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

astrofool

jackboy wrote: »

It’s politics. It’s easy to slag off Boris, he has given plenty reason during the pandemic. However, to date the EU are performing worse, there is no doubt about that.

I would disagree with that, the EU is trying to achieve equal access for 450m citizens at once, the UK only has to worry about itself, what the EU is doing is astonishing, we will all get vaccines from the scheme, and likely well ahead of most of the rest of the world, bar a few outliers like UK, Israel, possibly the US, but it's an incredible achievement to be securing the supply of nearly a billion doses in a 3-6 month timeframe, where someone in Bulgaria, Ireland or Luxembourg has equal access to someone in Germany, France or Spain.

Also remember that the AZ vaccine supply to the EU will be greater than what the UK is getting, there's just more people we have to vaccinate with it.

AND the important thing is to get the most vulnerable vaccinated, which we're all (across the EU) on track to do, that is what gets life back to normal, the UK will still be limited travel, tourism and business until the rest of the EU catches up on the non-vulnerable groups.

polesheep

CrabRevolution wrote: »

You'd imagine that if proof of vaccination starts to carry legal weight it'll be linked to an official database. As was mentioned before, whatever about the will to enforce it in Ireland, other countries could well demand proof of vaccination before entry, and an easily forged paper cert won't cut it.

That's highly unlikely. We don't yet know if vaccines will prevent transmission, so it may never even merit serious discussion.

odyssey06

astrofool wrote: »

As they reduce symptoms, they will definitely reduce transmission by some %, we just don't know what that % is yet (could be 90%, could be 0.1%).

And in AZ case didnt 35% get mild symptoms? Would have to assume they were still spreading.

Gile_na_gile

astrofool wrote: »

AND the important thing is to get the most vulnerable vaccinated, which we're all (across the EU) on track to do, that is what gets life back to normal, the UK will still be limited travel, tourism and business until the rest of the EU catches up on the non-vulnerable groups.

Life gets back to normal when >70% are vaccinated, not when over 60s are vaccinated and we are still at 1,000 cases per day and suffering for it. Who would be happy with that? Schools cannot function with >1000 cases per day. We get back to better days when cases are less than 100 per day, ideally less than 50, and vaccination is well underway.

As for European generosity, we are very much doing our part for the world by accident in any case, given the lateness of all of the major vaccine deals by the Commission, but may not get the credit after the export ban cock-up with AZ. For instance, even China sealed a deal of 100m doses from BioNTech, manufactured in Europe(!), before the EC sealed its extension deal to increase its order:

https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/biontech-and-fosun-pharma-supply-china-mrna-based-covid-19

The sum total of it is that for our three month delay we suffer an extra two months of the pandemic as we partially compensate by ramping up production (or rather the pharma companies do independently..).
The Spiegel has a regular flow of critical pieces now, in German and in English, and I have read a similar piece in ElPais.com (opinion) and in LeFigaro.fr.
https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/biontech-and-fosun-pharma-supply-china-mrna-based-covid-19

In summary, while I am completely wedded to the European project, and have lived in several continental countries, we have a lot to work out the next time before transferring competencies to the Commission. For a start, we all need to take Euro elections more seriously to the EP, and demand more of our national leaders in their appointments to the EC.

Necro

Mod:

Can we get back on topic folks, the last few posts can be discussed in the main Covid thread

Cork2021

Not jealous at all.....

https://twitter.com/coronavirusgoo1/status/1355897364079407109?s=21

is_that_so

Cork2021 wrote: »

Not jealous at all.....

https://twitter.com/coronavirusgoo1/status/1355897364079407109?s=21

We've given 2nd doses to 10% (by now), the UK have only done 6% of theirs!

Cork2021

is_that_so wrote: »

We've given 2nd doses to 10% (by now), the UK have only done 6% of theirs!

You still gain protection from the first dose. They’ll see massive declines in case numbers and hospitalisations over the next few weeks

is_that_so

Cork2021 wrote: »

You still gain protection from the first dose. They’ll see massive declines in case numbers and hospitalisations over the next few weeks

You can also get infected despite the dose. The headline numbers hide that 12 week gap they've opted for. They desperately need a decline.

Breege_M

Germany is not giving AstraZeneca to over 65s,
France - Macron says it is quasi ineffective for over 65s
Italy's medicine agency recommended alternatives be given to people aged over 55.


I doubt we will need Boris offer of their surplus, our European partners are likely to eventually have a surplus of this vaccine. Unlike us, the 3 largest countries in the EU are not basing their whole vaccine strategy on price and ease of use

Malcomex

Breege_M wrote: »

Germany is not giving AstraZeneca to over 65s,
France - Macron says it is quasi ineffective for over 65s
Italy's medicine agency recommended alternatives be given to people aged over 55.


I doubt we will need Boris offer of their surplus, our European partners are likely to eventually have a surplus of this vaccine. Unlike us, the 3 largest countries in the EU are not basing their whole vaccine strategy on price and ease of use

How is macron saying that

is_that_so

Breege_M wrote: »

Germany is not giving AstraZeneca to over 65s,
France - Macron says it is quasi ineffective for over 65s
Italy's medicine agency recommended alternatives be given to people aged over 55.


I doubt we will need Boris offer of their surplus, our European partners are likely to eventually have a surplus of this vaccine. Unlike us, the 3 largest countries in the EU are not basing their whole vaccine strategy on price and ease of use

The arguments are based on the low numbers of over 65s in the testing and their choice not to use it. NIAC will probably allow it here but they have the option not to.

odyssey06

Malcomex wrote: »

How is macron saying that

Macron said there was "very little information" available for the vaccine developed by the British-Swedish company and Oxford University.
"Today we think that it is quasi-ineffective for people over 65," he told the reporters, his office confirmed to AFP.
"What I can tell you officially today is that the early results we have are not encouraging for 60 to 65-year-old people concerning AstraZeneca," he said.
Macron said he was awaiting the EMA's verdict -- which came later Friday -- and also that of France's own health authority "because they have the numbers".
The French expert decision on the vaccine is expected at the start of next week, according to sources close to the health authority.
"I don't have any data, and I don't have a scientific team of my own to look at the numbers," Macron acknowledged.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210129-macron-astrazeneca-vaccine-quasi-ineffective-for-over-65s

lbj666

odyssey06 wrote: »

Macron said there was "very little information" available for the vaccine developed by the British-Swedish company and Oxford University.
"Today we think that it is quasi-ineffective for people over 65," he told the reporters, his office confirmed to AFP.
"What I can tell you officially today is that the early results we have are not encouraging for 60 to 65-year-old people concerning AstraZeneca," he said.
Macron said he was awaiting the EMA's verdict -- which came later Friday -- and also that of France's own health authority "because they have the numbers".
The French expert decision on the vaccine is expected at the start of next week, according to sources close to the health authority.
"I don't have any data, and I don't have a scientific team of my own to look at the numbers," Macron acknowledged.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210129-macron-astrazeneca-vaccine-quasi-ineffective-for-over-65s

Keep in mind France has massive vacine skepticism and there is an element of it in Germany too. All the pragmatic reasons that the UK and MHRA have approved it for over 65s ( immunity tests, other risk groups, performance of other vacines) will plain and simply not be understood by much of their general public.
It similar here but the feeling I am getting here is that it a case of preferring the Pfizer one.

I've defended the UK's decision quiet a lot here and have a lot of confidence it would be very effective in older groups, but given Pfizer is still clearly more robust and theres nearly twice as much of it available in the next two months I do hope they still rethink it.

MerlinSouthDub

Interesting tweet here referring to a study looking at comparing a two dose regime with one dose from the AZ vaccine and the other dose from an mRNA vaccine. The initial finding is that this combination provides a better immune response than 2 doses of the same vaccine.

I wonder is this something that could be applied in practice at an early stage or would it need an extensive phase 3 trial?

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGazmanRants/status/1355495906800508933

Breege_M

Possibly an overall efficacy rate of 60% also influenced Germany, Italy and likely France not to offer it to their most vulnerable citizens.

PCeeeee

jackboy wrote: »

It’s politics. It’s easy to slag off Boris, he has given plenty reason during the pandemic. However, to date the EU are performing worse, there is no doubt about that.

While I broadly agree with the idea that the UK are outperforming the EU in both procurement and role out it should be remembered that the UK responce has left them in a dire situation.

This requires the risk taking in terms of the emergency approval and off label dosage which may I conceed may well pay off. Are they decisions that would have been taken however if the UK was less ravaged?

Responder XY

Given how good Pfizer/Modera seems to be (both in effectiveness and against variants), why aren't governments (maybe the EU) engaging in some type of CPO scheme where facilities are compulsory acquired and handed over to the vaccine producers in order to ramp up production of vaccine does and whatever else is need to get them distributed and in arms?

Seems to be a no brainer to me, but we seem happy to let these companies work ahead with the few facilities they already own. Any good practical or technical reasons? I assume not as Sanofi facility could be used when they realised their own vaccine wasn't much good. There must be other facilities out there that could be re-purposed fairly quickly?

JacksonHeightsOwn

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

Interesting tweet here referring to a study looking at comparing a two dose regime with one dose from the AZ vaccine and the other dose from an mRNA vaccine. The initial finding is that this combination provides a better immune response than 2 doses of the same vaccine.

I wonder is this something that could be applied in practice at an early stage or would it need an extensive phase 3 trial?

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGazmanRants/status/1355495906800508933

I thought Oxford where doing tests with their first shot and the second shot from the Russian sputnik one?

Whatever works is ok with me

Sconsey

Responder XY wrote: »

Given how good Pfizer/Modera seems to be (both in effectiveness and against variants), why aren't governments (maybe the EU) engaging in some type of CPO scheme where facilities are compulsory acquired and handed over to the vaccine producers in order to ramp up production of vaccine does and whatever else is need to get them distributed and in arms?

Seems to be a no brainer to me, but we seem happy to let these companies work ahead with the few facilities they already own. Any good practical or technical reasons? I assume not as Sanofi facility could be used when they realised their own vaccine wasn't much good. There must be other facilities out there that could be re-purposed fairly quickly?

I remember reading somewhere that you need a very specialized manufacturing facility to crate these types of vaccines, there is no existing spare capacity. But yeah it still begs the question why the EU have not pushed the 'Do F***ing Whatever It Takes' button to produce as many of these as quickly as possible. Somehow I doubt it is a question of cost.

Responder XY

Responder XY wrote: »

Given how good Pfizer/Modera seems to be (both in effectiveness and against variants), why aren't governments (maybe the EU) engaging in some type of CPO scheme where facilities are compulsory acquired and handed over to the vaccine producers in order to ramp up production of vaccine does and whatever else is need to get them distributed and in arms?

Seems to be a no brainer to me, but we seem happy to let these companies work ahead with the few facilities they already own. Any good practical or technical reasons? I assume not as Sanofi facility could be used when they realised their own vaccine wasn't much good. There must be other facilities out there that could be re-purposed fairly quickly?

No need. Novartis and Sanofi are already on board to scale up manufacturing of the biontech vaccine further

Responder XY

Deleted User wrote: »

No need. Novartis and Sandi are already on board to scale up manufacturing of the biontech vaccine further

Where are the doses then? how long will it take to see them?

MerlinSouthDub

chrisbonnie wrote: »

I thought Oxford where doing tests with their first shot and the second shot from the Russian sputnik one?

Whatever works is ok with me

Yes they are researching that also.

Me too, I'd take any vaccine that's going!

Sconsey

Deleted User wrote: »

No need. Novartis and Sandi are already on board to scale up manufacturing of the biontech vaccine further

They are but Novartis was only agreed this week and will not be delivering any until the third quarter in the year (I dont know about Sandi). You would think they would have got that agreed the day they approved the vaccine for use in the EU.

frozen3

Breege_M wrote: »

Possibly an overall efficacy rate of 60% also influenced Germany, Italy and likely France not to offer it to their most vulnerable citizens.

Don't really get that thinking from them, as Oxford had no hospitalisations in the trial, while other vaccine's did, saying that Israel stat's from mRNA look brilliant.

Israel’s health ministry released its first official results last week, showing that only 317 out of 715,425, or 0.04%, of people became infected a week after becoming fully vaccinated against the disease – the time when increased immunity is expected to kick in. Of the vaccinated people who were infected, 16 had to be treated in hospital, or 0.002% of the total.

Also 16 hospitalisations out of 317 infected after getting 2nd dose, is roughly 5% hospitalisations on the infected

If a vaccine is 90% efficacious in the real world and 10% get infected and of those 10%, 5% need hospital treatment from the vulnerable group, what would that look like here?

We have say 1,000,000 in that vulnerable group?

90%/900,000 won't get infected, 10%/100,000 will get infected, 5%/5,000 need hospital treatment

That's a good vaccine.

5,000 hospitalisations from that at risk group over 6-12 months

Responder XY

frozen3 wrote: »

Don't really get that thinking from them, as Oxford had no hospitalisations in the trial, while other vaccine's did, saying that Israel stat's from mRNA look brilliant.




Also 16 hospitalisations out of 317 infected after getting 2nd dose, is roughly 5% hospitalisations on the infected

If a vaccine is 90% efficacious in the real world and 10% get infected and of those 10%, 5% need hospital treatment from the vulnerable group, what would that look like here?

We have say 1,000,000 in that vulnerable group?

90%/900,000 won't get infected, 10%/100,000 will get infected, 5%/5,000 need hospital treatment

That's a good vaccine.

5,000 hospitalisations from that at risk group over 6-12 months

That's assuming that everyone who remains at risk will actually get Covid. Which won't be the case.

frozen3

Responder XY wrote: »

That's assuming that everyone who remains at risk will actually get Covid. Which won't be the case.

Bang on, that's worst case, which makes the vaccine's even more impressive.Those numbers from Israel are proving the vaccine is insanely good

Responder XY

Responder XY wrote: »

Where are the doses then? how long will it take to see them?

A hell of a lot quicker than governments taking over a plant.

It’s not like making bread

Cork2021

Some good news!!
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1355942468001411072?s=21

Cork2021

So that’s 440000 doses coming our way this quarter