Vaccine Megathread - See OP for threadbans

mandrake04

rm212 wrote: »

Australia have rejected J&J (after also suspending AZ) as they don’t want to use adenovirus vector vaccines due to the blood clotting concerns. Looks like they’ll be sticking to Pfizer and Moderna (and possible one or two others which are still in the pipeline)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-13/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-australia/100064454/

Australia is not using Moderna, they using Pfizer as the preferred and Novavax and AZ is actually still available to under 50s just have to consult your doctor and sign a waiver.

They wont approve J&J as it will probably go same as AZ, which is more bad news than a bad vaccine.

They are now considering making Pfizer onshore but the biggest problem is sourcing the Lipids, I listened to a discussion on the Radio that the Pfizer will probably need a booster so it would be thinking long term.

Pfizer has its own bad news lingering in the background just AZ stole the limelight.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.26132

Strazdas

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Current data suggests J&J has 5 times less so I disagree tbh.

Also they're not the same vector. AZ is from chimps, J&J is a human adenovirus

Yes, 7m doses administered in the US and six cases (so far).

Pussyhands

Well well well, the US now calling for a halt on the JNJ vaccine due to blood clots...

Guess those "nutjobs" saying they had concerns about a vaccine rushed through without the full effects being known were onto something after all.

Looking forward to the "it's still less risky than getting the virus!" comments.

Turtwig

I'm optimistic any age restriction on the viral vectors will be adjusted once the underlying cause of the adverse events is understood. Or, at the very least, the risk is.

I do feel NIAC have pinned themselves into a corner with such a high age restriction and no underlying conditions. It'll be very difficult not to impose similar restrictions on J and J now if the reporting trends of adverse events continues. There's a clear safety signal that needs investigating and on the face of it things sound very similar to AZ.

GLaDOS

GLaDOS wrote: »

6 cases out of 7 million jabs, all women.

More data to come I'm sure, but the risk to men must be infinitesimal.

Continue jabbing men with it while we figure out why it's affecting women.

I think there was a case in the trial too, a 25 year old male.

Micky 32

Pussyhands wrote: »

Well well well, the US now calling for a halt on the JNJ vaccine due to blood clots...

Guess those "nutjobs" saying they had concerns about a vaccine rushed through without the full effects being known were onto something after all.

Looking forward to the "it's still less risky than getting the virus!" comments.

You won’t be so smug when the vaccine green passes and passports come in, i’m sure you’ll be whinging on here when that happens :pac:

Pussyhands

Micky 32 wrote: »

You won’t be so smug when the vaccine green passes and passports come in, i’m sure you’ll be whinging on here when that happens :pac:

How are they related?

odyssey06

Pussyhands wrote: »

Well well well, the US now calling for a halt on the JNJ vaccine due to blood clots...
Guess those "nutjobs" saying they had concerns about a vaccine rushed through without the full effects being known were onto something after all.
Looking forward to the "it's still less risky than getting the virus!" comments.

Not sure what sort of trial you think would have detected this. How many people would you have to enrol?
This has nothing to do with he speed of vaccine development.

Turtwig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think there was a case in the trial too, a 25 year old male.

Meh the Pfizer trial got someone struck by lightning!

ACitizenErased

Jesus christ this thread has been infested

DaSilva

Pussyhands wrote: »

Well well well, the US now calling for a halt on the JNJ vaccine due to blood clots...

Guess those "nutjobs" saying they had concerns about a vaccine rushed through without the full effects being known were onto something after all.

Looking forward to the "it's still less risky than getting the virus!" comments.

Sorry but this is just a bad take and a poor understanding of the situation. This doesn't prove anything about peoples misunderstanding of the trial and approval process. Had this vaccine gone through the normal trial duration of several years we would be just as in the dark about these side effects until mass rollout. A trial with 30/40k participants is very unlikely to identify side effects that occur at the 1 in 100k or rarer range. Waiting longer wouldn't have found these issues. You are welcome to stay afraid of the vaccine and new technology, but don't pretend the fear is reasonable.

ACitizenErased

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Looks like the incidence is considerably less in the J&J than AZ. 6 cases out of 6.8 million doses. About 0.2 per 250,000.

Incidence can't really be calculated yet. It's only been in use 5 weeks and far more doses given in the last two weeks than the first two. These incidents go through a process after reporting and are only considered events once you can't discount the possibility the vaccine was the cause, so the incidence is likely to increase over the next month.

Still miniscule occurrence, but there is some data in the FDA approval that would suggest J & J isn't a particularly good vaccine for people over 55, so if it's use is restricted in younger age groups it's impact may not be what was once hoped for.

stephenjmcd

Pussyhands wrote: »

Well well well, the US now calling for a halt on the JNJ vaccine due to blood clots...

Guess those "nutjobs" saying they had concerns about a vaccine rushed through without the full effects being known were onto something after all.

Looking forward to the "it's still less risky than getting the virus!" comments.

If that's your take then you've absolutely no idea how the trial process works. Phase 4 of any vaccine is the rollout. That's what we're in now, this is where the very rare issues get picked up.

The trials were arguably larger than most other trials.

Tbh I don't know why I'm even bothering replying this really but this sort of stuff has to be called out for what it is.

Pussyhands

DaSilva wrote: »

Sorry but this is just a bad take and a poor understanding of the situation. This doesn't prove anything about peoples misunderstanding of the trial and approval process. Had this vaccine gone through the normal trial duration of several years we would be just as in the dark about these side effects until mass rollout. A trial with 30/40k participants is very unlikely to identify side effects that occur at the 1 in 100k or rarer range. Waiting longer wouldn't have found these issues. You are welcome to stay afraid of the vaccine and new technology, but don't pretend the fear is reasonable.

So the vaccines they're telling us are safe and telling us we'll have to take if we want our freedoms back, is now halted in certain ages...

What else will be discovered in 5,10 years?

What do you mean waiting longer wouldn't have found these issues? They would if it was still being trialed.

"Here, we're running a vaccine trial, we can't guarantee you won't die though"

is worlds apart from

"Here, this vaccine is safe, take it and things return to normal"

Micky 32

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1381932434141409284?s=21

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1381940742667522049?s=21

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1381944791093678084?s=21

DaSilva

Pussyhands wrote: »

So the vaccines they're telling us are safe and telling us we'll have to take if we want our freedoms back, is now halted in certain ages...

What else will be discovered in 5,10 years?

What do you mean waiting longer wouldn't have found these issues? They would if it was still being trialed.

"Here, we're running a vaccine trial, we can't guarantee you won't die though"

is worlds apart from

"Here, this vaccine is safe, take it and things return to normal"

Sorry but you are wrong, if we waited another year from now, the vaccine recipients in the trial from last year wouldn't start getting clots now, they would have gotten them already or not, waiting longer wouldn't do anything. The reason trials usually last longer is because (A) there isn't an ongoing pandemic and (B) to establish that the protection offered lasts years. All known cases of side effects in all vaccine trials to date have occurred within 6 weeks of the vaccine administration. So waiting longer would only establish whether the vaccine continued to offer protection and would not have revealed this rare side effect.

What might have revealed this side effect is much larger trials, but these trials are already large compared to normal. There is lots of reasons to be curious and sceptical about vaccines and the pharma industry, but you aren't demonstrating any knowledge or understanding at all, you just appear afraid.

brendanwalsh

Every man and woman deserves a MRNA vaccine.

Send the bag of dung AZ vaccines to the deepest darkest pits of Africa as part of COVAX, and give Pfizer whatever they want for the good stuff.


Mod: Banned

ACitizenErased

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Every man and woman deserves a MRNA vaccine.

Send the bag of dung AZ vaccines to the deepest darkest pits of Africa as part of COVAX, and give Pfizer whatever they want for the good stuff.

jesus christ

eoinbn

It might be premature but it looks like J&J is dead on arrival.
So between AZ and J&J we will be short about 1.4m vaccines in Q2(doubling for J&J).
Back of the the envelope calculations suggest that it will be early August before we reach the June target of 80% of adults.
All adults by mid September.

ACitizenErased

eoinbn wrote: »

It might be premature but it looks like J&J is dead on arrival.
So between AZ and J&J we will be short about 1.3m vaccines in Q2(doubling for J&J).
Back of the the envelope calculations suggest that it will be early August before we reach the June target of 80% of adults.
All adults by mid September.

??????

thecretinhop

de loons have invaded here

funnydoggy

Fúck me what's going on?? Mods can the thread be locked for the day or something?

RavenBea17b

Strazdas wrote: »

The 16 week gap with AZ seems to be just so they can keep an eye on what is happening with the vaccine elsewhere.

Oh, I thought Ireland was doing a 12 week gap between AZ doses, has this changed ?

funnydoggy

RavenBea17b wrote: »

Oh, I thought Ireland was doing a 12 week gap between AZ doses, has this changed ?

We are normally, but the advice given yesterday evening is that anyone who had their first dose already, is to have the second 16 weeks from now. Correct me if I'm wrong though!

Turtwig has the correct info below!

Lmkrnr

ACitizenErased wrote: »

??????

The US have paused the use of the J&J vaccine due to blood clots. big news.

Professor Moriarty

muddypuppy wrote: »

The number thrown around is that 1 out of 250000 for the vaccine might dye, while https://qcovid.org/Calculation gives me 1 out of 333333 chance of dying if I get covid.
I'm not saying that the vaccine is not safe, should not be used, be an anti-vax etc... in fact if I was offered AZ I would do it since the probability of dying is infinitesimal anyway and vaccines are the only way we will reopen our society. But realize that if you're young and healthy, the chance of dying because of covid is really small too.

It is but, for example, the 20-30 age group is twice as likely to die from Covid-19 as from the vaccine. Obviously that ratio increases exponentially as age increases.

Cork2021

Cork2021 wrote: »

No I’ve had enough! The ratio for those 6 cases in 7m is 0.000086% that’s fûcking crazy pausing it for that minuscule risk! It’s shocking and you know as well as I do an abundance of caution will now be taken!
Let’s us all sign a waiver to any side affects and get on with this.
I want my life back as do the majority of the population and this only slowing it and creating vaccine hesitation

You are off by a factor of 100.

And its 6 in 7m, but also 6 in 7million women aged 18 to 48. Thats why the review is completed - if only 10k in that group received the vaccine its a different story than if it was 2 million. One figure would say continue as is, and the other dont give to women. They would also need to establish is it coincidental to women only and are there other risk factors which would mean only a subset of the impacted group would be prioritised towards other vaccines.

There is a risk benefit calculation here.

In Ireland we are at 150 cases per 100k in 14 days.
Over the next 8 weeks we would expect less than 600cases per 100k.
Based on numbers here were would have 81 deaths per 100k cases in under 55s
55% of the population are in the 18-54 age range - therefore we would expect.
Therefore at current rates we would expect 16,170 cases in that age group in the next 2 months resulting in 13 deaths.
In this scenario the question to answer is how many deaths would occur if 800,000 doses of AZ were administered in this population. At the moment its not entirely clear but is probably less than 13. If we still had the levels of virus we had in January there would be no comparison and the benefits would clearly outweigh the risks, but we dont, so until more is known the prudent response from a public health point of view may well be to get more data. It will likely result in us being able to subset the at risk the population further, utilising more vaccine while minimising the adverse events.

First do no harm

Imagine if this would found to be hormone related and therefore this vaccine was safe for kids for example. We would have some hysteria then

funnydoggy

Lmkrnr wrote: »

The US have paused the use of the J&J vaccine due to blood cloths. big news.

They've paused, not suspended. The incidence of J&J clots seems to be much, much lower than the AZ clots.


A non-issue really

ACitizenErased

Lmkrnr wrote: »

The US have paused the use of the J&J vaccine due to blood clots. big news.

Theyve paused it for one day, because of 6 cases out of 6.8 million doses.

Turtwig

funnydoggy wrote: »

We are normally, but the advice given yesterday evening is that anyone who had their first dose already, is to have the second 16 weeks from now. Correct me if I'm wrong though!

That only applies to people under 60 who have no underlying medical risk. If the person is at high risk or very high risk of severe disease they should get their second dose in 12 weeks.