COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

dodzy

Maxface wrote: »

I take the winter jab through work, I have no issue with a vaccine. I want and will take whatever but I have a reluctance to take the AZ jab, if that makes me a anti vaccine person then so be it. It looks like from here that there is many more that are happy to take any jab, much more than AZ will ever provide, surely then there is more of that than can be provided. For others like myself, that are happy to get a vaccine but not AZ, surely there should be an alternative? Not anti vaccine but with concerns?

Well if J&J is your chosen tipple, you won’t be getting that as an option anytime soon either. Reserved *cough* for other folk....

“As the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is a one-dose vaccine, these initial supplies will in the main be used for homeless patients, members of the Travelling community, members of the Roma community and those with substance addiction issues for whom it may be difficult to ensure a second dose,” said the organization.”

salmocab

dodzy wrote: »

Well if J&J is your chosen tipple, you won’t be getting that as an option anytime soon either. Reserved *cough* for other folk....

“As the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is a one-dose vaccine, these initial supplies will in the main be used for homeless patients, members of the Travelling community, members of the Roma community and those with substance addiction issues for whom it may be difficult to ensure a second dose,” said the organization.”

That’s the right thing to do though

is_that_so

dodzy wrote: »

Well if J&J is your chosen tipple, you won’t be getting that as an option anytime soon either. Reserved *cough* for other folk....

“As the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is a one-dose vaccine, these initial supplies will in the main be used for homeless patients, members of the Travelling community, members of the Roma community and those with substance addiction issues for whom it may be difficult to ensure a second dose,” said the organization.”

That group is about 40K, the total of the first planned batch from J&J.

spakman

salmocab wrote: »

That’s the right thing to do though

Why? Because they can't be relied upon to attend an appointment for a second dose?

is_that_so

spakman wrote: »

Why? Because they can't be relied upon to attend an appointment for a second dose?

High risk groups because of how they live. The J&J shot will complete that group in one swoop so it's also good management of the vaccination programme.

trellheim

Daily High Points so far of total shots

5 March 19449
24 Mar 23330
25 March 27490
1 April 30915
7 April 56377 (some jump)

MerlinSouthDub

Two interesting things in this story - France extending dose gap from 4 weeks to 6 weeks, and also expecting a J& J delivery tomorrow (1 week early)

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0411/1209075-coronavirus-global/

Stark

trellheim wrote: »

Daily High Points so far of total shots

5 March 19449
24 Mar 23330
25 March 27490
1 April 30915
7 April 56377 (some jump)

The last one was two days of data rolled into one afaik

Stark

Miike wrote: »

Out of curiosity. What benefits do you propose for telling people the Ct value of their PCR?

Sounds related to the conspiracy theorist "98% false positive due to high Ct" stuff that's been doing the rounds on Twitter.

FWIW my understanding is we do use a very high cycle threshold but those cases are considered "weak positives" and those people are retested.

dominatinMC

Hardyn wrote: »

Regarding the study from Israel. Here's a thread from one of the authors that adds some clarity to its findings. They suggest that the reduced efficacy for B.1.351 seems to occur during a 14 day window after the second dose. There were no incidents of breakthrough after this period.

https://twitter.com/SternLab/status/1380922920734711811?s=19

Does this not undermine the study though? We've been told that individuals are not fully-protected until 14 days after the second dose, so what run a study during that window? Doesn't make sense to me..

Turtwig

Stark wrote: »

Sounds related to the conspiracy theorist "98% false positive due to high Ct" stuff that's been doing the rounds on Twitter.

FWIW my understanding is we do use a very high cycle threshold but those cases are considered "weak positives" and those people are retested.

Yep that's what it sounded like to me too.

The poster Martina1991 addressed that stuff here:


(See also raind's quoted post)

dominatinMC

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with you that they are very effective. But it's not so much the public that are downplaying them, it seems to me, as doctors and scientists (particularly in the West). Dr Mary Ramsay of Public Health England predicts and social distancing will last for years in the UK despite the success of the vaccine rollout there: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56475807

SAGE is saying something similar: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9437441/Life-WONT-return-normal-June-21-Covid-vaccines-arent-good-SAGE-warns.html

If I recall correctly Tony Holohan said they would compliment the current measures a few months ago.

As has been discussed on here before, there will always be medics and scientists calling for quasi-indefinite restrictions. They are looking for absolute perfection, i.e. zero cases, zero transmission. However, most practical and pragmatic people know that is unlikely as life most go on and Covid will just linger in the background. This is not some lab experiment to be tweaked and perfected for years, and maybe some medics and scientists have been over-indulged and mistakenly assumed people will accept their advice forever. If they had their way, we would be under some form of restrictions forever, even if we had 100% effective vaccines with 100% uptake, for fear a new virus/strain/variant developing.
Thankfully, within a year, we have incredibly effective vaccines (some not far off that fabled 100%) which, despite reports of decreased efficacy against VOC, still prevent people from getting very sick and dying - after all isn't that the goal? Maybe it's not the goal for medics and scientists, but I believe it is more than sufficient for the public and our representatives, so policy makers will allow us to return to normal a lot sooner than the "years" suggested in that link. As has been said a lot throughout this pandemic, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

dominatinMC

dominatinMC wrote: »

Does this not undermine the study though? We've been told that individuals are not fully-protected until 14 days after the second dose, so what run a study during that window? Doesn't make sense to me..

Sorry I worded that badly. Full protection is considered to be 7 days after the second dose. The study measured infections in partially immunised and fully immunised participants. Partially immunised was considered >14 days since first dose and <7 days since second dose. What they found was there were 8 cases of breakthrough in the fully immunised group from B.1.351 compared to only 1 in the control group. However all of these occurred in the 7-14 day period after the second dose. There were no incidents after 14 days.

It's difficult to draw firm conclusions given the low numbers involved but it suggests that the time required after the second dose for maximum protection from B.1.351 is longer than other variants.

BlondeBomb

trellheim wrote: »

Daily High Points so far of total shots

5 March 19449
24 Mar 23330
25 March 27490
1 April 30915
7 April 56377 (some jump)

7th April & 8th April was 56,377

Not sure why they didn’t break it down.

salmocab

spakman wrote: »

Why? Because they can't be relied upon to attend an appointment for a second dose?

Well yes that’s exactly why.

Miike

Stark wrote: »

Sounds related to the conspiracy theorist "98% false positive due to high Ct" stuff that's been doing the rounds on Twitter.

FWIW my understanding is we do use a very high cycle threshold but those cases are considered "weak positives" and those people are retested.

That is correct. High Ct value -> rerun/resample/retest. Where high is considered around 30 in most labs (from the manuals I've seen). Its established in the literature that Ct of >34 rarely ever returns viable virus from culture. Not to mention tests in this 30+ range often get a clinical review by an infectious disease / microbiology or public health consultant prior to and after repeat.

trellheim

BlondeBomb wrote: »

7th April & 8th April was 56,377

Not sure why they didn’t break it down.

Sorry, this is my fault for not spotting - they've moved 1 day better in lag reporting so a day had to be combined - I'll add a note when posting the numbers again, even so two of the highest days out there, and likely one of them was the highest so far.

dominatinMC

Hardyn wrote: »

Sorry I worded that badly. Full protection is considered to be 7 days after the second dose. The study measured infections in partially immunised and fully immunised participants. Partially immunised was considered >14 days since first dose and <7 days since second dose. What they found was there were 8 cases of breakthrough in the fully immunised group from B.1.351 compared to only 1 in the control group. However all of these occurred in the 7-14 day period after the second dose. There were no incidents after 14 days.

It's difficult to draw firm conclusions given the low numbers involved but it suggests that the time required after the second dose for maximum protection from B.1.351 is longer than other variants.

Ah okay, I understand. Similar to you, my conclusion would have been that max protection from B.1.351 is delayed, rather than concluding that the variant can "break through" - which is the phrase all media outlets will be jumping on. And, although a tiny sample size, no one got sick or died? Which I assumed was the main purpose of the vaccines, but most seem to be ignoring this now..

dominatinMC

dominatinMC wrote: »

Ah okay, I understand. Similar to you, my conclusion would have been that max protection from B.1.351 is delayed, rather than concluding that the variant can "break through" - which is the phrase all media outlets will be jumping on. And, although a tiny sample size, no one got sick or died? Which I assumed was the main purpose of the vaccines, but most seem to be ignoring this now..

The problem is the fact that the infections occurred in a 7 day period is first mentioned in the twitter thread I linked. It's not made clear in the study itself so it's hard to blame anyone for not getting it. I hope it is flagged in peer review. There was no mention either of severity of the infection which is annoying.

irishlad.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cUZy6AMCwuA2zhtRuKK7cqMVgmhdDsGsZrFWJTkw9DY/edit#gid=502588836


Friday 9th: 27,176

marno21

FT reporting that the Chinese CDC are considering mixing and matching vaccines due to low efficacy

- CDC head Gao Fu: “considering how to solve the problem that the efficacy of existing vaccines is not high”
- Chinese manufacturers have not yet published the results of Phase III trials, despite 65 million vaccines being administered to date.
- A study of Chile's vaccine rollout found the efficacy of one dose of the Sinovac vaccine is 3% (yes, three), with the second dose bringing this up to 56%
- According to a Hong Kong panel of experts, Sinovac's vaccine has an efficacy of 50.66% amongst 18-60 year olds.

https://www.ft.com/content/c54b02d6-00a0-4b7d-9160-a9353800efd3

No wonder Chile are going through another wave despite such levels of vaccination. 3% is on par with the efficacy of baked beans.

Happydays2020

Does it make sense also here to move to 6 weeks between Pfizer shots? This is what France are intending to do. Perhaps for the under 70’s?

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0411/1209075-coronavirus-global/

dominatinMC

marno21 wrote: »

FT reporting that the Chinese CDC are considering mixing and matching vaccines due to low efficacy

- CDC head Gao Fu: “considering how to solve the problem that the efficacy of existing vaccines is not high”
- Chinese manufacturers have not yet published the results of Phase III trials, despite 65 million vaccines being administered to date.
- A study of Chile's vaccine rollout found the efficacy of one dose of the Sinovac vaccine is 3% (yes, three), with the second dose bringing this up to 56%
- According to a Hong Kong panel of experts, Sinovac's vaccine has an efficacy of 50.66% amongst 18-60 year olds.

https://www.ft.com/content/c54b02d6-00a0-4b7d-9160-a9353800efd3

No wonder Chile are going through another wave despite such levels of vaccination. 3% is on par with the efficacy of baked beans.

One would have to say that between this, the blood clot issues around AZ and J&J, and the apparent efficacy reduction in Pfizer to SA variant, it has not been a good week for the vaccines.
We tend to get weeks like this, but I'm sure we'll have plenty of postive developments in the weeks ahead too. As with any rollercoaster, ups and downs

lbj666

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Does it make sense also here to move to 6 weeks between Pfizer shots? This is what France are intending to do. Perhaps for the under 70’s?

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0411/1209075-coronavirus-global/

There is a very strong argument for it and even wider intervals for non risk groups. It would ease the blow of any potential roadblocks with AZ also.

It's just Pfizer's label says 3-4 week interval, I just get the feeling that they won't depart from the label here due to the implications that has on indemnities and everything else.

Maybe Pfizer may change based on studies from UK.
It's frustrating, whatever about risk groups which is more understandable to stick the label, the Pfizer vacine is so good it just feels like total overkill to stay the course for non risk groups.

is_that_so

lbj666 wrote: »

There is a very strong argument for it and even wider intervals for non risk groups. It would ease the blow of any potential roadblocks with AZ also.

It's just Pfizer's label says 3-4 week interval, I just get the feeling that they won't depart from the label here due to the implications that has on indemnities and everything else.

Maybe Pfizer may change based on studies from UK.
It's frustrating, whatever about risk groups which is more understandable to stick the label, the Pfizer vacine is so good it just feels like total overkill to stay the course for non risk groups.

CDC say up to 6 weeks.

the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may be administered up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

Russman

Are we expecting an update from NIAC tomorrow or is it more a case of “whenever they decide” ?
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at their deliberations. Do they go with similar to France, Germany etc and bring in an age restriction, or do they wait til we see x number of these clotting incidents here first ?
Would they be concerned that an age restriction, like say over 50s, might delay the roll out by a couple of weeks (or would it ?) ?

lbj666

is_that_so wrote: »

CDC say up to 6 weeks.




https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

Ah ya sorry, they should just bloody do it so for non risk groups anyway.

speckle

Thanks all re the above last couple of posts.. too buzy to research here atm..but just a reminder I have an 80+ unwell relative who had dose1 pfzer then fell ill before dose2.. so looking on with interest what the results are with a wider spaced dose ..
Anyone can pm me if more definite results come in with a link if you think I missed your post. thanks

Note the relative was not the one with bad side effects but one who had zero side effects from dose one...I am though interested in the info that some people are more prone to other respiratory infections post flu vax... for a short time afterwards and I wonder if we might have the same situation here..which would not be harmful at all for the vaste majority of people but a minority subset. ie while your immune system is putting energy into building defenses against covid..it finds it harder to deal with other infections..Another good reason for high risk people to be careful in those two or three weeks post vax.

Leftwaffe

Is the portal over for over 65s tomorrow? If so, where can we find this?

Is it for all over 65s? Thanks.

sd1999

Russman wrote: »

Are we expecting an update from NIAC tomorrow or is it more a case of “whenever they decide” ?
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at their deliberations. Do they go with similar to France, Germany etc and bring in an age restriction, or do they wait til we see x number of these clotting incidents here first ?
Would they be concerned that an age restriction, like say over 50s, might delay the roll out by a couple of weeks (or would it ?) ?

I imagine they will restrict AZ by age. Whether it'll be over-30s, 50s, or 60s is probably what they're debating. As it stands, the 65-69 group were going to be getting AZ in MVCs anyway so that won't be affected. They can just use it on over-30s/50s/60s in cohort 4, 7, and the general population after that. It may require some rearranging to get more Pfizer doses to GPs for cohort 4 but that hopefully won't delay things by more than a few weeks. Personally, I'll take whatever I'm offered regardless, but I imagine that even just one rare clot in someone aged 18-30 would drastically impact uptake of AZ in that group.