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

lucernarian

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

Why isn't that guy on NPHET or advising the Government?

He's been pretty much spot on throughout this whole thing

I don't understand why. From reading about the membership of NPHET, most seem to be career civil servants when I would have expected the leading immunologists and virologists in the country to make up more of that group. Prof O'Neill is certainly one of those.

JTMan

Does HIV explain the lower efficacy? No, not fully...

Novavax slide on efficacy of the SA variant where they split the efficacy into those who are HIV negative and those who are HIV positive. Both have much lower efficacy rates. Being HIV positive cannot fully explain the lower efficacy. Small population but concerning.

[url]

Https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1354918275977596928?s=19[/url]

CIARAN_BOYLE

franciscanpunk wrote: »

I have always admired Germany, I would have said the safest course Ireland could take is to copy thier strategy as much as possible. However, todays announcement seems to be playing politics. Why did announce what they did about AZ and over 65s today with an EMA announcement tomorrow.

If EMA the same, i.e no AZ for over 65s the decision will look German influenced, whether or that be true or not. If the approve it for all ages there will be all sorts of misinfo, like already in the German paper Bild, about it noy being safe for over 65s and only works on 8% of people or whatever other rubbish.

I think holding off for a few days and at least let the EMA make thier decision first was the right thing to do

Emer Cooke the head of the EMA suggested that the ema would only approve for under 65s on Monday.

This was before the Germans came out.

Pablo Escobar

franciscanpunk wrote: »

I have always admired Germany, I would have said the safest course Ireland could take is to copy thier strategy as much as possible. However, todays announcement seems to be playing politics. Why did announce what they did about AZ and over 65s today with an EMA announcement tomorrow.

If EMA the same, i.e no AZ for over 65s the decision will look German influenced, whether or that be true or not. If the approve it for all ages there will be all sorts of misinfo, like already in the German paper Bild, about it noy being safe for over 65s and only works on 8% of people or whatever other rubbish.

I think holding off for a few days and at least let the EMA make thier decision first was the right thing to do

They never said it wasn't safe!

They said that there wasn't enough data to conclude that it worked in over 65s. That does not mean it won't work, but that the risk of going down that route outweighs other avenues in their opinion.

Safety was not an issue!

Vicxas

Weren't we meant to review the AZ vaccine this week? Haven't heard anything since the public handbag fight

Gael23

It’s today I think

JacksonHeightsOwn

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

They never said it wasn't safe!

They said that there wasn't enough data to conclude that it worked in over 65s. That does not mean it won't work, but that the risk of going down that route outweighs other avenues in their opinion.

Safety was not an issue!

You can't deny the Germans have come out of this looking like a bunch of irrational douchers.

is_that_so

chrisbonnie wrote: »

You can't deny the Germans have come out of this looking like a bunch of irrational douchers.

They do things in a very cautious, specific way and tend not to be flexible. It's how they are.

is_that_so

Piece on India and what may be their surprisingly high herd immunity.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/28/dramatic-drop-in-covid-cases-gives-india-hope-of-return-to-normal-life

gally74

JTMan wrote: »

Does HIV explain the lower efficacy? No, not fully...

Novavax slide on efficacy of the SA variant where they split the efficacy into those who are HIV negative and those who are HIV positive. Both have much lower efficacy rates. Being HIV positive cannot fully explain the lower efficacy. Small population but concerning.

[url]

Https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1354918275977596928?s=19[/url]

about a 10% drop on the UK variant too, 85% vs 95% for the origincal covid 19 vs covid uk,

unfoirtunantly the EU has no deal done with Novovax,

is_that_so

gally74 wrote: »

about a 10% drop on the UK variant too, 85% vs 95% for the origincal covid 19 vs covid uk,

unfoirtunantly the EU has no deal done with Novovax,

Preliminary talks for 200m doses but vaccine won't be until Q2 anyway.

is_that_so

Don't know if this has been posted but news of a another monoclonal antibody treatment , like Eli Lily, this time from Regeneron.


https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/26/regeneron-says-monoclonal-antibodies-prevent-covid-19-in-study/

Turtwig

is_that_so wrote: »

Piece on India and what may be their surprisingly high herd immunity.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/28/dramatic-drop-in-covid-cases-gives-india-hope-of-return-to-normal-life

Saw pieces like this before about Manaus and other regions. They're highly questionable. It's good that things are improving. Can't really make assumption about immunity though.

Gael23

Temperature rising on AstraZeneca https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0129/1193784-astra-zeneca-vaccine/

is_that_so

Turtwig wrote: »

Saw pieces like this before about Manaus and other regions. They're highly questionable. It's good that things are improving. Can't really make assumption about immunity though.

Yeah, I find it puzzling too but as it says in the article the likes of typhoid and TB may have had an effect on immunity levels.

Itsaduck1

lucernarian wrote: »

I don't understand why. From reading about the membership of NPHET, most seem to be career civil servants when I would have expected the leading immunologists and virologists in the country to make up more of that group. Prof O'Neill is certainly one of those.

Yes it's crazy imo

He's basically our own Dr Fauci, a man of science.He comes across well too, not a scaremongerer, if he doesn't know the answer he doesn't give it.

Donnelly, Leo, Tony etc will answer any bloody question

Irish Stones

Cork2021 wrote: »

Novavvax results!!

https://twitter.com/coronavirusgoo1/status/1354900708697530369?s=21

Isn't 89% efficacy too a low number? It seems we're adapting and accepting lower and lower numbers.

is_that_so

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

Yes it's crazy imo

He's basically our own Dr Fauci, a man of science.He comes across well too, not a scaremongerer, if he doesn't know the answer he doesn't give it.

Donnelly, Leo, Tony etc will answer any bloody question

He had his own company until recently and Fauci he ain't. He is fond of his own opinions, even if a lot of them are more positive than other experts. As for the non-answers, I see no issue with that as IMO it's better not to indulge in speculation the way some others like to do.

Vicxas

Irish Stones wrote: »

Isn't 89% efficacy too a low number? It seems we're adapting and accepting lower and lower numbers.

89% is not low, not in the slightest. Pfizer and Moderna just set the bar very high.

Gile_na_gile

Irish Stones wrote: »

Isn't 89% efficacy too a low number? It seems we're adapting and accepting lower and lower numbers.

It is obviously a very good result, 85% against uk variant and over 90 againat original, but dampened by SA variant reducing efficacy to 60% but very large confidence intervals.

More disappointing but predictable is purchase deal still in exploratory stage.......

Irish Stones

markodaly wrote: »

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.

In the 1918 Pandemic, the highest number of victims was among the younger poeple. The elderly were much more immune and fought the virus better.

seamie78

Irish Stones wrote: »

Isn't 89% efficacy too a low number? It seems we're adapting and accepting lower and lower numbers.

you have been in this thread since the beginning and you know its a good number

Irish Stones

seamie78 wrote: »

you have been in this thread since the beginning and you know its a good number

No, I don't know. A good number, to me, is very close to 100%, not lesser than 90%.
A similar level of precision/efficacy wouldn't be acceptable even in my job where we're not saving lives. But I take your words for granted.

Hmmzis

The Novavax set is a bit limited on the SA side, the drop in efficacy does seem substantial though. Then again, if it's 60% effective against that variant it's still a good vaccine to use (the confidence intervals though... ).

What I'm struggling to find is their definition of a moderate case as they have 5 moderate cases in the UK vaccine arm without any further details. Just wondering if the lack of CD8+ responses form the vaccine could play a role here.

The overall efficacy looks excellent for anything that isn't a SA variant. Still good for those escapees as well though.

seamie78

Irish Stones wrote: »

No, I don't know. A good number, to me, is very close to 100%, not lesser than 90%.
A similar level of precision/efficacy wouldn't be acceptable even in my job where we're not saving lives. But I take your words for granted.

89 is a hell of a lot closer to 100 than 0

Irish Stones

Irish Stones wrote: »

Isn't 89% efficacy too a low number? It seems we're adapting and accepting lower and lower numbers.

Most would have been happy with 70% at the start. Also, in the vaccine data so far, even those who do develop the virus in the studies have milder symptoms

Itsaduck1

Yevon wrote: »

What time can we accept an EMA announcement?

Also let's say they approve it for U65s. What happens the rollout plan? Start giving it to U65s with medical conditions right away and have the over 65s wait longer until we have enough supply to give them Pfizer/Moderna?

I'd give it to teachers next if that happens

Could have 1st doses done by the time schools open again

CIARAN_BOYLE

Irish Stones wrote: »

No, I don't know. A good number, to me, is very close to 100%, not lesser than 90%.
A similar level of precision/efficacy wouldn't be acceptable even in my job where we're not saving lives. But I take your words for granted.

Given that the last published data on Oxford is that it has 62% efficacy its a lot better than that.

Annual flu vaccine is about 40 to 60 percent effective. 89% is amazing.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Annual flu vaccine is about 40 to 60 percent effective. 89% is amazing.

I think that's an average rating over years?
In some years it is less than 40% and in some years higher than 60%, all depends on how much the strains in the vaccine match those in circulation.