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

Deeper Blue

funnydoggy wrote: »

Can anyone explain "confidence interval" please?

My understanding is that a 95% confidence interval means you're 95% confident that the actual result (in this case efficacy) is between two particular values.

For example, in the SA trial that included HIV positive cases they're 95% confident that the efficacy is between 6.1% and 72.8%.

Cork2021

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

In the week ending mid night Wednesday.

Poor enough. Thought we’d be getting 6k weekly not 3k

ACitizenErased

funnydoggy wrote: »

Can anyone explain "confidence interval" please?

In the South Africa Phase 2b clinical trial, 60% efficacy (95% CI: 19.9 – 80.1) for the prevention of mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 disease was observed in the 94% of the study population that was HIV-negative.

Novavax are 95% confident the efficacy is somewhere between 19.9 and 80.1
The midway point of that is 60.2 = 60%

CIARAN_BOYLE

Deleted User wrote: »

Haven't read the thread properly yet but one question sorry if it was covered.
So the astvaccine isn't approved for over 65s? Is this due to the immune system and it could have undesirable side effects?
How about immunocompromised people? Same?
Anyone know if any of the current vaccines have any trials on immuno compromised people?

Astra Zenaca hasn't been approved at all yet. The German immunisation group decided that because the trial data is poor in older people that they can't place any reliance on the trial results. As such Germany won't approve the vaccine for over 65s even if the EMA do.

I believe 8% of the people in the Atra Zenaca trial were 55+.

Itsaduck1

astrofool wrote: »

and the high efficacy of mRNA vaccines is amazing, but really because the vector is much more direct than older vaccine tech.

Honestly i'm far from an expert, but it does seem like mRNA are the superior product and the future?

Oxford, Novavax, J&J etc with the old inactivated virus or protein based vaccine's vs mRNA remind's me of the ICE vs EV switch over that's happening, just can't compete.

ACitizenErased

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

Honestly i'm far from an expert, but it does seem like mRNA are the superior product and the future?

Oxford, Novavax, J&J etc with the old inactivated virus or protein based vaccine's vs mRNA remind's me of the ICE vs EV switch over that's happening, just can't compete.

These are the first ever mRNA vaccines so it is definitely the future

markodaly

Water John wrote: »

I could be wrong but, is there any reason why a specific age would mean a major drop in efficacy?

The older you get, the harder it is for the human body to fight off infections and create antibodies. One of the reasons why older people die at such rates with Covid-19.

Age is definitely a factor.

Cluedo Monopoly

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

Man that SA strain is legit then, i'm pretty shocked at those results tbh, I was expecting a few percentage of a drop, maybe 80% or 75% at worst, but 50%.

90% for the old variant vs 50% for the SA variant is an insane difference, these are not challenge trials either, it might be only 50% because the other 50% didnt even come in contact with the virus?

If they had challenge trials I would hate to see the efficacy then, might be well below 50%.

How's that even possible anyway?

I thought the vaccine targeted the spike protein and Covid infects that way by latching onto the spike protein.

Is the SA variant infecting another way then?

Was explained to me earlier on here that for the vaccine's targeting the spike protein not to work, the virus would have to mutate in a way that it would be less contagious/worse at binding, the SA variant is going against that theory, as it's supposed to be more contagious and having no problems latching onto spike protein

Suppose my question is, how is it more contagious and evading the vaccine's?

Bit worried now tbh

Does the SA variant have diplomatic immunity?

markodaly

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

Man that SA strain is legit then, i'm pretty shocked at those results tbh, I was expecting a few percentage of a drop, maybe 80% or 75% at worst, but 50%.

90% for the old variant vs 50% for the SA variant is an insane difference, these are not challenge trials either, it might be only 50% because the other 50% didnt even come in contact with the virus?

If they had challenge trials I would hate to see the efficacy then, might be well below 50%.

How's that even possible anyway?

I thought the vaccine targeted the spike protein and Covid infects that way by latching onto the spike protein.

Is the SA variant infecting another way then?

Was explained to me earlier on here that for the vaccine's targeting the spike protein not to work, the virus would have to mutate in a way that it would be less contagious/worse at binding, the SA variant is going against that theory, as it's supposed to be more contagious and having no problems latching onto spike protein

Suppose my question is, how is it more contagious and evading the vaccine's?

Bit worried now tbh

Certainly a cause for concern, and if you think the SA variant is bad, apparently and the data isn't complete here, the Brazillian variant is worse again.

The EU are wise to stop all travel to and from Brazil.

Drexel_3

Was there ever any evidence presented to back up the German papers claims of only 8% in over 65s?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Drexel_3 wrote: »

Was there ever any evidence presented to back up the German papers claims of only 8% in over 65s?

The papers misunderstood.

The Germans said that there was too few older people involved in the trial (8% over 55) and that they couldn't be confident in the efficacy in that age group as the confidence interval was too high.

markodaly

brickster69 wrote: »

The science was not poor. There was just not enough older people tested in that age group to make a decision. Still no reason for one EU member to come out with it's verdict before the whole group released it's findings.

That means the science is poor

Drexel_3

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

The papers misunderstood.

The Germans said that there was too few older people involved in the trial (8% over 55) and that they couldn't be confident in the efficacy in that age group as the confidence interval was too high.

That's some mistake to make! You'd wonder was there reasons behind not including more over 65s in the trials.

Itsaduck1

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Look at the confidence interval. Humongous pinch of salt.

That's what I like to hear

Thanks ;-)

brickster69

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Astra Zenaca hasn't been approved at all yet. The German immunisation group decided that because the trial data is poor in older people that they can't place any reliance on the trial results. As such Germany won't approve the vaccine for over 65s even if the EMA do.

I believe 8% of the people in the Atra Zenaca trial were 55+.

Are you sure about that, seems strange.

CIARAN_BOYLE

brickster69 wrote: »

Are you sure about that, seems strange.

The German equivalent of Karina Butler (head of our national immunisation advisory Committee) came out today and said so.

I find it odd too.

Itsaduck1

markodaly wrote: »

Certainly a cause for concern, and if you think the SA variant is bad, apparently and the data isn't complete here, the Brazillian variant is worse again.

The EU are wise to stop all travel to and from Brazil.

The Brazilian one is worse?

Again sorry I haven't read up much on the in's and out of these variants

I presumed the Brazil and SA were similar as saw Leo etc bundle them together

Whats different about it?

Itsaduck1

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

The German equivalent of Karina Butler (head of our national immunisation advisory Committee) came out today and said so.

I find it odd too.

Don't know if this is one of the reasons

Read early on, like last June or something that Oxford one is a more traditional vaccine and it can make people a little unwell for a day or two, a little unwell for a day or two might be ok if your 30 but if your 90? Could be fatal

Are they worried Oxford one might be a danger to the really old or is it just lack of data?

dominatinMC

markodaly wrote: »

Certainly a cause for concern, and if you think the SA variant is bad, apparently and the data isn't complete here, the Brazillian variant is worse again.

The EU are wise to stop all travel to and from Brazil.

This narrative again. Whilst I agree that travel should be restricted until we get vaccinated, there is currently nothing to fear. Did you see the headlines this morning? Or choose to ignore them. Pfizer vaccine works against SA variant. As does Moderna. But I'm sure people will keep looking for other variants to instill fear.

Micky 32

dominatinMC wrote: »

This narrative again. Whilst I agree that travel should be restricted until we get vaccinated, there is currently nothing to fear. Did you see the headlines this morning? Or choose to ignore them. Pfizer vaccine works against SA variant. As does Moderna. But I'm sure people will keep looking for other variants to instill fear.

It’s hilarious i posted back here this morning that you will still get these type posts despite the fact that it’s being confirmed vaccines are still effective.

dominatinMC

Micky 32 wrote: »

It’s hilarious i posted back here this morning that you will still get these type posts despite that it’s being confirmed vaccines are still effective.

Indeed - there are none so blind as those who will not see!

Cork2021

dominatinMC wrote: »

Indeed - there are none so blind as those who will not see!

Spot on!!

markodaly

dominatinMC wrote: »

This narrative again. Whilst I agree that travel should be restricted until we get vaccinated, there is currently nothing to fear. .

You agree with restricting travel, yet there is nothing to fear?

A lovely contradiction there.

WoollyRedHat

El Sueño wrote: »

My understanding is that a 95% confidence interval means you're 95% confident that the actual result (in this case efficacy) is between two particular values.

For example, in the SA trial that included HIV positive cases they're 95% confident that the efficacy is between 6.1% and 72.8%.

But that's such a wide percentage range no? That's the thing that confused me.

funnydoggy

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Right. Very basic statistics.

You run a test in a trial group. Your trial group is small so there's a chance it doesn't reflect the whole population.

So you run your result and your trial group data through various formula and you say that your result is 50% and you are 95% confident that the real result is between 25 and 75.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Novavax are 95% confident the efficacy is somewhere between 19.9 and 80.1
The midway point of that is 60.2 = 60%

El Sueño wrote: »

My understanding is that a 95% confidence interval means you're 95% confident that the actual result (in this case efficacy) is between two particular values.

For example, in the SA trial that included HIV positive cases they're 95% confident that the efficacy is between 6.1% and 72.8%.

Thanks folks, I appreciate that!

Lol that's some wide range. Is that normal? Seems like they're taking a wild guess.

markodaly

Micky 32 wrote: »

It’s hilarious i posted back here this morning that you will still get these type posts despite the fact that it’s being confirmed vaccines are still effective.

There was a drop in efficiency according to the report, and it was a lab setting, not an actual trial.

brickster69

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

Don't know if this is one of the reasons

Read early on, like last June or something that Oxford one is a more traditional vaccine and it can make people a little unwell for a day or two, a little unwell for a day or two might be ok if your 30 but if your 90? Could be fatal

Are they worried Oxford one might be a danger to the really old or is it just lack of data?

Well i think about 5 million people in that age group have had it in the UK and India have sent out millions all over, you would expect to of heard something by now about it that there had been side effects from it.

ACitizenErased

funnydoggy wrote: »

Thanks folks, I appreciate that!

Lol that's some wide range. Is that normal? Seems like they're taking a wild guess.

It means that the sample size wasn't near large enough to draw a conclusion like they did

ACitizenErased

markodaly wrote: »

There was a drop in efficiency according to the report, and it was a lab setting, not an actual trial.

You know that's how it works right?

It went from absolutely amazing to amazing.

CIARAN_BOYLE

funnydoggy wrote: »

Thanks folks, I appreciate that!

Lol that's some wide range. Is that normal? Seems like they're taking a wild guess.

Basically it means that they probably didn't include enough people in their trial for it to be worth anything.

The Oxford Astra Zenaca has similar confidence interval problems (with over 65s) and the German immunisation group raised that as an issue.