COVID Vaccine !

[roubaixtuesday]

Where do you get this from, Mo? Who is 'they'? Or is this "they don't know whether it will be (insert figure <100 here)% more resistant"?
Would this drop the two dose Pfizer regime efficacy down from 95% to 47%?

Nobody knows any of these things to any degree of quantification.

What we do know is that in some people, the serum (blood antibodies) has reduced effect in neutralising the virus for some of these variants. I think that's where the 50% figure came from - in 50% of samples there was a drop in neutralising titre.

But nobody knows how significant this will be in the real world, it's impossible to measure directly and most if not all experts seems to think the actual hit on efficacy will be small, and these vaccines will still be effective against severe disease, which is what really matters.

 

[Mo1959]

Nobody knows any of these things to any degree of quantification.

What we do know is that in some people, the serum (blood antibodies) has reduced effect in neutralising the virus for some of these variants. I think that's where the 50% figure came from - in 50% of samples there was a drop in neutralising titre.

But nobody knows how significant this will be in the real world, it's impossible to measure directly and most if not all experts seems to think the actual hit on efficacy will be small, and these vaccines will still be effective against severe disease, which is what really matters.

Maybe the doom and gloom media trying to make it sound worse as usual?

 

[Ajax Bay]

Pfizer just made the job that little bit harder as we've been so careful to get an extra dose out of each vial. They have now cut the number of vials per order. All to maximise profit the sooner we can bin it the better can't see us using this as the go to vaccine if this becomes a yearly thing.

From reporting Pfizer have asked the FDA to allow the '5-dose' vials to be relabelled '6-dose' (FDA has not yet approved). As well as the commercial benefit, another motive seems to be that that would increase the chances of hitting some target of supplying 200M doses by whenever to the USA.
With the Oxford-AZ vaccine coming in at a fraction of the price (of Pfizer/Moderna) with an easy transport/storage regime, it must be a prime candidate for the 'go to' vaccine, provided it retains its efficacy against the SARS-COV-2 variants as they emerge.

 

[Ajax Bay]

What we do know is that in some people, the serum (blood antibodies) has reduced effect in neutralising the virus for some of these variants. I think that's where the 50% figure came from - in 50% of samples there was a drop in neutralising titre.
But nobody knows how significant this will be in the real world, it's impossible to measure directly and most if not all experts seems to think the actual hit on efficacy will be small, and these vaccines will still be effective against severe disease, which is what really matters.

Thank you, and for the 95% --> 92% clarification: one has to be careful with this stuff.

"the vaccines might become less effective than expected should these new variants spread widely.
Vaccine-virus mismatch is an ongoing challenge for scientists charged with developing the seasonal flu vaccine. But even with a virus-vaccine mismatch, the flu vaccine reduces the likelihood, and the severity, of disease. The question is therefore not whether the vaccines will be effective, but rather how effective they will be. The severity of the mismatch matters, but the only way to determine its impact in this case is through scientific study, and to my knowledge, no data on that has yet been collected. In other words, it’s too early to say whether and how this new variant [B.1.1.7 when this was written] will influence the overall effectiveness of the . . vaccines."
Prof D Kennedy (Penn State)
Some additional info here: https://www.bioworld.com/articles/5...fectiveness-of-vaccines-for-covid-19-variants

 

[mjr]

Thanks for the clarification. 50@% more resistant sounds a lot worse.

It is still a lot worse, but not as bad as suggested.

 

[lane]

Thank you, and for the 95% --> 92% clarification: one has to be careful with this stuff.

"the vaccines might become less effective than expected should these new variants spread widely.
Vaccine-virus mismatch is an ongoing challenge for scientists charged with developing the seasonal flu vaccine. But even with a virus-vaccine mismatch, the flu vaccine reduces the likelihood, and the severity, of disease. The question is therefore not whether the vaccines will be effective, but rather how effective they will be. The severity of the mismatch matters, but the only way to determine its impact in this case is through scientific study, and to my knowledge, no data on that has yet been collected. In other words, it’s too early to say whether and how this new variant [B117 when this was written] will influence the overall effectiveness of the . . vaccines."
Prof D Kennedy (Penn State)
Some additional info here: https://www.bioworld.com/articles/5...fectiveness-of-vaccines-for-covid-19-variants

Some years the death toll from flu is significantly higher due to the vaccine not targeting the correct strain.

 

[PK99]

Thank you, and for the 95% --> 92% clarification: one has to be careful with this stuff.

ditto the Kent variant.

30% more dangerous,

10 in 1000 to 13 in 1000 for (iirc) age around 60,

 

[numbnuts]

 

[Landsurfer]

ditto the Kent variant.

30% more dangerous,

10 in 1000 to 13 in 1000 for (iirc) age around 60,

... surely 0.3% increase ...... Maths .....

 

[Ajax Bay]

Since you didn't include a wink @Landsurfer - just in case (apologies if your comment was in jest):
Fatality rate of 'original' virus = circa 1%.
Fatality rate of B117 variant of virus = 1.3%. (NB Tentative finding and in region 1.1% - 1.5%)
How much more dangerous? 30% more dangerous.

 

[mjr]

Was the best I could find on that. You do seem to prefer to criticise the source of a contribution (I don't believe the UK Ambassador(!)) rather than comment on its accuracy.

To be clear, it was more that I don't trust that gov.UK hasn't misinformed its ambassador, but OK, in case this wasn't clear enough: I doubt the accuracy of reports from the likes of the Republican-supporting Politico.

Why not comment on the substance of what I shared (Germany argued for a EU-united procurement yet simultaneously made additional agreements with vaccine producers for extra doses (and kept it quiet for a while), in violation of agreed EU vaccination strategy: the EU agreed to allocate coronavirus vaccines by population and prohibited its states talking bilaterally with the companies.

Because that substance appears to be right-wing horse shoot, often missing key details to make it appear worse. I'd point out that all countries have been keeping bits of vaccination deals quiet, arguing commercial sensitivities to avoid freedom-of-information laws, and participating countries were allowed to negotiate with the companies involved once the EU concluded its talks (which mostly happened in August), as well as with companies not in talks with the EU.

But what's the alternative you prefer? Every country for itself and outbidding and gazumping each other, driving the price up for something that won't truly protect until it's been bought for enough willing takers in each area?

"very very interesting" An odd description.

Think of it in terms of the curse "may you live in interesting times".

Others have addressed the MHRA/EMA point, including pointing out the disruption caused by EMA relocation due to Brexit.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Wife got her letter today inviting her in for the jab on the 11th

 

[tom73]

Heard yet again another phone on the vaccine. Same sort of questions and concerns that are flying around what have no truth.
It's not down to phone ins with experts to plug a hole in the public health message. The government need to get a grip of this and stop people having unnecessary worries about this. It's not going to work if they don't. "If asked go get the jab" and "once you have your still a danger" message fall well short.

 

[Rocky]

Heard yet again another phone on the vaccine. Same sort of questions and concerns that are flying around what have no truth.
It's not down to phone ins with experts to plug a hole in the public health message. The government need to get a grip of this and stop people having unnecessary worries about this. It's not going to work if they don't. "If asked go get the jab" and "once you have your still a danger" message fall well short.

The problem is finding someone in the government that the population believe.

 

[nickyboy]

Heard yet again another phone on the vaccine. Same sort of questions and concerns that are flying around what have no truth.
It's not down to phone ins with experts to plug a hole in the public health message. The government need to get a grip of this and stop people having unnecessary worries about this. It's not going to work if they don't. "If asked go get the jab" and "once you have your still a danger" message fall well short.

Yet, despite this, public of acceptance of the vaccination is one of the highest in the world. Whilst it would be nice to get from 80% to, say, 90% (there will always be some who refuse despite whatever messaging is used) it doesn't have a major impact on when herd immunity is achieved. If someone in a higher risk group refuses the vaccine it means someone in a lower risk group gets vaccinated more quickly.

Countries like France have a massively bigger issue regarding vaccine messaging than UK does