The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[Kasper]

There`s already some subtil nationalistic dogwhistling about the difference vaccines.
I mean, BioNTech and Moderna seem good, xG of 0.9 and 0.95, but do these injections work on a windy and rainy night in Stoke? I don`t think so. Vamos AstraZeneca

Never rated them anyway! Onto the next one!

 

[Tony Babangida]

But Why put it on their death cert, if they didn't die from Covid. When a friend of mine asked this question after her mother had died with another ailment. The answer she got was " We are only doing what we have been told".

There was a good post written on this in the covid thread.

So the way death certificates work is that it's split into:
Part 1 - A), B) C) - A seems to be the main thing that kills someone, and then B) and C) are the medical issues that likely lead to 1A.
Part 2 - Other co-morbidities that the patient had but may not have directly contributed to that person's death.

Now when it comes to this topic, the thing I read the most is that "the government" or "the NHS" just puts Cornavirus-19 down on the death certificate even if they never died from it.

I think a good example is today where, once again, I had another woman pass away today. She became COVID positive on the very start of the month, and unfortunately picked up a bacterial pneumonia on top - given her weakened immune system. After 4 days, she passed away today. When it'll come to me doing her death certificate tomorrow, there's scope to say that 1A would be the Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia, and then 1B would be Coronavirus-19. I could quite easily put Coronavirus-19 down as Part A because quite frankly, she was doing so poorly with it in the first place that it's likely she was going to pass away from it sadly. The bacterial infection just seemed to catalyse everything.

Whether I put it as 1A or 1B is actually moot - at the end of the day, from what I see clinically, COVID-19 has killed this lady unfortunately.
Whether I put it as 1A or 1B, I don't think it should raise any controversy whether the government uses it as a figure towards the number of deaths - because it 100% played the major part in the death of this lady.

Now I keep hearing that people put COVID-19 down even if they were asymptomatic with it, or that they had it and had mild symptoms but was hit by a falling seagull from the air so "we have to put COVID down on the death certificate".
Of course the example I've used is preposterous but my point stands.

I've had patients that are asymptomatic from COVID, but have died from a brain bleed - but I have not put down COVID at all down on the death certificate because they aren't linked at all.
I have also never put COVID down on a death certificate "because they've had it at some stage in the last 28 days" and died. I've had a couple of patients die of a bog-standard bacterial pneumonia but had COVID (asymptomatic) almost a month prior - but I have not put COVID down on the death certificate because all the other tests pointed at it being a bacterial cause or an aspiration cause rather than viral COVID pneumonitis.

Long, lengthy post so I do apologise but I just thought I'd share what they bang on about when it comes to death certificates. I didn't want to bring more common presentations because naturally some have lost members of family through non-COVID conditions during the last few months and I think people do forget that. Medicine has continued despite COVID and we still deaths that are fully unrelated to COVID.



Fine, I can't speak for all doctors/hospitals. That is 100% true and maybe I shouldn't put a blanket statement like I said. But I've worked in two hospitals during the COVID pandemic, and from my experience in both, COVID has only ever been put on the death certificate only if it's played a massive contribution towards the death - and the vast, vast, vast majority - COVID is 1A. I am working on the Respiratory COVID ward, so granted we get the sickest COVIDs in the hospital before they are deemed to require intubation in ITU - so naturally I am going to see more deaths that are full barn-door COVID. But I also help the more junior members of the team on the non-COVID Respiratory ward - and work on calls where I see a whole concoction of presentations who may die on admission. In my current hospital, there's guidance for us to say to only put down COVID if its played a role in their deaths. I can safely say that I'm part of the cohort in my hospital who have seen more COVID in the last few months than anyone else in the hospital - which unfortunately means I've done a fair few death certificates so I feel I can hold a fairly valid opinion on this whole death certificates debacle.

 

[Gambit]

The seasonal Flu vaccine is 60%

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Why is this 70% figure being bandied about? Surely it's either 62% or 90% effective depending on the regimen.

 

[Revan]

I'm talking mostly in relation to the companies that make them. Overall the more vaccines that work the better, but for AZ coming in at 70% whilst the two others so far are at 95% is not the best news. As you say longer term whoever can get these to market in the greatest numbers will be the winners but those efficacy numbers will still count for something as supply chains ramp up and options get converted to orders. If you've got 5 or 6 ready to ship at 95% efficacy nobody is going to order the 70% option. We're still a long way from those questions but as i say the market reflects that general sentiment this morning.

The UK has only 5m Moderna orders (they definitely dropped the ball on that one), and 40m Pfizer orders that won't arrive in big numbers until well into next year. If the Oxford vaccine were to fail it's approval the UK would be in a bit of trouble here.

I think a lot depends on how easier is to scale them. And from all accounts, Oxford's one is the easiest to produce and distribute. So, while a vaccine with 70% efficiency is a disappointment compared to those with 95%, if they can produce two or three vaccines for every vaccine the competitors can make, then it is a pretty damn good vaccine.

The morons who are 95% vaccine or boost, should realize that at the end of the day, none of the vaccines is gonna give anything close to a lifetime immunity. There will be the chance to get the 95% efficient one, and hopefully in a few years the 99.x% efficient one. Right now, the important thing is to vaccinate as many people as possible. If only as little as 70% get vaccinated, that means that half of the people become immune. Add to that kids (who seem to be spreading it less), and people who have had the virus already, and we are getting close to herd immunity.

 

[zing]

Why is this 70% figure being bandied about? Surely it's either 62% or 90% effective depending on the regimen.

I was wondering the same thing.. but then saw that the actual press release from U of Oxford on Twitter also says 70%..

Seems a bit strange to be advertising that.

 

[Kasper]

I`m actually surprised the Chinese haven`t developed a big one yet. No infrastructure? Would`ve expected them to go full out with the scientific capabilities they have.

I remember quite early in spring they had one with a very successfull phase 1 trial, anything happened to that?

 

[Tony Babangida]

Why is this 70% figure being bandied about? Surely it's either 62% or 90% effective depending on the regimen.

Seems that way to me too. How can you average both? Going forward people are surely going to get low dose then high. Although it sounds like maybe they don’t yet have the data to definitely say it’s 90% efficacious with that dosing regimen.

 

[Revan]

I`m actually surprised the Chinese haven`t developed a big one yet. No infrastructure? Would`ve expected them to go full out with the scientific capabilities they have.

I remember quite early in spring they had one with a very successfull phase 1 trial, anything happened to that?

I think that top Chinese scientists typically work outside (mostly in the US).

 

[jojojo]

Why is this 70% figure being bandied about? Surely it's either 62% or 90% effective depending on the regimen.

I don't think Astra Zeneca have sufficient numbers of cases yet to say whether that was a statistically valid thing or not. In a month's time they may know whether the half dose/full dose thing was significant or just a random coincidence.

Incidentally for all the vaccines we're really seeing their efficacy when they are in the first month or two of their action. The data for a particular vaccine may change - some may have a more long-lasting impact, some may have more effect on stopping transmission as well as disease.

 

[Mickeza]

This is potentially huge news. People only looking at the efficacy % are missing the point. We can’t get the Pfizer vaccine to care homes/in-reach or to GP surgeries. It can only be used at mass vaccination centres people can attend. The Oxford one can be used in those other places meaning we can vaccinate a heck of a lot quicker and to the most vulnerable. “Only” 70% is such a load of bollocks and typical of the media. From what I can see the 30% with symptoms were all mild too. It’s going to be hard enough convincing people to take it without the negative spin shite. Two weeks ago we’d have killed for a 70% effective cheap and scalable vaccine. It’s a big day if these results hold up to security.

 

[zing]

I don't think Astra Zeneca have sufficient numbers of cases yet to say whether that was a statistically valid thing or not. In a month's time they may know whether the half dose/full dose thing was significant or just a random coincidence.

Incidentally for all the vaccines we're really seeing their efficacy when they are in the first month or two of their action. The data for a particular vaccine may change - some may have a more long-lasting impact, some may have more effect on stopping transmission as well as disease.

Trying to find the numbers for the 90% efficacy.. not able to. Says 132 infections and 30% of them(3000) in the half dose regime.. does that mean the 40 infections(40% of 132) are from 3000 or does the 3000 include the placebo, and so it is 40 from 1500?

 

[Ekkie Thump]

sounds like maybe they don’t yet have the data to definitely say it’s 90% efficacious with that dosing regimen.

I don't think Astra Zeneca have sufficient numbers of cases yet to say whether that was a statistically valid thing or not. In a month's time they may know whether the half dose/full dose thing was significant or just a random coincidence.

Yeah, that most likely explains it. Lets hope it holds out!

 

[cyberman]

Any idea on its longevity?

 

[Buster15]

Oxford vaccine is only 70% effective
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635

This is a slightly misleading quote from the BBC. The preliminary results state a single dose is 70% effective. While a half dose followed by a full dose was 90% effective. So very similar to the others.

 

[Tony Babangida]

Any idea on its longevity?

Not yet. Two things we still don’t know; longevity and impact on transmission. Although they do mention a reduction in transmission in the Oxford press release, no data supporting this included though. We really need published results on all these trials. I expect we’ll get that before the end of the year, although may be too early to assess longevity.

 

[Buster15]

This is potentially huge news. People only looking at the efficacy % are missing the point. We can’t get the Pfizer vaccine to care homes/in-reach or to GP surgeries. It can only be used at mass vaccination centres people can attend. The Oxford one can be used in those other places meaning we can vaccinate a heck of a lot quicker and to the most vulnerable. “Only” 70% is such a load of bollocks and typical of the media. From what I can see the 30% with symptoms were all mild too. It’s going to be hard enough convincing people to take it without the negative spin shite. Two weeks ago we’d have killed for a 70% effective cheap and scalable vaccine. It’s a big day if these results hold up to security.

Good points.
And remember, the mRNA vaccines are unstable at room temperature and need to be stored at -70C.
However, the Oxford vaccine only needs to be stored at fridge temperature and so will be significantly easier to transport logistically.

 

[711]

If the Oxford vaccine was produced by a broadband provider it would be described as 'up to 90%'.

edit: bollocks, sky news has just said that, sorrry.

 

[Revan]

This is potentially huge news. People only looking at the efficacy % are missing the point. We can’t get the Pfizer vaccine to care homes/in-reach or to GP surgeries. It can only be used at mass vaccination centres people can attend. The Oxford one can be used in those other places meaning we can vaccinate a heck of a lot quicker and to the most vulnerable. “Only” 70% is such a load of bollocks and typical of the media. From what I can see the 30% with symptoms were all mild too. It’s going to be hard enough convincing people to take it without the negative spin shite. Two weeks ago we’d have killed for a 70% effective cheap and scalable vaccine. It’s a big day if these results hold up to security.

Exactly.

There are pros and cons of both types of vaccines, and ultimately both are needed.

 

[Bestietom]

A lot of people will not take the vaccine until it is proven for 1 year at least.

 

[Solius]

I was reading about mRNA this morning. Really interesting and explains how they accelerated the process. Means future vaccines could be developed just as quickly.

 

[africanspur]

It's great in the context of it's hopefully another large scale vaccine better suited for poorer countries. I'm not sure it's great when your two competitors come out with 95%+ though and AZ is one of the biggest losers on the stock market open this morning. It's a bit of a kick for the UK too who have put almost all their eggs in this basket.

The UK hasn't put all its eggs into one basket at all, they've pre-ordered literally hundreds of millions of vaccine doses from, I believe, 6 or 7 different candidates, encompassing all types of vaccine development. I don't foresee that any country is going to vaccinate all its population with just one type of vaccine anyway, especially in the short to medium term.

Was talking to a friend who works in biotech and he was slightly less bullish about some of the data, in particular the current lack of data about whether the vaccines actually stops infection totally (as opposed to stopping serious infections, which of course is still an amazing win) and subsequently, whether this actually would reduce community transmission from an asymptomatic carrier from their upper respiratory tract. Not quite as much of an issue in a situation where there's widespread vaccine uptake but that won't be the case immediately of course and also we have the issue with anti-vaxxers.

Also, this will sound silly but the pfizer vaccine is apparently quite painful ( I haven't seen the data yet). This might sound like a silly point (and for most of us on here, it would be) but with an increasingly vaccine skeptic population, 2 painful jabs a month apart...may mean that some people don't turn up for their 2nd jab.

We'll see. Perhaps long term, an intranasal vaccine or something may be the best but there's a lot of good news for the short term anyway.

 

[711]

A lot of people will not take the vaccine until it is proven for 1 year at least.

Not as many as you think now. When the daily news becomes 'Ken Bloggs died in your local hospital today, he was offered a vaccine but refused it' then minds will change.

 

[Bestietom]

Not as many as you think now. When the daily news becomes 'Ken Bloggs died in your local hospital today, he was offered a vaccine but refused it' then minds will change.

Maybe so, but a lot of people are a wee bit wary of the vaccine and are willing to take their chances until it is proven.

 

[711]

Maybe so, but a lot of people are a wee bit wary of the vaccine and are willing to take their chances until it is proven.

Then some of them will die unnecessarily. Their choice.

 

[Tony Babangida]

Yeah, that most likely explains it. Lets hope it holds out!

If this tweet is roughly correct shows why they need more data on the low/high dose regimen.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The devil will be in the detail for all these vaccines. Would you rather take a vaccine that has a 70% reduction in symptomatic cases but a 100% reduction in severe disease/hospitalisations or one with 95% and 60% efficacy respectively?

One thing’s for sure. Trying to understand all the important details about a new medicine based on the scanty information in a press release is a mug’s game.

Just repeating this before we get any more hung up on the 90% vs 70% headline efficacy stuff.

One thing’s for sure, this is all going to result in a hell of a lot of interesting/difficult conversations with patient who have been following all this closely in the press.

 

[Damien]

The Pfizer and Moderna ones are delivered in two doses as well, so having the low dose/high dose for the AstraZeneca vaccine resulting in 90% efficacy seems great, though looks like they need more data to be sure. Either way, like others have said, the AstraZeneca vaccine is able to be used much more widely as it doesn't need to be stored at much lower temperatures like the other two, and is 5-8x cheaper than those two vaccines as well.

 

[Bestietom]

Then some of them will die unnecessarily. Their choice.

Probably but only if they get Covid. They are willing to take their chance for another year, as they have escaped it so far.

 

[TheGodsInRed]

The other two vacancies are like nothing we have had before, so any long term side effects are somewhat unknown at this stage, this one however looks a safe bet. I think this one will be the key.

 

[711]

Probably but only if they get Covid. They are willing to take their chance for another year, as they have escaped it so far.

It's not a probably, it's a certainty.

 

[Bestietom]

It's not a probably, it's a certainty.

How do you reach that conclusion, when they have escaped so far. Do you know something that even Doctors and Scientists can't predict.

 

[jojojo]

If this tweet is roughly correct shows why they need more data on the low/high dose regimen.

Looking at the Astra report it looks like the half-dose/full-dose was trialled with around half of the vaccinated UK participants, and not at all with the Brazil trial group (where they stuck to the full/full pattern). So that's another reason to be cautious about how the stats play out.

 

[Suv666]

Probably but only if they get Covid. They are willing to take their chance for another year, as they have escaped it so far.

Feck them. More vaccines for people with thoughts in their heads rather than voices.

 

[711]

How do you reach that conclusion, when they have escaped so far. Do you know something that even Doctors and Scientists can't predict.

It is not certain that any particular individual that refuses vaccine will die, it is certain that many of them will.

Every single person that has died, 50,000+ in Britain alone, had 'escaped it so far' before they caught it. And, sadly, died.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Looking at the Astra report it looks like the half-dose/full-dose was trialled with around half of the vaccinated UK participants, and not at all with the Brazil trial group (where they stuck to the full/full pattern). So that's another reason to be cautious about how the stats play out.

Yeah, looks like at four active arms in UK study. Half->Full, Full->Half, Half->Half, Full->Full with the results declared from just one of them (the best one, presumably!) It was a Phase II/III trial, where they hadn’t yet decided on the best dose.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Worth mentioning that the Oxford vaccine uses a viral vector, so pre-existing immunity to the vector would reduce efficacy. Which might cause different efficacy in different regions.

 

[Bestietom]

It is not certain that any particular individual that refuses vaccine will die, it is certain that many of them will.

Every single person that has died, 50,000+ in Britain alone, had 'escaped it so far' before they caught it. And, sadly, died.

You can't prove that. There is NO Certainty to anything. Some people have never got Flu vaccine and many other vaccines, so how can you say that, when there is NO Proof.

 

[jojojo]

Also, this will sound silly but the pfizer vaccine is apparently quite painful ( I haven't seen the data yet). This might sound like a silly point (and for most of us on here, it would be) but with an increasingly vaccine skeptic population, 2 painful jabs a month apart...may mean that some people don't turn up for their 2nd jab.

To be honest, it's the second dose thing that bothers me most. As you say, some people will have side-effects, some people may just not have liked the whole going to the vaccine car park, or push through a sports centre thing, or the travel to get there. People will sometimes make decisions based on comfort factors - including some of the people most vulnerable to covid disease.

Add to that, people with English as a second language, people with disordered lives or who have mental health issues and people who travel for work/education/caregiver/family reasons or even (if things start to look more normal) for leisure. The logistics of getting second doses, particularly if there's a timing window to ensure efficacy, could get really difficult. Small percentages perhaps, but enough to keep things tricky even with ones who initially want/can tolerate the vaccine.

 

[11101]

The UK hasn't put all its eggs into one basket at all, they've pre-ordered literally hundreds of millions of vaccine doses from, I believe, 6 or 7 different candidates, encompassing all types of vaccine development. I don't foresee that any country is going to vaccinate all its population with just one type of vaccine anyway, especially in the short to medium term.

Was talking to a friend who works in biotech and he was slightly less bullish about some of the data, in particular the current lack of data about whether the vaccines actually stops infection totally (as opposed to stopping serious infections, which of course is still an amazing win) and subsequently, whether this actually would reduce community transmission from an asymptomatic carrier from their upper respiratory tract. Not quite as much of an issue in a situation where there's widespread vaccine uptake but that won't be the case immediately of course and also we have the issue with anti-vaxxers.

Also, this will sound silly but the pfizer vaccine is apparently quite painful ( I haven't seen the data yet). This might sound like a silly point (and for most of us on here, it would be) but with an increasingly vaccine skeptic population, 2 painful jabs a month apart...may mean that some people don't turn up for their 2nd jab.

We'll see. Perhaps long term, an intranasal vaccine or something may be the best but there's a lot of good news for the short term anyway.

Maybe all eggs in one basket is a bit strong, but in terms of order size and when the respective vaccines should be available to the UK:


Oxford - 100m - December/January
Pfizer - 40m - small number in December, then into 2021
Moderna - 5m - Spring 2021
Valneva - 60m - H2 2021
Novovax - 60m - mid 2021
Janssen - 60m - mid 2021
Sanofi - 60m - spring 2021

If for any reason the Oxford vaccine falls short you can see the UK might have a problem.