COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Deeper Blue

Sheep2020 wrote: »

It's true alright, we probably wouldn't have

What about the 10% that the vaccine won't work for?

Whats the plan for them?

A few might get infected but it won't even register in most people's minds, it'll be just a few extra people in hospital in the same way that we have flu cases each year

ShineOn7

Sheep2020 wrote: »

What about the 10% that the vaccine won't work for?

What's this 10% you speak of? Because it's news to me

Sheep2020

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Oh hi "new poster"

What's this 10% you speak of? Because it's news to me

That 90% or so vaccine efficacy that leaves 10%, 1 trialist was severely sick in Pfizer trial suggesting it wont work for everyone

Hmmzis

Sheep2020 wrote: »

I didn't mean to cause offence, good you changed the wording, it was stange to see it asserted.

I've read most of that as well, all very positive, your kind of going on a tangent though, not answering the question of initial dose to 2nd dose immunity

How do they know sterilising immunity from day 1 to day 40?, 1st dose, 2nd dose, 14 day post

They never deliberately infected anyone

Do they know trialists came in contact with the virus from.day 1 to.40?

That's outlined in their trial protocol. They start counting someone as a case if they get symptoms after 14 days out from the 2nd dose. Before that both placebo and vaccine arms are treated as unprotected for trial purposes.

Micky 32

El Sueño wrote: »

A few might get infected but it won't even register in most people's minds, it'll be just a few extra people in hospital in the same way that we have flu cases each year

Correct me if I’m wrong if it works for 90% that would mean the 10% that it won’t work for have a very low risk of ever getting it because of the vaccinated 90%..

I never took the flu vaccine. Not because I’m anti vax but because i was never really worried or scared about getting the flu, just never bothered. My work involves dealing with the public and i haven’t caught the flu in 10 years. So I’m wondering is that because of the percentage of other people taking the flu vaccine has actually protected me from getting it because the vaccinated spread it less.

Sheep2020

Hmmzis wrote: »

That's outlined in their trial protocol. They start counting someone as a case if they get symptoms after 14 days out from the 2nd dose. Before that both placebo and vaccine arms are treated as unprotected for trial purposes.

Thanks, that's interesting

Your classed as unvaccinated until post 40 days?

Why is asymptomatic not a case?

We count it as a case in our PCR testing

How will that 40 day work with travel?

Will they advice to restrict movements for 40 days

ShineOn7

Micky 32 wrote: »

Correct me if I’m wrong if it works for 90% that would mean the 10% that it won’t work for have a very low risk of ever getting it because of the vaccinated 90%..

Pfizer has 95% efficiency though I thought?

Or is 90% the average of all the vaccines so far put together?

Micky 32

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Pfizer has 95% efficiency though I thought?

Or is 90% the average of all the vaccines so far put together?

Yes you are correct, it’s 95%

Pasteur.

Pasteur. wrote: »

Is there any purpose to wearing a mask after this time

?

Hmmzis

Sheep2020 wrote: »

Thanks, that's interesting

Your classed as unvaccinated until post 40 days?

Why is asymptomatic not a case?

We count it as a case in our PCR testing

How will that 40 day work with travel?

Will they advice to restrict movements for 40 days

For trial purposes, that's correct. Astmptomatic infections are measured as a separate trial endpoint. There are several trial endpoints that get investigated, symptomatic disease is just the first of the primary endpoints.
Not quite getting your travel question though. Once you're vaccinated (2nd dose + 14 days) you should be protected.

timsey tiger

Sheep2020 wrote: »

You shouldn't reply to stuff you dont understand

I was replying to hmmsis post about immunity from initial dose to 2nd dose

Where he said to a poster you'll be grand 14 days after 2nd dose

Yeah.

You asserted falsely that Hmmsis couldn't make the assertion he made because none of the trialists were monitored closely enough. This is the lie that I complained about.

Hmmsis couldn't personally make the assertion he made because as far as we can tell he is not qualified to do so, not because of a lack of follow up by AZ, as you falsely claimed.

Maybe you should apply your own standard to comments you make here, as you don't seem to understand the whole concept of vaccination and herd immunity from the inane questions you ask about the 10%.

astrofool

Pasteur. wrote: »

?

Probably not, but it will take a while for their usage to recede, they'll also likely be stockpiled for future outbreaks (even if 100 years from now, like our salt mountains from the beast from the east), and for the next 10 years we'll have better hygiene but it will slip back to pre-pandemic over time as well (technology may stay around making viruses harder to spread, the discoveries of the vaccine development should have a very positive effect into the future for many diseases).

rubadub

I haven't read all the posts, as I am 100% sure it has been mentioned so I am confused as to WTF the original poll has not been edited. Surely it's easier to correct it than make people trawl through the shi-te to see if it is explained elsewhere.

ShineOn7

rubadub wrote: »

I haven't read all the posts, as I am 100% sure it has been mentioned so I am confused as to WTF the original poll has not been edited. Surely it's easier to correct it than make people trawl through the shi-te to see if it is explained elsewhere.

A much more recent poll https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058135039

WoollyRedHat

Sheep2020 wrote: »

That 90% or so vaccine efficacy that leaves 10%, 1 trialist was severely sick in Pfizer trial suggesting it wont work for everyone

My understanding is the trialist that was revealed to be severely sick was revealed to have been in the placebo group, but I am open to correction on this.

mean gene

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It meets the efficacy requirement, so in theory it's just a matter of the safety data holding up. Confused by the dosing though. I think a little common sense might need to be applied and for them to allow the half dose full dose regimen to be the go to.

Not confusing though is it.
Half dose followed by a full dose is over 90 % what's confusing abt that

CIARAN_BOYLE

Sheep2020 wrote: »

Why is asymptomatic not a case?

In my opinion there are three potential benefits of a vaccine. In order to get approval they only need to show positive news in one category.

1. Reduction of symptoms (this is category all the efficacy %s is based on)
2. Reductions in hospitalisations and deaths (while this should follow from #1 it doesn't necessarily and no trial has a large enough sample group to say one way or the other)
3. Reduction in transmission and asymptomatic cases (the Oxford trial is collecting information on this, I don't think the others are, but there is no data published).

mean gene wrote: »

Not confusing though is it.
Half dose followed by a full dose is over 90 % what's confusing abt that

They didn't include any older person's in the half dose full dose testing so who knows if it will work at all for them. That's a little confusing. Also how many people used that regimen. If its a small % of the trial the numbers could be off because there's just too few cases.

Remember Pfizer moved from 90-95% effective when they went from 90 infected to 160 infected between placebo and vaccine trial groups.

Mark1916

https://t.co/X6S4ED2XWN

Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved by Britain's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and is expected to be made available from next week

CruelSummer

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/state-to-underwrite-virus-vaccine-firms-to-reassure-patients-as-jab-is-rolled-out-39816668.html

I don’t agree with the cost of indemnity having to go to the state. It once again leaves the tax payers vulnerable. The pharma companies and some EU/US body should be the under-writers for their respective areas.

Sheep2020

CruelSummer wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/state-to-underwrite-virus-vaccine-firms-to-reassure-patients-as-jab-is-rolled-out-39816668.html

I don’t agree with the cost of indemnity having to go to the state. It once again leaves the tax payers vulnerable. The pharma companies and some EU/US body should be the under-writers for their respective areas.

Strange

Are the manufacturers not confident its risk free or something?

Why won't they cover it

It'd be like the Irish Government covering the warranty of my VW

Sheep2020

Mark1916 wrote: »

https://t.co/X6S4ED2XWN

Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved by Britain's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and is expected to be made available from next week

NHS staff getting it first they are saying

Wonder what the uptake will be?

Will be a PR disaster if many refuse

stephenjmcd

Sheep2020 wrote: »

Strange

Are the manufacturers not confident its risk free or something?

Why won't they cover it

It'd be like the Irish Government covering the warranty of my VW

Because having the EU states providing indemnity to a certain level is reducing the cost of the vaccines to member states, its nothing new.

Its been mentioned plenty of times over the last few months

Russman

Sheep2020 wrote: »

Strange

Are the manufacturers not confident its risk free or something?

Why won't they cover it

It'd be like the Irish Government covering the warranty of my VW

Seems its standard practice apparently.

I suppose nothing would ever come to market or be researched if there wasn’t some form of indemnity.

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Because having the EU states providing indemnity to a certain level is reducing the cost of the vaccines to member states, its nothing new.

Its been mentioned plenty of times over the last few months

It has been mentioned many times, and ignored many times. What people need to understand is in the absence of such a scheme we would either have had an incredibly expensive vaccine or a very slow vaccine development. It also does not absolve manufacturers from adhering to standard safety protocols or deliberately covering up or hiding potential issues

stephenjmcd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It has been mentioned many times, and ignored many times. What people need to understand is in the absence of such a scheme we would either have had an incredibly expensive vaccine or a very slow vaccine development. It also does not absolve manufacturers from adhering to standard safety protocols or deliberately covering up or hiding potential issues

Yup absolutely, you've got it spot on.

What Username Guidelines

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It has been mentioned many times, and ignored many times. What people need to understand is in the absence of such a scheme we would either have had an incredibly expensive vaccine or a very slow vaccine development. It also does not absolve manufacturers from adhering to standard safety protocols or deliberately covering up or hiding potential issues

It’s a bit like those that don’t fly Ryanair because it’s probably not safe if it’s that cheap. Ryanair can pull the cost out of almost everything, but safety standards simply cannot be modified.

ACitizenErased

Massive news from the UK today. The beginning of the end - happy Wednesday.

brisan

is_that_so wrote: »

We're getting ours from the EU and early January seems to be their date to start.
UK is Boris bravado and him being desperate for any kind of win. It may not be approved by then.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1202/1181812-coronavirus-vaccine/

manofwisdom

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Massive news from the UK today. The beginning of the end - happy Wednesday.

When do you reckon it will rollout in Ireland. A matter of wait and see with England first or ploughing ahead regardless?

ACitizenErased

manofwisdom wrote: »

When do you reckon it will rollout in Ireland. A matter of wait and see with England first or ploughing ahead regardless?

I would say first week in January

CIARAN_BOYLE

manofwisdom wrote: »

When do you reckon it will rollout in Ireland. A matter of wait and see with England first or ploughing ahead regardless?

European medical agency says it will make a decision whether to approve before 29 December.

Gael23

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Massive news from the UK today. The beginning of the end - happy Wednesday.

While we await an action plan to be then signed off by a dozen managers in the HSE before we even think about vaccinating anyone

mean gene

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I would say first week in January

any link to this exclusive

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

It has been mentioned many times, and ignored many times. What people need to understand is in the absence of such a scheme we would either have had an incredibly expensive vaccine or a very slow vaccine development.

The indemnity doesn't effect the speed of the vaccine development as it's already here unless you're saying it wouldn't have been developed as quick if manufacturers had to guarantee it.
It could still turn out to be a very expensive vaccine as we are not being told the cost estimate of the indemnity it's a secret apparently.

Government are sending a massage that they will stand over someone else's product to inspire confidence in the public, I think it has the opposite effect it's the indemnity pharma companies have been given is worrying some people.

brisan

marno21 wrote: »

If we have 1 million of the most vulnerable vaccinated this becomes a completely different kettle of fish. The hospitalisation rate will be well under 1% and by March we will hopefully be able deploy the Oxford vaccine which won’t have the scarcity issue.

I hope they are getting ready for a mass vaccination of less at risk groups at the end of Q1, early Q2 with Oxford and maybe J&J which will have bigger supply. We’ll have this killed by the middle/end of Q2 then.

All dependent on the HSE not messing up the rollout which they will
Even McSharry on the tonight show said we have to get this right ,he knows if there is a way to screw this up the HSE will find it and he is worried for FFs future

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The indemnity doesn't effect the speed of the vaccine development as it's already here unless you're saying it wouldn't have been developed as quick if manufacturers had to guarantee it.
It could still turn out to be a very expensive vaccine as we are not being told the cost estimate of the indemnity it's a secret apparently.

Government are sending a massage that they will stand over someone else's product to inspire confidence in the public, I think it has the opposite effect it's the indemnity pharma companies have been given is worrying some people.

Its standard.

Dempo1

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Massive news from the UK today. The beginning of the end - happy Wednesday.

I'm all for the vaccine but am a little perturbed at the UK"s seemingly rushed decision on this and the UKs appalling handling of the Pandemic to date makes me even more concerned.

I don't fully understand the process regarding approval but am I incorrect in assuming not all data has infact been released? The FDA have yet to approve or the European medicines agency (albeit that may be down to boards meeting). I guess I've two concerns.

A. What Data have the UK agency recieved that seemingly no one else has

B. I'm genuinely concerned that this appears a rushed, first past the post decision.

I'm not questioning the abilities of the UK agency that has approved this, just wondering what I'm missing here.

ixoy

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

2. Reductions in hospitalisations and deaths (while this should follow from #1 it doesn't necessarily and no trial has a large enough sample group to say one way or the other)

Moderna are claiming 100% reduction in severe Covid-19, including older age groups, which should certainly reduce hospitalisation / deaths.

brisan

Deleted User wrote: »

For Pfizer and Moderna, it might need special centres/teams to get it done. Astra Zeneca can be done via pharmacies and GPs, like the flu jab.

Croke Park ,The Aviva ,The RDS ,IKC exhibition centre ,3 Arena ,numerous other big venues around the country
The will and the ability to do has to be there though
Arm to co-ordinate and provide personnel and medical staff to do vaccinations
Drive in ,arm out the window get jabbed and drive out .
All paperwork done beforehand
It can be done for testing ,why not for vaccinations

CruelSummer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It has been mentioned many times, and ignored many times. What people need to understand is in the absence of such a scheme we would either have had an incredibly expensive vaccine or a very slow vaccine development. It also does not absolve manufacturers from adhering to standard safety protocols or deliberately covering up or hiding potential issues

I still don’t think this cost should fall to the Irish taxpayer. It should fall to an EU body set up for this purpose. Our public finances are far too vulnerable at the moment.

brisan

Hmmzis wrote: »

Even with the full/full AZ/Oxford one you should be grand at 14 days after your 2nd dose. Just stay away from nursing homes if infection prevalence is high in the community.

Plus stay away from hospitals
Nursing homes and hospitals are the two setting where you are most likely to catch covid

Sheep2020

ixoy wrote: »

Moderna are claiming 100% reduction in severe Covid-19, including older age groups, which should certainly reduce hospitalisation / deaths.

As long as you dont get Covid before 40 days or straight away?

Bit confused on that

You have to get the 2 injections and 14 days after your body is 100% at its best

What happens if you encounter Covid a few days after 1st injection

Lower than 90% efficacy then?

Miccoli

Hopefully the beginning of the end now. Anyone know the reasons as to why the EU is so slow to approve compared to UK?

ixoy

CruelSummer wrote: »

I still don’t think this cost should fall to the Irish taxpayer. It should fall to an EU body set up for this purpose. Our public finances are far too vulnerable at the moment.

We're an net contributor to the EU now, so we'd be paying for it even then - it'd just be masked a bit more. Possibly also down a bit to the legislative differences in other countries.

Anyway, every EU country has vulnerable pubic finances right now.

Russman

Dempo1 wrote: »

I'm all for the vaccine but am a little perturbed at the UK"s seemingly rushed decision on this and the UKs appalling handling of the Pandemic to date makes me even more concerned.

I don't fully understand the process regarding approval but am I incorrect in assuming not all data has infact been released? The FDA have yet to approve or the European medicines agency (albeit that may be down to boards meeting). I guess I've two concerns.

A. What Data have the UK agency recieved that seemingly no one else has

B. I'm genuinely concerned that this appears a rushed, first past the post decision.

I'm not questioning the abilities of the UK agency that has approved this, just wondering what I'm missing here.

I think some people were saying that they (the people commenting) hadn't seen the data. I'd guess everything the companies have has been submitted to the regulators, who are the ones that really matter rather than joe public or professor XYZ on TV. That's from my very limited understanding of it anyway.

There's possibly an element of the UK wanting to "one up" Europe alright, but sure, let them at it.

JMNolan

Dempo1 wrote: »

I'm not questioning the abilities of the UK agency that has approved this, just wondering what I'm missing here.

You're missing a lot of data that the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have. Not sure why then you think it's rushed if you are missing all the data they have.

stephenjmcd

MHRA holding a briefing at 10am, the last one a few weeks ago was very informative. Would expect this one to be the same.

hmmm

All the main regulators have been shadowing the big trials e.g. EMA have been reviewing the data from Pfizer formally since October (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-starts-second-rolling-review-covid-19-vaccine). It's going to take a bit of time to review the formal submissions they have received which are going to be hefty data dumps from the drugs companies and the independent drug trial boards, but its very unlikely there are any show-stoppers in the data submissions which no-one has spotted until now. It all still has to be read and reviewed, and I'm assuming the EMA is a bit slower just because multiple countries are involved. There's nothing stopping the Irish regulator doing what the UK has done and decide to approve for themselves earlier.

These approvals are also not approval for wide-scale use. These approvals will be limited to certain high-risk groups where the regulators are happy that the risk from Covid exceeds any concern about the vaccine. If you're working in an ICU now with Covid patients, I'm sure most would like to get some protection as you are putting yourself in danger every day.

Wider approval for people who are not in high-risk groups will be a bit away yet.

CIARAN_BOYLE

ixoy wrote: »

Moderna are claiming 100% reduction in severe Covid-19, including older age groups, which should certainly reduce hospitalisation / deaths.

Its certainly positive but the numbers are tiny.

11 with symptoms got the vaccine.

I hope it reduces severe symptoms. They would need a lot more cases to say for sure. If we randomly took 11 people with symptoms would we find one with severe symptoms?

I dont know. Would we be 95% confident of finding one person if we took a group of 11 people with symptoms.

Definitely not.

Its promising but it could be chance.

timsey tiger

mean gene wrote: »

any link to this exclusive

Citizen said, "I would say ..." In english this means that he is giving his opinion.