The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[massi83]

Agreed. Lack of supply will very soon be the bottleneck everywhere. Moderna seem to be really struggling to meet their commitments.

But you have to admire how quickly the Israelis are using up the stock they do have. I’m sure their over 60s will be all vaccinated long before U50s get their dose (HCPs excluded)

Phrased that poorly. I meant Pfizer should not give Israel more doses after they have vaccinated over 50s. And from then on give doses to other countries. But that was meaningless thought process without any real world possibility, anyway.

Didn't Israel order only after EU, so basicly they are jumping the queue, or do I missremember.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Phrased that poorly. I meant Pfizer should not give Israel more doses after they have vaccinated over 50s. And from then on give doses to other countries. But that was meaningless thought process without any real world possibility, anyway.

Didn't Israel order only after EU, so basicly they are jumping the queue, or do I missremember.

Oh right. Yeah. As you point out, we can’t expect a commercial entity to ensure its product is ethically distributed. That’s where international diplomacy comes in. It does seem morally wrong that Israel will be vaccinating 20 year olds while the virus is still killing thousands of elderly people all over the world but that would be just one example of health inequalities we’ve been living with for years.

Apparently Israel jumped the queue by paying a premium price. This also seems morally wrong but hey ho, capitalism innit.

Interesting article about Israel here. They’re vaccinating 150,000 people per day. That would have ever man woman and child in Ireland vaccinated by the end of this month!

How’s the rollout going in Finland?

 

[Brwned]

This is the summary report from the JCVI on how to increase the short-term impact of the vaccination programme.

Introduction
A new variant of COVID-19 has been identified in the UK, which has been associated with an increase in COVID -19 cases. Given this, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has considered options for increasing the short-term impact of the vaccination programme.

Considerations

When considering vaccination schedules JCVI often considers first principles, and regularly advises schedules which differ from the marketing authorisation. In every case, the advice of JCVI is aimed at maximising protection in the population.

Published efficacy between dose 1 and 2 of the Pfizer vaccine was 52.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 29.5 to 68.4%). Based on the timing of cases accrued in the phase 3 study, most of the vaccine failures in the period between doses occurred shortly after vaccination, suggesting that short-term protection from dose 1 is very high from day 10 after vaccination. Using data for those cases observed between day 15 and 21, efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was estimated at 89% (95% CI 52 to 97%).

The level of protection gained from a single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine was assessed in an exploratory analysis. Vaccine efficacy from 22 days post dose 1 was 73% (95% CI 48.79 to 85.76). High protection against hospitalisation was seen from 21 days after dose 1 until 2 weeks after the second dose, suggesting that a single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine will provide high short-term protection against severe disease. Protective immunity from the first dose likely lasts for a duration of 12 weeks.

With most vaccines an extended interval between the prime and booster doses leads to a better immune response to the booster dose. There is evidence that a longer interval between the first and second doses promotes a stronger immune response with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

There is currently no strong evidence to expect that the immune response from the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines differ substantially from each other.

The rate of vaccine delivery in the UK is currently limited by vaccine supply rather than by workforce capacity. An extended interval between vaccine doses together with initial prioritisation of the first vaccine dose would increase the flow of vaccine supply in the short term. This will allow for more first doses to be delivered to more people earlier.

Conclusion
Given the epidemiology of COVID-19 in the UK in late 2020 there is a need for rapid, high levels of vaccine uptake among vulnerable persons.

The committee supports a 2-dose vaccine schedule for the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. Given the data available, and evidence from the use of many other vaccines, JCVI advises a maximum interval between the first and second doses of 12 weeks for both vaccines. It can be assumed that protection from the first dose will wane in the medium term, and the second dose will still be required to provide more durable protection.

It seems a little curious that the Pfizer vaccine is estimated to be less efficacious after 1 dose (89% after 1, 95% after 2) but Oxford's vaccine is believed to be more efficacious after 1 dose (73% after 1, 62% after 2). Along with some vague descriptions about it being reasonable to assume that protection will wane after the first dose over the "medium term", but we've happily landed on a precise 12 week period for when protective immunity will "likely" last.

For anyone that thinks these estimated figures couldn't be optimistic readings of flawed models based on limited inputs, motivated by a desire to boost public confidence in the public health measure in a crisis situation, it's worth reflecting back on what Fauci said a few weeks ago about another critical measure...

Recently, a figure to whom millions of Americans look for guidance — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, an adviser to both the Trump administration and the incoming Biden administration — has begun incrementally raising his herd-immunity estimate.

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak.

Asked about Dr. Fauci’s conclusions, prominent epidemiologists said that he might be proven right. The early range of 60 to 70 percent was almost undoubtedly too low, they said, and the virus is becoming more transmissible, so it will take greater herd immunity to stop it.

Dr. Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed hesitant about vaccines, which they would need to accept almost universally in order for the country to achieve herd immunity.

Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”

It's refreshing to hear public health experts plainly acknowledge "we really don't know what the real number is". I wonder when the UK will finally acknowledge that about their estimates.

 

[Kasper]

It's refreshing to hear public health experts plainly acknowledge "we really don't know what the real number is". I wonder when the UK will finally acknowledge that about their estimates.

Some may say it's refreshing but some may also be turned off or get tired by this redrawing of lines. Politicians often get slaughtered if they deliberately use lower goal posts to start with knowing that they'll raise the bar anyway.
(I agree with Fauci and his overall strategy btw., just think it's a slippery slope either way.)

 

[GlasgowRedz]

The Moderna vaccine has now been approved for use in the UK, although it's not expected to be available until the spring.

 

[FootballHQ]

The Moderna vaccine has now been approved for use in the UK, although it's not expected to be available until the spring.

What is the effectivity rate for that one as haven't seen the percentage listed on the reports I've read.

 

[GlasgowRedz]

What is the effectivity rate for that one as haven't seen the percentage listed on the reports I've read.

I'm sure it was mid 90's similar to the Pfizer one.

 

[Badunk]

Our care home staff and residents are being vaccinated on Monday. Can't wait!

 

[onemanarmy]

The vaccination strategy has been presented in Belgium today. By the end of the summer everyone in Belgium should be vaccinated. By June they'll start with the general public. There will be 200 vaccination centers across the country.

Nearly 60 percent of corona deaths occurred in residential care centers so they will be vaccinated first, both residents and people who work there. After them all people who work in health care, people over 65 and risk patients.

 

[Compton22]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/1feb5358-fbf4-4508-8a11-ba9093a6050a

Encouragingly, Pfizer vaccine seems to work against the mutations on the South African variant, the one causing the most concern.

 

[Brwned]

Anyone else find this a bit puzzling?

German company BioNTech - which together with US drug firm Pfizer created the first coronavirus vaccine to be approved by the UK, the US and the EU - has said it expects to produce two billion doses this year.

"We now believe that we can potentially deliver approximately two billion doses in total by the end of 2021," the company said in a presentation on Monday.

The new figure includes updated guidance that six doses can be extracted from each vial of the coronavirus vaccine, rather than the five doses originally stated on the labelling.

Today's projection marks a significant increase from the 1.3 billion doses that were previously announced.

They've known from the first few days of vaccination that there was 6 doses rather than 5 in each vial...how did they not know that when they were carrying out the trial, and how did it take them a month to confirm that? I'm sure I read that in many cases the 1 dose went unused because people were following the guidelines, mostly in the US from what I remember.

Of all the things to struggle with in vaccination development, you'd think measuring the volume of something would be pretty low down the list. Yet BioNTech and Oxford both did it in completely different ways, months apart.

Great silver lining though!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Anyone else find this a bit puzzling?


They've known from the first few days of vaccination that there was 6 doses rather than 5 in each vial...how did they not know that when they were carrying out the trial, and how did it take them a month to confirm that? I'm sure I read that in many cases the 1 dose went unused because people were following the guidelines, mostly in the US from what I remember.

Of all the things to struggle with in vaccination development, you'd think measuring the volume of something would be pretty low down the list. Yet BioNTech and Oxford both did it in completely different ways, months apart.

Great silver lining though!

I read that it was to do with the bung in the vial. It was only tested to be viable after being pierced five times. Maybe they did some extra testing? Or used a different bung? It’s not unusual for vials to contain more than the necessary quantity, to give a bit of leeway for wastage.

 

[onemanarmy]

Anyone else find this a bit puzzling?


They've known from the first few days of vaccination that there was 6 doses rather than 5 in each vial...how did they not know that when they were carrying out the trial, and how did it take them a month to confirm that? I'm sure I read that in many cases the 1 dose went unused because people were following the guidelines, mostly in the US from what I remember.

Of all the things to struggle with in vaccination development, you'd think measuring the volume of something would be pretty low down the list. Yet BioNTech and Oxford both did it in completely different ways, months apart.

Great silver lining though!

It depends on the type of syringe that is being used apparently. It was all over the news here. Belgium has the 'right' kind, Netherlands don't for instance.

 

[Rajma]

Mum just received her 1st Pfizer jab (2nd one will be in 3 weeks) as she’s a healthcare worker. Totally over the moon by this as I was avoiding her as much as possible for the last few months with the anticipation of the vaccine, science is amazing.

 

[onemanarmy]

Mum just received her 1st Pfizer jab (2nd one will be in 3 weeks) as she’s a healthcare worker. Totally over the moon by this as I was avoiding her as much as possible for the last few months with the anticipation of the vaccine, science is amazing.

This doesn't mean of course that she can't transmit it to you (at least I think this hasn't been proven yet).

 

[djembatheking]

Mum just received her 1st Pfizer jab (2nd one will be in 3 weeks) as she’s a healthcare worker. Totally over the moon by this as I was avoiding her as much as possible for the last few months with the anticipation of the vaccine, science is amazing.

Which highlights Brwned and Pogues concerns in the other thread of people naturally relaxing, feeling safe and becoming complacent resulting in a surge in February , made up for your Mum though Rajma must be nice to know she is safe.

 

[Rajma]

Which highlights Brwned and Pogues concerns in the other thread of people naturally relaxing, feeling safe and becoming complacent resulting in a surge in February , made up for your Mum though Rajma must be nice to know she is safe.

Nah, will only let myself loose a bit around her when a week passes after the 2nd jab as per recommendations when full efficacy is achieved. However, in general it does seem like the end is on the horizon, finally.

 

[jojojo]

Sinovac is starting to report trials efficacy numbers. Unfortunately what they mean isn't yet clear. The sinovac vaccine is a deactivated virus type, delivered as two doses, stored at fridge temperatures. It's main sales so far have been to Turkey, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines.

In December they were reporting 91% from a trial in Turkey - but that trial was a small one and not taken very seriously. Indonesia reported 65% in another limited trial.

Brazil had now released some data on its large scale trial and it's reporting efficacy of 50% to 78% depending on which number you want to hear. The 50% efficacy considers all symptomatic cases, over 70% if you ignore mild cases, and 100% if you look at severe cases. Hopefully they'll give more explanation of what mildest, mild, moderate mean.

The perils of reporting by press release.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-global-with-four-different-efficacy-rates

 

[tombombadil]

Sinovac is starting to report trials efficacy numbers. Unfortunately what they mean isn't yet clear. The sinovac vaccine is a deactivated virus type, delivered as two doses, stored at fridge temperatures. It's main sales so far have been to Turkey, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines.

In December they were reporting 91% from a trial in Turkey - but that trial was a small one and not taken very seriously. Indonesia reported 65% in another limited trial.

Brazil had now released some data on its large scale trial and it's reporting efficacy of 50% to 78% depending on which number you want to hear. The 50% efficacy considers all symptomatic cases, over 70% if you ignore mild cases, and 100% if you look at severe cases. Hopefully they'll give more explanation of what mildest, mild, moderate mean.

The perils of reporting by press release.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-global-with-four-different-efficacy-rates

Urgh. This is frustrating. As if the amount of vaccine skepticism isn't enough already. I hope someone can standardize the reporting soon.

 

[lynchie]

This report in the FT suggests some in Australia are pushing to delay vaccine roll out to give everyone the mRNA vaccines.

I'd be interested to hear opinions in Australia about this - I feel like I would want to be out from under the shadow of the potential for harsh sudden lockdowns quicker, especially if the rest of the world is starting to open up. Limiting yourselves to just 2 vaccines, which are already struggling to keep up with orders, seems like a recipe for just dragging out the crisis.

"Australian scientists cast doubt on Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine | Financial Times" https://www.ft.com/content/8def3a81-9b80-46a1-9742-f64b80bfc74f

 

[Brwned]

Oxford have acknowledged the variety of efficacy numbers used by themselves and the MHRA on different conditions, but even in their own FAQs they haven’t been able to provide a coherent answer to some of the key questions...

Why is the efficacy of two full doses 70.4%: for one full dose 73% (after 22 days) and 52.6% with any dose after one dose? Why are they all so different? 

The 73% protection after the first dose that is presented in the MHRA label that accompanies the vaccine is a further analysis for the MHRA which provides information about the efficacy during the short period between the first and second dose, in the recommended schedule.

This is included in one of the analyses in The Lancet paper but has not been separated out in the same way as requested by the MHRA for the label. These analyses are all presented in The Lancet publication providing a full explanation of the numbers.

Why do you think the MHRA has said efficacy increases over time (up to 12 weeks) - although also appears to decrease from 73% to 70% with the single dose vs the double dose?

The MHRA label shows that the immune response is stronger with longer intervals between the two doses, and this may translate into better protection. Statistically- speaking the efficacy is not different between these two numbers.

 

[F-Red]

My other half has her first vaccine confirmed for this Saturday, she's community based so it feels that they might have got through the bulk of the priority staff in the NHS already.

 

[berbatrick]

Oxford have acknowledged the variety of efficacy numbers used by themselves and the MHRA on different conditions, but even in their own FAQs they haven’t been able to provide a coherent answer to some of the key questions...

The way they've phrased it, 2nd qs looks like a conflct between theoretical predictions based on phase 1/2 data with observations from phase 3 data.

 

[Wolverine]

I'm not too worried about conflicting data, trials have varying methodologies and results in the aggregate are best analysed over long periods in meta-analyses, we'll continue to see case reports about outbreaks but extrapolations to a wider narrative is not something that should be encouraged even in this age of hot takes.

That said there are large scale studies being done that are worth noting (if they meet good evidence based medicine profiles - large sample sizes etc)
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israe...-infections-14-days-after-first-vaccine-shot/

The link above points (albeit with preliminary data) to a reduction in transmission with mass vaccination (with variation in percentage numbers). We'll get clearer pictures of things like that in the coming months, not all I suspect will have necessarily be positive.

We're seeing a bit issue in the care homes we are vaccinating in the UK with outbreaks, but strong likelihood a significant amount are patients were in the incubation infected period pre-jab or pre-immunity and risk (as it was an infection in the first week or so post-jab).

 

[F-Red]

Asda in the UK now looking to offer vaccination through their in store pharmacies, about 250 a week per store. Could be as much as 800,000+ per month based on their store profile. Hopefully we'll see more supermarkets move on this as it makes sense considering the logistics capability, and geographical locations to have more supermarkets on board.

 

[horsechoker]

Asda in the UK now looking to offer vaccination through their in store pharmacies, about 250 a week per store. Could be as much as 800,000+ per month based on their store profile. Hopefully we'll see more supermarkets move on this as it makes sense considering the logistics capability, and geographical locations to have more supermarkets on board.

Are Boots looking to do the same?

 

[F-Red]

Are Boots looking to do the same?

Boots are starting tomorrow in Halifax - https://www.boots-uk.com/our-storie...ccinations-in-its-halifax-pharmacy-this-week/

 

[11101]

Oxford have acknowledged the variety of efficacy numbers used by themselves and the MHRA on different conditions, but even in their own FAQs they haven’t been able to provide a coherent answer to some of the key questions...

Nadim Zahawi is getting grilled on Sky News now and not handling it very well at all. Can't answer half the questions and keeps going back on himself. Apparently they are looking into delaying the second doses even further than 12 weeks. I think it's safe to say they're chancing it at this point.

 

[Dumbstar]

Nadim Zahawi is getting grilled on Sky News now and not handling it very well at all. Can't answer half the questions and keeps going back on himself. Apparently they are looking into delaying the second doses even further than 12 weeks. I think it's safe to say they're chancing it at this point.

It's very confusing for us laymen. Can someone knowledgeable please tell us that the Oxford vaccine is at least as good as any flu virus in terms of efficacy? No numbers please, just simple words.

 

[jojojo]

It's very confusing for us laymen. Can someone knowledgeable please tell us that the Oxford vaccine is at least as good as any flu virus in terms of efficacy? No numbers please, just simple words.

In a typical year when they correctly guess which flu strains are coming then most people are protected by the jab. In numbers terms, the flu jab in a good year reports efficacy similar to the efficacy of the one dose of Oxford/AstraZeneca against Covid.

In a bad year, when they miss an important flu strain, the flu jab does worse than the covid vaccines are doing in terms of efficacy.

Like the flu jab, the covid jabs also seem to reduce the severity of the disease even if you do catch it. It's hoped that will mean they reduce the hospitalisations and deaths dramatically, even if the case numbers don't fall as fast.

 

[Brwned]

Nadim Zahawi is getting grilled on Sky News now and not handling it very well at all. Can't answer half the questions and keeps going back on himself. Apparently they are looking into delaying the second doses even further than 12 weeks. I think it's safe to say they're chancing it at this point.

I watched a bit, that was painful. Doesn't fill you with confidence but I'm sure there's people more capable than him actually managing the process.

It's very confusing for us laymen. Can someone knowledgeable please tell us that the Oxford vaccine is at least as good as any flu virus in terms of efficacy? No numbers please, just simple words.

Two doses of Oxford's vacccine is better than the typical flu vaccine, yep.

Maybe if they give you one dose tomorrow and the second dose 12 months later, the second dose won't work as well and it could be worse than the flu. That's very unlikely to happen though. If you're getting it ~ 3 months later as planned, the data shows it's more efficacious than the flu, but only after you've gotten the second dose. In between dose 1 and 2 you're only "partially protected", so in that interim period it theoretically could be worse than the flu, different organisations have analysed that data differently so it doesn't come with the same concrete assessment.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

The maintenance guy at another of my companies nursing homes just tested positive on a rapid test 3 weeks after his first Pfizer jab. Hopefully it's a false positive, otherwise its a little worrying.

 

[Dumbstar]

Thanks @Brwned, that helps.

And thanks @jojojo also very useful to know.

So it's all good, all positives.

 

[prateik]

The maintenance guy at another of my companies nursing homes just tested positive on a rapid test 3 weeks after his first Pfizer jab. Hopefully it's a false positive, otherwise its a little worrying.

Aren't false negatives a lot more common than false positives?

 

[Dumbstar]

Aren't false negatives a lot more common than false positives?

Similarly haven't we been hearing that these rapid tests are a bit crap? No doubt he'll take a full PCR now to confirm his rapid test.

 

[horsechoker]

Aren't false negatives a lot more common than false positives?

What about false dawns?

 

[jojojo]

The maintenance guy at another of my companies nursing homes just tested positive on a rapid test 3 weeks after his first Pfizer jab. Hopefully it's a false positive, otherwise its a little worrying.

Is he in a group that gets tested weekly/regularly or was the test because of symptoms?

3 weeks is still in that band labelled: 2 weeks post-vaccine + 3/10 days before infection is symptomatic or measurable on a lateral flow test. So it's on that border, I think. Not necessarily a worry just yet. Obviously it'll be something to watch out for though, and something people will need to know and understand when the data becomes clearer. Particularly those who are getting it because of their workplace.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

The maintenance guy at another of my companies nursing homes just tested positive on a rapid test 3 weeks after his first Pfizer jab. Hopefully it's a false positive, otherwise its a little worrying.

But if the Pfizer one is 95 % efficient, ( or less than this after one dose,) then at least 1 in 20 can still get it after having had the jab surely, so stories like this are going to become quite common, even more so with the Oxford one.

It will be interesting so see how many of the ones who've had the vaccine get seriuosly ill on this much larger scale than the trials, hopefully non.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

Is he in a group that gets tested weekly/regularly or was the test because of symptoms?

3 weeks is still in that band labelled: 2 weeks post-vaccine + 3/10 days before infection is symptomatic or measurable on a lateral flow test. So it's on that border, I think. Not necessarily a worry just yet. Obviously it'll be something to watch out for though, and something people will need to know and understand when the data becomes clearer. Particularly those who are getting it because of their workplace.

Yeah we all have daily rapid tests and one weekly normal test. He is symptom free. The home has a bad outbreak going on sadly so it must be incredibly infectious. I wonder if level of exposure has any relevance to efficacy.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yeah we all have daily rapid tests and one weekly normal test. He is symptom free. The home has a bad outbreak going on sadly so it must be incredibly infectious. I wonder if level of exposure has any relevance to efficacy.

So his daily rapid tests were negative for three weeks after the vaccine until he suddenly tested positive? When was his last weekly test? Those rapid tests are not very reliable.