Vaccines

[Jimaroid]

Promising news. I thought it was worth revisiting the original poll question having learned more (thanks in part to this thread) and would like to move my answer to yes but I can't. The glaring problem I have is that I fit in the priority 11 group at the bottom of the JCVI advice, so no, I'm unlikely to have the vaccine as soon as it's available. I'm fine with that and I'll likely seek private options but as the poll can't show my intent I'll leave it as undecided.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Sadly not unique to just this situation but I totally agree. No doubt if there was an enquiry it would be headed by a former editor .

29 years, bet you don't have a single grey hair

No, none of them will be single; they'll all have plenty of mates as I can attest.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

No, none of them will be single; they'll all have plenty of mates as I can attest.

Take the positive, you still have hair to go grey ?

 

[larmen]

90% effective, what about the 10%? Who cares about them? What if you are in the 10%?

Any good?

(agreed though, nice to see something positive)

I think 90% is past the threshold of herd immunity? Does anyone remember that number? I think it was high 60s?
it’s like any other vaccine, the ones that can get it are also protecting the ones who can’t have it. And then come the anti vaxers that ruin it.

 

[Ethan]

I think 90% is past the threshold of herd immunity? Does anyone remember that number? I think it was high 60s?
it’s like any other vaccine, the ones that can get it are also protecting the ones who can’t have it. And then come the anti vaxers that ruin it.

Herd immunity is a mathematical concept. The formula is 1-1/R so for Covid, where R is 3, the threshold is 66%.

The idea is pretty simple. If each case usually gives it to 3 others, but 2 out of those 3 people (the 66%) are immune, you will typically only give it to 1 uninfected other and it doesn't multiply. If more than 66% is immune, the epidemic collapses faster.

Measles is a different case, though, with an R of 12-15, so herd immunity needs 90%+ immunity.

 

[larmen]

Thanks Eathan. I watched a lot of modelling attempts back in spring but forgot the detail, and that there was a formula for it.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I think 90% is past the threshold of herd immunity? Does anyone remember that number? I think it was high 60s?
it’s like any other vaccine, the ones that can get it are also protecting the ones who can’t have it. And then come the anti vaxers that ruin it.

Hopefully you saw Billyboots post before mine. My post was a jokey response.

Like your point though ?

 

[williamalex1]

Tash, I think its the links of the individuals involved rather than the money itself
The reality is that for any mass vaccination programme to be successful - you need to have public promotion - that applies even to covid

Safety, how many doses, how, when, why not etc are all public questions that need to be communicated to get maximum uptake

I generally agree however that the swine have really come out to feed in 2020

A pearls of wisdom before swine

 

[Crazyface]

This "new" one from, where ever, is it ready to go or still in testing?

 

[Ethan]

This "new" one from, where ever, is it ready to go or still in testing?

If you mean the Pfizer one, moving through testing with the regulatory review taking place in parallel, so could be approved in a few weeks. Manufacturing has been taking place for a while, so could be available for admin by end of year, but that would be for a relatively minted high risk population, and further batches to roll out across early new year.

Other vaccs also in late development, including the Oxford Astra Zeneca one and the Moderna one. Neither too far behind, but Pfizer may have raised the bar for them.

 

[Backache]

I think 90% is past the threshold of herd immunity? Does anyone remember that number? I think it was high 60s?
it’s like any other vaccine, the ones that can get it are also protecting the ones who can’t have it. And then come the anti vaxers that ruin it.

We don't know from what has been declared so far whether or not the vaccine will contribute to herd immunity. From what I can gather the 90% protection is against symptomatic covid, it is possible that people are still getting infected and spreading but not developing symptoms in which case they could actually decrease the tendency to herd immunity as they would be less likely to withdraw from social contact with infection. I hasten to add this is a possibility rather than a likelihood but as yet it is unknown.

 

[Ethan]

We don't know from what has been declared so far whether or not the vaccine will contribute to herd immunity. From what I can gather the 90% protection is against symptomatic covid, it is possible that people are still getting infected and spreading but not developing symptoms in which case they could actually decrease the tendency to herd immunity as they would be less likely to withdraw from social contact with infection. I hasten to add this is a possibility rather than a likelihood but as yet it is unknown.

That makes no sense.

 

[Backache]

That makes no sense.

If you are getting the virus and because you are vaccinated you are not developing symptoms but it is still multiplying in your upper airways and being disseminated you contribute nothing to herd immunity.
If the people without symptoms but shedding virus are more likely to be in the comunity than people with the virus and with symptoms the R rate increases and so the tendency to herd immunity decreases.

 

[Tashyboy]

Tash, I think its the links of the individuals involved rather than the money itself
The reality is that for any mass vaccination programme to be successful - you need to have public promotion - that applies even to covid

Safety, how many doses, how, when, why not etc are all public questions that need to be communicated to get maximum uptake

I generally agree however that the swine have really come out to feed in 2020

The bit that raised my eyebrows was where it mentioned the pr team that were employed would be doing the same work as a government department. Also odd the head of the vaccine task force Kate Bingham is expected to leave at the end of the year.

 

[Ethan]

If you are getting the virus and because you are vaccinated you are not developing symptoms but it is still multiplying in your upper airways and being disseminated you contribute nothing to herd immunity.
If the people without symptoms but shedding virus are more likely to be in the comunity than people with the virus and with symptoms the R rate increases and so the tendency to herd immunity decreases.

The first part is not correct. Your contribution towards herd immunity is through being immune, whether through vaccination or symptomatic or asymptomatic infection. Then you are removed as a stepping stone for the virus.

People shedding virus certainly contribute to the R, as they transmit infection. The cases they generate will, if they survive, contribute to herd immunity. That is basically what the fans of the Great Barrington Declaration want to see happen. The harm from transmission probably mostly happens before anyone knows they are positive, symptomatic or asymptomatic, so the time out of circulation for the symptomatic has a limited effect. General social distancing and avoiding close indoor contact with people outside your bubble/family is a critical brake on the virus.

 

[NearHull]

If you mean the Pfizer one, moving through testing with the regulatory review taking place in parallel, so could be approved in a few weeks. Manufacturing has been taking place for a while, so could be available for admin by end of year, but that would be for a relatively minted high risk population, and further batches to roll out across early new year.

Other vaccs also in late development, including the Oxford Astra Zeneca one and the Moderna one. Neither too far behind, but Pfizer may have raised the bar for them.

Your comment raising the bar got my attention. If the next one or two vaccines declare, say 86% or 95% efficacy, do you believe that there will be a rejection of the slightly poorer performing vaccines or perhaps it will also depend on ease of deployment.

 

[Ethan]

Your comment raising the bar got my attention. If the next one or two vaccines declare, say 86% or 95% efficacy, do you believe that there will be a rejection of the slightly poorer performing vaccines or perhaps it will also depend on ease of deployment.

86 or 95% are totally fine. These numbers always depend a bit on the population recruited and a degree of random chance, so if you repeated the trial, the number would probably change a bit.

It is the 50 or 60% vaccine that now possibly falls into a lower category, although if it was one that could be given to some people for whom the BioNTech vacc was less well suited (certain risk factors), there would still be a place, so ease of deployment is certainly a consideration. One other piece of data that will be interesting is whether the few people who still get an infection on the vaccine get a milder course.

 

[Tashyboy]

86 or 95% are totally fine. These numbers always depend a bit on the population recruited and a degree of random chance, so if you repeated the trial, the number would probably change a bit.

It is the 50 or 60% vaccine that now possibly falls into a lower category, although if it was one that could be given to some people for whom the BioNTech vacc was less well suited (certain risk factors), there would still be a place, so ease of deployment is certainly a consideration. One other piece of data that will be interesting is whether the few people who still get an infection on the vaccine get a milder course.

Just read that the Chinese trial for there vaccine has been halted in Brazil due to a severe “ adverse” reaction. Nigh on all drugs carry a risk but at what stage is “ adverse “ reaction that would halt a trial ?

 

[Ethan]

Just read that the Chinese trial for there vaccine has been halted in Brazil due to a severe “ adverse” reaction. Nigh on all drugs carry a risk but at what stage is “ adverse “ reaction that would halt a trial ?

Adverse reactions occur in all trials. Sometimes they are unrelated to the study drug, sometimes they are, and if so, they can stop the trial until investigated. There was a case of transverse myelitis reported in the Oxford/AZ trial. Reading press reports, it appears that this was in a patient who had developed MS, and transverse myelitis is a common presenting feature. There was also a death, and press reports suggest that the person was on placebo, so clearly nothing to do with the vacc. There are certain adverse events that are characteristic of the mode of action of the drug, sometimes this has been suggested in lab or animal tests, for example effects on the liver, or possible interaction with other medicines. These would be very uncommon in vaccines.

Adverse reactions are classified into mild, moderate and severe, as well as serious or non-serious. Certain levels trigger an immediate report to the regulator who can impose a halt to the trial, although the company will usually have already done that. I have worked on drugs where a halt was called for an adverse event and it lasted 6 months before an expert group decided that the event was not what it first appeared to be and was unrelated to the drug. I knew that at the start, but you have to go through the process. It nearly killed our company, though.

 

[Backache]

The first part is not correct. Your contribution towards herd immunity is through being immune, whether through vaccination or symptomatic or asymptomatic infection. Then you are removed as a stepping stone for the virus.

People shedding virus certainly contribute to the R, as they transmit infection. The cases they generate will, if they survive, contribute to herd immunity. That is basically what the fans of the Great Barrington Declaration want to see happen. The harm from transmission probably mostly happens before anyone knows they are positive, symptomatic or asymptomatic, so the time out of circulation for the symptomatic has a limited effect. General social distancing and avoiding close indoor contact with people outside your bubble/family is a critical brake on the virus.

The immunity from vaccination may prevent disease and or , infection or rather unlikely it may make the disease worse we don't know.
We will not know until the results are published. At his press conference yesterday :
Professor Van-Tam said that it was not yet known whether the vaccine would prevent “asymptomatic infection”, the spread of the virus in people who do not show symptoms. “Therefore we do not know if these vaccines will prevent virus shedding, and therefore have an effect on community transmission,” he said.