https://assets.publishing.service.g...essionals_on_COVID-19_Vaccine_AstraZeneca.pdf
The PDF has a much better formatted table. See table 2.
The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
The PDF has a much better formatted table. See table 2.
I am ignorant on this - does antibodies from a vaccine correlate to protection levels? Will the, say, the ones that contracted COVID in the test group have no or fewer antibodies?
If someone gets vaccinated, can they take a test that determines whether the vaccine will protect them?
Based on published Phase1/2 studies - vaccinated people have more antibodies than people who've recently recovered from covid.
However the antibody mix is a bit different in vaccinated groups - lots of extra spike attack antibodies, but some other antibody types (that go for the not spiky bits of the virus) are missing. That means that the private lab tests for antibodies that you see advertised might not see all the vaccine generated ones.
The other immune system responses (including the longterm immune memory ones) aren't seen at all in those private tests. The vaccine trials people and other researchers look at those, but I don't think they're generally available.
Oh yeah it correlates very strongly and there is a known causal link. The volume of a specific kind of antibody (which is what their data showed) is not the only factor, because there more than one kind of antibody, there are other kinds of cells involved in the immune response, the location of the immune response can be important, etc. And there are different kinds of immunity - sterilising, long lasting, etc which we don’t have much reason to believe is strongly linked to this factor.
But these antibodies are an essential component of the short term immune response, we know the biological role they play and why higher volumes does lead to better health outcomes. They also often correlate strongly with other parts of the immune response because they are part of the same system.
As always you reach a point of diminishing returns so more isn’t always better. But at the levels we’re talking about, more is better. The vaccines that got a better immune response of this kind tended to have a more efficacious vaccine. Not a 1:1 relationship but a strong one. Whether you need the Oxford vaccine to have a 7x greater response (and wait 12 weeks for greater efficacy) or 3x (and wait half the time) is less clear.
I wonder what the numbers are for vulnerable population in the UK . If you can get say 10 million vaccinated by February then surely that's a huge proportion of clinically vulnerable already done
Remember when @Pexbo joked we’d probably “only” manage 500k per week.
Completely understand why most comedians are depressed now.
Presumably because we have not had doctors and nurses sitting round doing nothing with queues of people patiently waiting in case the vaccine is approved...
They now need to contact people, schedule appointments, get the right amount of doses to the right places and then administer in a covid secure place... 5 days which includes bank Holidays and weekends actually seems pretty reasonable to do that I think?
It is, but the rollout will need to be running well to get much above 5m/month. Plus it then goes to a quesion where do you want to draw the vulnerable line.
The priority list is mostly based on clinical risk:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...and-supporting-the-nhs-and-social-care-system
The calculator gives an idea of how that plays out:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk
To get through the groups to cover the frontline health/care workers, the 70+ and the clinically extremely vulnerable you're looking at about 10m people. First vaccines only by the end of February. Any rollout delays and it'll drift out fast.
If you want to get down as far as the 60+ and the other clinically vulnerable adult categories - you're looking at 20m and given the second jab timing for the initial group that's maybe May/June at earliest for that group getting a first jab.
Summarising - if the vaccinations rollout successfully, the country will start feeling pretty normal in Q2, but then in Q3 it should actually feel like we really are in a new normal. Maybe still masks in shops/transport and some travel restrictions, quarantines etc - but basically yes, a much more normal life.
It is all about the vaccines though - the logistics of getting them out, the efficacy figures holding up as we start relying on them - even against mutations, and the willingness of people to take the vaccine as soon as it's offered.
Should the government start indicating to the general public that vaccination is voluntary but treatment, should they catch CV, will be weighted against them if hospitals are busy?
Or is this too Draconian?
Or is this too Draconian?
In pretty sure that violates the Hippocratic oath. There is talk of the possibility of hospitals having to prioritise treatment based on survival chances should they get overwhelmed (or young vs old, I can’t remember the specifics) but that’s a little different to tossing certain people to the back of the queue based on their beliefs or dissent towards a vaccine.
I think the government definitely needs to do more to promote vaccination though , if FB is anything to go by then there is a big number of anti vaxxers even in the UK
If someone dont want to get vaccinated, they should be treated as anyone else if they got the coronavirus...but at their expense
There is the first problem in having a rational discussion about vaccine uptake. Let's not judge mass public opinion from a social network.
One of the recent global opinion polls showed the UK is likely to get a good takeup, and so is the US - and the "will get vaccinated" group is growing in those countries as vaccines get closer. France on the other hand remains very reluctant.
The data is from a December survey by IPSOS
https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-attitudes-covid-19-vaccine-december-2020
What they're responding to is the statement, " “if a vaccine for COVID-19 were available, I would get it.”
The data is from a December survey by IPSOS
https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-attitudes-covid-19-vaccine-december-2020
What they're responding to is the statement, " “if a vaccine for COVID-19 were available, I would get it.”
So none of these vaccines have been approved for use in children. With kids getting such a mild illness the risk benefit of injecting them with novel vaccines just doesn’t add up. Hancock specifically stated today that there are no plans to vaccinate children in the UK. I can see them running trials in adolescents at some point but younger kids might never be vaccinated.
So what does this mean for the zero covid countries like Aus/NZ? Will they be vaccinating children? Will they be asking unvaccinated children of tourists to quarantine for the foreseeable future?
Or is the plan to vaccinate all the Aus/NZ adults then let the virus into the country to spread naturally through the children?
@Wibble
@Stacks
So what does this mean for the zero covid countries like Aus/NZ? Will they be vaccinating children? Will they be asking unvaccinated children of tourists to quarantine for the foreseeable future?
Or is the plan to vaccinate all the Aus/NZ adults then let the virus into the country to spread naturally through the children?
@Wibble
@Stacks
Last edited:
there’s a part of me that agrees. But then you could expand that thinking to people who smoke, drink or are fat. All social issues.
I’m sure there will need to be some sore of anti-discrimination law at some point for vaccinations.
for example would you employ a care assistant in a nursing home who refuses to be vaccinated?
This is true to some extent but at least the first two groups already pay significant contributions towards their likely increased healthcare needs through the high taxation on smoking and alcohol.
I'm not sure how we're going to go ahead with this kind of thing long term to be honest but we shouldn't pretend that there aren't already significant rules in place which govern our social contract within society, or that some countries don't already mandate certain vaccines before you can enter their country.
For the HCW thing, I'm not sure if its the same for care assistants (I imagine not). But as a doctor for instance, you need to show proof of a whole set of vaccinations before you're even allowed into medical school, documentation which annoyingly each new trust you move to as a trainee ask for yet again. When I worked in Australia for a bit, I had to show evidence that I had either had chickenpox or been vaccinated against it, amongst a whole raft of other diseases and vaccines before I was given my visa and allowed to start working there.
I thought the 1 dose thing was only for the Oxford vaccine; and even there they said that the 2nd dose would follow within 12 weeks?!
Edit - I’m wrong:
Based on Pfizer’s statement, they need to urgently clarify how they’ve decided to change the dosing regimen.
I try to be understanding and live my life as free as negative emotions as possible.
But my hatred of these twats honestly knows no bounds.
They could (almost but not quite as we can't bring the dead back) make up for their mistakes during this whole thing if they found a way to get this rollout done quickly and effectively but it looks like they're making a meal of even this.
At some point though we've got to get past being angry at Boris and co and look at the elephant in the room, i mean he didn't vote for himself did he?
Probably did to be fair. Can’t imagine him voting Labour
Pfizer was always going to say this.. they truly have no data. I am curious to see the reaction of the "1 dose first" folks of which there are many(Tony Blair being one). I do not oppose their logic, but find myself on the side of Pfizer.
There’s a lot of different agendas at play here. Pfizer have a big financial incentive in ensuring that everyone gets two doses of their vaccine asap. I’ve no idea the basis for the decision to delay the second dose but it’s possible there’s science behind it.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/30/vaccine-roundup-late-december
I enjoy reading this guy's writing. Very balanced.
I enjoy reading this guy's writing. Very balanced.
Manufacturer: We have no data on how effective the first single jab is. We advise you get the second jab at this point - this is what we know for certain.
Government: l0l chill trust us
Haha bad choice of words but you know what i mean
The guy never made any attempt to hide what a nasty piece of work he is yet he still won a majority, absolute madness.
This is my thoughts as well, the NHS would have consulted their scientists as well to assume the impact of a single dose in their vaccination programme.
Pfizer themselves said this in their efficacy summary:
So there is reason to believe the protection is quite strong and kicks in relatively early. Pfizer's point is that they don't have any data to tell you how long that would have lasted. If everyone got dose 2 21 days later, it's not outside the realms of possibility that without the booster shot, the initial immunity granted by dose 1 would be relatively short-lived. If they don't have a varied dosing regimen like AZ then it's just educated guesses, no matter who is looking at the data. And surely Pfizer's approach of not making such large assumptions is the safer choice?
Last edited:
No specific plans have been announced in AU.
I think that with most vaccines we include kids once non-serious side effects are revealed by adult vaccination e.g. flu vaccination that is now recommended for everyone over 6 months old.
I think that we will be asking people to quarantine no matter their vaccination status for quite some time and not allowing any non-residents/citizens in until late 2021 by which time most AU adults will be vaccinated.
After that I think a vaccination certificate will be required but no idea how they will treat kids. Knowing our Federal incompetents lead by #scottyfrommarketing they won't have though about it yet.
Why do they always choose the worst possible option?
I feel like the measure for efficacy being symptomatic infections skews perceptions a bit. All the vaccines are super effective at preventing hospitalisation, and if we have no more people needing hospital (or indeed, dying) that seems like we could largely get back to normal, even if some people still get a noticeable cough. I guess I don't know what the severity of the symptomatic/non-hospitalised cases was, but if they were short and uncomplicated, then I'd be good with that.
It’s kind of an unsolvable problem tbh. You can’t demand vaccine certs from a family of tourists when there’s no licensed vaccine for their kids. Hence I’m a little sceptical about the use of these certs over the next few years.
I guess knowing the adults have been vaccinated will provide reassurance they won’t take up an ITU bed when they visit a country where the virus is endemic. In the absence of firm evidence that a vaccine can stop transmission and a license to be used in young children they won’t be much help in keeping the virus out of a country like NZ/Aus.
I’m assuming that’s the rationale for getting a first dose into as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. That will be the quickest way to ease the pressure on hospitals, which has to be the main priority over the first quarter of 2021.
I'm with big pharma on this one. I don't like the decision on the Pfizer rollout at all - the drug as tested and approved is the double dose model, to play with that risks throwing the whole question of public confidence in the vaccine into question. After weeks of arguing that it isn't being rushed, it's as if we're throwing away that message and waving a panic flag. In particular, they haven't actually rolled out so much Pfizer so far that the extra vaccinations needed to complete those courses will have a material impact on the bigger rollout program.
The AZ is different. Things that were weakly controlled during the trial (creating a problem with the US regulators in the process) have given people the chance to see more clearly what happens after a single dose. That's great and I'm happy with the reasoning behind that choice.
I don't doubt that the decision is based on a risk analysis that makes scientific/epidemiological sense. But personally (if only for PR reasons) I'd have been happier to see them complete the follow-up doses and then stop using Pfizer for a while - if it's really too much of a burden to use it according to its protocol. Presumably it means that we haven't got as much AZ as we think we can use over the next couple of months.
Agree with this part in particular. I understand the situation has changed and so the priorities have shifted as a result, but some parts of the response shouldn't be shifted. Prioritising AZ over Pfizer because we want to prioritise a less efficacious vaccine over one with a more flexible dosing schedule is very debatable, but I can see the argument for it. Recommending a dosing schedule that can't be properly evaluated and the manufacturer has legitimate concerns about is multple steps beyond that. It raises obvious questions about what is guiding our decisions at this point.
Incompetence and stupidity?