- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
Is it tinfoil to really want some government that isn't ours to approve this vaccine before you'd consider getting it?
I would say a bit, the decision was made by the MHRA and nothing to do with Boris and co. Other countries are likely to approve in next couple of weeks though.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2020 10:04
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2024 08:36
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
It can't be fully safe since it hasn't been tested long enough and it's being distributed to us by one of the most incompetent and corrupt regimes in the world.
Bit harsh on Belgium.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2020 11:48
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
So Helen pidd was right, ordinary people dont care about human rights, only pork products.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 11:45
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
He's just really bad at this. He looks so uncomfortable.
Even just taking his first reponse about what Les Ferdinand said. All he needs to say is "Yes we need more than just gestures, that is why a Labour government would do policy X, to start to solve this problem".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2020 14:16
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
But all the testing was done based on 28 days later. Why are we going for the strategy Blair was talking about? Is there any data for 12 weeks between doses?
In the phase 3 trial not everyone got the second dose 28 days after, there were some people with longer gap.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2020 10:01
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
Some more on the decision to have a longer wait between first and second dose of the vaccine:
Derek Lowe posted:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/30/vaccine-roundup-late-december
Oxford/AstraZeneca: As the world knows, this adenovirus vector vaccine has been a messy one. I think that both partners need to take responsibility for some real mistakes in the trial execution and further mistakes in their announcements since the data became available. But I haven’t seen any sign of that (although I would be even happier than usual to be corrected on that point).
Last night, the UK authorities approved this vaccine for distribution there. Of special interest is the intent to give as many people as possible a first shot, without holding back supplies for the second round. I think that this is simultaneously the correct decision for them to make and also very bad news. It appears that the coronavirus variant first reported there is indeed more contagious: Trevor Bedford is convinced, and we have early data that would seem to only make sense if the R for this form is indeed higher. One mechanism for that may be higher viral load developing in patients more quickly, making them presumably more infectious (via shedding more viral particles). That said, it also appears (so far) that the course of disease with this variant is not actually worse than the other strains, but it’s not any better, either. And with higher transmission, that’s bad enough. (Note that the WHO believes that the South Africa variant is spreading quickly as well).
That situation in the UK appears to be one of the biggest factors driving the approval and rollout, and I see their point: this vaccine is indeed better than nothing, one shot for more people is likely to be better than two-shots-for-some, and it looks like they’re going to need all the help they can get. But “better than nothing” is a rough place to be. So what do we know about the efficacy of a single shot of the Oxford/AZ vaccine, and about the effect of waiting for a second one?
All I can say is that attempts to answer those questions land you immediately in a confusing mess. It’s a mess made worse by AstraZeneca, whose CEO has made statements about the vaccine’s efficacy that are not (so far) backed up by actual numbers. If you’d like me to name a major drug company that’s going to come out of this pandemic looking worse, it’s them. Anyway, as you’ll recall, initially there was a hint that a lower first dose followed by a standard second dose might be more protective overall (although I don’t think the evidence for that is very strong at all, considering the statistical spread in the data). But now there’s a report that increased efficacy might be driven by an even longer wait between the two doses. I don’t find that evidence very compelling, either (we’re getting into some pretty small subgroups by this point, and that is always a dangerous area to draw conclusions from). And if you’re going to leave people walking around with a half dose at first, or a full dose but with a longer wait for the second one, it makes the question above even more crucial: how protective is one dose?
We do not know. We don’t know for this vaccine, nor for the Pfizer/BioNTech one, nor for Moderna’s. No studies have been designed to find that out, so all we can do is guess based on what we’ve seen with the interval between doses in the two-dose studies. That’s been encouraging with the two mRNA vaccines, but remember: we don’t know how they are over a longer period, because no one was left without a second dose for that long. It’s certainly possible that without the second booster that the protection seen after one shot starts to wane. We do not know. And we know even less about the Oxford/AZ vaccine’s behavior under these conditions. Giving as many people in the UK as possible a single dose of that vaccine with a longer wait until the booster is a gamble, and you wouldn’t want to do it that way if the alternatives weren’t even worse. It’s the right move, unfortunately, and it’s a damned shame it’s come to this.
The US trial of this vaccine was paused for weeks, of course, while adverse events were investigated. It’s basically fully enrolled now, and the data will include many more elderly patients than have been investigated to date. I would assume that our current terrible infection rates will allow this trial to move along rather quickly, but I have no estimate of when we might see it report.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2020 17:44
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2024 08:36
|
|
- ANYTHING YOU SOW
- Nov 7, 2009
-
|
I can't actually listen to these dickheads anymore. I mean the scientists and experts. They are at best weak willed and unable to convince the people that matter and at worse actively stupid. Every crisis point, such as this, has just as many 'experts' argueing the exact opposite. Which means half of them are lying or wrong. There's been no consensus on anything. It's all hosed.
I don't think you can blame the scientists for the existence of uncertainty. Uncertainty is fact of life, especially with a virus that has only existed for a year.
I think there is often a problem with how this is communicated to the public by the media and by politicians ( or drug company CEOs as he says in that article).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2020 18:42
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2020 10:04
