tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
I thought you claimed you were concerned about Pfizer delays?
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
I thought you claimed you were concerned about Pfizer delays?
DanEFC92
Player Valuation: £90m
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
I have my doubts, but if our scientists say 12 weeks is ok, I’d take it.....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Do you really think that Boris came up with this 12 week strategy, or Hancock, really ?.....
Interesting stuff coming out over today, the H.S.E - Irish NHS is saying its preferable that under 70s dont get the AZ vaccine.
The dosing schedule & timeframes for AZ we are putting in place are also different from the U.K. depending on age:
"It recommended that for people aged 65 and older, a two-dose schedule of the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine at an interval of 4-6 weeks between doses is best.
For those aged under 65, a two-dose schedule of the vaccine administered with 4-12 weeks between doses is recommended. "
I heard something completely different yesterday, so likely something changed today!!
www.thejournal.ie
The dosing schedule & timeframes for AZ we are putting in place are also different from the U.K. depending on age:
"It recommended that for people aged 65 and older, a two-dose schedule of the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine at an interval of 4-6 weeks between doses is best.
For those aged under 65, a two-dose schedule of the vaccine administered with 4-12 weeks between doses is recommended. "
I heard something completely different yesterday, so likely something changed today!!
Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to be used for over 70s 'where practicable and timely'
This follows a recommendation from the National Immunisation Advisory Committee.
www.thejournal.ie
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
I believe they approved it from a list of options presented by JCVI, yes.
Interesting approach of different wait times for the age groups, can see the logic.Interesting stuff coming out over today, the H.S.E - Irish NHS is saying its preferable that under 70s dont get the AZ vaccine.
The dosing schedule & timeframes for AZ we are putting in place are also different from the U.K. depending on age:
"It recommended that for people aged 65 and older, a two-dose schedule of the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine at an interval of 4-6 weeks between doses is best.
For those aged under 65, a two-dose schedule of the vaccine administered with 4-12 weeks between doses is recommended. "
I heard something completely different yesterday, so likely something changed today!!
Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to be used for over 70s 'where practicable and timely'
This follows a recommendation from the National Immunisation Advisory Committee.
btw on first line think you meant “over 70s don’t get the AZ vaccine”
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
COVID denying is broad and more nuanced than first reckoned, its right across the spectrum lockdowns schools, safe pubs safe gyms and not least face nappy wearing. That we are admittedly by every scientist involved with vaccines in a live trial, matter not.
Whole article is worth a read imo but this bit on transmission jumped out
blogs.sciencemag.org
But there is something good to say about their data collection: since the UK study that’s included in these numbers tested its subjects by nasal swab every week, regardless of any symptoms, we can actually get a read on something that everyone’s been wondering about: transmission. It’s become clear from all the successful trials that vaccination (whether by mRNA, the several different viral vectors, or recombinant protein) is extremely effective at keeping people out of the hospital and at preventing people from dying from the coronavirus. This is very good news, and it deserves to be highlighted. But are those severe cases just being converted to lesser ones, with other lesser cases then being converted to asymptomatic ones, and in that case has the number of people walking around shedding infectious virus really changed?
The swab data say that it has. It appears that the vaccine reduced the number of people showing PCR positivity by 50 to 70%. The actual numbers were -67% after the first dose and -54% overall, but I wouldn’t read anything into that difference, because the confidence intervals for those two measurements completely overlap. So it looks like everything is shifted: hospitalized cases end up being able to stay at home with more moderate symptoms, people who would have had moderate symptoms end up asymptomatic, and people who would have been asymptomatic end up not testing positive at all. Oh, and people who would have died stayed alive. There’s that, too.
If you just look at efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection, you get a really low number (16% efficacy, confidence interval banging into the zero baseline). But my interpretation of that is that the overall number of asymptomatic patients didn’t change too much, because as just mentioned, the “would have been asymptomatic” group is not showing infection at all, and their numbers have been replaced by people from the “would have been showing symptoms” cohort, who are now just asymptomatic. And since transmission would seem to depend on viral load (among other factors), reducing viral load across the population (as shown by the significant decrease in PCR positivity) would certainly be expected to slow transmission. As Eric Topol noted at the time, this same effect had been noticed in the Moderna data in December. So with the numbers we have now, I feel pretty confident that yes, as one would have hoped, these vaccines also reduce transmission of the virus in the population. I believe that we should soon see this in a large real-world way in the Israeli data, where a significant part of the population has now been vaccinated.
Oxford AstraZeneca Data, Again
We have some more data to mull over with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. The situation so far has been pretty confused, with various efficacy numbers appearing from different people in different venues. It's fair to say that the rollout of the clinical data has not gone smoothly, and that it's done
blogs.sciencemag.org
But there is something good to say about their data collection: since the UK study that’s included in these numbers tested its subjects by nasal swab every week, regardless of any symptoms, we can actually get a read on something that everyone’s been wondering about: transmission. It’s become clear from all the successful trials that vaccination (whether by mRNA, the several different viral vectors, or recombinant protein) is extremely effective at keeping people out of the hospital and at preventing people from dying from the coronavirus. This is very good news, and it deserves to be highlighted. But are those severe cases just being converted to lesser ones, with other lesser cases then being converted to asymptomatic ones, and in that case has the number of people walking around shedding infectious virus really changed?
The swab data say that it has. It appears that the vaccine reduced the number of people showing PCR positivity by 50 to 70%. The actual numbers were -67% after the first dose and -54% overall, but I wouldn’t read anything into that difference, because the confidence intervals for those two measurements completely overlap. So it looks like everything is shifted: hospitalized cases end up being able to stay at home with more moderate symptoms, people who would have had moderate symptoms end up asymptomatic, and people who would have been asymptomatic end up not testing positive at all. Oh, and people who would have died stayed alive. There’s that, too.
If you just look at efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection, you get a really low number (16% efficacy, confidence interval banging into the zero baseline). But my interpretation of that is that the overall number of asymptomatic patients didn’t change too much, because as just mentioned, the “would have been asymptomatic” group is not showing infection at all, and their numbers have been replaced by people from the “would have been showing symptoms” cohort, who are now just asymptomatic. And since transmission would seem to depend on viral load (among other factors), reducing viral load across the population (as shown by the significant decrease in PCR positivity) would certainly be expected to slow transmission. As Eric Topol noted at the time, this same effect had been noticed in the Moderna data in December. So with the numbers we have now, I feel pretty confident that yes, as one would have hoped, these vaccines also reduce transmission of the virus in the population. I believe that we should soon see this in a large real-world way in the Israeli data, where a significant part of the population has now been vaccinated.
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
Was allowed to go myself within minutes as I was in company...
Think you have accept some people simply don't care, draw your arbitrary line and move on from them, that's what I do at least...
I think we said last time that it would be prudent to follow the time lines that the research suggest for each vaccine, but logistically it would be complex.
Politically, it would be a difficult to get across that person A is getting this vaccine and this quickly compared to person B getting this one over a longer period.
In an ideal world, we will want to achieve the highest efficacy for a specific demographic, so if that means different time-scales then it would be a good idea.
But they've gone for the easier 'one size fits all' approach.
In reality someone does have to test expanding the dosing window of the Pfizer/Moderna vax from 21 days to a wider gap, not only would it mean populations get some immunity (even if not full) quicker but we need data on whether a delay improves/reduces efficiency.
I’d just be a lot more comfortable with the ethics of it being done under the umbrella of a large trial with informed consent of the participants.
Could it be possible/logical to say, if it's a 25-year-old healthy person getting the vaccine (and let's say it's Pfizer) then they wait 12 weeks? But if it's a 75-year-old getting it, they get it 3 weeks after?
I suppose the more vaccines become available, the easier it will be to reduce the time between doses.
grandjoeblue
Player Valuation: £35m
Some great points on that thread. American journalists in particular seem to be commenting that you can get the new variant in 'seconds' which is also true for the basic COVID.
I’ve found Dr Rasmussen a great person to follow, very clear in her statements and explanations
- Status