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

funnydoggy

Seems like some posters here could do with a dose of optimism in their arm first before any vaccine.

That Luke O'Neill video is brilliant. Offering pragmatic solutions & estimated, sensible time-frames. Let's hope NPHET is taking some of it on board.

Galwayguy35

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine sounds promising, just one jab and your done.

Although at the pace they are rolling out the vaccines here we will all be pensioners before we get it.

Malcomex

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine sounds promising, just one jab and your done.

Although at the pace they are rolling out the vaccines here we will all be pensioners before we get it.

Was bound to happen really

There's massive demand at the outset

Apogee

If of the 1.1 million doses likely to arrive before the end of March, only 300,000 are AstraZeneca, then the logistics of the handling the remaining Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccines comes to the fore. It's interesting to see how Israel have handled this.

Firstly, 1 central storage hub and 400 vaccine centres:

Reuters wrote:

The vaccines are handled by SLE, the logistics unit of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, in an underground facility near Israel’s main airport. Thirty large freezers set to minus 70 degrees Celsius (-94 Fahrenheit) can hold 5 million doses.

SLE repackages them into bundles as small as 100 doses to be delivered to about 400 vaccine centres, said Adam Segal, SLE’s logistics and operations manager.

Transported from hub to centres at -8C, with 4 days shelf life:

FT wrote:

The Pfizer vaccine, which needs to be kept at under minus 70 degrees Celsius during transit, is transported from Ben Gurion airport to logistics centres run by a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals, a global generic drugmaker based just outside Tel Aviv. The HMOs then have four days to use vials that are transported to them in refrigerators at below 8 degrees Celsius. Unused vials, even those that are unopened, must be discarded.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-israel-vaccination/pizza-sized-boxes-and-paying-a-premium-israels-covid-19-vaccine-rollout-idUSKBN29B0KJ
https://www.ft.com/content/0b2760a6-a571-4f49-bec3-0b138e6ce9b7

The proposed Irish implementation plan (in early stages) is similar:


But it's a bit vague on the Mass Vaccination Centres:


https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/bf337-covid-19-vaccination-strategy-and-implementation-plan/

Gile_na_gile

froog wrote: »

This is a big big deal for the EU, if the vaccine plan continues to be slow and most importantly slower than the UK and the US, certain countries will be wondering what exactly is the point of the EU? The move yesterday without any consultation with ireland and a swift backtracking looked desperate and amateurish.

I'm not saying the EU is heading for breakup, but it looks very weak right now.

The escalation to European existentialism with every faux pas could be avoided with an apology and perhaps a new appointment from the EU council to head vaccine response. The two there have been promoted beyond their abilities. Further, the EMA reached the exact same conclusions as the MHRA on AZ. This is a good thing, and I am not so critical of the EMA, but .... the slow approval process compounds the tardy procurement process.

Cole

markodaly wrote: »

I am hearing the same from my family. They even brought it up.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is tarnished, maybe unfairly, but if the Germans are going to refuse to give it our to the over 65's many older people in Ireland would like the peace of mind if they got the Pfizer vaccine instead.

There is no real reason why they couldn't do that. Front line workers, and people under 65's -> Oxford/AstraZeneca
All over 65's Pfizer/Moderna

I can see this becoming a thing over the next few weeks and the government may just have to give in to that demand.

I listened to a GP on Brendan O'Connor this morning say that Moderna could easily be used as part of the roll out via the GPs.

Micky 32

More comments from Mr O’Neill:

“”Professor Luke O'Neill said that by May or June, however, there should be enough of a relaxation of measures for people to meet and socialise outdoors as the vaccination programme takes effect. “”

“”Speaking on RTÉ's Brendan O’Connor programme, Prof O'Neill said that once the vaccination
programme covers the top four priority groups, deaths from the virus, along with hospitalisations and severe illness should decrease significantly. “”

“”He said international travel this year would continue to be difficult and while there is a chance people might be allowed to travel once vaccinated””

3rdDegree

Possibly a very silly question, but something I'm really confused about. What good is a vaccine like AstraZeneca if it is only 60% effective? Doesn't that mean that there is still close to a 50-50 chance you'll get Covid? Those are dreadful odds!

And even if (as I read) AstraZeneca is 100% effective against serious Covid which results in hospitalisation, some people who got mild Covid have then gone on to suffer from long term Covid. No one wants that!

So what use of AstraZeneca?

Thanks

Cole

3rdDegree wrote: »

Possibly a very silly question, but something I'm really confused about. What good is a vaccine like AstraZeneca if it is only 60% effective? Doesn't that mean that there is still close to a 50-50 chance you'll get Covid? Those are dreadful odds!

And even if (as I read) AstraZeneca is 100% effective against serious Covid which results in hospitalisation, some people who got mild Covid have then gone on to suffer from long term Covid. No one wants that!

So what use of AstraZeneca?

Thanks

No silly questions on here...have similar thoughts...although I do think AZ has its use. For the lay person, all the percentages flying around for the different vaccines does get confusing.

Sanjuro

3rdDegree wrote: »

Possibly a very silly question, but something I'm really confused about. What good is a vaccine like AstraZeneca if it is only 60% effective? Doesn't that mean that there is still close to a 50-50 chance you'll get Covid? Those are dreadful odds!

And even if (as I read) AstraZeneca is 100% effective against serious Covid which results in hospitalisation, some people who got mild Covid have then gone on to suffer from long term Covid. No one wants that!

So what use of AstraZeneca?

Thanks

If the vaccine can reduce the chances of you ending up in hospital or from getting severe symptoms, then that in of itself is a success. If you get a vaccine and you catch covid and its merely a sniffle with no long lasting effects, would you accept that?

3rdDegree

Sanjuro wrote: »

If you get a vaccine and you catch covid and its merely a sniffle with no long lasting effects, would you accept that?

Yes, absolutely, but I think all this should be explained to people. Most people read about "effectiveness" and think, "I want the most effective one otherwise I'll still get very sick".

But your very good point leads me to another question: Should a "less effective" vaccine be given to someone who is immunocompromised? I'd imagine not, right?

Thanks

Sanjuro

3rdDegree wrote: »

Yes, absolutely, but I think all this should be explained to people. Most people read about "effectiveness" and think, "I want the most effective one otherwise I'll still get very sick".

But your very good point leads me to another question: Should a "less effective" vaccine be given to someone who is immunocompromised? I'd imagine not, right?

Thanks

Yeah, I agree, there should be more explanation of what should be expected. Myself, I've a scientist wife who I run a lot of my questions past, so if not for her, I'd be of the opinion that "it's 100% effective or bust."

As for your second question, there could be a case for tailoring the vaccine rollout based on what would be effective for which group. For example, if (and this is purely for example, not based on anything) if AstraZeneca wasn't effective in the over 65s, then that would be reserved for those under 65 and they'd get Pfizer or Moderna.

Cole

Sanjuro wrote: »

Yeah, I agree, there should be more explanation of what should be expected. Myself, I've a scientist wife who I run a lot of my questions past, so if not for her, I'd be of the opinion that "it's 100% effective or bust."

As for your second question, there could be a case for tailoring the vaccine rollout based on what would be effective for which group. For example, if (and this is purely for example, not based on anything) if AstraZeneca wasn't effective in the over 65s, then that would be reserved for those under 65 and they'd get Pfizer or Moderna.

Yes, there is definitely a need for clear messaging on all of this. From what I know, I'd be happy enough with AZ, but it's a different story for my elderly parents (one with an underlying condition). On the face of it, it seems like they would be best getting Pfizer or Moderna (if available). I've yet to hear this being directly addressed...maybe an explantion is coming.

Polar101

3rdDegree wrote: »

Yes, absolutely, but I think all this should be explained to people. Most people read about "effectiveness" and think, "I want the most effective one otherwise I'll still get very sick".

That's the thing, the media is quick to report the headlines, but not so quick when it comes to providing an explanation.

They always make it sound like "60% efficancy" means "roughly 40% chance of getting Covid", without mentioning that you're also protected against severe symptoms.

mirrorwall14

Cole wrote: »

Yes, there is definitely a need for clear messaging on all of this. From what I know, I'd be happy enough with AZ, but it's a different story for my elderly parents (one with an underlying condition). On the face of it, it seems like they would be best getting Pfizer or Moderna (if available). I've yet to hear this being directly addressed...maybe an explantion is coming.

As someone under 65 end designated very high risk I would prefer not to get AstraZeneca because I want the most effective vaccine there is. I would be happy to pay too tbh. I suspect I won’t get a choice though

Malcomex

There's way too much focus on numbers

In fact it's ridiculous imo

is_that_so

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

As someone under 65 end designated very high risk I would prefer not to get AstraZeneca because I want the most effective vaccine there is. I would be happy to pay too tbh. I suspect I won’t get a choice though

It will be a medical call and there will be no payments.

lucernarian

is_that_so wrote: »

It will be a medical call and there will be no payments.

I think the point was that people like us might want to pay or wait to get one of the first 2 approved vaccines, rather than be given the OX/AZ vaccine.

salmocab

Pal that works in Pfizer got his first jab. Wonder will they add Pfizer’s workforce to the numbers.

is_that_so

lucernarian wrote: »

I think the point was that people like us might want to pay or wait to get one of the first 2 approved vaccines, rather than be given the OX/AZ vaccine.

And the HSE have said it will be a medical call and that there will be no charge. People will not able to choose.

lucernarian

is_that_so wrote: »

And the HSE have said it will be a medical call and that there will be no charge. People will not able to choose.

I think it's unlikely there will be a choice, but I don't have the crystal ball for how the rollout will proceed during the summer. There have been some limited stories of vaccine tourism in other countries, for example. The point particularly relevant to the Irish rollout is what happens when the highest 10 groups are vaccinated, and the supply of multiple vaccine types is in the hundreds of thousands. I can't predict how that will go but with the currently available evidence, it's not hard to imagine a "vaccine choice" scenario emerging.

Marhay70

Don't remember ever having a choice when it came to a vaccine, not sure it's even possible.

As my dear Mum would say if there were moans at teatime "You'll take what you're given or do without"

I really can't understand what the problem is, all I can say is, people who think they can pick and choose what may or may not prevent serious illness to themselves or others, have a strange sense of their own vulnerabilities.

Roger_007

I’ve noticed that one thing all the vaccines have in common are the claims of the manufacturers that their respective vaccines will prevent ‘severe Covid19 disease’ and/or death. None of them are claiming that it’s prevents Covid entirely.
So, theoretically, if we were all vaccinated, we would not be protected from getting Covid, we would just be protected from getting ‘severe’ disease or dying.
What I’m beginning to realise is that, when society opens up, Covid will spread like wildfire but nobody will get very sick or end up in hospital or die, (assuming that everyone is vaccinated).
I know I’m making some assumptions here on the extent of vaccine take-up and the percentage efficacy, but it looks to me that Covid will never be eliminated, it will just go round and round cyclically like it’s cousin coronavirus, the common cold.

Stark

Even with surplus of supply, Pfizer and Moderna might be difficult ones to choose because of the logistics. You won't just be able ring up your GP or pharmacist and expect them to have one in the fridge.

odyssey06

Marhay70 wrote: »

Don't remember ever having a choice when it came to a vaccine, not sure it's even possible.
As my dear Mum would say if there were moans at teatime "You'll take what you're given or do without"
I really can't understand what the problem is, all I can say is, people who think they can pick and choose what may or may not prevent serious illness to themselves or others, have a strange sense of their own vulnerabilities.

Have we ever had competing vaccines before?

Where there is a selection of medicines eg for blood pressure, reflux, asthma, antidepressants there can be input from patient in the decision / cycle through different ones to find one that works best for patient. Cost can be a factor.

Germany arent using AZ on over 65s.
If we do does that mean somebody is wrong?

What would your mum have said about cervical check scandal?

Marhay70

Roger_007 wrote: »

I’ve noticed that one thing all the vaccines have in common are the claims of the manufacturers that their respective vaccines will prevent ‘severe Covid19 disease’ and/or death. None of them are claiming that it’s prevents Covid entirely.
So, theoretically, if we were all vaccinated, we would not be protected from getting Covid, we would just be protected from getting ‘severe’ disease or dying.
What I’m beginning to realise is that, when society opens up, Covid will spread like wildfire but nobody will get very sick or end up in hospital or die, (assuming that everyone is vaccinated).
I know I’m making some assumptions here on the extent of vaccine take-up and the percentage efficacy, but it looks to me that Covid will never be eliminated, it will just go round and round cyclically like it’s cousin coronavirus, the common cold.

You must not visit this thread too often, what you have described has been the backbone here for months. There have been a lot of very useful contributors with good knowledge of the situation. Stay tuned for updates:)

Breege_M

Marhay70 wrote: »

Don't remember ever having a choice when it came to a vaccine, not sure it's even possible.
.

You may not have had a choice before but then I never heard of vaccines for the same infections have a difference in efficacy of over 30%.

ACitizenErased

Covid vaccines are slowing spread of virus already, early study shows

Vaccination is already easing Britain’s Covid epidemic with early data showing it is definitely reducing cases.

Research due to be published within days will provide real-world evidence that Britons are being protected, including suggestions that the effect is still building a month after one dose, said Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

With fears about an EU export ban on vaccines, Professor Harnden said plans were in place for people to be able to mix and match vaccines if second doses of the Pfizer jab were unavailable.

Decisions on vaccinating teachers and other key workers in the second phase are likely to involve political and economic input because clear evidence that the vaccines block transmission of the virus is unlikely to be available for months, he said.

Yesterday official figures showed that another 414,419 people had been given a first dose, taking that total to 7.9 million, suggesting the NHS is more than halfway towards its target of immunising the four most vulnerable groups by the middle of next month.

Protection is thought to take at least two weeks to build but Professor Harnden said it was clear that mass vaccination was working to bring down cases.

“The preliminary data indicate a vaccine effect from the first dose in both younger adults and in older adults over 80. The effect seems to increase over time,” he said. “It is possible that we may get stronger and better long-term protection by a delayed second dose.”

Initial vaccination focused on the over-80s and NHS and care staff and has since widened out to younger people and the clinically vulnerable.
Infection rates in the over-80s have fallen by 36 per cent this month. Other age groups have seen similar falls, while the biggest drop is in twenty-somethings whose rates have halved.

However, Public Health England has access to infection data linked to vaccination records, and its researchers can compare the chance of catching the virus between those who have had the jab and those of similar ages who have not. Initial findings from their study are due out next week.

Professor Harnden said: “The data we have is still is very early because it only reflects approximately three or four weeks of the programme and it’s mainly based on the Pfizer vaccine.”

The data does not yet show an effect on hospital admissions or deaths but scientists are optimistic given that case rates in the over-60s have been one of the most reliable predictors of impending hospital admissions.

Ministers are likely to use the results as vindication of the strategy of delaying second doses beyond the three or four-week window specified by manufacturers. Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, has said that it is likely to save lives by doubling the number protected.

The delay has raised concerns about whether disruptions to supply will prevent people getting their second doses within the 12-week window.

Professor Harnden said: “Our position is you should receive the same second dose of vaccine as you did the first dose, unless there were exceptional circumstances and those exceptional circumstances may be supply constraints. In which case it’s better to have a second dose of a different vaccine than no second dose at all,” he said.

“There aren’t results from studies on mixing vaccines at the moment, so we haven’t got evidence but there’s no theoretical evidence why you shouldn’t mix vaccines.”

The JCVI is also due to set out guidance for the second stage of the vaccines programme within weeks, amid pressure for teachers and other key workers to be given priority over other younger adults. The list includes everyone over 50 and younger people with chronic conditions. Given that younger people are at much lower risk, ministers are keen to prioritise frontline workers.

Professor Harnden said that untangling the effects of vaccination on transmission was so complicated that “I don’t think we’re going to know a lot about the definitive transmission questions before phase two of the vaccination programme is going to have to be decided”.

With ministers keen to understand how to use vaccines to reopen the economy, he said: “There are going to be a lot of bodies feeding into this phase two in addition to JCVI. We accept that other bits of advice will come from other groups that have more expertise in economic aspects and social aspects . . . because I don’t think JCVI on its own can say for example, ‘We should immunise all teachers’.”

Glitches ‘to be expected’

The chief executive of Astrazeneca has said that delays in production are to be expected because making a new vaccine is “not like doing an orange juice” (Tom Whipple writes).

A problem at a manufacturing plant in Belgium has held up supplies to the European Union of the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine, leading indirectly to a diplomatic row with Britain where production is going more smoothly.

Pascal Soriot said that such “teething issues” were to be expected. “We’re talking about biology manufacturing here,” he said, explaining that making and then bottling vaccines was “extremely complicated”.

Doses are made in 1,000-2,000 litre “bioreactors”, using human cells to churn out copies of the benign virus, which is the active ingredient of the vaccine. This process is hard to standardise and yield varies between sites.

The Times understands that part of the reason UK government officials are unwilling to publish the schedule for when doses will arrive is because of uncertainties in the supply lines, and the likelihood that whole batches could go wrong.

Mr Soriot said the speed of the programme has meant that there are still aspects to be understood.

“Everybody’s on a learning curve which usually you develop over a year. We’ve had months.”

Speaking at a press conference to coincide with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approving the vaccine for all adults over 18, Mr Soriot said he was confident. “We believe we have fixed most of the issues and the productivity of the sites should improve rapidly over the next few months,” he said.

The EMA decision came after Germany’s vaccine committee said it would not recommend the Oxford vaccine for over-65s due to a lack of data.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-vaccines-are-slowing-spread-of-virus-already-early-study-shows-lbwwgsvrh/

Marhay70

Breege_M wrote: »

You may not have had a choice before but then I never heard of vaccines for the same infections have a difference in efficacy of over 30%.

The efficacy of the vaccine, whatever you think that might be, is unlikely to have a bearing on which one you are given. It will be a decision for the medics.

Irish Stones

Marhay70 wrote: »

Don't remember ever having a choice when it came to a vaccine, not sure it's even possible.

As my dear Mum would say if there were moans at teatime "You'll take what you're given or do without"

I really can't understand what the problem is, all I can say is, people who think they can pick and choose what may or may not prevent serious illness to themselves or others, have a strange sense of their own vulnerabilities.

If a vaccine can be defined a medicine, well, when you need a medicine you are still allowed to pick the one you prefer, even if more than one will treat the same disease.