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.
Am I imagining things, or were there rumours going around last week that the J&J vaccine was hitting 90+% efficacy?
 
carpy said:
J&J results are in:
66% efficacy (72% in the US part of the US part of the trial).
Click to expand...
J&J (single dose, fridge storage) is a great option at 66% efficacy. I know they're running a twin dose trial as well, so that could be important.

As usual it's going to be the detailed data that matters. I'm particularly interested in why they got better numbers from the US trial. If that means it's strong against the original virus, but significantly weaker against the mutations, it'll be important.
 
BD said:
Am I imagining things, or were there rumours going around last week that the J&J vaccine was hitting 90+% efficacy?
Click to expand...

No, you're not imagining it but the rumours were obviously wrong.
 
jojojo said:
J&J (single dose, fridge storage) is a great option at 66% efficacy. I know they're running a twin dose trial as well, so that could be important.

As usual it's going to be the detailed data that matters. I'm particularly interested in why they got better numbers from the US trial. If that means it's strong against the original virus, but significantly weaker against the mutations, it'll be important.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure when the trial was conducted, but this is concerning:
"The level of protection against moderate and severe COVID-19 infection was 72% in the US, 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination."
Click to expand...
57% in SA may point to the variant. I'm hoping this was extremely effective for younger ages, so we can target older ages and vulnerable on the better vaccines, and the general population on this one.

Source:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/29/health/johnson-coronavirus-vaccine-results/index.html
 
Found a few more details:
Geographically, the level of protection for the combined endpoints of moderate and severe disease varied: 72% in the United States; 66% in Latin American countries; and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination. The investigational vaccine was reportedly 85% effective in preventing severe/critical COVID-19 across all geographical regions. No deaths related to COVID-19 were reported in the vaccine group, while 5 deaths in the placebo group were related to COVID-19. Overall, there were 16 deaths in the placebo group, and 3 deaths in the vaccine group.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...eleased?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

That's not bad at all when it comes to preventing serious illness.
 
Given it's much easier to transport and store it still seems likely it'll be the one used for a mass roll out?
 
Actually I've just noticed that J&J are quoting efficacy at preventing moderate/severe cases. Novavax quoted efficacy against mild/moderate/severe cases. That's confusing.
 
Smores said:
Given it's much easier to transport and store it still seems likely it'll be the one used for a mass roll out?
Click to expand...

That and the Oxford one, yeah. I'm not sure of the price of the J&J vaccine though.
 
redshaw said:
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) Covid-19 Vaccine Shot Provides Strong Shield in Trial - Bloomberg

" In the more than 44,000-person study, the vaccine prevented 66% of moderate to severe cases of Covid-19, according to a company statement on Friday. And it was particularly effective at stopping severe disease, preventing 85% of severe infections and 100% of hospitalizations and deaths. "
Click to expand...
jojojo said:
Found a few more details:
Geographically, the level of protection for the combined endpoints of moderate and severe disease varied: 72% in the United States; 66% in Latin American countries; and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination. The investigational vaccine was reportedly 85% effective in preventing severe/critical COVID-19 across all geographical regions. No deaths related to COVID-19 were reported in the vaccine group, while 5 deaths in the placebo group were related to COVID-19. Overall, there were 16 deaths in the placebo group, and 3 deaths in the vaccine group.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...eleased?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

That's not bad at all when it comes to preventing serious illness.
Click to expand...
You are right. In hind sight, after rereading, for an apples to apples comparison, considering it is a single shot, preventing severe illness at 85% compared to Pfizer's 95% is very good. Although it is lower compared to Pfizer's 90% rate at preventing any illness vs 66%. Which is still better than a flu vaccine. I guess we mustn't be too pampered and also must take into account that this is single shot. I'd probably take this vs AZN's shot if I could only take a single shot.
 
jojojo said:
Actually I've just noticed that J&J are quoting efficacy at preventing moderate/severe cases. Novavax quoted efficacy against mild/moderate/severe cases. That's confusing.
Click to expand...

The primary endpoint of the vaccines licensed thus far has always been any symptomatic case. If J&J are only quoting efficacy at preventing moderate/severe cases that would imply the ‘true’ figure is even worse than 66%.
 
tombombadil said:
You are right. In hind sight, after rereading, for an apples to apples comparison, considering it is a single shot, preventing severe illness at 85% compared to Pfizer's 95% is very good. Although it is lower compared to Pfizer's 90% rate at preventing any illness vs 66%. Which is still better than a flu vaccine. I guess we mustn't be too pampered and also must take into account that this is single shot. I'd probably take this vs AZN's shot if I could only take a single shot.
Click to expand...

66% is preventing mod/severe disease. We don’t have a figure for any illness from J&J. Which makes me worry it’s a lot lower.
 
.
Pogue Mahone said:
The primary endpoint of the vaccines licensed thus far has always been any symptomatic case. If J&J are only quoting efficacy at preventing moderate/severe cases that would imply the ‘true’ figure is even worse than 66%.
Click to expand...
Personally I pretty much only care how it prevents hospitalisations (or worse). Obviously it is better if it prevents milder cases also, but don't see it as that important.
 
massi83 said:
.

Personally I pretty much only care how it prevents hospitalisations (or worse). Obviously it is better if it prevents milder cases also, but don't see it as that important.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s not really that important. Less important anyway. Looks like they never had any expectation for it to be sterilising anyway, based on the endpoints they’re looking at.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The primary endpoint of the vaccines licensed thus far has always been any symptomatic case. If J&J are only quoting efficacy at preventing moderate/severe cases that would imply the ‘true’ figure is even worse than 66%.
Click to expand...
It might not mean that though, it depends on the ratios of mild/moderate/severe across the vaccinated/placebo. I guess a reminder that press releases are only ever part of the story. It does make comparisons more complicated though. I think the stat everyone cares about are really the severe/critical cases so it's not necessarily a big deal.

I do think the mutation issue is a bigger deal. In particular I think the news from the Novavax SA trial, that prior covid infection doesn't protect against the new SA variant is important. Though again we'll need more numbers to know if prior infection reduced the severity of illness. I suspect it does mean that the inactivated virus type vaccines for example could find their efficacy taking a very fast tumble.
 
Here’s how they defined moderate/severe illness.

In the study, the definition of severe COVID-19 disease included laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: signs consistent with severe systemic illness, admission to an intensive care unit, respiratory failure, shock, organ failure or death, among other factors. Moderate COVID-19 disease was defined as laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: evidence of pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, shortness of breath or abnormal blood oxygen saturation above 93%, abnormal respiratory rate (≥20); or two or more systemic symptoms suggestive of COVID-19.
Click to expand...
 
Have to say, I did not expect the EU to be the first country/block in the world to go full nationalist and implement vaccine export controls. Poor show.

“The protections and safety of our citizens is a priority and the challenges we now face left us with no choice but to act,” EU Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told reporters on Friday in Brussels. “This is a race against the clock -- we cannot lose time because of vaccines not being delivered on schedule.”
Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...g-global-battle-for-doses?srnd=premium-europe

Let the vaccine war commence, I guess?
 
gormless said:
So fair to say the Johnson and Johnson jab isn’t what we were hoping for? Especially after somebody posted rumours of 100%
Click to expand...

As mentioned, not a single hospitalised case or death in vaccine arm is good news. That too with a single jab. In real terms that is very significant. Plus there is data from its two-dose trial still to come.

I think if the mRNA's are utilised now for the elderly and extremely vulnerable we could potentially use this for the younger population especially as logistically useful (as stored in a fridge) so will be useful for community pharmacies. Maybe two if dramatic benefit in relevant clinical endpoints.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Have to say, I did not expect the EU to be the first country/block in the world to go full nationalist and implement vaccine export controls. Poor show.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...g-global-battle-for-doses?srnd=premium-europe

Let the vaccine war commence, I guess?
Click to expand...

Inevitable after the delays, they aren’t blocking anything, just require approval.
Makes me think they suspect vaccines are being provided first to highest bidders and they simply want to prevent that.
 
Pfizer response to EU export ban threat is that it might move production:

In response to the EU’s threat, Pfizer this week told a Senate hearing that it would consider shifting production of its vaccine to the United States in a bid to avoid any export ban.

“It’s obviously critical that governments don’t impose export restrictions or trade barriers,” Pfizer Australia and New Zealand medical director Krishan Thiru said.

“Should that happen we will explore what options are available. We have large scale of manufacturing across the US and Europe. No determination has been made at this point in time about switching the source of our manufacture of vaccinations.”
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...rope-over-certainty-of-covid-vaccine-supplies
 
711 said:
I don't know how easy it is to transfer production but it must make companies think twice about where to site their production facilities in future.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can't help but think the EU have approached this problem in completely the wrong way. Through a combination of a botched procurement process and plain bad luck that the vaccine sites in the EU are underperforming, they have a massive shortage of vaccines. Instead of throwing their toys out of the pram and attacking the manufacturers, they could instead have opted to negotiate with other countries to purchase a share of their supply in the short term, in exchange for a chunky fee and other trade sweeteners.

If the goal is to actually get more vaccine supply, I don't see how this heated public spat with Astrazeneca (and Pfizer) is going to help? They can't magic vaccine out of thin air. It makes me think this whole storm is more about managing PR and trying to avoid blame than it is about actually securing vaccine supply.
 
Think we've been a bit spoilt by the Pfizer and Moderna numbers to be honest.

Any vaccine with decent efficacy at preventing deaths and hospitalisation is superb, multiple vaccines being able to do the same (especially as different areas start to descend into vaccine nationalism) is incredible news.

Probably even better for those from thr global South too, means there will be more candidates for them. A single shot jab in particular, in countries where its difficult enough already reaching people for medical problems, will be an incredible positive.
 
If Pfizer are in breach of contract by not delivering to Canada and UK because the EU effectively steal that vaccine by blocking the export then they aren’t going to produce there long term. They can’t block vaccine they have no legal claim over regardless of some other dispute with another manufacture. Bullying suppliers they’re reliant on that could manufacture elsewhere and sell thrice over is a very stupid move.

It’s also completely irrelevant what’s in the EU contract with AZ if the UK contract states any vaccine made in the UK goes to the UK until the 100m order is fulfilled. You’ve got to think “best endeavours” discounts any action that would breach another contract. The EU contract I’ve seen also explicitly states EU manufactured vaccine in section 5.1 is used to supply the EU initial order - which doesn’t include UK factories.
 
AZ press conference underway. Basically with a, "we're trying," and advising countries to take advantage of the "flexible timing" of the second dose to give people their first vaccine as soon as the stock gets delivered, because in 12 weeks time there will be plenty of product for second doses.

Also a reminder that UK manufactured stock can be used to meet other demand, provided that they can do it in addition to delivering their UK committed supply. By which I assume they mean the argument has changed tack to focus on the idea that it's not about waiting until after the full 100m doses have been delivered, but after the 2m weekly commitment (or whatever it is now) is met. Which I suspect was always the reality before the PR sabre rattling stuff got underway.
 
africanspur said:
Think we've been a bit spoilt by the Pfizer and Moderna numbers to be honest.

Any vaccine with decent efficacy at preventing deaths and hospitalisation is superb, multiple vaccines being able to do the same (especially as different areas start to descend into vaccine nationalism) is incredible news.

Probably even better for those from thr global South too, means there will be more candidates for them. A single shot jab in particular, in countries where its difficult enough already reaching people for medical problems, will be an incredible positive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you take a step back from the (inevitable) undignified squabbling over supplies and nit-picking over relative efficacies, the fact that we have this many vaccines, all highly effective - less than 12 months after the first cases outside China - is arguably the most remarkable scientific triumph in any of our lifetimes. Possibly one of the greatest achievements of mankind.

Would not have believed anyone who told me this was possible this time last year. Thank feck for biotech innovation. We’d be fubar’d without it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.