COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

astrofool

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Breaking news from Moderna:
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1353699891818754048?s=20

As long as the spike protein is the vaccine vector, this will likely hold true for any other variants as well (but we have to err on the side of caution and test).

The only way it won't hold true is:

• It mutates into a completely different virus that doesn't use the spike protein
• That the spike protein can be completely different and the virus still be as effective, this is very unlikely, but not impossible
• It finds a way to hide itself from the immune system using other methods while maintaining the effective spike protein, again highly unlikely, but not impossible

NeuralNetwork

Gael23 wrote: »

So looks like the US have done a secret deal with AZ?

Extremely unlikely tbh.

Unless proven otherwise, I think the most likely cause of this is quite simply a problem with yield.

The production of biologics, including these vaccines, has more in common with something like production of beer. They are biological processes where the various components are grown in bioreactors, there's an element of 'assembly' which is biological and various purification steps.

It's not like churning out contact lenses or small molecule based chemical pharmaceuticals. So, much like getting a batch of beer that doesn't turn out right, the same can happen with a batch of vaccines.

For whatever reason it looks like a plant simply did not achieve the expected yield.

The political environment around Brexit, Trump ranting about 'America First' and all of that is obviously going to have ears pricking up and people concluding that there's something more to it and you'll have conspiracy theorists going totally off the deep-end.

The unfortunate reality of this is you're dealing with complex, biological agents and those are quite complicated to produce and have a whole load of variables that can cause issues like this.

Azatadine

astrofool wrote: »

As long as the spike protein is the vaccine vector, this will likely hold true for any other variants as well (but we have to err on the side of caution and test).

The only way it won't hold true is:

• It mutates into a completely different virus that doesn't use the spike protein
• That the spike protein can be completely different and the virus still be as effective, this is very unlikely, but not impossible
• It finds a way to hide itself from the immune system using other methods while maintaining the effective spike protein, again highly unlikely, but not impossible

I assume if the mutation affects the spike protein significantly though, that variant likely wouldn't survive as it wouldn't be able to interact with the human cells as well?

tom1ie

Am i correct in thinking that once someone has the vaccine, after the immunity has taken hold, (2 weeks?), they can still get Covid but have very mild to no symptoms?
in this case they can also still pass on covid to someone who hasn't been vaccinated? (albeit it at a much less transmissible rate, but still possible.)
are people being told this when they get the vaccine?

or am i totally wrong here?

NeuralNetwork

astrofool wrote: »

As long as the spike protein is the vaccine vector, this will likely hold true for any other variants as well (but we have to err on the side of caution and test).

The only way it won't hold true is:

• It mutates into a completely different virus that doesn't use the spike protein
• That the spike protein can be completely different and the virus still be as effective, this is very unlikely, but not impossible
• It finds a way to hide itself from the immune system using other methods while maintaining the effective spike protein, again highly unlikely, but not impossible

And without the spike protein, the virus is unlikely to be able to function - It is using those spikes to access ACE2 receptors - it's like a complex key in a lock type situation. It's a very specialised solution that it's evolved.

If you think about it, it's a rather specialised adaptation and if you play around with that the virus is losing its key to the lock, so it's the one area of the virus where a significant mutation may render it useless.

The spike would seem to be the Achilles' heel of SARS-Cov-2.

It also potentially means that the other mRNA vaccines and also the viral vector vaccines that generate spike proteins i.e. AstraZeneca and J&J Janssen are likely to have similar results as the immunity is to the facsimile of a spike protein produced by your own cells, not to something in the vaccine itself.

I wouldn't rush to count my chickens at this stage either though. Biology is extremely good at finding solutions to what might seem like an impossible obstacle. There are risks that the virus could come up with some approach that allows it to hide from the immune system and there are all sorts of strategies that various viruses have found to do that.

Just keep your fingers crossed that it doesn't stumble across some slick solution to get around the vaccination, but we could be in for some luck on this.

If this is successful as a vaccination strategy, and it's looking like it is, it also opens up the possibility of wiping out a whole load of pathogenic viruses by targeting similar structures.

MacDanger

tom1ie wrote: »

Am i correct in thinking that once someone has the vaccine, after the immunity has taken hold, (2 weeks?), they can still get Covid but have very mild to no symptoms?
in this case they can also still pass on covid to someone who hasn't been vaccinated? (albeit it at a much less transmissible rate, but still possible.)
are people being told this when they get the vaccine?

or am i totally wrong here?

Not totally wrong but not correct either. The symptoms (or lack of them) don't really come into it.

After getting the vaccine, your body will have "learned" how to produce antibodies to kill the virus. If you then come into contact with the virus, the virus can still enter your body but will be quickly killed by these antibodies.

It hasn't been proven whether or not you will be able to transmit the virus during the time between when it enters your body and the antibodies kill it.

astrofool

Azatadine wrote: »

I assume if the mutation affects the spike protein significantly though, that variant likely wouldn't survive as it wouldn't be able to interact with the human cells as well?

Precisely, now there could be another effective spike protein that differs enough so that vaccines don't work well, and that still allows the virus to interact with cells as well as it does, but at the moment that seems unlikely.

In nature, every mutation generally has advantages and disadvantages, so a more complex spike protein that evades vaccine generated antibodies, may also be more complex to replicate, thus reducing a virus ability to spread, it's very rare for a mutation to be in the pure advantage/advantage column. They've been trying for years with mosquitos to eliminate malaria, and while they can create a malaria resistant mosquito quite easily, in the wild, it's non malaria resistant cousin seemed to be more robust, and the malaria resistant genes would meet a dead end very quickly (for the mosquito, being resistant to carrying malaria isn't an evolutionary advantage).

NeuralNetwork

There's immunity which prevents you from getting sick and there's so called 'sterilising immunity' which is where your immune reaction prevents the virus from being able to reproduce or transmit.

So far, they have focused on assessing that there's definite basic immunity that will prevent people from becoming sick or dying due to developing COVID and that the vaccine is safe. Obviously this was far more important than anything else right now.

However, it will will take some time to reach conclusions on sterilising immunity, but because it's a mass vaccination campaign happening across the world for a highly transmissible disease that's widespread, so finding the data for that is pretty easy.

I'd say you'll have fairly conclusive evidence of how effective each vaccine is in that regard fairly soon.

is_that_so

nommm wrote: »

https://t.co/h5g4KogDn0

Merck are out of vaccine race.

There were always going to be lots of fallers in this. Being a big hitter doesn't make you immune to failure!

NeuralNetwork

is_that_so wrote: »

There were always going to be lots of fallers in this. Being a big hitter doesn't make you immune to failure!

The two very big hitters may also be back or have some involvement in speeding up delivery through licensing or even purchasing one of the smaller startups at some stage.

Merck (MSD) and Sanofi would be regarded probably as the two biggest hitters and both are effectively back to the drawing board.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of them are back with something viable in the next 12 months or so, or end up joining some joint venture to speed up production of one of the mRNA technology or just acquire one of the smaller companies.

Those companies won't be thinking just about COVID, but the medium and long term future could see a shift to new technology.

brickster69

AZ's partner who are having issues in Belgium called Novasep was just bought out last week by a big US firm

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/thermo-fisher-acquires-henogen/?utm_source=Army%20Technology&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=Must%20Read&utm_content=Image

Hmmzis

Haven't seen this posted here (apologies if it was discussed already).
Some data from Argentina on the Russian Sputnik V vaccine efficacy:

https://www.argentina.gob.ar/noticias/ampliacion-del-informe-tecnico-sobre-la-autorizacion-de-uso-de-vacunagam-covid-vac-sputnik (use Google translattion).

It's a small cohort, but lines up quite well with the original Russian data with the efficacy point estimate being at 91.8%.

titan18

brickster69 wrote: »

AZ's partner who are having issues in Belgium called Novasep was just bought out last week by a big US firm

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/thermo-fisher-acquires-henogen/?utm_source=Army%20Technology&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=Must%20Read&utm_content=Image

Let conspiracy theories begin ...

Gael23

brickster69 wrote: »

AZ's partner who are having issues in Belgium called Novasep was just bought out last week by a big US firm

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/thermo-fisher-acquires-henogen/?utm_source=Army%20Technology&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=Must%20Read&utm_content=Image

The plot thickens.
Ties in nicely with Trumps departure

oharach7

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

If the UK stop the legal exportation of AZ vaccines, then the retaliation from the EU on exports to the UK of other medicines would be quite serious.

The German health minister has just demanded an EU export ban on vaccines.

Presumably countries relying on EU supply (which includes UK to some extent) would be justified in retaliating according to your logic?

Vicxas

EU not taking any of Astrazeneca's supply excuses:

https://www.thejournal.ie/astrazeneca-vaccines-5334865-Jan2021/

Amirani

Vicxas wrote: »

EU not taking any of Astrazeneca's supply excuses:

https://www.thejournal.ie/astrazeneca-vaccines-5334865-Jan2021/

For all those who'd been saying we in Ireland shouldn't have taken part in the EU scheme and should have tried to do our own deals outside; can you imagine how badly we'd be getting walked over on things like this at the moment?

CEO of AstraZeneca probably wouldn't bother answering the phone to Michael Martin.

is_that_so

oharach7 wrote: »

The German health minister has just demanded an EU export ban on vaccines.

Presumably countries relying on EU supply (which includes UK to some extent) would be justified in retaliating according to your logic?

He's said a lot of things, not all of them bright and a lot of it is for domestic consumption.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

If cases are at 1300 now and we are doing 5 more weeks of level 5 - we should then be at under 100 daily cases by the very end of Feb. Why won't they open up a little then? Not like the December one but just a slow removal of restrictions?

is_that_so

MattS1 wrote: »

If cases are at 1300 now and we are doing 5 more weeks of level 5 - we should then be at under 100 daily cases by the very end of Feb. Why won't they open up a little then? Not like the December one but just a slow removal of restrictions?

Schools and construction to be first anyway.

Water John

Your timeline may be off with the UK variant dominating here. We know it's more transmissable but it may also lead to higher mortality. Not being a doomsayer, but this hopefully is the last lockdown and let's get it right.
You could rather than hospitalisations use deaths as the metric. Do we open up id deaths fall below 40 a day, for example?

There are 218 in ICU, but that figure does not include close on 400 in wards that would normally be in ICU.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

It's clear that cases increase rapidly and take weeks to slow down & decrease.

So in my opinion we should open up slowly when cases are low again and do 1/2 weeks of lockdown anytime they get above say 400 per day.

E mac

MattS1 wrote: »

If cases are at 1300 now and we are doing 5 more weeks of level 5 - we should then be at under 100 daily cases by the very end of Feb. Why won't they open up a little then? Not like the December one but just a slow removal of restrictions?

Presumably...but I'm wondering why bother opening up...everytime we do it sends everyone back into a lockdown.

Water John

MattS1 wrote: »

It's clear that cases increase rapidly and take weeks to slow down & decrease.

So in my opinion we should open up slowly when cases are low again and do 1/2 weeks of lockdown anytime they get above say 400 per day.

It's difficult if not impossible to turn on and off the 'public tap' like that.

SheepsClothing

E mac wrote: »

Presumably...but I'm wondering why bother opening up...everytime we do it sends everyone back into a lockdown.

Agree with this. Get them very low before opening up and then do aggressive contact tracing to keep them there. We need a plan to avoid yo yo lockdowns going forward, for people's sanity more than anything else.

Amirani

SheepsClothing wrote: »

Agree with this. Get them very low before opening up and then do aggressive contact tracing to keep them there. We need a plan to avoid yo yo lockdowns going forward, for people's sanity more than anything else.

Realistically that low would have to mean 0 community transmission and strict travel controls. Otherwise you're not going to be able to keep them there and another lockdown would be inevitable.

muddypuppy

Water John wrote: »

It's difficult if not impossible to turn on and off the 'public tap' like that.

I agree, but at the same time I think that the public will adhere to short lockdowns a lot more if the target is extremely clear and there is a good carrot.

ACitizenErased

Not sure if anyone posted this but Pfizer/BioNTech have this week completed enrollment for their phase 3 study of people ages 12-15 years old.

E mac

SheepsClothing wrote: »

Agree with this. Get them very low before opening up and then do aggressive contact tracing to keep them there. We need a plan to avoid yo yo lockdowns going forward, for people's sanity more than anything else.

That old saying 'it's the hope that kills you' the idea of opening up is great no doubt but the thought of yet another lock down for 6 weeks is sickening unbearable frustrating dam dam dam....

CIARAN_BOYLE

MattS1 wrote: »

If cases are at 1300 now and we are doing 5 more weeks of level 5 - we should then be at under 100 daily cases by the very end of Feb. Why won't they open up a little then? Not like the December one but just a slow removal of restrictions?

Not sure cases are around 1300.

Things don't make sense. The gp referral data was up on Friday but the cases are down so much. I will need a few days of cases around 1300 before I accept that it's not a lab giving people the weekend off.

It is what is and we will see.

Obviously testing of close contacts will need to be resumed and hospitals will have to empty. Yesterday was our highest icu day so far so the health service will be crying out for relief for a while even if cases fall. Veradker suggested that icu numbers would need to fall below 50 before conversations about relaxing restrictions could be had.

If cases are around 100 I definitely think there should be openings assuming icu numbers are below 50.