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

Tyrone212

Snow will affect Eastern areas next week. Hopefully it doesn't interfere with the vaccine rollout.

wadacrack

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1356893162468474883

Gael23

That’s only after one dose, irs reasonable to expect it will stop it further after the second dose

Irish Stones

Irish Stones wrote: »

I have to kindly disagree.
They are saying that it is likely the vaccines will give us a year long immunity, with a "possible" yearly recall. This should mean that the immunity provided by the vaccines lasts at least 12 months.
And they also kept saying that natural immunity may last up to 6-8 months, depending on the news source.
So, at least, you have to agree that so far they have always said that the natural imminuty is shorter/lesser than the vaccine one.

EDIT: And if it's highly likely that people who recovered from covid already have an own natural immunity, why are these people being vaccinated?

They were not making commitments on data they did not have. Any interpretation you are anyone else are making is not based on data

Cole

franciscanpunk wrote: »

Looks like the UK have been shown accurate again thier vaccination decision making in relation to delaying the time between first and second dose of the AZ vaccine.

I know people have said the earlier apprival and strategy were a risk but also nit making decisions as quickly as reasonably possibly is also a risk

Was the criticism not mainly of the decision to delay the time for the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine?

snotboogie

wadacrack wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1356893162468474883

Great news!

Just looking at the vaccine figures and the UAE seem to be following the UK's lead on spacing out doses, 33% have gotten the first shot and only 2.5% have gotten both shots, thats compared to 38% and 21% respectively in Israel.

Vicxas

Would love to see the negative spin put on this.

Deathofcool

Irish Stones wrote: »

I have to kindly disagree.
They are saying that it is likely the vaccines will give us a year long immunity, with a "possible" yearly recall. This should mean that the immunity provided by the vaccines lasts at least 12 months.
And they also kept saying that natural immunity may last up to 6-8 months, depending on the news source.
So, at least, you have to agree that so far they have always said that the natural imminuty is shorter/lesser than the vaccine one.

EDIT: And if it's highly likely that people who recovered from covid already have an own natural immunity, why are these people being vaccinated?

From any of the research I have seen the answer re immunity is they are not 100% sure yet but many experts are theorizing that immunity will be longer than a year. You see sensationalist headlines that "immunity lasts 6-8 months" either from vaccines or by acquiring the virus, but that's only because this is the length of the research to date.
Dr John Campbell thinks that its likely both antibody and in particular T-cell immunity are likely to last much longer as with other SARS viruses. Reinfection to date is still extremely rare. The yearly booster idea is perhaps down to possible mutations and again we know that current vaccines are somewhat effective against these so that may not have to happen.

brickster69

Vicxas wrote: »

Would love to see the negative spin put on this.

Macron is still having breakfast. Give him time.

brickster69

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Well not really. A study today found the over 80s need a second shot to be protected against the south african variant. One shot is not enough, 10 times the antibodies is needed for what one shot produces. Highest death toll is in the over 80s so they need it the most. With the south africa variant becoming ever more prominent there and the new UK mutations copying the south african variant I think its unwise to make that statement.

Was that this report ?

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/02/new-variant-covid-findings-fuel-more-worries-about-vaccine-resistance

seamus

Tyrone212 wrote: »

I hope they do. Much better efficiency than the Oxford one and its stored at fridge temperature as well.

I really hope the EMA don't approve Sputnik or Sinovac any time soon.

People won't trust them, it'll impact the roll out and slow it down as patients refuse them and insist on Pfizer or Oxford.

As much as it sound nice to have 100m extra doses, they're no good if they end up sitting in a warehouse, and even worse if they end up eroding public trust in the programme.

By all means bring them in when the programme has already covered 60%+ of the population. But at this early stage it is more important that you have public confidence than vaccines.

BigMo1

seamus wrote: »

I really hope the EMA don't approve Sputnik or Sinovac any time soon.

People won't trust them, it'll impact the roll out and slow it down as patients refuse them and insist on Pfizer or Oxford.

As much as it sound nice to have 100m extra doses, they're no good if they end up sitting in a warehouse, and even worse if they end up eroding public trust in the programme.

By all means bring them in when the programme has already covered 60%+ of the population. But at this early stage it is more important that you have public confidence than vaccines.

Surely having them available and approved does more good than harm? I get that some people won't trust them, but nowhere near enough for the negatives to outweigh the positives. The vast majority of people want some normality restored to their lives and I would guess most wouldn't have an issue with them, I know I certainly wouldn't.

Away With The Fairies

Good news with the Oxford vaccine. It cuts transmission.

Roger_007

Stephen Donnelly was on the PK show just now. When Pat asked him if there was an IT system that manages the vaccine rollout, he said yes, (very hesitantly), there was a system in place and yes, (even more hesitantly), that GPs and Pharmacists would be able to access it.
It’s difficult to know with Donnelly. He comes across as not being on top of his brief. I’m afraid I didn’t believe him about the IT system. I don’t think he was expecting the question.

seamus

BigMo1 wrote: »

Surely having them available and approved does more good than harm? I get that some people won't trust them, but nowhere near enough for the negatives to outweigh the positives. The vast majority of people want some normality restored to their lives and I would guess most wouldn't have an issue with them, I know I certainly wouldn't.

The majority of people won't trust a vaccine coming out of China or Russia IMHO - especially the 50+ cohort that you most want to take it.

Whatever about the rapid development of the other vaccines, there's enough shadowy background to these two vaccines to fuel the facebook rumour mill for decades.

After approving either of these vaccines, the EU would have to undertake a massive counter-propaganda campaign explaining why they're both safe and have been approved.

frozen3

seamus wrote: »

I really hope the EMA don't approve Sputnik or Sinovac any time soon.

People won't trust them, it'll impact the roll out and slow it down as patients refuse them and insist on Pfizer or Oxford.

As much as it sound nice to have 100m extra doses, they're no good if they end up sitting in a warehouse, and even worse if they end up eroding public trust in the programme.

By all means bring them in when the programme has already covered 60%+ of the population. But at this early stage it is more important that you have public confidence than vaccines.

Eastern countries and Baltic states would happily take Sputnik

They are not as stupid as us to believe that Russia bad, Europe goopropaganda

Russia have some of the best scientists in the world as do the Chinese

polesheep

seamus wrote: »

The majority of people won't trust a vaccine coming out of China or Russia IMHO - especially the 50+ cohort that you most want to take it.

Whatever about the rapid development of the other vaccines, there's enough shadowy background to these two vaccines to fuel the facebook rumour mill for decades.

After approving either of these vaccines, the EU would have to undertake a massive counter-propaganda campaign explaining why they're both safe and have been approved.

You have a point, but surely if there is no scientific reason to reject them then they will have to be approved. Whether or not they are bought or used is another matter.

Cole

Roger_007 wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly was on the PK show just now. When Pat asked him if there was an IT system that manages the vaccine rollout, he said yes, (very hesitantly), there was a system in place and yes, (even more hesitantly), that GPs and Pharmacists would be able to access it.
It’s difficult to know with Donnelly. He comes across as not being on top of his brief. I’m afraid I didn’t believe him about the IT system. I don’t think he was expecting the question.

I listened to that interview and thought the opposite.

Marhay70

seamus wrote: »

The majority of people won't trust a vaccine coming out of China or Russia IMHO - especially the 50+ cohort that you most want to take it.

Whatever about the rapid development of the other vaccines, there's enough shadowy background to these two vaccines to fuel the facebook rumour mill for decades.

After approving either of these vaccines, the EU would have to undertake a massive counter-propaganda campaign explaining why they're both safe and have been approved.

I heard on TV earlier that EMA won't approve Sputnik or Sinovac because they don't have manufacturing facilities within the EU. Sounds a bit of a weak excuse TBH but I suppose it will prevent them from having to answer more pertinent questions.

lbj666

seamus wrote: »

The majority of people won't trust a vaccine coming out of China or Russia IMHO - especially the 50+ cohort that you most want to take it.

Whatever about the rapid development of the other vaccines, there's enough shadowy background to these two vaccines to fuel the facebook rumour mill for decades.

After approving either of these vaccines, the EU would have to undertake a massive counter-propaganda campaign explaining why they're both safe and have been approved.

Its no different to the rest of them, the trust is put on our regulators to review the data submitted.

Which begs the question for any of the vaccines as to how regulators, confirm or audit the validity of the trial data. Its a "we'll sue the hell out of you if you lie" clause as a deterrent or do they have stringent audit process.

Other thing is the Sputnik vacine is there was no rolling review i believe so i might take some time.

Hooked

What are people's opinions on people who've had positive tests, getting vaccinated?

I tested positive earlier this month. Had a couple of aches 'n pains, was over the worst of it after a week...

What's the point of vaccinating the almost 190,000 people who've had, and recovered, from Covid 19...?

Genuine question.

eigrod

Hooked wrote: »

What are people's opinions on people who've had positive tests, getting vaccinated?

I tested positive earlier this month. Had a couple of aches 'n pains, was over the worst of it after a week...

What's the point of vaccinating the almost 190,000 people who've had, and recovered, from Covid 19...?

Genuine question.

Get the vaccination when your category of people comes around. It’s not known how long your current immunity will last.

brickster69

Belgium say AZ only for use in under 55's now.

MerlinSouthDub

brickster69 wrote: »

Belgium say AZ only for use in under 55's now.

Data from the AZ phase 3 trial in the US should be coming very soon (it was expected in January/February). This should clarify the issue of efficacy in older lives.

Russman

lbj666 wrote: »

Its no different to the rest of them, the trust is put on our regulators to review the data submitted.

Which begs the question for any of the vaccines as to how regulators, confirm or audit the validity of the trial data. Its a "we'll sue the hell out of you if you lie" clause as a deterrent or do they have stringent audit process.

Other thing is the Sputnik vacine is there was no rolling review i believe so i might take some time.

I've wondered this myself. Not to go down the conspiracy theory route, but surely they must have some way of verifying that the trials or tests actually happened etc. ?

Sconsey

Russman wrote: »

I've wondered this myself. Not to go down the conspiracy theory route, but surely they must have some way of verifying that the trials or tests actually happened etc. ?

I thought the trials are usually carried out by a third party to avoid any risk of shenanigans?

seamus

Hooked wrote: »

What are people's opinions on people who've had positive tests, getting vaccinated?

I tested positive earlier this month. Had a couple of aches 'n pains, was over the worst of it after a week...

What's the point of vaccinating the almost 190,000 people who've had, and recovered, from Covid 19...?

Genuine question.

The data around immunity in people who've had Covid is quite piecemeal. A lot of studies are ongoing and have yet to produce any papers.

The vaccine trials by contrast are well documented and the effectiveness well detailed and known.

So in short, we don't know how immune people are post-Covid, but we do know how immune they are post-vaccine. So better to go with what you do know than rely on an unknown to do the work for you.

Outside of that, the data on vaccines suggests that they produce a more robust and widely effective immune response than infection alone. That is, someone vaccinated appears to be better at fighting off any new covid infection than an infected person, including the known variants.

josip

seamus wrote: »

The majority of people won't trust a vaccine coming out of China or Russia IMHO - especially the 50+ cohort that you most want to take it.

Whatever about the rapid development of the other vaccines, there's enough shadowy background to these two vaccines to fuel the facebook rumour mill for decades.

After approving either of these vaccines, the EU would have to undertake a massive counter-propaganda campaign explaining why they're both safe and have been approved.

I would instinctively agree with you and as I said in an earlier post, their poisoning of Navalny means I don't want Sputnik.
But given that they've published in the Lancet, doesn't that give a certain credence to their results?
Are there any reputable sources with evidence for the concerns about Sputnik?

AZ's results were all over the place until recently.
But even before the EMA approval, most people still wanted it.
West good, Russia bad?

Turtwig

It wouldn't be the first time the Lancet has been duped by publishing bad data. Not even the first time this year!

That said the way the vaccine works seems solid enough. Would be surprised if the data was actually bad.

Hmmzis

Hooked wrote: »

What are people's opinions on people who've had positive tests, getting vaccinated?

I tested positive earlier this month. Had a couple of aches 'n pains, was over the worst of it after a week...

What's the point of vaccinating the almost 190,000 people who've had, and recovered, from Covid 19...?

Genuine question.

Various population based studies that track re-infections are hinting at around 80% and somewhat higher efficacy of a previous infection providing protection against a re-infection (6-8 month periods at this point).

With a vaccine as a booster that rate might be improved and very preliminary data would agree on that (Krammer et al, Saadat et al). The antibody levels in recovered people after one dose of an mRNA vaccine was stratospheric (10-20 times higher than peak levels in naïve subjects after two doses) .