The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

How's your immunity looking? Had covid - vote twice - vax status and then again for infection status

  • Vaxxed but no booster

  • Boostered

  • Still waiting in queue for first vaccine dose

  • Won't get vaxxed (unless I have to for travel/work etc)

  • Past infection with covid + I've been vaccinated

  • Past infection with covid - I've not been vaccinated

Results are only viewable after voting.
pocco said:
Ok thanks for the explanation. So, theoretically, if one vaccine turns out to be everything we need it to be, but we needed far quicker production, would rival companies ditch their vaccine to help develop greater quantities of the better vaccine to meet demand? Or are you effectively saying that they are so far down the line in their vaccine that they simply need to recoup money now?

I understand what you're saying that they all acted in everybody's best interest in developing a vaccine quickly. But would they/ could they help develop a better vaccine if it was practically the perfect vaccine and greater quantities were needed? In such an instance, would the company that created the vaccine give others access to help out?

Another question is, say five years down the line it is shown that this will need and annual vaccine like the flu, is it likely by that point we would then only be using the vaccine that proves to be the best and the others will then be redundant?

I don't have any strong feeling either way, I'm just asking this more out of interest and I'm just relieved there are vaccines on the way.
Click to expand...

The companies won’t “ditch” vaccines but the buyers (i.e. health services) will stop buying them. That’s the way this has always worked. Newer and better medicines come along and the old ones stop being prescribed.

And to answering your other question about pooling resources to develop the “perfect” vaccine, every company thought/hoped that their vaccine would turn out perfect but we needed loads of different vaccines to go into development as nobody knew for certain how any of them would turn out. We’re actually incredibly lucky to have so many getting good results.
 
pocco said:
Ok thanks for the explanation. So, theoretically, if one vaccine turns out to be everything we need it to be, but we needed far quicker production, would rival companies ditch their vaccine to help develop greater quantities of the better vaccine to meet demand? Or are you effectively saying that they are so far down the line in their vaccine that they simply need to recoup money now?

I understand what you're saying that they all acted in everybody's best interest in developing a vaccine quickly. But would they/ could they help develop a better vaccine if it was practically the perfect vaccine and greater quantities were needed? In such an instance, would the company that created the vaccine give others access to help out?

Another question is, say five years down the line it is shown that this will need and annual vaccine like the flu, is it likely by that point we would then only be using the vaccine that proves to be the best and the others will then be redundant?

I don't have any strong feeling either way, I'm just asking this more out of interest and I'm just relieved there are vaccines on the way.
Click to expand...
In effect that's what happens in the industry anyway. BioNTech had a core R&D knowledge about mRNA vaccine development but not the manufacturing or trial management capacity, Pfizer had some of the R&D knowledge - enough to know they wanted to partner up with BioNTech, which is what they did. In a year or two, they may be able to produce a version that doesn't rely on -70c cold storage - but some nations want it now, despite the logistical/cost implications.

Novavax again has R&D skills but to get from Phase1/2 even to Phase 3 trials would have been too big a leap without government funding and sales guarantees. Having got that far though they immediately started partnering up with manufacturing sites in Czechoslovakia, Spain, India etc. It's not easy though, the FDA won't even allow them to start their Phase3 trial in the US using vaccine produced in their own (small) factory - they want to see how they're going to make it/test it when it's produced at the Fuji pharmaceutical site in the US, who Novavax plan to use as their US supplier. Because the management of that will become the template for mass production by all contractors.

What there isn't (yet) is a vaccine patent that's been gifted to the WHO so they can offer it to any manufacturer who can make it. The closest we get to that are groups like AstraZeneca promising to offer theirs at cost price to poorer countries and the Bill Gates foundation funding some trials in Africa in return for similar offers of cheap franchises.
 
In other good news from a BBC Radio5 phone-in this morning:

Mum-of-three Jennifer, from St Albans, asks whether Father Christmas will be front of the queue to get the vaccine.

“Oh, absolutely,” Prof Van-Tam replies.

“The JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) made a very special case for Father Christmas and he is absolutely going to be the top of our list.”
 
jojojo said:
In other good news from a BBC Radio5 phone-in this morning:

Mum-of-three Jennifer, from St Albans, asks whether Father Christmas will be front of the queue to get the vaccine.

“Oh, absolutely,” Prof Van-Tam replies.

“The JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) made a very special case for Father Christmas and he is absolutely going to be the top of our list.”
Click to expand...
He’s pretty old to be fair and looks like a candidate for some comorbidities.
 
jojojo said:
Just to correct the detail there. Novavax is a two dose 3-weeks-apart vaccine. I think the only single shot vaccine in Phase 3 is the Johnson and Johnson.

Novavax currently has excellent Phase 1/2 data - better than the mRNA vaccines at producing antibodies. It also has the best animal "challenge test" data, with a test in macaque monkeys that showed it blocked transmission as well as disease. It's a fridge stored vaccine.

Phase 3 is underway, but until it reports no one will know how good it is. Anecdotally, the people running Phase 3 in the UK are pleased with how few side-effects and issues they're seeing, despite it including lots of 60+ and people on other medications. If it works, they may be able to convert it into a combined flu/covid jab - and they're trialling it in some people, with both being given in the same session at the moment.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the correction - too many vaccines to remember is good problem to have!

pocco said:
Ok thanks for the explanation. So, theoretically, if one vaccine turns out to be everything we need it to be, but we needed far quicker production, would rival companies ditch their vaccine to help develop greater quantities of the better vaccine to meet demand? Or are you effectively saying that they are so far down the line in their vaccine that they simply need to recoup money now?

I understand what you're saying that they all acted in everybody's best interest in developing a vaccine quickly. But would they/ could they help develop a better vaccine if it was practically the perfect vaccine and greater quantities were needed? In such an instance, would the company that created the vaccine give others access to help out?

Another question is, say five years down the line it is shown that this will need and annual vaccine like the flu, is it likely by that point we would then only be using the vaccine that proves to be the best and the others will then be redundant?

I don't have any strong feeling either way, I'm just asking this more out of interest and I'm just relieved there are vaccines on the way.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking yeah there does tend to be one vaccine that just displaces the others. Some are still better for certain subgroups than others (e.g. pregnant women) and some are still more appropriate in some places (e.g. Pfizer might be best but least appropriate in arid, rural areas without the storage capacity). But yeah generally there is a standout one that gets used ahead of all others for most healthy individuals.

Much less common in treatments because they are often trying to prevent very sick people from getting critically ill, so side effects are a much smaller trade off than in healthy populations, in which means they have accelerated development procedures, and because in many ways they are trickier problems there are more new treatments competing at different times.

The various malaria tabs really are a case of choose your poison, if I want to scuba dive I shouldn't take this one as I'm more likely to get nauseous, if I have sleep trouble I don't want this one as it causes weird dream effects, if I want the least side effects I pay the most for this one. That's not uncommon and not an excess of big pharma but just an indication of the struggles to find something that prevents our bodies from doing this crazy things. We've come along way in a few centuries but the viruses and bacteria have a big head start.

And yeah it's possible you could refocus resources and scale up some capacity, but not that easily and it's not a no brainer given the stage of development we're at now, I gather.
 
jojojo said:
In other good news from a BBC Radio5 phone-in this morning:

Mum-of-three Jennifer, from St Albans, asks whether Father Christmas will be front of the queue to get the vaccine.

“Oh, absolutely,” Prof Van-Tam replies.

“The JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) made a very special case for Father Christmas and he is absolutely going to be the top of our list.”
Click to expand...
White privilege rears its ugly head once again.
 
jojojo said:
In other good news from a BBC Radio5 phone-in this morning:

Mum-of-three Jennifer, from St Albans, asks whether Father Christmas will be front of the queue to get the vaccine.

“Oh, absolutely,” Prof Van-Tam replies.

“The JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) made a very special case for Father Christmas and he is absolutely going to be the top of our list.”
Click to expand...
He's elderly, overweight and his diet is awful so would've been near the top anyway
 
mitChley said:
Don't let perfection be the enemy of good.
Click to expand...
That’s not what he was getting at I don’t think. It was more a question of could you take a ‘better’ vaccine at a later date if you’ve already taken one of the ‘not so good’ earlier vaccines
 
jojojo said:
In other good news from a BBC Radio5 phone-in this morning:

Mum-of-three Jennifer, from St Albans, asks whether Father Christmas will be front of the queue to get the vaccine.

“Oh, absolutely,” Prof Van-Tam replies.

“The JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) made a very special case for Father Christmas and he is absolutely going to be the top of our list.”
Click to expand...

Fantastic news. Absolutely no excuse for there not to be presents under the tree this year then.
 
jojojo said:
In other good news from a BBC Radio5 phone-in this morning:

Mum-of-three Jennifer, from St Albans, asks whether Father Christmas will be front of the queue to get the vaccine.

“Oh, absolutely,” Prof Van-Tam replies.

“The JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) made a very special case for Father Christmas and he is absolutely going to be the top of our list.”
Click to expand...
Talk about a potential superspreader.
 
I don’t think there’s any point in reading too much into Fauci’s comments. Is there a risk that the UK rushed the process? Potentially. But there are large consequences of doing so longer term so I can’t imagine they’ve taken a huge risk like that. I’d hope no corners were cut but at the same time, there may well have been but if so, you’d think a balanced risk-reward approach at the very least. Also Fauci can’t really say anything else as that would then question the FDA’s approval process.

I guess the proof will be in the pudding if other countries ultimately approve the drug for use or not.
 
When is the UK planning to start vaccinating people? Sometime next week?
The FDA will have their meeting on the 10th.. there is a good chance it is approved in the US as well before people start getting jabs in the UK..
 
prateik said:
When is the UK planning to start vaccinating people? Sometime next week?
The FDA will have their meeting on the 10th.. there is a good chance it is approved in the US as well before people start getting jabs in the UK..
Click to expand...

I know some docs in the UK who are booked in to get injected next week.

On a side note, I’ve heard a rumour about a GP offering vaccine shots to private patients for several thousand quid a go.
 
carpy said:
What difference will it really make when the FDA approve it next week?
Click to expand...
It’s just not the type of thing you want corners cutting on. The UK's boast that we got there quickest because “we're better than other countries” is a bit pathetic to be honest.
 
Did they get to the bottom of if it stops transmission, because in theory if it does the best group to vaccinate first would be the healthy work force who are out and about travelling day in day out.

The vulnerable (elderly) in particular are at the end of the chain of transmission.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
It’s just not the type of thing you want corners cutting on. The UK's boast that we got there quickest because “we're better than other countries” is a bit pathetic to be honest.
Click to expand...

But they will be injecting people with the exact same thing that the FDA will approve shortly. Different story entirely if the FDA reject it. I suspect they won’t.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
It’s just not the type of thing you want corners cutting on. The UK's boast that we got there quickest because “we're better than other countries” is a bit pathetic to be honest.
Click to expand...

Yes it is but unless the vaccine isn't approved by other countries then I'd imagine the only people who would be put off would be the people who were never going to get vaccinated anyway.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Pfizer vaccine SmPC has been released. Goes by the catchy name of BNT162b2.

Section 5.1 gives the most detail yet on efficacy. Will be all we have until peer reviewed publication.
Click to expand...
That's useful.
Dilution process is a bit fiddly. Annoyingly also that not recommended for breast feeders, pregnant patients and requirement to rule out pregnancy in women of child-bearing age.
And the fact that it comes in a batch. But undiluted storable for at 2-8 celcius for 5 days is good for the clinics and up to 2 hours at room temp gives a tight but doable window for home visits/care home jabs.

Still think though that the next UK covid scandal will be how the roll out of these things are fudged up. Not vaccine hesitancy. Too much can go wrong and not enough reassurance or planning for how some very real practical obstacles will be overcome.
 
Wolverine said:
That's useful.
Dilution process is a bit fiddly. Annoyingly also that not recommended for breast feeders, pregnant patients and requirement to rule out pregnancy in women of child-bearing age.
And the fact that it comes in a batch. But undiluted storable for at 2-8 celcius for 5 days is good for the clinics and up to 2 hours at room temp gives a tight but doable window for home visits/care home jabs.

Still think though that the next UK covid scandal will be how the roll out of these things are fudged up. Not vaccine hesitancy. Too much can go wrong and not enough reassurance or planning for how some very real practical obstacles will be overcome.
Click to expand...

Having to dilute a five dose vial will be a faff too. Will take some coordination to avoid wastage. Especially in GP land.
 
TheReligion said:
Meh. Hardly going to praise the UK for being the first to do it is he? The US has to be the biggest and best remember.
Click to expand...

I think it was in response to the UK saying they were first because they have the best scientists.
 
Olly Gunnar Solskjær said:
It's hard enough for them to find a vein let's not make it any tougher for them.
Click to expand...
999.gif
 
I went to the pub with my Dad for a pint tonight and overhead the most wonderful cognitive dissonance.

Really bright chap: Doesn’t trust the vaccines.
His mate: Trusts vaccines but wonders why this one has been rushed through.
Really bright chap: Declares it’s been accelerated because we are free from EU rule now and were able to make sovereign decisions without those pesky EU overlords weighing in with their cumbersome regulations.

So yes, really bright chap was arguing that vaccines are bad and can’t be trusted while also simultaneously arguing that we also managed to circumvent EU regulations which ensure these things are as safe as possible and that’s a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.