The vaccines | AZ approved in UK - Pfizer/Moderna rollout underway

When will you take a covid vaccine?

  • As part of a covid trial

  • When it's approved/available for my age/risk group

  • 6 months after the bulk of my age/risk group

  • At least a year and I want to choose the brand

  • Only if I have to - for work or travel etc

  • Ten years +


Results are only viewable after voting.

Bratt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
5,724
Location
Norway
Nope. UK seems to have got there ahead of everyone else. I’d love to know how/why.
I read somewhere that it’s because of Brexit. Since you are, soon to be, all on your own, you don’t have to wait for the EU to make decisions for you. Even Norway, who isn’t part of the EU have to wait for an EU vaccine-approval because of the EEA.
 

Vitro

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
3,007
Location
Surrey
Long covid will be completely nonexistent in the asymptomatic group. If you don’t get any symptoms to begin with then you can have persistent, long-term symptoms (which is basically what “long covid” is).
Yes you’re right of course! Though there could exist some cases to the contrary, as Covid-19 asymptomaticity seems to be poorly understood.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
5,669
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
But this is wrong isn’t it? You’d still carry the virus!

am I wrong here or is everyone who is saying to protect others and create herd immunity wrong?

quite worrying if people think they’re getting the vaccine to protect others if it doesn’t actually protect others and they can still catch it off you. Cases are going to rise massively if everyone is walking around thinking they can’t pass it on
It is not clear at this point whether the vaccine stops you passing the Covid virus on. All that is known is that it has a high level of protection against you catching the virus.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,523
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
Are you sure about that? First time I’ve ever heard of license application being linked to manufacturing timelines. They’ve nothing to lose with getting a license if they don’t have drug to supply but it’s a huge risk to delay the application - for any reason at all - as the regulators could ask unexpected questions which push out the approval timeline by weeks/months.

Much more likely that the various regulators have different expectations re the content of the application/review process. I’m sure Pfizer want this approved as quick as humanly possible, in every major territory (might stall in smaller territories if they haven’t the regulatory resources to spare)
Highly likely lots of places will approve very soon so it may just be that someone had to be first by a few days or even a week or two.

I'd also like to bet that before we are much older this approval will be touted as a benefit of Brexit. Both and his evil clown posse won't be able to help themselves.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,523
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
One other major benefit is that this is that mass vaccination, preferably every single person who can, is the only way back to something close to normal. Getting the canopy back on track will save lives and improve physical and mental health and normal medical services will be able to operate normally which will have the same effects.

We are in fact in this together even if you don't want to be. We all have to take one for the team.
 

Hammerfell

Full Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
7,537
Can we make the poll results public so I can see who the weirdo anti-vaxxers are?
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
6,353
It is not clear at this point whether the vaccine stops you passing the Covid virus on. All that is known is that it has a high level of protection against you catching the virus.
I didn’t know that, I thought it just reduced symptoms once caught
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,523
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
The person administering the vaccine has to observe the subject for 15 minutes after injection and be trained to identify various adverse effects. Which some may interpret as then being extra safe, others may wonder just why this is required for this particular vaccine.
That is the same for all vaccines. Every year when I get the flu vaccine has been the same for the 11 years I've been getting it.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
48,906
It is not clear at this point whether the vaccine stops you passing the Covid virus on. All that is known is that it has a high level of protection against you catching the virus.
Well technically we know that it is highly protective against you catching the disease, not the infection.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
5,669
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
That is the same for all vaccines. Every year when I get the flu vaccine has been the same for the 11 years I've been getting it.
Really. I have had the flu vaccine at the GP surgery and it is - in, sleeve up, prick and out.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,523
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
It is not clear at this point whether the vaccine stops you passing the Covid virus on. All that is known is that it has a high level of protection against you catching the virus.
However, if you don't get covid you can't pass it on and on average if you get covid and don't have severe symptoms there is a good chance that you will be less infectious (viral load) and for a shorter period of time. As airborne transmission seems to be by far the most common way of transmitting the virus so fewer symptoms such as coughing are also likely to reduce r.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,523
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
Really. I have had the flu vaccine at the GP surgery and it is - in, sleeve up, prick and out.
I haven't had it in the UK but here in Australia every vaccination is meant to be followed by a 15 minute observation period. I've had this at the GP, a workplace flu clinic and at the Chemists this year.

It is primarily monitoring for anaphalaxis I think.
 
Last edited:

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
48,906
Pedantry is a way of life for you, isn't it?
Clearly it's an important distinction to make because people like @Zlatan 7 see people describing it as being protective of "the virus" as being a denial of what the vaccine actually does. Which was exactly the context of the point I was following on from. So no it's not needless pedantry but a clarification on a specific point that was being directly questioned. I would agree with you that Zlatan's point is pedantic, though, when it's clear what Buster is saying. Thanks for the weirdly personal jibe though.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
6,353
Clearly it's an important distinction to make because people like @Zlatan 7 see people describing it as being protective of "the virus" as being a denial of what the vaccine actually does. Which was exactly the context of the point I was following on from. So no it's not needless pedantry but a clarification on a specific point that was being directly questioned. I would agree with you that Zlatan's point is pedantic, though, when it's clear what Buster is saying. Thanks for the weirdly personal jibe though.
:lol:
 

jojojo

JoJoJoJoJoJo
Staff
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
32,700
Location
Welcome to Manchester reception committee
Really. I have had the flu vaccine at the GP surgery and it is - in, sleeve up, prick and out.
I had it at a Lloyds Pharmacy this year and they asked me to stay around "somewhere" just in case of anaphylactic shock. As it was in a Sainsburys I just wandered off around the shop. I think people have got blasé about the flu vaccine, particularly if you've had the same version before. The 15 minutes, just in case, remains pretty standard advice for first-timers though.

Incidentally, on the vaccine trial I'm on, they kept us there for half an hour of monitoring after our jabs. Mostly spent eating biscuits, or chatting to the staff, but including a temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, pulse O2 test to see they haven't moved much since you got tested pre-jab.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
105,521
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
I assume that they prioritised the paperwork for the US and the UK authorities. I'm not sure why EMA needed a different set but certainly the formal application for final review only went in yesterday.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...-authorisation-covid-19-mrna-vaccine-bnt162b2

The US one I think was submitted at the same time as the UK application (20th November). So either the MHRA are faster than the FDA (possible) or the FDA have more material to analyse. I believe they include manufacturing process/QC in their emergency approval application - so not so much about the manufacturing timeline more about manufacturing sites and how batches get certified. Not usually an issue for emergency use applicants (who carry on making trial size batches) but the scale of this is very different to normal.
It’s not unusual for a MAA to be submitted to different authorities on different dates but that’s not because the company decides to prioritise one over another. It tends to be because the content of the submissions vary and some elements can be generated quicker than others. For example, some regulators insist on a cut of data with a minimum number of subjects from their region. Or expert reports from local experts. And all the added complexity takes time.

Apart from anything else, it makes no financial sense for a company to prioritise the UK application over the EU (which is a bigger market) if there was ever any option to do the opposite.

None of which is to say that I think the MHRA cut corners. They have a good reputation and are as rigorous as any of the others. But it does seem as though the UK submission must have been a little less complex than what was required by the FDA/EMEA. And that may well turn out to have been a more sensible approach. Time is of the essence here, after all.
 
Last edited:

Wolverine

Full Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,066
Location
Leicester
I haven't had it in the UK but here in Australia every vaccination is meant to be followed by a 25 minute observation period. I've had this at the GP, a workplace flu clinic and at the Chemists this year.

It is primarily monitoring for anaphalaxis I think.
In the UK its just no driving for 15 minutes post-jab for the flu. Mainly though we just ask if there is a severe allergy to eggs. With the covid vaccine I think there will be a 15 minute clinical observation period post-jab which makes thinks trickier as part of the flu vaccine in primary care here is the quick in-and-out system, we've not got that much trained staff in the UK for primary care vaccine programmes.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
16,726
Thanks , Oxford sounds the best if it prevents transmission too, it would be good to know you can`t infect someone elderly.
AFAIK, they are the only ones who did PCR-testing of their subjects rather than relying on reports of symptoms from them.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,523
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
In the UK its just no driving for 15 minutes post-jab for the flu. Mainly though we just ask if there is a severe allergy to eggs. With the covid vaccine I think there will be a 15 minute clinical observation period post-jab which makes thinks trickier as part of the flu vaccine in primary care here is the quick in-and-out system, we've not got that much trained staff in the UK for primary care vaccine programmes.
We are just asked to sit in the waiting-room for 15 mins in case we keel over. Or if you get it at the chemist hang around at the counter for 15 mins if you lose the fight for the only chair.

Note: 25 mins was a typo - 15 mins it should have read.
 

pocco

loco
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
15,972
Location
Keep a clean shit tomorrow, United is my final bus
Is it strange that there is 5 or 6 different versions of a vaccine for Covid? As in, is this the case for other vaccines/illnesses too?

It just goes to show how much money rules pharmaceutical companies because, given this is a worldwide pandemic, you'd have thought the right thing to do is they all just develop the best version I as many quantities as possible and all charge the same for the vaccine, perhaps giving the creator a cut for allowing them to produce their vaccine.

With their being a few versions, the chance of one having less succes or potential long term effects, why not just have all the companies mass producing the safest one? Or has that not been established? An example of this is the Pfizer vaccine that seems hard to store st the right temperature in certain settings. Why not just develop the vaccines that are going to be easier to distribute? Surely this all comes down to greed.

Can it even be proven if any have long term effects on people?
 

manc exile

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
805
I read somewhere that it’s because of Brexit. Since you are, soon to be, all on your own, you don’t have to wait for the EU to make decisions for you. Even Norway, who isn’t part of the EU have to wait for an EU vaccine-approval because of the EEA.

you read wrong
there is provision within the EU for individual countries to approve medicines individually in times of crisis.
MHRA would have been free to approve the pfizer vaccine had we still been in the EU
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,875
Location
Munich
Is it strange that there is 5 or 6 different versions of a vaccine for Covid? As in, is this the case for other vaccines/illnesses too?

It just goes to show how much money rules pharmaceutical companies because, given this is a worldwide pandemic, you'd have thought the right thing to do is they all just develop the best version I as many quantities as possible and all charge the same for the vaccine, perhaps giving the creator a cut for allowing them to produce their vaccine.

With their being a few versions, the chance of one having less succes or potential long term effects, why not just have all the companies mass producing the safest one? Or has that not been established? An example of this is the Pfizer vaccine that seems hard to store st the right temperature in certain settings. Why not just develop the vaccines that are going to be easier to distribute? Surely this all comes down to greed.

Can it even be proven if any have long term effects on people?
How can anyone know what is going to be the best version of a vaccine for some quite unknown disease?

These aren’t only different vaccines, these are also very different technologies. Moderna and Pfizer are using RNA technology, Oxford is using some chimpanzee modified virus I believe, while some company in China is using deactivated covid virus. Very different approaches, all with pros and cons, developed in companies who have different expertise.

The only way to develop the best possible vaccine is to develop many of them, and to test them finding their strengths and weaknesses, and gradually improving the best ones.
 

Adamsk7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
1,335
The thing is, its about risk assessment. Yes there COULD be some side effects of the vaccine but there’s been a large enough test group to show that’s very unlikely. However, should you not have the vaccine, there’s definitely evidence to suggest you might die of Covid. Covid is the threat currently and the vaccine is the prevention. Not taking the prevention because you think, yet have zero evidence, that it’s the threat is baffling to me.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
22,854
I read somewhere that it’s because of Brexit. Since you are, soon to be, all on your own, you don’t have to wait for the EU to make decisions for you. Even Norway, who isn’t part of the EU have to wait for an EU vaccine-approval because of the EEA.
 

matherto

ask me about our 50% off sale!
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
15,150
Location
St. Helens
Genuinely just good news and I can’t believe that there might be something resembling normality coming soon if all goes well. Little bit emotional at the prospect.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,523
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
Not actually true

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ine-must-not-become-a-chest-thumping-exercise

But No 10 backtracked on the Brexit rhetoric fairly swiftly. The chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare Products regulatory Authority (MHRA), June Raine, pointed out that they had enacted the approval under European rules, which remain in place for Britain until 31 December. There is a provision allowing any country to opt out of the EMA and deliver its own temporary authorisation for a new vaccine or drug if it is badly needed.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
48,906
Is it strange that there is 5 or 6 different versions of a vaccine for Covid? As in, is this the case for other vaccines/illnesses too?

It just goes to show how much money rules pharmaceutical companies because, given this is a worldwide pandemic, you'd have thought the right thing to do is they all just develop the best version I as many quantities as possible and all charge the same for the vaccine, perhaps giving the creator a cut for allowing them to produce their vaccine.

With their being a few versions, the chance of one having less succes or potential long term effects, why not just have all the companies mass producing the safest one? Or has that not been established? An example of this is the Pfizer vaccine that seems hard to store st the right temperature in certain settings. Why not just develop the vaccines that are going to be easier to distribute? Surely this all comes down to greed.

Can it even be proven if any have long term effects on people?
It's not strange to have more than one version of a vaccine but it is strange to have so many. Part of the reason we have so many is there was a big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but mostly it's because it's a novel virus that needed to be responded to in rapid time. There was no reason to believe that Novavax would work any better than AstraZeneca's vaccine before anyone started the trials, and by the time we had results from human trials there were already over a hundred vaccine candidates in the pipeline.

Right now there's 41 vaccines in phase 1, 17 in phase 2, 13 in phase 3 and 7 in the same stage as Pfizer. There will be a question for some the vaccines in phase 1 whether it's worth moving ahead with the more expensive human trials, now that we know highly effective vaccines arlready exist. All 30 of the companies that are currently in phase 2 and 3 currently didn't know that and until the results were collected and published, there was no reason to believe anyone else's vaccine was better than theirs.

So then it gets onto the question of what does it mean to be better? The main thing they're being judged upon is their efficacy in preventing severe symptoms. That's what the regulators instructed them to focus on and that's what the headline figures have been reporting. We know Pfizer and Moderna are really good at that, Astra Zeneca are also good but it's not clear how good just yet.

Next they're being judged upon their ability to prevent all symptoms, and ideally prevent infection. All companies have tested people if they report symptoms, so we should capture the majority of that first part, but few companies (Astra Zeneca being one) have tested people irrespective of symptoms. Doing regular PCR tests is resource-intensive and as it wasn't required by the regulators to secure approval, most companies have went with the approach of testing for antibodies a few months down the line to check how much it prevents infection.

Somewhere in between those two aspects is the most important remaining practical question: how much does it prevent transmission of the virus? If you aren't infected you can't transmit it, but even if you are infected it is known that some people are less infectious than others. Generally it's thought that asymptomatic transmission is lower than symptomatic transmission, so if these vaccines are highly effective at limiting the symptoms then they will limit transmission. But I don't think anyone has reported any figures on that. Just vague, generally positive statements.

Then the final medical assessment is about its safety profile. What side effects do they have, do they particularly effect some groups more than others, etc. Then you move onto practical considerations like: how much does it cost, how easily is it manufactured, what is the current production capacity, what are the storage and distribution requirements, how many doses are required.

In some senses we know more about those practical considerations than the medical ones. Even after huge trials we still don't know which is the "best" vaccine because it depends on how much weight you apply to each of those medical factors, and because we don't have data for some of those medical factors. That's mostly due to the pace of development but generally it's completely normal to have multiple treatments for a particular disease. If you want to avoid getting malaria for example, you're given a few choices and advised on how effective they are, how suitable they are for someone with your demographic and medical profile, what side effects come with them and how much they cost. You can get the doctor to recommend one but ultimately you can choose one of them.

All of that isn't because pharma companies are greedy but because developing medicine is hard. It's very rare you find something that not only prevents disease but prevents infection, comes with no notable side effects, is equally safe for all people, is easily and cheaply manufactured and stored, and can be done in a single dose.

Vaccines are the best method we've ever invented that do fit most of those medical criteria: they're much safer than most medical treatments, and they're much more effective. Primarily that's because they're forced to go through these massive trials to ensure both of those things. However many vaccines that we develop don't do so well on the practical side of things, at least on the first iteration. They can be hard to manufacture, difficult to transport and store, or impossible to do in just one dose. Which is why even for diseases that we have highly effective vaccines for, decade after decade some companies try to develop new ones that are more practical, while some aim for fewer side effects or increased efficacy.

That's the stage that Novavax and others are at right now. Just because one exists already that does exceptionally well on at least one of those dimensions doesn't mean that it will be better than theirs on all dimensions, and on at least one dimension Novavax is theoretically better: it is adminstered as a single dose. Other vaccines coming down the pipeline might be far better at reducing transmission than any of the current ones. Some existing manufacturing plants are able to create some kinds of vaccines and not others, so even if we re-focused all of our efforts on just Pfizer, we wouldn't be using the maximum production capacity overall and the growth in Pfizer production wouldn't balance that out. Lots of other reasons too.

So essentially no, it's not all driven by greed. They've worked exceptionally quickly and effectively so far and criticising them for how they've gone about things is a bit unfair at this point. Profit motivated them to develop the vaccines but there are many legitimate reasons to continue developing the vaccines.
 

Wolverine

Full Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,066
Location
Leicester
There are different vaccines sure but most of them work through the basic principle of using the spike S protein of the virus as the immunogen.
So surely they're more similar than people think, just different ways of accomplishing it.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
6,353
It's not strange to have more than one version of a vaccine but it is strange to have so many. Part of the reason we have so many is there was a big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but mostly it's because it's a novel virus that needed to be responded to in rapid time. There was no reason to believe that Novavax would work any better than AstraZeneca's vaccine before anyone started the trials, and by the time we had results from human trials there were already over a hundred vaccine candidates in the pipeline.

Right now there's 41 vaccines in phase 1, 17 in phase 2, 13 in phase 3 and 7 in the same stage as Pfizer. There will be a question for some the vaccines in phase 1 whether it's worth moving ahead with the more expensive human trials, now that we know highly effective vaccines arlready exist. All 30 of the companies that are currently in phase 2 and 3 currently didn't know that and until the results were collected and published, there was no reason to believe anyone else's vaccine was better than theirs.

So then it gets onto the question of what does it mean to be better? The main thing they're being judged upon is their efficacy in preventing severe symptoms. That's what the regulators instructed them to focus on and that's what the headline figures have been reporting. We know Pfizer and Moderna are really good at that, Astra Zeneca are also good but it's not clear how good just yet.

Next they're being judged upon their ability to prevent all symptoms, and ideally prevent infection. All companies have tested people if they report symptoms, so we should capture the majority of that first part, but few companies (Astra Zeneca being one) have tested people irrespective of symptoms. Doing regular PCR tests is resource-intensive and as it wasn't required by the regulators to secure approval, most companies have went with the approach of testing for antibodies a few months down the line to check how much it prevents infection.

Somewhere in between those two aspects is the most important remaining practical question: how much does it prevent transmission of the virus? If you aren't infected you can't transmit it, but even if you are infected it is known that some people are less infectious than others. Generally it's thought that asymptomatic transmission is lower than symptomatic transmission, so if these vaccines are highly effective at limiting the symptoms then they will limit transmission. But I don't think anyone has reported any figures on that. Just vague, generally positive statements.

Then the final medical assessment is about its safety profile. What side effects do they have, do they particularly effect some groups more than others, etc. Then you move onto practical considerations like: how much does it cost, how easily is it manufactured, what is the current production capacity, what are the storage and distribution requirements, how many doses are required.

In some senses we know more about those practical considerations than the medical ones. Even after huge trials we still don't know which is the "best" vaccine because it depends on how much weight you apply to each of those medical factors, and because we don't have data for some of those medical factors. That's mostly due to the pace of development but generally it's completely normal to have multiple treatments for a particular disease. If you want to avoid getting malaria for example, you're given a few choices and advised on how effective they are, how suitable they are for someone with your demographic and medical profile, what side effects come with them and how much they cost. You can get the doctor to recommend one but ultimately you can choose one of them.

All of that isn't because pharma companies are greedy but because developing medicine is hard. It's very rare you find something that not only prevents disease but prevents infection, comes with no notable side effects, is equally safe for all people, is easily and cheaply manufactured and stored, and can be done in a single dose.

Vaccines are the best method we've ever invented that do fit most of those medical criteria: they're much safer than most medical treatments, and they're much more effective. Primarily that's because they're forced to go through these massive trials to ensure both of those things. However many vaccines that we develop don't do so well on the practical side of things, at least on the first iteration. They can be hard to manufacture, difficult to transport and store, or impossible to do in just one dose. Which is why even for diseases that we have highly effective vaccines for, decade after decade some companies try to develop new ones that are more practical, while some aim for fewer side effects or increased efficacy.

That's the stage that Novavax and others are at right now. Just because one exists already that does exceptionally well on at least one of those dimensions doesn't mean that it will be better than theirs on all dimensions, and on at least one dimension Novavax is theoretically better: it is adminstered as a single dose. Other vaccines coming down the pipeline might be far better at reducing transmission than any of the current ones. Some existing manufacturing plants are able to create some kinds of vaccines and not others, so even if we re-focused all of our efforts on just Pfizer, we wouldn't be using the maximum production capacity overall and the growth in Pfizer production wouldn't balance that out. Lots of other reasons too.

So essentially no, it's not all driven by greed. They've worked exceptionally quickly and effectively so far and criticising them for how they've gone about things is a bit unfair at this point. Profit motivated them to develop the vaccines but there are many legitimate reasons to continue developing the vaccines.
Thanks for the informative post, saves people like me, as you put it so nicely earlier asking questions bringing it out the caf comedians who already know everything
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
105,521
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
There are different vaccines sure but most of them work through the basic principle of using the spike S protein of the virus as the immunogen.
So surely they're more similar than people think, just different ways of accomplishing it.
Yet very different in many ways too. Which means we’re going to see variable efficacy, side effects and issues around storage and distribution. Not to mention at least a few of them that will end up simply not being good enough. So, obviously, deciding to put all our eggs in one basket, a few months ago, would have been absolute lunacy.

Having said all that, we could end up with one vaccine that is head and shoulders better than all the others that becomes first choice all over the world. That was never going to happen this quickly though.
 

djembatheking

Full Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,121
If a vaccine was given to NHS workers and carers that stops you becoming really ill from the virus but you can still become infected and transmit , even to a much lesser degree than being unvaccinated then surely masks , ppe, social distancing and other measures would have to remain in place . Whereas if a vaccine is developed that prevents transmission as well as preventing serious illness we will see the end of such measures.
 

jojojo

JoJoJoJoJoJo
Staff
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
32,700
Location
Welcome to Manchester reception committee
That's the stage that Novavax and others are at right now. Just because one exists already that does exceptionally well on at least one of those dimensions doesn't mean that it will be better than theirs on all dimensions, and on at least one dimension Novavax is theoretically better: it is adminstered as a single dose
Just to correct the detail there. Novavax is a two dose 3-weeks-apart vaccine. I think the only single shot vaccine in Phase 3 is the Johnson and Johnson.

Novavax currently has excellent Phase 1/2 data - better than the mRNA vaccines at producing antibodies. It also has the best animal "challenge test" data, with a test in macaque monkeys that showed it blocked transmission as well as disease. It's a fridge stored vaccine.

Phase 3 is underway, but until it reports no one will know how good it is. Anecdotally, the people running Phase 3 in the UK are pleased with how few side-effects and issues they're seeing, despite it including lots of 60+ and people on other medications. If it works, they may be able to convert it into a combined flu/covid jab - and they're trialling it in some people, with both being given in the same session at the moment.
 
Last edited:

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
105,521
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
If a vaccine was given to NHS workers and carers that stops you becoming really ill from the virus but you can still become infected and transmit , even to a much lesser degree than being unvaccinated then surely masks , ppe, social distancing and other measures would have to remain in place . Whereas if a vaccine is developed that prevents transmission as well as preventing serious illness we will see the end of such measures.
Absolutely. The only time a vaccine can cause us to change our behaviour will be after the elderly have been vaccinated. Assuming the vaccine is as effective as hoped, that could bring the overall mortality down to a level that is not far off flu. Which would kick off some very interesting public health discussions.