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

Micky 32

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

Exactly that

Sorry, my brain wasn’t in tune when i read your comment. i should have known!

Hmmzis

Just read the Pfizer/BNT paper. Exceptional results, nothing to add, nothing to take away from it. Quite the contrast to Oxford's paper, the deeper I look at it the messier it gets. Let's hope Moderna's is more like Pfizer/BNT's.

For me personally the most important bit out of Oxford's data is the weekly swabs in the UK. No matter how you slice and dice it, it quite definitely shows that even the full/full dose reduces viral spread.
In table 2 if you look at the SD/SD row from the UK for asymptomatic cases there is no statistically significant difference, but that's not the whole story. The symptomatic row for the same UK arm shows a reduction of cases/infections. So the two rows there show a nearly complete picture of all infections in that trial arm regardless of symptoms. My naïve point estimate puts that value at ~40% for the SD/SD regiment.

This is good news for other vaccines as well when it comes to preventing viral spread.

Stheno

Hmmzis wrote: »

Just read the Pfizer/BNT paper. Exceptional results, nothing to add, nothing to take away from it. Quite the contrast to Oxford's paper, the deeper I look at it the messier it gets. Let's hope Moderna's is more like Pfizer/BNT's.

For me personally the most important bit out of Oxford's data is the weekly swabs in the UK. No matter how you slice and dice it, it quite definitely shows that even the full/full dose reduces viral spread.
In table 2 if you look at the SD/SD row from the UK for asymptomatic cases there is no statistically significant difference, but that's not the whole story. The symptomatic row for the same UK arm shows a reduction of cases/infections. So the two rows there show a nearly complete picture of all infections in that trial arm regardless of symptoms. My naïve point estimate puts that value at ~40% for the SD/SD regiment.

This is good news for other vaccines as well when it comes to preventing viral spread.

Do you I u think the Oxford data is badly presented?

hmmm

Hmmzis wrote: »

Just read the Pfizer/BNT paper. Exceptional results, nothing to add, nothing to take away from it.

The longer I think about the Pfizer results, the more I don't understand why they didn't do a one dose test. I know regulators can only work from the data they have, but the one shot data looks exceptional.

If I was Pfizer, I'd run an immediate new phase 3 using just one dose. We can follow up with a booster dose later, but an immediate doubling of supply would be spectacular. Worst case is it doesn't work, and it wouldn't take much to prove.

schmoo2k

hmmm wrote: »

The longer I think about the Pfizer results, the more I don't understand why they didn't do a one dose test. I know regulators can only work from the data they have, but the one shot data looks exceptional.

If I was Pfizer, I'd run an immediate new phase 3 using just one dose. We can follow up with a booster dose later, but an immediate doubling of supply would be spectacular. Worst case is it doesn't work, and it wouldn't take much to prove.

I suspect that doesn't make financial sense for them to volunteer to do it...

Hmmzis

Stheno wrote: »

Do you I u think the Oxford data is badly presented?

It's very noisy and the various splits and sub-analyses make it difficult to draw reasonable conclusions from it.
The LD/SD looks ok on the surface until you look deeper into the description of how that part of the trial was executed. The kicker is that in addition to a lower dose they SD booster was given after 3 months and not the nominal 4 weeks. The SD/SD data is also made harder to interpret for similar reasons as a large portion of trial participants got the boosters well outside the nominal 4 weeks. There is a split analysis of <6 weeks to booster and >6 weeks. From that it looks like there is a noticeable benefit waiting longer that 6 weeks for the SD/SD regiment.

So, does the vaccine work? Yes, absolutelly.
What doses and at what intervals do we need to get the 62%? Not sure, can't quite tell yet with any reasonable confidence.
What doses and at what intervals do we need to get the 90%? Even less clear than for the 62%.
What about the 70%? Statistics.

MerlinSouthDub

Hmmzis wrote: »

So, does the vaccine work? Yes, absolutelly.
What doses and at what intervals do we need to get the 62%? Not sure, can't quite tell yet with any reasonable confidence.
What doses and at what intervals do we need to get the 90%? Even less clear than for the 62%.
What about the 70%? Statistics.

I wonder if there is enough data to conclude that the half dose/full dose regimen is at least as good as the full dose/full dose regimen? That would be a very valuable conclusion.

Cork2021

Hmmzis wrote: »

It's very noisy and the various splits and sub-analyses make it difficult to draw reasonable conclusions from it.
The LD/SD looks ok on the surface until you look deeper into the description of how that part of the trial was executed. The kicker is that in addition to a lower dose they SD booster was given after 3 months and not the nominal 4 weeks. The SD/SD data is also made harder to interpret for similar reasons as a large portion of trial participants got the boosters well outside the nominal 4 weeks. There is a split analysis of <6 weeks to booster and >6 weeks. From that it looks like there is a noticeable benefit waiting longer that 6 weeks for the SD/SD regiment.

So, does the vaccine work? Yes, absolutelly.
What doses and at what intervals do we need to get the 62%? Not sure, can't quite tell yet with any reasonable confidence.
What doses and at what intervals do we need to get the 90%? Even less clear than for the 62%.
What about the 70%? Statistics.

Still no issue with approval across all the agencies? Even 70% will do and give the higher efficacy vaccines to the most vulnerable

Cork2021

Leaks happening

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1337149983787790342?s=21

brisan

Cork2021 wrote: »

Leaks happening

https://twitter.com/micheallehane/status/1337149983787790342?s=21

Christ on a bike
If it is GPs Nurses AND pharmacists giving these vaccines out it will take years and not months
What about the large scale vaccination centres with army personnel on board y

stephenjmcd

brisan wrote: »

Christ on a bike
If it is GPs Nurses AND pharmacists giving these vaccines out it will take years and not months
What about the large scale vaccination centres with army personnel on board y

Army medics are already trained and more are being training. The army are represented on the vaccine task force. Independent ran the story last weekend

Henryq.

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Army medics are already trained and more are being training. The army are represented on the vaccine task force. Independent ran the story last weekend

The more the better

I think we need to pull together on this one across the board

Hmmzis

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

I wonder if there is enough data to conclude that the half dose/full dose regimen is at least as good as the full dose/full dose regimen? That would be a very valuable conclusion.

Taken at face value, there is. The catch being that you'd have to take the booster after 3 months, not 4 weeks (as per trial execution and not trial protocol). That leaves the question open of what the LD prime does in regards of protection in those 3 months. It needs more data to show a better picture. I think most of the regulators wish they could approve it yesterday, but they all need a more robust data set. I'd be very curious what MHRA in the UK will do here.

Deeper Blue

brisan wrote: »

Christ on a bike
If it is GPs Nurses AND pharmacists giving these vaccines out it will take years and not months
What about the large scale vaccination centres with army personnel on board y

Curious as to why you think this, would it not be a case of the more people administering vaccines the better?

ACitizenErased

The more the merrier. Pharmacists are incredibly experienced from the flu vaccine.

Hmmzis

Cork2021 wrote: »

Still no issue with approval across all the agencies? Even 70% will do and give the higher efficacy vaccines to the most vulnerable

The 70% is a statistical value, it's actually not a point estimate of any of the dosing regiments. The SD/SD is 62% overall and the LD/SD is 90% overall, with the caveats mentioned in the previous post from me.

hmmm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDzE-tTisSo

Live FDA panel reviewing the Pfizer vaccine - and they've just voted (17 to 4) to approve it.

ACitizenErased

hmmm wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDzE-tTisSo

Live FDA panel reviewing the Pfizer vaccine - and they've just voted (17 to 4) to approve it.

I really do hope the EMA is not far behind

Micky 32

You’d have to wonder why the 4 voted against it. Do they not want this crisis over or something?

stephenjmcd

hmmm wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDzE-tTisSo

Live FDA panel reviewing the Pfizer vaccine - and they've just voted (17 to 4) to approve it.

Just to note thats an independent committee.

Their feedback from today now goes back to the FDA who have the final say in the coming days to approve or not. They'll approve it but just because the committee voted to endorse doesn't mean its approved for use just yet, it'll be a few more days before the FDA come to a judgement

Russman

Micky 32 wrote: »

You’d have to wonder why the 4 voted against it. Do they not want this crisis over or something?

The dissenting voices at the discussion (not sure if that translated into the votes) were mostly to do with the age being from 16 upwards, they wanted it to be 18 upwards. One guy only wanted to approve it for HCWs and care home residents for the moment, based on the rationale that that’s all that would be getting it for the first few months anyway and then they’d have more safety data before general approval.

cgc5483

hmmm wrote: »

The longer I think about the Pfizer results, the more I don't understand why they didn't do a one dose test. I know regulators can only work from the data they have, but the one shot data looks exceptional.

If I was Pfizer, I'd run an immediate new phase 3 using just one dose. We can follow up with a booster dose later, but an immediate doubling of supply would be spectacular. Worst case is it doesn't work, and it wouldn't take much to prove.

Is that Figure 3 you're basing that on? Whilst it does show from Day 12 on some level of protection emerging its difficult to say too much because after Day 21 it includes 2nd dose. I think the text mentions 52% as reduction up to time of 2nd dose. Might not be effective enough and duration of response might be less.

brisan

El Sueño wrote: »

Curious as to why you think this, would it not be a case of the more people administering vaccines the better?

Curious as to why you think my post did not mean the more people giving vaccinations the better
I thought it was fairly clear
GPs nurses pharmacists and mass vaccination centres
Mass vaccination centres were not mentioned in the leak
God forbid the HSE give up some level of control

Airyfairy12

Just curious and presume its ok to post here, would anyone know how long should someone wait before getting tested after being exposed to someone with covid? Would it show up in a test immediately or would it take a couple of days?

hmmm

cgc5483 wrote: »

Is that Figure 3 you're basing that on? Whilst it does show from Day 12 on some level of protection emerging its difficult to say too much because after Day 21 it includes 2nd dose. I think the text mentions 52% as reduction up to time of 2nd dose. Might not be effective enough and duration of response might be less.

Yes, I'm speculating based on Figure 3 where the vaccine group flatlines after days 12-14. It would have been really interesting to see where this curve goes without the 2nd dose. The 52% I understand includes people who get Covid from immediately after the first dose, and doesn't sound like a particularly useful metric. After day 14, that (I'm guessing looking at the slope) must be in the high 80s+ effectiveness.

polesheep

Micky 32 wrote: »

You’d have to wonder why the 4 voted against it. Do they not want this crisis over or something?

Perhaps they don't want to lurch from one crisis into another. They are doing their job. They will give their reasons. It may be that they just want a little more time. Would you be happy to roll out a vaccine just because Pfizer say it's kosher?

Micky 32

polesheep wrote: »

Perhaps they don't want to lurch from one crisis into another. They are doing their job. They will give their reasons. It may be that they just want a little more time. Would you be happy to roll out a vaccine just because Pfizer say it's kosher?

I’m guessing that if you were on the panel we would have seen 17/5 :rolleyes:

speckle

Can anyone explain here who is keeping up to date on all the different options in trials why Australia just cancelled one because it gives 'false positive' HIV results?

Peregrinus

speckle wrote: »

Can anyone explain here who is keeping up to date on all the different options in trials why Australia just cancelled one because it gives 'false positive' HIV results?

The implication of the finding was that, if you take the UQ vaccine, it then becomes difficult to test you for HIV infection reliably, should the need or desirability of such a test arise. That could have quite serious consequences for people at risk of HIV infection.

So, given the choice betweeen a vaccine which has this side-effect and one which does not, clinicians will prefer the one that does not, and so will patients. And, given that vaccines without this side effect are becoming available even now, the
likely use of the the UQ vaccine would seem to be very limited. And that meant that the cost of completing phase 2 and phase 3 testing and applying for an obtainining licensing wasn't justified.

mandrake04

The UQ vaccine contains gp41 which is a glycoprotein that was I believe used as some sort of stabiliser, it seems this interfered with some of the immunoassays used for HIV screening.

froog

JimmyVik wrote: »

I got an email last week from my hr department telling me no vaccine no job.
They said at an as yet undetermined date in the new year anyone who hasnt received a vaccine will not be allowed to work for them.

That sounds completely made up tbh.

Henryq.

froog wrote: »

That sounds completely made up tbh.

Legal minefield too atm

ceegee

Peregrinus wrote: »

The implication of the finding was that, if you take the UQ vaccine, it then becomes difficult to test you for HIV infection reliably, should the need or desirability of such a test arise. That could have quite serious consequences for people at risk of HIV infection.

So, given the choice betweeen a vaccine which has this side-effect and one which does not, clinicians will prefer the one that does not, and so will patients. And, given that vaccines without this side effect are becoming available even now, the
likely use of the the UQ vaccine would seem to be very limited. And that meant that the cost of completing phase 2 and phase 3 testing and applying for an obtainining licensing wasn't justified.

It would also be a major problem for blood donation.

schmoo2k

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Just curious and presume its ok to post here, would anyone know how long should someone wait before getting tested after being exposed to someone with covid? Would it show up in a test immediately or would it take a couple of days?

In Canada my brother had a similar question, so rang the equivalent of the HSE - they performed the "Peanut Butter" test - smell some peanut butter, if it smells normal then self isolate, if you can't smell it get a test.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Just curious and presume its ok to post here, would anyone know how long should someone wait before getting tested after being exposed to someone with covid? Would it show up in a test immediately or would it take a couple of days?

If traced as a contact you get two tests afaik. One immediately and one on day 7.

Peregrinus

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If traced as a contact you get two tests afaik. One immediately and one on day 7.

Yes, but even the first test will be a couple of days after contact.

If you are infected by contact with someone, that's not really detectable by test until about 3 days later, and not reliably detectable until 4 or 5 days later.

stephenjmcd

Independent reporting that people who want the vaccine will self-register online, book a jab, and provide crucial data on monitoring and tracking who is being immunised.

Vaccination centres will be set up initially and will then be followed on by GP and pharmacists for the wider rollout.

Dangerous Fools

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1210/1183644-td-vaccine-research/

Tipperary's Mattie McGrath said he fears the jab is being rushed through. He has concerns around vaccines generally.

Cork South West's Michael Collins said: "Whenever anyone asks me whether I'll take the vaccine, I respond 'what are the ingredients?', and they don't know and I say 'well there's my point'."

You can even find the list in the daily mirror
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/health-news/full-list-ingredients-pfizers-covid-23146070

Pfizer /BioNTech’s vaccine contains a range of ingredients, alongside the active substance, called BNT162b2 RNA.

The other ingredients are:

- ALC-0315 = (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate),

- ALC-0159 = 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide,

- 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine,

- cholesterol, 5

- potassium chloride,

- potassium dihydrogen phosphate,

- sodium chloride,

Irish Stones

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The more the merrier. Pharmacists are incredibly experienced from the flu vaccine.

How much trained should one be to administer a flu?
Isn't it just like any other injection?

Irish Stones

Irish Stones wrote: »

How much trained should one be to administer a flu?
Isn't it just like any other injection?

The post important factor is being trained to spot potential reactions

Irish Stones

schmoo2k wrote: »

In Canada my brother had a similar question, so rang the equivalent of the HSE - they performed the "Peanut Butter" test - smell some peanut butter, if it smells normal then self isolate, if you can't smell it get a test.

WOW, very professional!

Irish Stones

Deleted User wrote: »

The post important factor is being trained to spot potential reactions

Alright, but potential reactions might show up much later one has walked out the practice/pharmacy/vaccination centre/etc.
So, apart from this, giving an injection might be a simple task for nearly everyone.

Irish Stones

Irish Stones wrote: »

Alright, but potential reactions might show up much later one has walked out the practice/pharmacy/vaccination centre/etc.
So, apart from this, giving an injection might be a simple task for nearly everyone.

Severe reactions will show up within a few minutes

Irish Stones

An article on the newspaper today says that according to a recent study and projection, the protection given from (Pfizer?) vaccine will be effective at least 15 months.
People with allergeis shouldn't have any issue from the vaccine.

https://www.lastampa.it/topnews/primo-piano/2020/12/11/news/il-vaccino-ci-proteggera-15-mesi-nessun-problema-per-chi-soffre-di-allergie-1.39646613

Irish Stones

Deleted User wrote: »

Severe reactions will show up within a few minutes

I'm not so sure.
Years ago, my cat had the vaccine done at the vet practice, we stayed there about 30 minutes post jab, then came back home. It was around noon.
My cat showed a very bad, terrible, reaction to the vaccine at 11 pm, scary indeed! In the following years we just made sure the vet wasn't using the same brand of vaccine.

Just like it can happen to a pet, it can happen to a person.

Kerry25x

[PHP][/PHP]

Irish Stones wrote: »

So, apart from this, giving an injection might be a simple task for nearly everyone.

Well its hardly rocket science but you need a certain amount of training and experience to give an IM injection. Poor technique could cause damage to nerves and blood vessels or even an absess or haematoma. I regularly train student nurses in giving IM injections and they definitely need supervision starting off.

I don't get your point about reactions showing later, that could happen regardless of where you get it done?

schmoo2k

Irish Stones wrote: »

I'm not so sure.
Years ago, my cat had the vaccine done at the vet practice, we stayed there about 30 minutes post jab, then came back home. It was around noon.
My cat showed a very bad, terrible, reaction to the vaccine at 11 pm, scary indeed! In the following years we just made sure the vet wasn't using the same brand of vaccine.

Just like it can happen to a pet, it can happen to a person.

When the cat was asked if it had any known allergies what did it say?

iamwhoiam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Severe reactions will show up within a few minutes

My anaphylactic shock was 2 hours after taking a medication Unusual I know but they figure the delay may have been due to the enteric coating on the pill
Admittedly a vaccine would be straight into the system with less delay

iamwhoiam

Irish Stones wrote: »

An article on the newspaper today says that according to a recent study and projection, the protection given from (Pfizer?) vaccine will be effective at least 15 months.
People with allergeis shouldn't have any issue from the vaccine.

https://www.lastampa.it/topnews/primo-piano/2020/12/11/news/il-vaccino-ci-proteggera-15-mesi-nessun-problema-per-chi-soffre-di-allergie-1.39646613

I am very interested in the allergy issue of the vaccine . Could I ask you for a very quick translation of that part if you could ?

Airyfairy12

schmoo2k wrote: »

In Canada my brother had a similar question, so rang the equivalent of the HSE - they performed the "Peanut Butter" test - smell some peanut butter, if it smells normal then self isolate, if you can't smell it get a test.

Not everyone who has Covid loses their sense of taste & smell.