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

Amirani

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1353797582963748865

As above, seems to only be German tabloids reporting this at the moment (Bild etc.), so quite a pinch of salt required.

I'd imagine we'd have some redesign of our prioritisation list if the this proves to be the case though.

ACitizenErased

8% efficacy? That can't be right surely

stephenjmcd

ACitizenErased wrote: »

8% efficacy? That can't be right surely

I doubt it. Would never have been approved in the UK with that

Azatadine

I can't believe 8% efficacy....that makes no sense surely.....that would not be much above the noise ......

Surely it would have been reported before now? Seems to be all over the place this evening bit I can't belive 8%.....

gally74

stephenjmcd wrote: »

I doubt it. Would never have been approved in the UK with that

not approved by the f d a either.......

Turtwig

ACitizenErased wrote: »

8% efficacy? That can't be right surely

It's possible. It was flagged as a potential issue months back. There's a reason why many vaccinations of the older age groups are less effective than younger demographics. For want of a better term, it's harder to "train" the immune system of an older adult.

Amirani

ACitizenErased wrote: »

8% efficacy? That can't be right surely

Seems bizarre. Would have to involve EMA excluding a large cohort of trial or something? Or maybe earlier reported numbers hid the 65+ efficacy by bundling with larger group of 55+? Very weird reports.

Huge questions on UK's MRHA if any of this turns out to be true.

titan18

Amirani wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1353797582963748865

As above, seems to only be German tabloids reporting this at the moment (Bild etc.), so quite a pinch of salt required.

I'd imagine we'd have some redesign of our prioritisation list if the this proves to be the case though.

Depending on the results the EMA publish you might have people not wanting to take it

jackboy

Amirani wrote: »

Seems bizarre. Would have to involve EMA excluding a large cohort of trial or something? Or earlier reported numbers hid the 65+ efficacy by bundling with 55+? Very weird reports.

Huge questions on UK's MRHA if any of this turns out to be true.

I wouldn’t believe the 8% before we get confirmation.

Azatadine

Amirani wrote: »

Huge questions on UK's MRHA if any of this turns out to be true.

The UK have big issues all round if its only 8%.

DaSilva

stephenjmcd wrote: »

I doubt it. Would never have been approved in the UK with that

Check out their original paper from back in December:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

It really provides no compelling information about efficacy in seniors, I hate to say it but I think the UK approved it without the data backing it up.

Just to be clear, I am not backing up this 8% efficacy claim, not sure where the papers say that came from, just I don't see any substantial efficacy data for seniors in the Oxford trial. Which makes me conclude the UK approved it without sufficient data.

Indestructable

If any of this is true, it would throw the UK into chaos. We need clarification and not leaks to crappy tabloids.

If the reports are true then the reduced delivery doesnt make much difference at this point so. Just need to focus on what has been approved and how to get it to group 3 ASAP. And hope things work out in the UK which has become effectively a large trial.

Cork2021

There’s no way in hell that the UK have let the over 70’s get a vaccine with just 8% efficacy. As bad as we all think the UK have been with the quick approvals. No way not having that. I’ll eat my hat if that’s the case!
It’s tabloids spouting ****e!

Hurrache

Indestructable wrote: »

If any of this is true, it would throw the UK into chaos. We need clarification and not leaks to crappy tabloids.

I'm not giving credence to the 8% efficiency rumour, but they've been a relative shambles up until now compared to the rest.

plodder

https://www.bloombergquint.com/coronavirus-outbreak/astra-vaccine-is-effective-but-leaves-questions-in-older-ages

Published over a month ago, but has some relevant information

The authors noted “limitations” with the results, including less than 4% of participants who were older than 70 years of age, as well as the finding that no participants older than 55 received the mixed-dose regimen.

Does that explain the bizarre difference between the two regimens? It just didn't work that well in older people full stop?

nommm

Indestructable wrote: »

If any of this is true, it would throw the UK into chaos. We need clarification and not leaks to crappy tabloids.

Agreed, I think its unethical for the press to leak information like this. It does not help anyone. This information should come from regulatory reports which should be coming in one or two days.

Cork2021

Cork2021 wrote: »

There’s no way in hell that the UK have let the over 70’s get a vaccine with just 8% efficacy. As bad as we all think the UK have been with the quick approvals. No way not having that. I’ll eat my hat if that’s the case!
It’s tabloids spouting ****e!

It might explain their recent shift to stricter measures, including mandatory quarantine for international arrivals.

Indestructable

J and J will have the hopes of the world pinned on their vaccine aswell.

The HorsesMouth

This is crazy. If the 8% is true and the UK have plowed on with vaccinating the elderly with it..what does that mean for them? Will they get vaccinated again?? CAN they get vaccinated again?
This could be an absolute disaster for the UK and we may have dodged a serious bullet.
I suppose we have to wait for confirmation first.

nommm

I think its more likely that the results for the over 65s don’t provide statistical significance rather than it actually having 8% efficiency.

stephenjmcd

gally74 wrote: »

not approved by the f d a either.......

And ? The reason why has been pontied out multiple times

Danzy

Azatadine wrote: »

The UK have big issues all round if its only 8%.

Whatever else about the tans, immunology, vaccines, epidemiology, they are world authorities in and have been for a very long time.

Outside of the CDC they are the 2nd best in the world.

Van.Bosch

If it was true it would mean slower vaccination for over 55s or 65s but people in lower groups would get the vaccine much quicker. Wonder what that would do to society? Older people stay in, younger people with some more freedoms etc

MerlinSouthDub

In the MHRA (UK regulator) report, they say the following about efficacy in over 65s:

"There is limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over, although there is nothing to suggest lack of protection. In this subpopulation, there were only two COVID-19 cases in the primary analysis.

When considering all cases from dose 1, there were
2 cases on AZD1222 compared to 8 on control (VE=76%), although this result was associated with a wide confidence interval.

Only one COVID-19 case (in the control group) was reported in participants seropositive at baseline."

So, there was very little data. The 8% number quoted in the German tabloids could be the bottom end of a wide confidence interval. This is just a function of the small data set, and I wouldn't be concerned by it. Anyway, the US AZ trial should read out in the next few weeks, and will hopefully resolve the issue.

jackboy

Danzy wrote: »

Whatever else about the tans, immunology, vaccines, epidemiology, they are world authorities in and have been for a very long time.

Outside of the CDC they are the 2nd best in the world.

True but they are also doing a live experiment on the population with the Pfizer vaccine rather than following the approved dosing regime, so they have plenty lunatics also.

Amirani

plodder wrote: »

https://www.bloombergquint.com/coronavirus-outbreak/astra-vaccine-is-effective-but-leaves-questions-in-older-ages

Published over a month ago, but has some relevant information

Yeah, the fact that less than 4% of the study population was age 70+ is pertinent here. This has been commented on previously by virologists/immunologists as a significant concern.

The press release also just gave an efficacy figure for 55+ that I can see, there was no sub-division of 65+ or 70+.

Danzy

DaSilva wrote: »

Check out their original paper from back in December:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

It really provides no compelling information about efficacy in seniors, I hate to say it but I think the UK approved it without the data backing it up.

Just to be clear, I am not backing up this 8% efficacy claim, not sure where the papers say that came from, just I don't see any substantial efficacy data for seniors in the Oxford trial. Which makes me conclude the UK approved it without sufficient data.

That Lancet paper would only be a tiny summation of the data given. Was it about 40k pages long, off top of head.

nommm

Van.Bosch wrote: »

If it was true it would mean slower vaccination for over 55s or 65s but people in lower groups would get the vaccine much quicker. Wonder what that would do to society? Older people stay in, younger people with some more freedoms etc

Not possible to give more freedoms till we achieve herd immunity. Problem is we won’t be able to rely on people to follow guidelines once vaccinated.

The HorsesMouth

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

This is crazy. If the 8% is true and the UK have plowed on with vaccinating the elderly with it..what does that mean for them? Will they get vaccinated again?? CAN they get vaccinated again?
This could be an absolute disaster for the UK and we may have dodged a serious bullet.
I suppose we have to wait for confirmation first.

There shouldn't be an issue with vaccinating them again, but UK Pfizer order is only 40m and Moderna 17m (no delivery til April). So they'd need to reserve all of those two for over 60s. They've also taken a huge risk with the Pfizer dosing schedule. So a lot of things to figure out.

I thought the EU doubling the Pfizer order was mainly to counteract some criticism, but maybe there was more to it than that.