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

CIARAN_BOYLE

Marhay70 wrote: »

You would think they would involve pharmacies from the outset rather than dentists. Most reasonably sized rural communities would have at least one pharmacy, more than would have doctors or dentists.

I would suspect that it might be about capacity.

A lot of pharmacists seem to squeeze flu injections in around other work.

I would suspect that given the amount of dental practices that are closed or emergency work only at the moment more would be able to give it their full time and attention. This would be important if they are distributing vaccines that have limited shelf lives.

Multipass

Russman wrote: »

Who gives a flying fu€k what the uk have done ? Seriously.
We’re thankfully part of the EU and it’s associated purchase agreements.

I do, lots of family there, already being vaccinated - all anxiously asking why their parents in their 80s in Ireland haven’t been vaccinated yet. They can’t believe when I tell them that we don’t even have a date.

tfeldi

Good article of what is happening in Israel:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-04/israel-can-t-celebrate-its-vaccine-success-yet?srnd=premium-europe

Provides a better balanced picture beyond the pure vaccination numbers.

Sky King

Multipass wrote: »

I do, lots of family there, already being vaccinated - all anxiously asking why their parents in their 80s in Ireland haven’t been vaccinated yet. They can’t believe when I tell them that we don’t even have a date.

I am sick of this UK good, EU bad narrative I keep seeing, and it annoys me that there are politicians jumping on the bandwagon now as well, as they can see which way the wind is blowing, they're taking cheap shots at the EU for brownie points back home,

What is being construed as the EU being 'too slow' is in reality pure cautiousness, and as we all know, cautiousness is critical when it comes to approval of medical products.

The UK engaged in a series of gambles, firstly on AstraZeneca being ahead of the curve (relatively speaking) in bulk manufacturing, and secondly, on it being possible to approve their vaccine relatively quickly. Thirdly, the UK opted for a faster, emergency approval. Fourthly they went for a maximum time frame between doses, against advice at the time. All of these gambles paid off and fair play to them for pulling it off as it is paying major dividends now. But it could have been an unmitigated clusterfcuk wrapped up in a sh!tshow.

All their eggs are in the AZ basket, and Astrazeneca have shown their true colours, and it could have been the UK they fked over, had the production issues been there instead of in the EU.

That this is being spun as fantastic UK leadership versus a bumbling and incompetent EU is totally misleading.

Multipass

Sky King wrote: »

I am sick of this UK good, EU bad narrative I keep seeing, and it annoys me that there are politicians jumping on the bandwagon now as well, as they can see which way the wind is blowing, they're taking cheap shots at the EU for brownie points back home,

What is being construed as the EU being 'too slow' is in reality pure cautiousness, and as we all know, cautiousness is critical when it comes to approval of medical products.

The UK engaged in a series of gambles, firstly on AstraZeneca being ahead of the curve (relatively speaking) in bulk manufacturing, and secondly, on it being possible to approve their vaccine relatively quickly. Thirdly, the UK opted for a faster, emergency approval. Fourthly they went for a maximum time frame between doses, against advice at the time. All of these gambles paid off and fair play to them for pulling it off as it is paying major dividends now. But it could have been an unmitigated clusterfcuk wrapped up in a sh!tshow.

All their eggs are in the AZ basket, and Astrazeneca have shown their true colours, and it could have been the UK they fked over, had the production issues been there instead of in the EU.

That this is being spun as fantastic UK leadership versus a bumbling and incompetent EU is totally misleading.

I’m equally sick of the uk bad, EU good narrative. And I just want my parents to be protected asap.

PhoenixParker

Multipass wrote: »

I’m equally sick of the uk bad, EU good narrative. And I just want my parents to be protected asap.

They'll very likely have the vaccine by the end of February. Not having a specific date is unlikely to delay things.

dominatinMC

markodaly wrote: »

With all due respect, you are looking at it from a one-dimensional point of view.

If as you say, you had 30,000 cases a day, then you are putting huge pressure on the virus to evolve to become more serious and deadly, because of the immune response of all those people.

Every scientist knows this. That is why the key to all this is getting case numbers down to very very low figures, so we do not give the virus a chance to mutate whereby then we could be back to square one.

You do not want to have this virus out there in the wild so to speak for years, infecting tens of millions every month, but because we have a vaccine that doesn't make use sick, for now, doesn't mean a new variant can come along, because of the sheer number of people who have the virus, and makes people sick again.

As I will repeat again and again, there is a reason why countries around the world are closing their borders even when we are vaccinating people.

And there we have it - mutate and variant. All you're missing is "strain" for the full house. Your predictability is only matched by your arrogance.

Whilst I agree that countries need to be cautious during the vaccine rollout, the idea that case numbers should be used as a metric once we are all vaccinated is a fallacy. Ask any public health expert and they will tell you that restrictions are necessary to ensure a functioning health system. It is widely acknowledged that the virus isn't going away, so case numbers will most likely never be zero. However, the vaccine should suppress the threat of the virus (through protection from serious disease and now, it seems, through reduction of transmission). So the health system will not be under any strain but, using your argument, we continue with restrictions indefinitely as the virus is still circulating? What about all the other potential viruses waiting for us out there - which may or may not ever transpire? Sure lock us up forever just incase one does develop. Or maybe we should stay inside in our homes forever incase the flu mutates into something more deadly. There is a threat that I get hit by a bus crossing the road. And so on...

markodaly wrote: »

Also, I love it when you talk bout facts, yet you offer just an opinion, a layman's one at that.

Oh, and I hope you can recognise the irony of your quip above,given the comment below.

markodaly wrote: »

Not at all, I'm just more matter of fact about things and some people don't like it.
The whole, 'Wheaaaay the lads, back in the pubs in May and jetting off to Lanza, here we come' type of thinking is all well and good, but its kinda infantile, given where we are.

Irish Stones

dominatinMC wrote: »

It is widely acknowledged that the virus isn't going away, so case numbers will most likely never be zero.

Well, sooner or later, they will.
Other pandemics of the past aren't giving any number in our days.

brickster69

Good article on shortages

https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-says-eu-misjudged-complexity-of-manfacturing-coronavirus-vaccines-on-large-scale/

Hmmzis

Irish Stones wrote: »

Well, sooner or later, they will.
Other pandemics of the past aren't giving any number in our days.

H1N1, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63, HKU1, HCoV-229E, measles, pertussis, mumps, rubella, hep A, hep B, rhinoviruses (all 160+ serotypes)... would like to opine with that statement.

SheepsClothing

brickster69 wrote: »

Good article on shortages

https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-says-eu-misjudged-complexity-of-manfacturing-coronavirus-vaccines-on-large-scale/

Von Der Leyen - "I’m aware that a country might be a speedboat and the EU more a tanker," she said. "But this is the strength of the EU."

Irish Stones

Hmmzis wrote: »

H1N1, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63, HKU1, HCoV-229E, measles, pertussis, mumps, rubella, hep A, hep B, rhinoviruses (all 160+ serotypes)... would like to opine with that statement.

It seems to me that none of the above are keeping us locked or muzzled, though. Even without vaccines.

silverharp

Ireland needs to grow a pair and buy the Russian vaccine , cant say I have faith in the EU on this, they will be playing a mixture of politics and protecting German Pharmaceutical companies

dominatinMC

Irish Stones wrote: »

It seems to me that none of the above are keeping us locked or muzzled, though. Even without vaccines.

That's the point I was making to the previous poster - who was arguing that case numbers are the yardstick for restrictions. Obviously that can't be the case (pardon the expression) going forward or we will be subject to restrictions forever. Or maybe some would like that...

Hmmzis

Irish Stones wrote: »

It seems to me that none of the above are keeping us locked or muzzled, though. Even without vaccines.

Exactly.

Micky 32

dominatinMC wrote: »

That's the point I was making to the previous poster - who was arguing that case numbers are the yardstick for restrictions. Obviously that can't be the case (pardon the expression) going forward or we will be subject to restrictions forever. Or maybe some would like that...

Yep i have no doubt in my mind some would like that, there are agendas out there.. This virus will become like all other viruses/pandemics have done in the past. We’ll be living alongside it like colds/flu’s etc.

Good to see worldwide cases still dropping.

seamus

Sky King wrote: »

The UK engaged in a series of gambles, firstly on AstraZeneca being ahead of the curve (relatively speaking) in bulk manufacturing, and secondly, on it being possible to approve their vaccine relatively quickly. Thirdly, the UK opted for a faster, emergency approval. Fourthly they went for a maximum time frame between doses, against advice at the time. All of these gambles paid off and fair play to them for pulling it off as it is paying major dividends now. But it could have been an unmitigated clusterfcuk wrapped up in a sh!tshow.

We can't say yet whether these have all paid off tbh.

Behind the "UK is flying ahead" stories, there's this:



The UK is going to fall further and further behind on this metric the longer it persists with stretching out the second dose.

The data on number of doses administered will look good, but that won't correlate to actual protection because it's not a full vaccination.

Like you say, it might pay off. But we don't actually know. If the UK's gamble doesn't pay off and results in sub-par protection for the population, then come the end of the year they may still have restrictions on large gatherings and are fighting small outbreaks while the rest of Europe has practically reopened completely.

And they'll have to embark on a programme of re-vaccinating the entire population again.

This is all pretty academic anyway. Political willy-waving.

Mark1916

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1357652211040464901?s=21

AdamD

seamus wrote: »

We can't say yet whether these have all paid off tbh.

Behind the "UK is flying ahead" stories, there's this:



The UK is going to fall further and further behind on this metric the longer it persists with stretching out the second dose.

The data on number of doses administered will look good, but that won't correlate to actual protection because it's not a full vaccination.

Like you say, it might pay off. But we don't actually know. If the UK's gamble doesn't pay off and results in sub-par protection for the population, then come the end of the year they may still have restrictions on large gatherings and are fighting small outbreaks while the rest of Europe has practically reopened completely.

And they'll have to embark on a programme of re-vaccinating the entire population again.

This is all pretty academic anyway. Political willy-waving.

But pretty much all of the evidence is suggesting single doses are very effective and spreading the time out between doses is more effective than using them back to back.

I know we like to give out about The British but it looks like they've absolutely gotten this one correct.

The UK is flying ahead, I'm not sure that's even up for debate.

LuckyLloyd

AdamD wrote: »

But pretty much all of the evidence is suggesting single doses are very effective and spreading the time out between doses is more effective than using them back to back.

I know we like to give out about The British but it looks like they've absolutely gotten this one correct.

The UK is flying ahead, I'm not sure that's even up for debate.

What “evidence” are you referencing?

ACitizenErased

There is very very little evidence other than from AstraZeneca that the first dose is “highly” effective. You simply can’t compare a dose gap in RNA and “normal” vaccines.

Tyrone212

Multipass wrote: »

I do, lots of family there, already being vaccinated - all anxiously asking why their parents in their 80s in Ireland haven’t been vaccinated yet. They can’t believe when I tell them that we don’t even have a date.

Partially vaccinated you mean going against the advice of those who made the vaccine just so they can boast about how many have been partially vaccinated.

Also your friends would be in their 50s then so you're obviously making that up unless they all work in hospitals.

AdamD

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/03/one-pfizerbiontech-jab-gives-90-immunity-from-covid-after-21-days

seamus

AdamD wrote: »

But pretty much all of the evidence is suggesting single doses are very effective and spreading the time out between doses is more effective than using them back to back.

I know we like to give out about The British but it looks like they've absolutely gotten this one correct.

The data that we have says that single doses are very effective in relative terms, but the data on stretching out doses is non-existent for the mRNA vaccines and slightly promising for the Oxford one.

What we do know though is that a single dose creates a weaker immune response long-term than the double.

I do genuinely hope that it works out for them, but it is wrong at this stage to declare that they've made the right call. It is still a gamble. To an extent - there is enough data to suggest that it'll work out OK in the wned.

But ultimately it makes the two approaches incomparable. Which is kind of my point. We can pick and choose different pieces of data to "prove" that the UK is ahead of or behind Ireland.

But until we know the outcome of their approach, nobody can say whether the UK is doing better or worse than anyone else.

The UK media and politicians of course are bouncing all over their numbers to show that they're "winning". Nobody is "winning"*, and in reality we won't be in a position to meaningfully compare outcomes until the Summer.

But I personally would rather be a part of the cohort taking the tested & proven approach than taking the riskier untested one.

*Except Israel, but that was a pay-to-win arrangement

brickster69

Great to see some of the poorer countries starting to get supplied

https://twitter.com/Citi973/status/1357584264724938752

lucernarian

seamus wrote: »

The data that we have says that single doses are very effective, but the data on stretching out doses is non-existent for the mRNA vaccines and slightly promising for the Oxford one.

This is a contradiction. Either the data says that single doses are very effective (implying prioritisation of giving 1 dose to as many as possible is the more optimal plan) or "the data stretching out doses is non-existent for Pfizer/BioNTech" (implying it's a reckless gamble without evidence).

If single doses offer a large degree of protection, and the point of deferring a second dose is to alleviate shortages and give more people their first dose, then how is the data non-existent?

I don't see enough evidence for the former btw, just one paper has made a strong link with effectiveness after one dose and the manufacturers themselves do not consider it as viable, so far.

hmmm

tfeldi wrote: »

Good article of what is happening in Israel:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-04/israel-can-t-celebrate-its-vaccine-success-yet?srnd=premium-europe

Provides a better balanced picture beyond the pure vaccination numbers.

Good article thanks. I read an interesting analysis from Israel during the week where they were comparing Covid rates in cities which were very religious vs those which were more secular and the statistics were very different. I was hoping Israel would give us useful numbers on how effective the vaccine is at restoring normality, but their national stats are definitely unreliable as there seems to be two very different Israels pulling in different directions - one large section of society is having a raging epidemic with little adherence to social distancing, the other is rapidly vaccinating.

Just thinking it through - if the above thesis is correct I'd expect a prolonged epidemic with numbers not falling quickly for a while yet, but as the virus burns through the religious communities you should see a rapid decline in the number of cases once that group has reached herd immunity.

AdamD

seamus wrote: »

The data that we have says that single doses are very effective in relative terms, but the data on stretching out doses is non-existent for the mRNA vaccines and slightly promising for the Oxford one.

What we do know though is that a single dose creates a weaker immune response long-term than the double.

I do genuinely hope that it works out for them, but it is wrong at this stage to declare that they've made the right call. It is still a gamble. To an extent - there is enough data to suggest that it'll work out OK in the wned.

But ultimately it makes the two approaches incomparable. Which is kind of my point. We can pick and choose different pieces of data to "prove" that the UK is ahead of or behind Ireland.

But until we know the outcome of their approach, nobody can say whether the UK is doing better or worse than anyone else.

The UK media and politicians of course are bouncing all over their numbers to show that they're "winning". Nobody is "winning"*, and in reality we won't be in a position to meaningfully compare outcomes until the Summer.

But I personally would rather be a part of the cohort taking the tested & proven approach than taking the riskier untested one.

*Except Israel, but that was a pay-to-win arrangement

I can see where you're coming from and I also dislike the talk of 'winning' and so on. But, I don't think the 2 approaches are completely incomparable, the UK's vaccination program is undeniably ahead of us, regardless of the approach they're taking.

There is definitely an argument to be made that their 'risky' approach will save more lives between now and the summer.

Melanchthon

AdamD wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from and I also dislike the talk of 'winning' and so on. But, I don't think the 2 approaches are completely incomparable, the UK's vaccination program is undeniably ahead of us, regardless of the approach they're taking.

There is definitely an argument to be made that their 'risky' approach will save more lives between now and the summer.

Yeah it's weird way of looking at things, my elderly relatives in the UK have all had at least one dose, they might not be 100% protected by any means but if they catch it there chances are much better.
My elderly relatives in Ireland are just not vaccinated.

It's not a comparison between getting full protection and getting partial protection.

It's a comparison between getting partial protection versus getting no protection.

Edit: the dialogue in parts of the UK press and political establishment is also because they got criticism for not joining the UK scheme and prophecies that the UK would be massively behind.

lucernarian

Melanchthon wrote: »

Yeah it's weird way of looking at things, my elderly relatives in the UK have all had at least one dose, they might not be 100% protected by any means but if they catch it there chances are much better.
My elderly relatives in Ireland are just not vaccinated.

It's not a comparison between getting full protection and getting partial protection.

It's a comparison between getting partial protection versus getting no protection.

Especially as 2nd doses are being deferred, not cancelled. I've not heard of a situation before in immunology where a deferred 2nd dose leads to a reduced immune response after that point. Though I suppose there wouldn't be much data as this is a mostly novel situation.