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

opinionated3

Russman wrote: »

I doubt it, aren’t AstraZeneca Swedish, or at least part Swedish ?

Thought they were a Swiss/ British company??

AutoTuning

Russman wrote: »

I doubt it, aren’t AstraZeneca Swedish, or at least part Swedish ?

They’re the product of a merger of Astra (Sweden) and Zeneca (U.K.) which was ICI’s pharmaceutical division. Their HQ is in Cambridge and R&D for biotech/ biopharma is in the UK and US.

stephenjmcd

Unless I'm reading this wrong, the UK has decided to give both Pfizer and Oxford second doses 12 weeks apart?? Open to correction here. Below from sky

"People receiving the Oxford vaccine or the one from Pfizer/BioNTech, which is also being rolled out, will now receive their first dose of the vaccine followed by a second dose up to 12 weeks later. "

"This was confirmed by Mr Hancock who said the second dose is important to help boost "long-term coverage".

A statement from the Department of Health said: "The JCVI has advised the priority should be to give as many people in at-risk groups their first dose, rather than providing the required two doses in as short a time as possible.

"Everyone will still receive their second dose and this will be within 12 weeks of their first. The second dose completes the course and is important for longer term protection.

Talking about the Oxford one afaik.

stephenjmcd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Talking about the Oxford one afaik.

Maybe but the reports this morning seem to indicate to me anyway that they're going to try give as many the first dose of both and push out the second of both.

Edit: they are indeed doing this, UK dept of health -

The Department of Health spokesman said: “Having studied evidence on both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccines, the JCVI has advised the priority should be to give as many people in at-risk groups their first dose, rather than providing the required two doses in as short a time as possible.

“Everyone will still receive their second dose and this will be within 12 weeks of their first. The second dose completes the course and is important for longer term protection.

“From today the NHS across the UK will prioritise giving the first dose of the vaccine to those in the most high-risk groups.

conor_mc

cmac2009 wrote: »

AZN vaccine just approved in the UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55280671

Interesting that they’re suggesting a longer gap between two full doses could be just as effective as the half-dose/full-dose regimen appeared to be. But that level of efficacy obviously comes at a cost, ie. the time taken to reach 90%+ efficacy is 3 months instead of 4-6 weeks.

jackboy

conor_mc wrote: »

Interesting that they’re suggesting a longer gap between two full doses could be just as effective as the half-dose/full-dose regimen appeared to be. But that level of efficacy obviously comes at a cost, ie. the time taken to reach 90%+ efficacy is 3 months instead of 4-6 weeks.

It’s essentially doing clinical trials after launch. But I suppose prioritising the first jab may turn out well.

AutoTuning

It suits getting mass coverage as production capacity needs to ramp up.

Most of these protocols are taking the most conservative approach by providing an initial dose and booster dose. It may subsequently prove that a single dose of some vaccines suffices.

It’s the same with the storage requirements. Those may ease as more R&D is done either proving to be unnecessarily cold, or they’ll tweak the formulation.

The key driver is safely getting them on the market at speed, so you’ll likely see things becoming easier and more streamlined as more data comes back.

Distribution in pre filled syringes, like those used in flu vaccines would also massively help mass rollouts via channels like pharmacies and GPs.

A lot of practical improvements will likely happen on the fly as it ramps up.

plodder

conor_mc wrote: »

Interesting that they’re suggesting a longer gap between two full doses could be just as effective as the half-dose/full-dose regimen appeared to be. But that level of efficacy obviously comes at a cost, ie. the time taken to reach 90%+ efficacy is 3 months instead of 4-6 weeks.

Are you inferring that from the suggested timeline, or is there data somewhere to support it?

I doubt they would be doing this if efficacy definitely took longer to establish. The second dose could be more about long term protection and maybe you get all the protection you need initially from the first dose.

Away With The Fairies

Micky 32 wrote: »

This is becoming a f***** real rollercoaster. You read about the great news and you come across this little nugget, it should please the salivating misery crowd though:

“WHO chief scientist Dr Soumya Swaminathan told the briefing that being vaccinated against the virus did not mean public health measures such as social distancing would be able to be stopped in future.”

You know what you can do Dr Soumya with your social distancing, once the majority of the population are vaccinated shove your social distancing right up your ........ :rolleyes: sorry rant over!

The vaccine trials weren't designed to see if the vaccines would stop the virus transmitting. It only lessens symptoms. So you can still be vaccinated and possibly transmit the virus to someone else. They still need to find this out and I hope they find out soon about transmission.

AutoTuning

We won’t really know that for several months. There’s a hope that some of the vaccines may produce “sterilising immunity” which means that the virus is rendered unable to reproduce at all. If that is the case, we will have had a huge success.

They can be sure at the moment that the vaccine will prevent (or at least drastically reduce the risk of) someone from developing the COVID-19

The priority was to get a vaccine out that stopped the virus killing people. The rest is going to come in further research.

As the vaccines roll out and more follow up is done, things will hopefully be confirmed.

alentejo

I suspect people who have had a vaccine and get Covid might experience no or such minor symptoms that they never will realize or get tested for Covid - the impact being that Covid rates will decline (reported cases).

stephenjmcd

Pfizer statement on the UK not sticking to the 21 day schedule

"There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.

"While decisions on alternative dosing regimens reside with health authorities, Pfizer believes it is critical that health authorities conduct surveillance efforts on any alternative schedules implemented and to ensure each recipient is afforded the maximum possible protection, which means immunisation with two doses of the vaccine."

ixoy

alentejo wrote: »

I suspect people who have had a vaccine and get Covid might experience no or such minor symptoms that they never will realize or get tested for Covid - the impact being that Covid rates will decline (reported cases).

I read a post from someone who had the vaccine where he, and his whole family, got Covid. The family were floored by it but he just felt like he had a cold for one day.

GreeBo

jackboy wrote: »

It’s essentially doing clinical trials after launch. But I suppose prioritising the first jab may turn out well.

Or horrendously....I guess that's why typically you do your trials before roll out!

stephenjmcd

GreeBo wrote: »

Or horrendously....I guess that's why typically you do your trials before roll out!

Yeah I get the need to rollout as quick as possible but the trials were conducted for a reason and the dosing schedule is what it is. Wouldn't want to essentially be carrying out your own trial by changing schedule

hynesie08

Can we file this under "the brits are at it again"

The decision for Ireland to hold off for a few days seems smarter and smarter as we go on.

AutoTuning

Well if they go against the vaccine producer’s advice and outside the evidence from clinical trials they’re into off label use territory and could cause issues.

Worst case scenario is they cause the virus to become resistant to the vaccine.

conor_mc

plodder wrote: »

Are you inferring that from the suggested timeline, or is there data somewhere to support it?

I doubt they would be doing this if efficacy definitely took longer to establish. The second dose could be more about long term protection and maybe you get all the protection you need initially from the first dose.

The established 62% efficacy for full-dose/full-dose was based on the second dose being administered at 4-6 weeks, I believe.

The BBC article suggests that delaying the second dose to 12 weeks gives better efficacy of ~90% after that second dose.

So it stands to reason (should the BBC article be correct) that the trade-off here is taking longer (12weeks) to hit Pfizer levels of efficacy (Pfizer takes 6 weeks).

On the other side re Oxford, the half-dose/full-dose regimen appears to hit 90+% after just 6 weeks, but the trial data is unfortunately incomplete.

Interesting posts above where Pfizer seem to be reprimanding authorities for making up dosing schedules on the fly though!

stephenjmcd

UK briefing

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1344232369029410817?s=19

Gael23

Suggesting an interval of 4-12 weeks between doses

Micky 32

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

It only lessens symptoms.

The vaccines do a lot more than just lessening the symptoms. They prevent the vaccinated getting the disease. Yes it maybe possible you could carry it but some are saying it could reduce transmission. But if you want to social distance for the rest of your life be my guest

It might take until the last part of 2021 but normality is on it’s way.

stephenjmcd

From this press conference it looks like the data is 80% effiency with 2 doses between 4 & 12 weeks apart.

They aren't going with half dose full dose, not enough data.

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

From this press conference it looks like the data is 80% effiency with 2 doses between 4 & 12 weeks apart.

They aren't going with half dose full dose, not enough data.

Will that have any impact on proposed supply?

hmmm

I can see why Pfizer might be upset, they gave no public approval that I am aware of for changing the dosing schedule.

Astra Zeneca is perhaps different, they are trying to understand what the most effective dosing regime is.

If UK scientists are saying they think this is the right way to go, it's great news (for the UK at least). Lots more people vaccinated in the short term, and by the time the 2nd vaccine is required we will have more manufacturing capability.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1344178998864203778

hynesie08

If this proves to be a fcuk up by the UK gov, could Pfizer pull out of the deal? Would the purchase contra be dependent on the dosage schedule??

stephenjmcd

Gael23 wrote: »

Will that have any impact on proposed supply?

Not sure what you mean ? The supply is the supply at the end of the day

stephenjmcd

hmmm wrote: »

I can see why Pfizer might be upset, they gave no public approval that I am aware of for changing the dosing schedule.

Astra Zeneca is perhaps different, they are trying to understand what the most effective dosing regime is.

If UK scientists are saying they think this is the right way to go, it's great news (for the UK at least). Lots more people vaccinated in the short term, and by the time the 2nd vaccine is required we will have more manufacturing capability.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1344178998864203778

Seems as if AstraZeneca have data to back up the dosing schedule for their vaccine. Pfizer are saying this is what our trial was and this is what we suggest, at the end of the day its up to the regulator.

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Not sure what you mean ? The supply is the supply at the end of the day

Was the projected amount of doses available based on full dose/half dose? Now that 2 full doses are needed that would presumably mean less people can be covered

CIARAN_BOYLE

Gael23 wrote: »

Was the projected amount of doses available based on full dose/half dose? Now that 2 full doses are needed that would presumably mean less people can be covered

It was based on 2 full doses.