Covid-19 #24: You Scream, I Scream, We all Scream for Vaccine

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I think the message has always been, try not to get infected as although You may be ok, you could easily spread it to your Nan who probably won't be ok.

[Heartofice]

So the EU drugs regulator has approved the AZ Oxford vaccine for all age groups over 18... which includes over 65s? hmm.

[ljkeane]

The EU's introduced export controls on vaccines produced in the EU. That's probably not good.

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

So the EU drugs regulator has approved the AZ Oxford vaccine for all age groups over 18... which includes over 65s? hmm.

The BBC had a good article earlier (before approval) in their "Live Reporting" section.

Quote

 

Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, says: “We’re really confident about this.”

He tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme it creates a strong immune response, including producing antibodies, which is very similar in older people and younger people.

...

The AZ vaccine trial enrolled older people at a later stage in order to try it on younger people first, but that means a smaller sample of older patients and less precision in the estimate of its effectiveness, he says.

Germany has fewer doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine at the moment and many more from Pfizer-BioNTech, the professor adds.

“They said that, given the limited precision of estimate for the Oxford data, that they would prefer to use the majority of their Pfizer vaccine in the older people,” he says.

 

So if you are seeing a very good immune response in older people (similar to younger people), even if the data itself doesn't conclusively allow you to quantify its effectiveness for older people (because you didn't have enough subjects to get to that level of detail), it should be fine.  ljkeane made a similar point a few days ago.  But feel free to use Pfizer for older people if that is an option.  Its all about an abundance of caution. 

There will be more data available in Feb/March to reduce any remaining doubts.  Not like you are going to get much Astrazeneca vaccine before then anyhow.

I will say, it does add further confusion to this rather delicate message.  That is unfortunate.  People are trying to let the science drive decisions but science isn't black and white.

I will be curious to see how this is interpreted.

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

The EU's introduced export controls on vaccines produced in the EU. That's probably not good.

I'm sure this will generate headlines but I don't think its that bad.  Unless AZ really is exporting the vaccine from the EU, which I doubt it is doing anymore.

[Filippa Eilhart]

I think it’s important to note that there are several exemptions to the ban (which isn’t an obligation but a possibility), such as neighbourhood countries (Ukraine, Belarus), Middle East countries (Syria and others) and all of Covax.

[ljkeane]

2 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I'm sure this will generate headlines but I don't think its that bad.  Unless AZ really is exporting the vaccine from the EU, which I doubt it is doing anymore.

It seems to have been precipitated by the Astrazeneca spat but I don't think it's going to be particularly relevant to them. They seem to be intending to meet most of their global orders from production outside the EU anyway.

I just don't think it's a particularly good thing anyway. Obviously there's the temptation for EU countries to actually follow through and ban exports but beyond that the threat's going to undermine confidence in the international market for vaccines.

[JoannaL]

6 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

It seems to have been precipitated by the Astrazeneca spat but I don't think it's going to be particularly relevant to them. They seem to be intending to meet most of their global orders from production outside the EU anyway.

I just don't think it's a particularly good thing anyway. Obviously there's the temptation for EU countries to actually follow through and ban exports but beyond that the threat's going to undermine confidence in the international market for vaccines.

The US had this from the beginning. No problems with confidence as I know of.

[Padraig]

Right. I agree its related to the Astrazeneca issue.  Its typical governments.  They must be seen to be doing something!

I also agree its not a good thing .  But I do think its understandable.  If this whole AZ thing happened again in 3 months (with some other company), there would be a huge scandal that nothing was done the last time.

Anyhow, given recent progress, hopefully in a few more months, it wouldn't be the supply of vaccine that is the problem.

Filippa's point is important also about the exceptions.  I expect this will be forgotten after the initial headline rush.

[ljkeane]

2 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

The US had this from the beginning. No problems with confidence as I know of.

Not exactly. The US bought up the first hundred million doses produced by Pfizer and Moderna in their US facilities. They didn't actually restrict exports. There's just nothing left to export yet.

[Clueless Northman]

21 hours ago, Zorral said:

Also -- 'conforts' -- which is surely a finger slip typo, I've been mildly amusing myself with possible words were intended instead!  That an A-grade typo, when the context still doesn't provide that information!  

Oh well yes. "It confirms". But I might have hesitated with "it's comforting that". Getting tired and eyesight going down the drain for the last year don't help...

 

Other good news I've seen is that other pharma across Europe are offering some factories to help produce the vaccines. Alas, this will take time and we'll have to wait for months before all these come online, which isn't awesome for Western countries who want them right now, but from a global point of view, it's great. It ensures that poorer countries will be able to get some substantial shiplments of vaccines this year, and not, say, in 2024.

[Mudguard]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I do find reporting about the effectiveness of vaccines during this epidemic is really dangerous actually. Describing a vaccine as 66% effective actually makes it sound terrible, why would anyone take a vaccine that has high chance of not even working!

Of course that’s not what it means, but do most people know that? Why do we miss out the bit about a vaccine having a 100% rate of preventing hospitalisations and deaths? 
 

There is already too much scepticism around taking vaccines, so pushing out info in a way that  doesn’t really help to convince people to take vaccines I find strange.

For a vaccine, 66% efficacy is pretty good, and great for a single shot.  

You should see the numbers for the influenza vaccine.  Good is between 40 to 60%.  In a bad year, which happens pretty frequently, it's below 25% and sometimes below 10%.  Also, you don't know the efficacy at the time you get the influenza vaccine.  It's only estimated after the influenza season is over.  Compared to that, the numbers for the coronavirus vaccines are outstanding.

I don't have a problem with how they are reporting the numbers.  I'd have more of a problem if they tried to hide some of the numbers in an effort to better market their vaccine.  Vaccine efficacy has long been determined in the manner that is currently being reported.  To try and change that up now would be extremely misleading.

[Clueless Northman]

Flu vaccines are notoriously unreliable from year to year - and with 2 seasons of very low flu cases, odds the next vaccine for 2021-2022 will be all over the place. On the other hand, I don't think we would've eradicated smallpox if the vaccine had merely 60% efficacy.

[Padraig]

As another perspective, the EMA approved the Astrazeneca vaccine at 60% efficacy.  So J&J looks strong compared to that.  If everything gets substantiated.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-authorisation-eu 

It will be good when the US gets its trial data from Astra (since there were some issues with the data given to the EMA).  Might clarify a few things.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, opening schools is 'safe'. Only losing like 1% of all the teachers, that's totes fine

https://www.wsfa.com/2021/01/25/mps-superintendent-discuss-virtual-learning-related-covid-/?campaign_id=174&emc=edit_csb_20210129&instance_id=26551&nl=coronavirus-schools-briefing&regi_id=85545654&segment_id=50610&te=1&user_id=032b8169c876bec427919feb798b9619

 

[Week]

1 minute ago, KalbearAnon said:

Yeah, opening schools is 'safe'. Only losing like 1% of all the teachers, that's totes fine

https://www.wsfa.com/2021/01/25/mps-superintendent-discuss-virtual-learning-related-covid-/?campaign_id=174&emc=edit_csb_20210129&instance_id=26551&nl=coronavirus-schools-briefing&regi_id=85545654&segment_id=50610&te=1&user_id=032b8169c876bec427919feb798b9619

 

The premise of the show the Leftovers is literally the devastating impact of losing 2% of people suddenly. To be only half of that -- you're still doing pretty bad.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Week said:

The premise of the show the Leftovers is literally the devastating impact of losing 2% of people suddenly. To be only half of that -- you're still doing pretty bad.

Hey, as long as, ya know, you're not one of the teachers I'm sure it's pretty safe

like, really safe

okay, maybe not that safe if Alabama of all places is doing remote learning for schools only

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

Yeah, opening schools is 'safe'. Only losing like 1% of all the teachers, that's totes fine

https://www.wsfa.com/2021/01/25/mps-superintendent-discuss-virtual-learning-related-covid-/?campaign_id=174&emc=edit_csb_20210129&instance_id=26551&nl=coronavirus-schools-briefing&regi_id=85545654&segment_id=50610&te=1&user_id=032b8169c876bec427919feb798b9619

 

I bet next you're going to say we need to pay teachers more. Communist. 

[Clueless Northman]

Wait, since when are teachers paid?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Clueless Northman said:

Wait, since when are teachers paid?

When they go to private schools

[Mr. X]

24 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

Yeah, opening schools is 'safe'. Only losing like 1% of all the teachers, that's totes fine

Totes, indeed.

One positive thing I'll say for Cuomo and the NYS government is that they did back up their push to keep schools open by designating teachers to be in the first sets of people eligible for the vaccine (along with pretty much all healthcare workers, people age 65+, public transit workers, grocery store workers, and a handful of other groups). Got my first shot a few weeks back and get round two in about 10 days.

That said, the potential impact on students and their families is being gently brushed aside. There are schools currently urging parents to contact local and state governments to allow sports to resume, including things like basketball and (a spring season of) football.