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

astrofool · 22-12-2020 12:01pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I understand the group is large and within the realms possible, identical. But it alters not the problem.

I think the problem lies with your misunderstanding of data despite it being shown clearly to you time and again, which makes me believe you're an anti-vaxxer pretending to be a sceptic.

The vaccine has proven to be safe.
The vaccine has proven to be effective.

Likely by the time you can take it, millions more people will have got the vaccine, further proving it's safe and effective.

Will you take it then?

What are you looking for in the numbers that would change your mind?

Again, you seem to be doubling down on misunderstood figures by you, do you now understand what they mean and how they are measured?

What are you trying to prove by repeating the same wrong information over and over again?

stephenjmcd · 22-12-2020 1:00pm

A very steady stream of vaccines to arrive. First vacination 30th Dec

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1341352425739923457?s=19

nommm · 22-12-2020 1:01pm

https://twitter.com/philip_ryan/status/1341352425739923457?s=21

40k /week doesn’t inspire me that the end is near

ACitizenErased · 22-12-2020 1:02pm

nommm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/philip_ryan/status/1341352425739923457?s=21

40k /week doesn’t inspire me that the end is near

I’m assuming that is Pfizer only. Technically no other vaccine “exists” in the EU scheme of things.

funnydoggy · 22-12-2020 1:06pm

stephenjmcd wrote: »

A very steady stream of vaccines to arrive. First vacination 30th Dec

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1341352425739923457?s=19

I'm suddenly thinking of the big trucks carrying all that gold in Die Hard With a Vengeance :pac:

mandrake04 · 22-12-2020 1:17pm

An interesting one, Australia could possibly vaccinate border, quarantine, airline and airport staff first.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/22/a-covid-vaccine-will-soon-arrive-in-australia-heres-how-we-should-deploy-it

I also heard the health minister Greg Hunt talking about vaccine approval, he says the TGA is not going be giving EUA but rather go for full approval and that they are monitoring the use of Pfizer in US and UK first. There’s also 30 million doses of AZ/Oxford sitting in the CSL plant in Melbourne ready to go but they don’t want to rush the approval.

22-12-2020 1:35pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I understand the group is large and within the realms possible, identical. But it alters not the problem.

The problem is that the numbers involved in calculating efficacy are tiny. 9 out of 24,000 in the vaccinated group and 132 (iirc) from the placebo group.

Now you can decide there is statistical significance between 9 and 132 and decide no statistical significance between 9 and 12.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether you would get a significant spread of numbers were you to monitor a number of 24,000 sized groups. Take the vaccinated group with 9 cases. Would you get 9/24000 if you examined 100 x 24000 vaccinated groups? Obviously not. So what would the spread be? 4 to 20? 3 to 144? 7 to 231? And would that spread follow a normally distributed curve whereby the significant mean is in the middle?

That you cannot practically obtain an answer is neither here nor there. The issue is that 9 and 132 can be complete darts at a board numbers.

As ought be clear, the size of the test group is irrelevant when the numbers you base your decision on are tiny. The question is what spread can be expected when you compare multiple groups of 24,000

If you knew high blood pressure caused heart attacks and were developing a drug to lower blood pressure you would take a large sample of people with high blood pressure. You would give half the drug and half a placebo. And then see how many went on to have heart attacks.

All the participants would be exposed to the risk and you have a significant result.

But you can't expose all of the participants of a Covid vaccine trial to Covid - that would be unethical. And so you don't know how many of the trial subjects are exposed to Covid. It will be a small fraction of your trial sample in any case.

In the case of the blood pressure drug you wouldn't expect to get significant variation in 100 x 24000 sized groups: all participants would have high blood pressure. Not so with this vaccine trial. Circumstances on the ground will mean there will be a range in the numbers contracting Covid if you could monitor100 groups x 24000.

Like I say, given the comparatively tiny numbers involved (9 and 132 from 20000), that range/spread could swallow up whole, all your statistical significance obtained from your mere two data points (9 and 132)

You are trying hard, but your understanding of statistical significance is non existent. There are not 2 data points. Each event is a data point. And for the data with 9 events in the vaccine group you produce a 95% confidence interval that the true rate of infection in the vaccine group will be between 2.9% and 11.7% - eg in 19 of 20 trails the maximum rate of infection you would expect would be 11.7%.

If 95% confidence was not enough and you wanted 99 the range would be 2.2 to 13.6% - in 99 trial out of 100 the data would fall in the range based on 9 infections detected in the vaccine group

If 99% wasn't enough at 99.9 the range would be 1.6% to 16% - in 999 trials out of 1000 the data would fall in that range

Sky King · 22-12-2020 1:56pm

funnydoggy wrote: »

I'm suddenly thinking of the big trucks carrying all that gold in Die Hard With a Vengeance :pac:

I was thinking of the convoy of illuminated trucks in the coca cola christmas ad

funnydoggy · 22-12-2020 2:02pm

Sky King wrote: »

I was thinking of the convoy of illuminated trucks in the coca cola christmas ad

https://twitter.com/laoneill111/status/1330216372840886272

is_that_so · 22-12-2020 2:05pm

nommm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/philip_ryan/status/1341352425739923457?s=21

40k /week doesn’t inspire me that the end is near

It will take a few months for all of them to ramp up supplies. By the end of January we may have 3 approved but from March onwards is where they expect a whole lot more.

namloc1980 · 22-12-2020 2:19pm

nommm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/philip_ryan/status/1341352425739923457?s=21

40k /week doesn’t inspire me that the end is near

At 40k a week it would take over 3 years to get to 70% of the population vaccinated. But you'd hope that the other vaccines will come on stream in the first few months of 2021 and numbers would seriously ramp up.

Sky King · 22-12-2020 2:23pm

Does the 40k include the soon-to-be-approved vaccines I wonder? Hopefully not....

Van.Bosch · 22-12-2020 2:25pm

stephenjmcd wrote: »

A very steady stream of vaccines to arrive. First vacination 30th Dec

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1341352425739923457?s=19

Why the 30th if others are starting 27th?

antiskeptic · 22-12-2020 2:28pm

plodder wrote: »

I think the numbers belie the significance of it. It's much easier to see in a timeline graph like this one, and in fact the vast majority of vaccine cases occurred during the period immediately after vaccination (as expected).

The low overall infection rate is only of secondary interest. There has been speculation that people likely to sign up for a vaccine trial are more careful in general about getting infected.

I don't see how the graph addresses the question. Narrow it down to just the placebo group for simplicities sake. The graph shows a steady cumulative increase of Covid cases in the unvaccinated group, as you would expect. You end up after a period of time with a total. 132 or whatever

My question is: what would the range of numbers be if you observed 100 groups x 24,000.

You would naturally see a cumulative increase in all groups over time. The cumulative total wouldn't be 132 each time. That much is certain. So what would it be?

What if it was 9? Wouldn't the graph look just like the vaccinated group graph?

The low numbers do count. If makes the possible range of totals obtainable in like groups (say 100 groups of 24,000 unvaccinated) a more relevant issue.

antiskeptic · 22-12-2020 2:35pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are trying hard, but your understanding of statistical significance is non existent. There are not 2 data points. Each event is a data point. And for the data with 9 events in the vaccine group you produce a 95% confidence interval that the true rate of infection in the vaccine group will be between 2.9% and 11.7% - eg in 19 of 20 trails the maximum rate of infection you would expect would be 11.7%.

If 95% confidence was not enough and you wanted 99 the range would be 2.2 to 13.6% - in 99 trial out of 100 the data would fall in the range based on 9 infections detected in the vaccine group

If 99% wasn't enough at 99.9 the range would be 1.6% to 16% - in 999 trials out of 1000 the data would fall in that range

Thanks for the lesson but my comment (and ignorance on the precise workings of confidence intervals) isn't the central issue.

You might address the central issue:

1 group of 24000 placebo'd produced 132 (or some such) Covid cases.

You would agree that if we ran 100 placebo groups of 24000 we wouldn't get 132 Covid cases in each group. We would get a range of results.

Q.1 What is that range?

Q.2 How is that range arrived at (assuming we can't practically run an experiment of 100 groups of 24000 plaebo'd people).

22-12-2020 2:36pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how the graph addresses the question. Narrow it down to just the placebo group for simplicities sake. The graph shows a steady cumulative increase of Covid cases in the unvaccinated group, as you would expect. You end up after a period of time with a total. 132 or whatever

My question is: what would the range of numbers be if you observed 100 groups x 24,000.

You would naturally see a cumulative increase in all groups over time. The cumulative total wouldn't be 132 each time. That much is certain. So what would it be?

What if it was 9? Wouldn't the graph look just like the vaccinated group graph?

The low numbers do count. If makes the possible range of totals obtainable in like groups (say 100 groups of 24,000 unvaccinated) a more relevant issue.

Answered.

Deleted User wrote: »

You are trying hard, but your understanding of statistical significance is non existent. There are not 2 data points. Each event is a data point. And for the data with 9 events in the vaccine group you produce a 95% confidence interval that the true rate of infection in the vaccine group will be between 2.9% and 11.7% - eg in 19 of 20 trails the maximum rate of infection you would expect would be 11.7%.

If 95% confidence was not enough and you wanted 99 the range would be 2.2 to 13.6% - in 99 trial out of 100 the data would fall in the range based on 9 infections detected in the vaccine group

If 99% wasn't enough at 99.9 the range would be 1.6% to 16% - in 999 trials out of 1000 the data would fall in that range

hmmm · 22-12-2020 2:38pm

Sky King wrote: »

Does the 40k include the soon-to-be-approved vaccines I wonder? Hopefully not....

Just doing some back of the envelope calcs - suggests for the EU has a whole that represents about 200 million doses a year, so that is 1 vaccine.

Hopefully we have 4 vaccines in the new year. If we got similar from each we'll be humming along at 160,000 vaccinated a week which wouldn't be long making a difference.

22-12-2020 2:57pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks for the lesson but my comment (and ignorance on the precise workings of confidence intervals) isn't the central issue.

You might address the central issue:

1 group of 24000 placebo'd produced 132 (or some such) Covid cases.

You would agree that if we ran 100 placebo groups of 24000 we wouldn't get 132 Covid cases in each group. We would get a range of results.

Q.1 What is that range?

Q.2 How is that range arrived at (assuming we can't practically run an experiment of 100 groups of 24000 plaebo'd people).

Statistics -you can go at it from two sides - observe the number of events you get and then get a confidence statement over a range as I have shown or complete multiple studies and use the standard deviation to calculate a distribution. And its not the number of patients in the trial that gives the confidence in efficacy, just the ratio of events. The more patients, the quicker you reach the endpoint. The overall number is important for safety. Either way a result that produces 9 events in 141 occurring in the vaccine population would occur about 1 time in 1,000,000,000,000 by chance if the vaccine was ineffective.

Gael23 · 22-12-2020 2:59pm

Looks like were going to be getting about 20,000 vaccines a month unless more come along soon

Stheno · 22-12-2020 2:59pm

Gael23 wrote: »

Looks like were going to be getting about 20,000 vaccines a month unless more come along soon

Its 40000 doses a week

ACitizenErased · 22-12-2020 3:18pm

Gael23 wrote: »

Looks like were going to be getting about 20,000 vaccines a month unless more come along soon

It's likely going to be 8-10 times that figure, if not more.

Professor Moriarty · 22-12-2020 3:31pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

Did you not read the article? Germany is negotiating it's own allocation outside the EU process:

Germany is conducting direct negotiations with domestic Covid-19 vaccine developers to obtain more doses than would be allocated through the shared European Union plan, Health Minister Jens Spahn said.

From your Der Spiegel article, which is the more recent of the two you quoted:

"But there is one hitch: Deliveries to the EU have priority. And a contract is also needed for that special contingent, but it hasn’t yet been signed, according to company sources. So far, there have only been declarations of intent."

ShineOn7 · 22-12-2020 3:36pm

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1341352425739923457

This number is scarily low

Pfizer is by far the strongest vaccine isn't it? And this is all we'll get?

CIARAN_BOYLE · 22-12-2020 3:41pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1341352425739923457

This number is scarily low

Pfizer is by far the strongest vaccine isn't it? And this is all we'll get?

Honestly I'm ecstatic the numbers are so high.

I was expecting much lower (at least for a while).

There is a reason that NHEPT has been shouting about the vaccine not being a silver bullet.

The last time I saw estimates of numbers from a reliable source was 60,000 doses for 30,000 people in January.

stephenjmcd · 22-12-2020 3:42pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Philip_Ryan/status/1341352425739923457

This number is scarily low

Pfizer is by far the strongest vaccine isn't it? And this is all we'll get?

40k a week is a very good number given its the only approved vaccine.

That'll change as we go through Jan with approval for others.

40k a week is a good start

hmmm · 22-12-2020 3:44pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Pfizer is by far the strongest vaccine isn't it? And this is all we'll get?

Pfizer & Moderna have had the best results with 90-95% effectiveness.

Astra's results were not as good, but there was no severe Covid cases in the vaccine group on their trial so sounds like it will do just fine. They're still testing different combinations, that could all change for the better.

J&J's results are due shortly. They are trying a one-dose and a two-dose version, so we shouldn't be surprised if we don't hear mention of 90% effectiveness. A one-dose vaccine with a high (but not 90%) effectiveness would still be fantastic.

CureVac is another mRNA vaccine, it would be very surprising if their trial figures were not similar to Moderna/Pfizer.

I expect we'll be mixing and matching vaccines depending on the group, age, how vulnerable they are etc.

Professor Moriarty · 22-12-2020 3:46pm

stephenjmcd wrote: »

40k a week is a very good number given its the only approved vaccine.

That'll change as we go through Jan with approval for others.

40k a week is a good start

By comparison, it's the equivalent of the UK distributing 540,000 vaccines per week without approving any other vaccine.

wes · 22-12-2020 3:46pm

Also, over time vaccine production will increase as well.

ShineOn7 · 22-12-2020 3:51pm

hmmm wrote: »

Astra's results were not as good, but there was no severe Covid cases in the vaccine group on their trial so sounds like it will do just fine.

Thanks as ever for the info

Note to self though; try to avoid the Astra one unless it's a last resort ;-)

"Do just fine" isn't good enough for a vaccine

CIARAN_BOYLE · 22-12-2020 3:58pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Thanks as ever for the info

Note to self though; try to avoid the Astra one unless it's a last resort ;-)

"Do just fine" isn't good enough for a vaccine

HD/FD seemed great but the trial numbers might be too low for the regulators.

FD/FD seemed to have much poorer results (on par with a single dose of Pfizer or Moderna).

Hopefully HD/FD will have more information by the time it goes to regulators. At any rate it will be a useful factor to improve supplies. Perhaps Astra Zenaca will be offered to lower risk people while Pfizer and Moderna are concentrated on higher risk persons.

As mentioned earlier the supplies of Pfizer (while higher than I was expecting) are a bit crap.

Duke of Url · 22-12-2020 4:00pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Thanks as ever for the info

Note to self though; try to avoid the Astra one unless it's a last resort ;-)

"Do just fine" isn't good enough for a vaccine

Not sure about that.

The flu vaccine is only 40% effective I think but seems really popular in saving lives

70% should be very successful.

hmmm · 22-12-2020 4:04pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

"Do just fine" isn't good enough for a vaccine

We've said all along that the vaccines don't have to be perfect. Perfection would be one that stops the virus and the disease 100%.

Pfizer & Moderna are off the charts. If I could get a vaccine in the near future that pretty much ensures you won't end up in hospital, I'd take it - better than waiting for Pfizer to produce something that might only reach most people in Autumn/Winter 2021.

ACitizenErased · 22-12-2020 4:38pm

Thought I'd let people know - my father's involved in the logistics for swabbing hubs for the HSE. Drive through vaccination centres are ready to go and will be set up within 3-4 hour notice of the go-ahead from Dublin.

odyssey06 · 22-12-2020 4:45pm

Duke of Url wrote: »

Not sure about that.

The flu vaccine is only 40% effective I think but seems really popular in saving lives

70% should be very successful.

You may not be comparing the same % effectiveness...
I've seen 40% used for flu vaccine effectiveness in a given year, but that had very high demographic variability as it gave very little protection to over 65s. Probably its main benefit was in reducing spread by the under 65s who received the vaccine.
Seems like over 65s really need a boosted \ adjuvanted version, I don't think the version rolled out here was adjuvanted but could be wrong on that.

I've also seen 40% used as an indication of its effectiveness over 10 years, and in some years the vaccine strains do not match those in circulation. Hopefully that won't be a concern with covid.

Gael23 · 22-12-2020 4:48pm

Receiving 40000 a week would take 3 years to vaccinate everyone

stephenjmcd · 22-12-2020 4:50pm

Gael23 wrote: »

Receiving 40000 a week would take 3 years to vaccinate everyone

And ?? Its one vaccine.

Its a very good start

CIARAN_BOYLE · 22-12-2020 4:54pm

Gael23 wrote: »

Receiving 40000 a week would take 3 years to vaccinate everyone

Not relying on pfizer alone. Need approval of a few others to come through.

Eventually pfizer can ramp up production too possibly. It will happen if other vaccines aren't approved.

Sweet.Science · 22-12-2020 4:54pm

The Oxford one is the game changer . The world will look a lot different come March

Sky King · 22-12-2020 5:04pm

stephenjmcd wrote: »

And ?? Its one vaccine.

Its a very good start

Indeed it is. We wouldn't be too far off hitting this timeline in that case

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ep1ysuaXcAAToq0.jpg

That's all old folks homes and HCWs, and a good shot of over 70's done by Feb.

is_that_so · 22-12-2020 5:04pm

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

There is a reason that NPHET has been shouting about the vaccine not being a silver bullet.

Quite incoherently I'd say.

Deenie78 · 22-12-2020 5:12pm

Though I'd love to hear it was more, I think getting 40,000 a week for (hopefully) just the first few weeks will give them a chance to get up and running with less risk of making errors and to get into their stride. Hopefully (my favourite word at the moment) by the end of Jan this will have dramatically increased and we'll have a good system in place for them to really go for it.

hmmm · 22-12-2020 5:15pm

Fauci gets the Moderna vaccine
https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1341407481881370631

Gael23 · 22-12-2020 5:24pm

Sweet.Science wrote: »

The Oxford one is the game changer . The world will look a lot different come March

Whats the latest update on that one. They were having some difficulties recently

BryanMartin21 · 22-12-2020 5:37pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/level-5-restrictions-likely-to-stay-for-two-months-says-varadkar-1.4443995?mode=amp

Interesting quote from Leo, where he expects the critical mass to be vaccinated by end of February. Light at the end of the tunnel after all it seems! Although, it isn't surprising really. People haven't been dying since the spring so it has really been a casedemic more than anything.

“It will probably be towards the end of February or early March before a critical mass of the population is vaccinated and I think we need to operate on the basis that these restrictions will be in place until then,” Mr Varadkar told a press conference after the Taoiseach’s announcement earlier in the day.

Sky King · 22-12-2020 5:38pm

What is meant by 'critical mass' in this context?

is_that_so · 22-12-2020 5:40pm

Sky King wrote: »

What is meant by 'critical mass' in this context?

As they are doing it in order of risk I'd say most of groups 1-7.

BryanMartin21 · 22-12-2020 5:45pm

is_that_so wrote: »

As they are doing it in order of risk I'd say most of groups 1-7.

Yes, that's what I read it as.

10 weeks until the beginning of March, we're nearly at the end of this covid imposed lockdown nightmare!

Gael23 · 22-12-2020 5:45pm

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/level-5-restrictions-likely-to-stay-for-two-months-says-varadkar-1.4443995?mode=amp

Interesting quote from Leo, where he expects the critical mass to be vaccinated by end of February. Light at the end of the tunnel after all it seems! Although, it isn't surprising really. People haven't been dying since the spring so it has really been a casedemic more than anything.

So back to normal by easter if he is correct?

is_that_so · 22-12-2020 5:47pm

Gael23 wrote: »

So back to normal by easter if he is correct?

Probably not completely but maybe Level 2 or lower.

BryanMartin21 · 22-12-2020 5:48pm

Gael23 wrote: »

So back to normal by easter if he is correct?

If the vulnerable are vaccinated, I would think so, bar maybe large crowd events. There wouldn't be a justification to keep restrictions if vulnerable people had their vaccines. Lockdowns will be optional for those still wary I'm sure, they can stay at home.

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

Comments