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

JacksonHeightsOwn

Hmmzis wrote: »

The Russian Sputnik V phase 3 results have now been published in The Lancet:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext

Excellent results, no major efficacy differences between age groups and good on the safety front as well. The 1st dose kicks in at around day 18 when looking at the incidence graph. Efficacy against moderate or severe disease was 100% 21 days after 1st dose. Two weeks after 1st dose efficacy was already up to 87%.

Here is a copy of the efficacy table by age groups:

Age group (years)
18–30 5 1/1596 (0·1%) 4/521 (0·8%) 91·9% (51·2–99·3) 0·0146
31–40 17 4/3848 (0·1%) 13/1259 (1·0%) 90·0% (71·1–96·5) <0·0001
41–50 19 4/4399 (0·1%) 15/1443 (1·0%) 91·3% (73·7–96·9) <0·0001
51–60 27 5/3510 (0·1%) 22/1146 (1·9%) 92·7% (81·1–97·0) <0·0001
>60 10 2/1611 (0·1%) 8/533 (1·5%) 91·8% (67·1–98·3) 0·0004

If anyone is nervous about being threatened first person in Ireland to receive the Russian jab, then I happily volunteer to take one for the nation

KrustyUCC

Hmmzis wrote: »

The Russian Sputnik V phase 3 results have now been published in The Lancet:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext

Excellent results, no major efficacy differences between age groups and good on the safety front as well. The 1st dose kicks in at around day 18 when looking at the incidence graph. Efficacy against moderate or severe disease was 100% 21 days after 1st dose. Two weeks after 1st dose efficacy was already up to 87%.

Here is a copy of the efficacy table by age groups:

Age group (years)
18–30 5 1/1596 (0·1%) 4/521 (0·8%) 91·9% (51·2–99·3) 0·0146
31–40 17 4/3848 (0·1%) 13/1259 (1·0%) 90·0% (71·1–96·5) <0·0001
41–50 19 4/4399 (0·1%) 15/1443 (1·0%) 91·3% (73·7–96·9) <0·0001
51–60 27 5/3510 (0·1%) 22/1146 (1·9%) 92·7% (81·1–97·0) <0·0001
>60 10 2/1611 (0·1%) 8/533 (1·5%) 91·8% (67·1–98·3) 0·0004

Looks decent results

I wonder how it does against new variants though?

lucernarian

is_that_so wrote: »

It might just be the right call. It is easier to sell vaccines with 90%+ efficacy to a sceptical public. Look at posters here choosing their own vaccine!

It's a very problematic decision, and would reinforce a negative perception of the vaccine among the over 65s. This will encourage the very desires for a choice you refer to, among a rather large group of people.

is_that_so

chrisbonnie wrote: »

If anyone is nervous about being threatened first person in Ireland to receive the Russian jab, then I happily volunteer to take one for the nation

The whole issue about the Russian one was the absence of data and that it was approved without testing being complete. That was Putin's attempt at a propaganda coup.

Mark1916

AstraZeneca vaccine shows 82.4% efficacy after 3-month gap between shots

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268

Multipass

Cole wrote: »

I don't think it's rude to point you in the direction of a thread that is calling for protests and opening up...as you've indicated you're in favour of.

Maybe I'm wrong that you are not interested in the sentiments in that thread, but I can only assume you are because you 'liked' the OP which included the call to "take back our country".

Am I missing the Mod under your name? No, so quit telling me where I can or can’t post. My opinion is no less valid than yours.

Hmmzis

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Looks decent results

I wonder how it does against new variants though?

Since it uses a similar tech as the J&J vaccine, the hit might be similar against the SA/Brazil variants. This is two shots with different vectors, so in theory might work a bit better.

PCeeeee

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Why would I suggest that when it clearly says in my post test them first.

Who do you want to test them?

josip

chrisbonnie wrote: »

If anyone is nervous about being threatened first person in Ireland to receive the Russian jab, then I happily volunteer to take one for the nation

They're doing a special I believe, free Novichok sample for the first 100 recipients.
I must admit that the Navalny and other poisonings would dissuade me personally from taking anything from them.
But everyone should be free to decide for themselves if it helps reduce deaths, etc.

Deathofcool

Mark1916 wrote: »

AstraZeneca vaccine shows 82.4% efficacy after 3-month gap between shots

With this news we really should go for the 3 month interval, protect as many as possible with the first dose and get the increased efficacy 12 weeks later. With the UK all ready doing this we should see the positive effects in the next month or so.
Also with a 54% reduction in transmission it is plausible that the more efficacious vaccines could reduce transmission further. Really feels like the end is in sight today.

lbj666

Mark1916 wrote: »

AstraZeneca vaccine shows 82.4% efficacy after 3-month gap between shots

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268

Lots of great stuff in that but am I right in reading it has the same limitations in data for over 65s.

JacksonHeightsOwn

josip wrote: »

They're doing a special I believe, free Novichok sample for the first 100 recipients.
I must admit that the Navalny and other poisonings would dissuade me personally from taking anything from them.
But everyone should be free to decide for themselves if it helps reduce deaths, etc.

If it gives you any solice, the efficacy of the Russian novichok should really fill you with confidence in their chemistry techniques :-D

lbj666

chrisbonnie wrote: »

If it gives you any solice, the efficacy of the Russian novichok should really fill you with confidence in their chemistry techniques :-D

Does it though? i mean it didnt kill him

salmocab

lbj666 wrote: »

Does it though? i mean it didnt kill him

If they stick it in his arm instead of rubbing his pants in it it might have.

hmmm

Deathofcool wrote: »

With this news we really should go for the 3 month interval, protect as many as possible with the first dose and get the increased efficacy 12 weeks later. With the UK all ready doing this we should see the positive effects in the next month or so.
Also with a 54% reduction in transmission it is plausible that the more efficacious vaccines could reduce transmission further. Really feels like the end is in sight today.

The increased transmissibility of the new variants seems to be pushing the medical community more towards the "give everyone 1 shot as quickly as possible" camp. There's a trade-off between the super-vulnerable who probably need 2 shots (e.g. elderly in nursing homes) and the ability to protect large numbers of simply vulnerable (say over 65s and people who cannot work at home), plus decrease the risk of new mutations emerging.

I'm not qualified to be part of the discussion, but it's fascinating watching it play out - the pragmatists vs the more conservative view, both with good arguments.

Responder XY

Is there any solid evidence yet that the new variants are more transmissible? Everything I've seen to date has suggested that it "may be", "there is a risk that it is", etc...

Has anyone been able to prove in a scientific way, with a high level of confidence that it "is" more transmissible?

frozen3

hmmm wrote: »

The increased transmissibility of the new variants seems to be pushing the medical community more towards the "give everyone 1 shot as quickly as possible" camp. There's a trade-off between the super-vulnerable who probably need 2 shots (e.g. elderly in nursing homes) and the ability to protect large numbers of simply vulnerable (say over 65s and people who cannot work at home), plus decrease the risk of new mutations emerging.

I'm not qualified to be part of the discussion, but it's fascinating watching it play out - the pragmatists vs the more conservative view, both with good arguments.

Evidence coming from UK suggests one dose of Pfizer isnt enough to protect the Nursing home residents/ the really old and weak, the people we are trying to save

One dose vs two strategy is going to be someone playing god imo

marno21

Looks like a trend is emerging with the adenoviral vector vaccines whereby efficacy is more to do with time since the jab was given rather than the 2nd dose/dosing intervals.

Very positive news in the last few days about AZ/Janssen/Sputnik.

nommm

https://twitter.com/naomiohreally/status/1356680017292521477?s=21

Seems like we’ll have ~500’000 vaccinated by end of March?

Melanchthon

nommm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/naomiohreally/status/1356680017292521477?s=21

Seems like we’ll have ~500’000 vaccinated by end of March?

What's the state of play with Novaxax, they are talking to the UK regulators , have they put a submission into EMA?

Cole

marno21 wrote: »

Looks like a trend is emerging with the adenoviral vector vaccines whereby efficacy is more to do with time since the jab was given rather than the 2nd dose/dosing intervals.

Very positive news in the last few days about AZ/Janssen/Sputnik.

This is reassuring...particularly for the over 65s. If NIAC recommend it for that group here, I hope this kind of new data is clearly communicated to everyone.

braychelsea

Cole wrote: »

This is reassuring...particularly for the over 65s. If NIAC recommend it for that group here, I hope this kind of new data is clearly communicated to everyone.

NIAC has recommended it as an option for over 65's

snotboogie

nommm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/naomiohreally/status/1356680017292521477?s=21

Seems like we’ll have ~500’000 vaccinated by end of March?

200k doses in Jan, 365k in Feb and 605k in March. So we should have 1.17 million doses adminstered by the end of March. In theory that could be 585k fully vaccinated but in reality we will be rolling out first doses much faster and then catching up with the second. I'd say 250k-300k fully vaccinated with about 800k having gotten at least one shot. Roughly, obviously.

snotboogie

snotboogie wrote: »

200k doses in Jan, 365k in Feb and 605k in March. So we should have 1.17 million doses adminstered by the end of March. In theory that could be 585k fully vaccinated but in reality we will be rolling out first doses much faster and then catching up with the second. I'd say 250k-300k fully vaccinated with about 800k having gotten at least one shot. Roughly, obviously.

There are 650,000 or so over 65s in Ireland - so that would pretty much eliminate the highest risk of hospitalization and mortality associated with the virus.

(92% of deaths are over 65, I believe).

Cole

braychelsea wrote: »

NIAC has recommended it as an option for over 65's

When/where was that announced?

braychelsea

Cole wrote: »

When/where was that announced?

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1356356033623556098?s=20

The news of the 12 week strategy means we will probably use all AstraZeneca doses in Q1 as first doses. So AZ on it's own could vaccinate all of the over-70's in Q1.

Cole

braychelsea wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1356356033623556098?s=20

Not official, but I presume his sources are reliable. The reference to "option" muddies the water a little though...until there's an official announcement.

Water John

Take from that they are saying, there is no medical reason not to use it for over 65s. Why would the CMO or the politicians disagree?

snowcat

https://www.timesofisrael.com/we-will-have-to-live-with-covid-19-for-a-long-time-says-israeli-expert/

VG31

snowcat wrote: »

https://www.timesofisrael.com/we-will-have-to-live-with-covid-19-for-a-long-time-says-israeli-expert/

I think everyone knows that we're going to have to live with covid. Just like we live with the flu. It's extremely rare for people under 18 to get seriously sick with covid so it really shouldn't be a big deal if they're not vaccinated.

If practically no one is dying from covid and hospitalisations are neglibile, herd immunity should be be irrelevant.