What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Wompa1 · 10-04-2021 09:43PM

astrofool wrote: »

Latest estimates are seeing both the EU and UK finishing vaccinations around the same month (July), UK is seeing a smaller supply in the weeks ahead (coincidentally at the same time as the EU stopped most exports to the UK from Halix). As you say, the continent is going through the 3rd wave that hit the UK and Ireland over Christmas and January, but have the advantage of most vulnerable already vaccinated so their overall death rate should be much lower per capita than what the UK hit (particularly in the western countries, some of the eastern countries are having a hard time of it because they tried to stay open through high case numbers).

Wonder how long each vaccine's protection will last and will it last as long for those who got Pfizer doses 12 weeks apart as for those who got it 3-6 weeks apart?

Also, when AZ's agreement with Oxford expires and they charge more than cost, which countries will actually order from them for the boosters. Got to think the EU will have learned a lesson about how to handle contracts for the booster jabs too.

Danzy · 10-04-2021 09:51PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Many of them had a much lighter lockdown while the UK was closed for the last three months. Schools and universities have been open in many countries in Europe throughout, shops and stores open etc. It was only in mid March that things got worse.

There is truth in that but it's a pity that the continent has decided to see if it can flip places with.Britain.

Vaccination, supported by suppression is the only way out of this, you may disagree vehemently with that but evidence bears it out.

It's a problem for all of us when the political leadership of much of Europe is as skeptical as you are.

Another lost Summer economically, the impact of that will last for years and the damage done will need a response much larger than 2008.

drunkmonkey · 10-04-2021 09:52PM

Pfizer has hit a stumbling block, it's no use against the South Africa variant and if I'm reading this statement correctly you've a bigger chance of getting it than if you had no vaccine

"the prevalence of the South African strain among vaccinated individuals who were infected despite their inoculation was eight times higher than its prevalence in the unvaccinated infected population"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/real-world-israeli-data-shows-south-african-variant-better-at-bypassing-vaccine/

On a second read this is very disturbing news for people who've been vaccinated if their immune system isn't kicking in. Isn't that ADE?

astrofool · 10-04-2021 09:59PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Pfizer has hit a stumbling block, it's no use against the South Africa variant and if I'm reading this statement correctly you've a bigger chance of getting it than if you had no vaccine

"the prevalence of the South African strain among vaccinated individuals who were infected despite their inoculation was eight times higher than its prevalence in the unvaccinated infected population"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/real-world-israeli-data-shows-south-african-variant-better-at-bypassing-vaccine/

Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, do you want to try and read the article again a bit more carefully and then update your post accordingly?

drunkmonkey · 10-04-2021 10:03PM

astrofool wrote: »

Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, do you want to try and read the article again a bit more carefully and then update your post accordingly?

I've read it 3 times and can't believe my eyes, it does say the unvaccinated are at less risk, not sure how else you can read it, they always assumed ADE couldn't happen with pfizer/moderna but this demonstrated it does.
I do have the dt's so I could be jumbling up the words..

stephenjmcd · 10-04-2021 10:04PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I've read it 3 times and can't believe my eyes, it does say the unvaccinated are at less risk, not sure how else you can read it, they always assumed ADE couldn't happen with pfizer/moderna but this demonstrated it does.
I do have the dt's so I could be jumbling up the words..

Thread below

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1380987724329549824?s=19

astrofool · 10-04-2021 10:04PM

brickster69 wrote: »

It's the only way to judge things. As it stands at the moment i would doubt the UK will be in the top 20 for deaths and top 30 for cases per population in Europe, and that is with testing twice as many people than aside from Russia. About time you started saying how bad the " plague continent" is doing to be fair.

There's 2 things I'll note here:

1) Most of the big EU countries will have lower deaths per capita than the UK at the end of all this (as will most of the smaller ones apart from Eastern Europe and Belgium)
2) I presume if we go back through your posting history that you were calling the UK the "plague island" back in December/January when their cases per capita were much higher than the case count in the EU is now

drunkmonkey · 10-04-2021 10:11PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Thread below

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1380987724329549824?s=19

I don't think that clears it up in anyway, the fact still remains.

"the prevalence of the South African strain among vaccinated individuals who were infected despite their inoculation was eight times higher than its prevalence in the unvaccinated infected population.

It literally says the vaccinated had 8 more times the rate of infection than organic people..

astrofool · 10-04-2021 10:12PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I've read it 3 times and can't believe my eyes, it does say the unvaccinated are at less risk, not sure how else you can read it, they always assumed ADE couldn't happen with pfizer/moderna but this demonstrated it does.
I do have the dt's so I could be jumbling up the words..

OK then:

a) this has been known since December, the immune response against the SA variant is lower, but still more than enough to keep the person from getting severe COVID
b) the article literally says this:
"She said that the results show that the South African variant, compared to the original strain and the British variant, “is able to break through the vaccine’s protection.” However, she said that the sample size is too small to put a figure on its increased ability."
Which doesn't add anything new to what's already known, which is that you are more likely to get mild to moderate dose of COVID-19 than other variants, but you won't get severe COVID-19 and unlikely to die.

The article itself is very clickbaity.

robinph · 10-04-2021 10:15PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Pfizer has hit a stumbling block, it's no use against the South Africa variant and if I'm reading this statement correctly you've a bigger chance of getting it than if you had no vaccine

"the prevalence of the South African strain among vaccinated individuals who were infected despite their inoculation was eight times higher than its prevalence in the unvaccinated infected population"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/real-world-israeli-data-shows-south-african-variant-better-at-bypassing-vaccine/

On a second read this is very disturbing news for people who've been vaccinated if their immune system isn't kicking in. Isn't that ADE?

That's not what the "study" found at all, didn't really find much actually.

They just tested 150 people who had been vaccinated and been infected and found they were infected more with the SA strain than if they tested 150 infected people who were not vaccinated. That doesn't really tell us anything much to be worried about though.

If those 150 people were the only vaccinated ones in the whole of Israel to be infected then it just shows that the vaccines work, who cares what strain they were infected with.

robinph · 10-04-2021 10:18PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't think that clears it up in anyway, the fact still remains.

"the prevalence of the South African strain among vaccinated individuals who were infected despite their inoculation was eight times higher than its prevalence in the unvaccinated infected population.

It literally says the vaccinated had 8 more times the rate of infection than organic people..

No. It means that if you are infected whilst vaccinated then it's more likely to be the SA variant.

Not that you are more likely to catch the SA variant if you are vaccinated.

drunkmonkey · 10-04-2021 10:25PM

robinph wrote: »

They just tested 150 people who had been vaccinated and been infected and found they were infected more with the SA strain than if they tested 150 infected people who were not vaccinated. That doesn't really tell us anything much to be worried about though.

It does tell us the vaccinated immune system didn't work as efficiently against the variant.
The unvaccinated peoples immune system worked better.

Granted it's a small sample but the numbers were compelling. It's all hunky dory if the dominant variant never changes.

Wompa1 · 10-04-2021 10:25PM

Just a stab at this based on speaking with my Israeli colleagues but could vaccinated people have been 8 times more likely to get the SA strain because they were more likely to be out at restaurants, pubs, cinemas etc. knowing they had some protection where as those not vaccinated were more cautious?

From what I have heard, many over there have returned to the office, have been having meetups and they have been having public gatherings...

quokula · 10-04-2021 10:26PM

astrofool wrote: »

There's 2 things I'll note here:

1) Most of the big EU countries will have lower deaths per capita than the UK at the end of all this (as will most of the smaller ones apart from Eastern Europe and Belgium)
2) I presume if we go back through your posting history that you were calling the UK the "plague island" back in December/January when their cases per capita were much higher than the case count in the EU is now

Yeah there's some pretty wild inaccuracies from that poster.

Official covid deaths per million as of today:
UK: 1,900
France: 1,400
Ireland: 958
Germany: 938

We know from CSO figures that the UK's excess mortality has been quite a bit higher than their official covid death count, while Germany's was lower. Not all countries have those statistics available, but in general the UK look to have done extremely badly according to official figures, and even worse in reality when you look at uncounted deaths.

Being a few weeks ahead in vaccination thanks to AZ failing to meet European contract commitments isn't going to make up for that. And the fact that their death rate was so catastrophically higher than anyone else's back when vaccine negotiations were happening is absolutely a relevant factor in their willingness to throw more money at AZ to encourage them to break pre-existing contracts, and to forego a lot of scientific rigour in the approvals process and the second dose timings.

These risks have worked out of course, but it would have been reckless for a lot of other countries, who were not being decimated by the virus in nearly the same way, to have taken the same risks right off the bat without any studies or evidence to be sure of outcomes.

The rest of Europe, at the time of vaccine negotiations when infection rates were under control across most of the continent, also wouldn't have been prepared for the fact that the UK would act as a giant petri dish and produce new highly contagious new variants that they would then export to the rest of us, which has made the extra few weeks delay in vaccine rollout a lot more critical than they otherwise would have been.

Strazdas · 10-04-2021 10:27PM

Danzy wrote: »

There is truth in that but it's a pity that the continent has decided to see if it can flip places with.Britain.

Vaccination, supported by suppression is the only way out of this, you may disagree vehemently with that but evidence bears it out.

It's a problem for all of us when the political leadership of much of Europe is as skeptical as you are.

Another lost Summer economically, the impact of that will last for years and the damage done will need a response much larger than 2008.

I'm 100% in favour of the vaccinations. I do have an issue with the British media chest thumping about the vaccine success though : in early January, GB was seeing 60,000 cases a day (much higher numbers than anything seen in Europe at any point of the pandemic). It needed a vaccine success, because the situation had become utterly disastrous - something not acknowledged at all by the British press.

drunkmonkey · 10-04-2021 10:27PM

robinph wrote: »

No. It means that if you are infected whilst vaccinated then it's more likely to be the SA variant.

Not that you are more likely to catch the SA variant if you are vaccinated.

It says the SA variant was more prevalent in the vaccinated how can you say that they are less likely to catch the SA variant when the report says the opposite.

stephenjmcd · 10-04-2021 10:28PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It does tell us the vaccinated immune system didn't work as efficiently against the variant.
The unvaccinated peoples immune system worked better.

Granted it's a small sample but the numbers were compelling. It's all hunky dory if the dominant variant never changes.

0 cases noted 14 days after 2nd vaccine, it is a very limited study however.

This is probably more for the vaccine thread but read the whole thread I linked and you'll get a good insight

quokula · 10-04-2021 10:32PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It does tell us the vaccinated immune system didn't work as efficiently against the variant.
The unvaccinated peoples immune system worked better.

Granted it's a small sample but the numbers were compelling. It's all hunky dory if the dominant variant never changes.

You're missing the word "infected" - it was more prevalent among infected people, not more prevalent in total.

Example made up numbers:
1000 vaccinated people, 2 catch "regular" covid and 8 catch "SA" covid
1000 unvaccinated people, 80 catch "regular" covid and 20 catch "SA" covid

SA covid makes up 80% of vaccinated infections and only 20% of unvaccinated infections, therefore it is 4 times as prevalent among the infected vaccinated population. That does not make the vaccinated population more at risk at all.

murphaph · 10-04-2021 10:34PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It says the SA variant was more prevalent in the vaccinated how can you say that they are less likely to catch the SA variant when the report says the opposite.

The argument being made is that just by being vaccinated people place themselves at much higher risk of infection. I can see merit to the argument.

drunkmonkey · 10-04-2021 10:35PM

quokula wrote: »

You're missing the word "infected" - it was more prevalent among infected people, not more prevalent in total.

Example made up numbers:
1000 vaccinated people, 2 catch "regular" covid and 8 catch "SA" covid
1000 unvaccinated people, 80 catch "regular" covid and 20 catch "SA" covid

SA covid makes up 80% of vaccinated infections and only 20% of unvaccinated infections, therefore it is 4 times as prevalent among the infected vaccinated population. That does not make the vaccinated population more at risk at all.

The vaccinated are at a higher risk of catching it based on the study. That statement is true.

drunkmonkey · 10-04-2021 10:37PM

murphaph wrote: »

The argument being made is that just by being vaccinated people place themselves at much higher risk of infection. I can see merit to the argument.

I see it with elderly relatives already, they're gone from not allowing the kids in the house to offering to pick them up from school, masks are gone when they visit.

quokula · 10-04-2021 10:48PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The vaccinated are at a higher risk of catching it based on the study. That statement is true.

That statement is not true. The study says that vaccinated people who are infected are more likely to be infected with that variant. The study didn't look at that as a percentage of the overall uninfected population.

10-04-2021 11:36PM

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

If Uk had same death rate as Ireland at least 70,000 of 130,000 be alive today

And if iteland had the same death rate as New Zealand or Finland and Norway?

You’re comparing a country with a high population and urban density with one with a very low population density. It’s a false comparison.

Wolf359f · 10-04-2021 11:39PM

Aegir wrote: »

And if iteland had the same death rate as New Zealand or Finland and Norway?

You’re comparing a country with a high population and urban density with one with a very low population density. It’s a false comparison.

And if the UK had a similar death rate as Germany for example?
Would that be a fair comparison?

patnor1011 · 11-04-2021 03:09AM

While we still hear classic "vaccine benefit outweigh the risk of vaccine complications or death" we somehow stopped hearing "even one death with covid is one too many"... AZ appears to be toast and only the bravest from the most scared will go ahead and have one.
Official: 'clear link' between AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots.
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/268605001/official-clear-link-between-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-blood-clots

patnor1011 · 11-04-2021 03:13AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

0 cases noted 14 days after 2nd vaccine, it is a very limited study however.

This is probably more for the vaccine thread but read the whole thread I linked and you'll get a good insight

This is probably more for the vaccine thread but well only positive news are allowed there so...
Vaccine fails to curb Covid for 246 people in U.S. midwest state.
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/268604147/vaccine-fails-to-curb-covid-for-246-people-in-us-midwest-state

Charles Babbage · 11-04-2021 03:14AM

patnor1011 wrote: »

While we still hear classic "vaccine benefit outweigh the risk of vaccine complications or death" we somehow stopped hearing "even one death with covid is one too many"... AZ appears to be toast and only the bravest from the most scared will go ahead and have one.
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/268605001/official-clear-link-between-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-blood-clots

You do realise that this is old news?
Plenty of people will take AZ, although given their failure to supply there won't be that many getting it.

Probes · 11-04-2021 04:00AM

patnor1011 wrote: »

This is probably more for the vaccine thread but well only positive news are allowed there so...
Vaccine fails to curb Covid for 246 people in U.S. midwest state.
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/268604147/vaccine-fails-to-curb-covid-for-246-people-in-us-midwest-state

We know vaccines don't work for everyone. That's why it's so important for many people to take the vaccine, it protects everyone.

Also, the article says all those who died were within 3 weeks of being fully vaccinated, so presumably they hadn't fully developed their level of immunity when they caught Covid.

robinph · 11-04-2021 05:58AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The vaccinated are at a higher risk of catching it based on the study. That statement is true.

A higher risk of catching it than what?

If you are vaccinated you are less likely to catch any variant of covid.

If you are vaccinated it more likely that you will have the SA variant, but the chances of catching any variant it are still less than for unvaccinated.

11-04-2021 07:09AM

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gps-advised-not-to-administer-astrazeneca-jab-until-committee-reports-back-1.4534281%3fmode=amp

NIAC told GPs on Friday not to use Asterazeneca for Cohort 4 until their review is complete.

I wonder how many in group 4 gpt it the past 2 days?

Hopefully we will know by tomorrow.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments