding is correct (and I know the numbers change constantly), that's c2.2m doses of Pfizer in Q2, equating to 1.1m people. Plus 600k doses of J&J in Q2, giving us a total of 1.7m people in Q2 vaccinated with either Pfizer or J&J ? Plus a smattering of Moderna and whatever AZ throw in the mix ?

I suspect they will start delaying the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine at some stage during Q2 once the highest risk categories have been covered. So 2.2m vaccines might equate to 1.5m adults getting a dose (I have just plucked that 1.5m number out of the air by the way!)

is_that_so

JTMan wrote: »

Pfizer and Moderna will release data from their 12-15 year old trial this summer. Every reason to think 12-15 year olds will get vaccinated this year. Trails for this aged 11 and under will start later this year.

12-15 is only a subset. I'd still say it's optimistic to think we'll have them done.

Russman

robinph wrote: »

I acknowledge that the initial "feel sorry for Oxford" wasn't your post, but you were responding to it.

What is there to feel sorry for Oxford about? If the science of the vaccine is bad and its causing blood clots then that is on Oxford, not Astra Zeneca.
If it's a comment on production quantity issues then it's a strange moment to re-raise that point when the main thing being discussed at the moment is the suspension of rollout.

True, tbh I think the poster was probably referring to the totality of what's happened with AZ between the supply issues and now the clotting thing. Maybe it just feels like Oxford, for all their well intentioned science, haven't gotten, I dunno, the necessary bit of luck needed with everything in life. Rightly or wrongly, they've been overshadowed by the efficacy of the MRNA vaccines, then the production issues and now the suspension of the rollout.

Hmmzis

https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/first-participants-dosed-phase-1-study-evaluating-mrna-1283/

Next gen version from Moderna, the biggest takeaway is the regular fridge temp requitements. Also, they're looking at only the smaller doses this time (100ug or less). From the presser it's not quite clear if this is just the SA version or the multivalent combo.

robinph

Russman wrote: »

No, but they'd have produced a lot more of it, and probably on time. Mind you, whether that's a good thing or not is up in the air just now !

I acknowledge that the initial "feel sorry for Oxford" wasn't your post, but you were responding to it.

What is there to feel sorry for Oxford about? If the science of the vaccine is bad and its causing blood clots then that is on Oxford, not Astra Zeneca.
If it's a comment on production quantity issues then it's a strange moment to re-raise that point when the main thing being discussed at the moment is the suspension of rollout.

JTMan

is_that_so wrote: »

Late 2021 is very optimistic, more like next year.

Pfizer and Moderna will release data from their 12-15 year old trial this summer. Every reason to think 12-15 year olds will get vaccinated this year. Trails for this aged 11 and under will start later this year.

Vicxas

Fantastic news from Pfizer

lbj666

Russman wrote: »

No, but they'd have produced a lot more of it, and probably on time. Mind you, whether that's a good thing or not is up in the air just now !

so this blood clot issue would have come and gone long before now really.

is_that_so

ACitizenErased wrote: »

They should have signed with Merck. AstraZeneca aren't exactly a vaccine giant.

Hancock wouldn't approve it as the deal wouldn't have guaranteed supplies to the UK, although that probably wouldn't have been an issue as they would have produced far more than AZ.

lbj666

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Crazy (and a bit depressing) how things have changed. In December and January there were innumerable "Pfizer is just a start for certain groups, once AZ gets approved it'll be the game changer and cover most of the population quickly" comments.

Yet here we are 3 months later and 2 months after AZ approval and Pfizer has still done all the heavy lifting and will do for the foreseeable future.

Is there anything happening in the background about widening the dosing interval or are Biotech/Pfizer saying the label is the label and thats it or could it change based on UK findings?

Maybe not for at risk groups , but surely there is merit in considering it beyond group 7.

Russman

robinph wrote: »

So would Merck producing the same thing have resulted in a different outcome regarding suspension of vaccination due to fears over blood clots?

No, but they'd have produced a lot more of it, and probably on time. Mind you, whether that's a good thing or not is up in the air just now !

robinph

ACitizenErased wrote: »

They should have signed with Merck. AstraZeneca aren't exactly a vaccine giant.

So would Merck producing the same thing have resulted in a different outcome regarding suspension of vaccination due to fears over blood clots?