The vaccine

[Arborbridge]

Somewhere along the line there were hints that the vaccine (I forget which one) had actually caused infection in some cases but again that might be people jumping to the wrong conclusions. Let's hope so or we really are in the proverbial.

There is zero chance of "getting Covid" from any of the vaccines developed, as none of them is "Covid". They only contain the ability to produce the "spike" that the antibodies need to learn about to recognise Covid, not Covid itself.

If anybody tells you that there is a risk of infection from the vaccine, please please respond very, very firmly in the negative. It's fake news like this that dissuades people from getting jabbed.

VRD

I know how this type of story arises. I believe it has happened that someone with Covid has been vaccinated, or is infected with Covid a day after being vaccinated when immunity hasn't kicked in. Then of course, it looks as though the vaccine has caused it, or that the vaccine is not effective.
Later, an investigation shows its all nonsense and the medics bring forth an analysis and explanation, but by then the fake news is all over the internet. However, the way these things work is that the fake news is picked up and runs like wildfire, whereas the real truth of what happened is a late starter and was largely ignored.

My old boss used to say, when there was a bad rumour the grapevine worked efficiently: but for good news it never did.

Arb.

[onthemove]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/21/costs-rising-exponentially-europes-disinformation-war-vaccine/

Unsurprisingly the EU's bizarre attitude towards the Oxford AZ vaccine is leading not only to fewer people being prepared to accept it, but those who have had a OxAZ jab are imagining side effects.

That is probably what has been happening with AstraZeneca in Germany where fake news has run rampant, to the point of mass hysteria. Braunschweig’s Herzogin-Elisabeth hospital reported that 37 out of 88 staff reported sick the day after receiving the jab. The same happened to a quarter of 300 ambulance workers in Dortmund.

I've seen similar stories about hospital workers ringing in sick after getting vaccinated, but mass hysteria wasn't the first thing that sprung to mind.

The first thing that sprung to mind is that this is a case of a precautionary policy of care workers, hospital workers, etc, being told to immediately self isolate if they experience any of the symptoms of covid 19.

And unfortunately some of the side effects of the vaccines are the same as those of mild covid, and until the person has a test to confirm it isn't a coincidental case of covid around the time of vaccination, such a policy does make sense.

Doesn't stop the tabloid press trying to make something more out of it though.

[Bouleversee]

Somewhere along the line there were hints that the vaccine (I forget which one) had actually caused infection in some cases but again that might be people jumping to the wrong conclusions. Let's hope so or we really are in the proverbial.

There is zero chance of "getting Covid" from any of the vaccines developed, as none of them is "Covid". They only contain the ability to produce the "spike" that the antibodies need to learn about to recognise Covid, not Covid itself.

If anybody tells you that there is a risk of infection from the vaccine, please please respond very, very firmly in the negative. It's fake news like this that dissuades people from getting jabbed.

VRD

That's what I thought when I read it. Far more likely they had contracted it just before the vaccine or before it had had time to do the necessary. More worrying was an article in The Times yesterday which referred to boosters required to cope with viral evolution: "We may even need several, grouped in a "quadrivalent" vaccine, like the one for flu. This is when the viral vector approach, even if it does provide durable immunity, hits a problem. What if as well as gaining antibodies against the coronavirus, your body learns to fight the vaccine? If we move to annual boosters then anti-vector immunity may eventually build up to the point when it compromises immunity" (Eleanor Riley, prof. of immunology at the University of Edinburgh). Hopefully, they will have thought of a way to be one step ahead of the virus before that happens. Another Prof. suggests that the choice of vaccine may have to be tailored to the individual, depending on age and immune system, which sounds like a good idea if achievable in due course. A lot to challenge the scientists with.

[onthemove]

Somewhere along the line there were hints that the vaccine (I forget which one) had actually caused infection in some cases but again that might be people jumping to the wrong conclusions. Let's hope so or we really are in the proverbial.

There is zero chance of "getting Covid" from any of the vaccines developed, as none of them is "Covid". They only contain the ability to produce the "spike" that the antibodies need to learn about to recognise Covid, not Covid itself.

If anybody tells you that there is a risk of infection from the vaccine, please please respond very, very firmly in the negative. It's fake news like this that dissuades people from getting jabbed.

VRD

That's what I thought when I read it. Far more likely they had contracted it just before the vaccine or before it had had time to do the necessary. More worrying was an article in The Times yesterday which referred to boosters required to cope with viral evolution: "We may even need several, grouped in a "quadrivalent" vaccine, like the one for flu. This is when the viral vector approach, even if it does provide durable immunity, hits a problem. What if as well as gaining antibodies against the coronavirus, your body learns to fight the vaccine? If we move to annual boosters then anti-vector immunity may eventually build up to the point when it compromises immunity" (Eleanor Riley, prof. of immunology at the University of Edinburgh). Hopefully, they will have thought of a way to be one step ahead of the virus before that happens. Another Prof. suggests that the choice of vaccine may have to be tailored to the individual, depending on age and immune system, which sounds like a good idea if achievable in due course. A lot to challenge the scientists with.

To be honest, I suspect (based on papers that I've read) that probably the best outcome of the vaccines would actually be if they *don't* stop transmission completely.

I'm not going to go searching for the link again (I posted it earlier today in the one thread or another), but research suggests that immunity gained from actual infection with covid actually develops quite broad antibodies that keep developing over a couple of months, that can even combat other strains.

I've also seen one paper (sorry too late to search for the link now) that suggested the bad outcomes from covid are probably only coming about because it's new. That if the common cold had appeared brand new today, we'd probably be in the same position.

That modelling predicted that once we've gained some initial tolerance, that covid quite likely will just become potentially like the common cold. The suggestion was that ordinarily such tolerance would build up from catching the disease in childhood, to protect when older (the immune system is known to work differently in childhood, and we know children don't seem to be greatly affected by covid infection)

But since it is a new disease, those of us who've already missed that childhood window of opportunity, that's where the vaccines come in.

All the vaccines do seem to protect against the worst effects pretty well. So if people can still catch other variants, but the outcome is mild thanks to the vaccines from the original variants, then in essence the virus will start to act like it's own vaccine (if you see what I mean).

I mean, once you're protected from the worst, there might not then necessarily need to be a race to get vaccines out for every new variant that arise. Or even (hopefully) any new variant.

I think there are good ground to think that perhaps with just a couple of different vaccines each, and perhaps one or two cases of mild disease, moderated by having had the vaccine, quite possibly could confer a reasonably broad level of protection from the worst effects of quite a range of covid variants.

Obviously, this is speculation. But speculation based on some of the emerging evidence and modelling that is being reported.

There was some discussion and worry a bit ago about being given a different vaccine for the first and second dose. To be honest, the more I'm learning and seeing from the research, the more I'm thinking that might now be the option I'd prefer.

[Julian]

Somewhere along the line there were hints that the vaccine (I forget which one) had actually caused infection in some cases but again that might be people jumping to the wrong conclusions. Let's hope so or we really are in the proverbial.

There is zero chance of "getting Covid" from any of the vaccines developed, as none of them is "Covid". They only contain the ability to produce the "spike" that the antibodies need to learn about to recognise Covid, not Covid itself.

If anybody tells you that there is a risk of infection from the vaccine, please please respond very, very firmly in the negative. It's fake news like this that dissuades people from getting jabbed.

VRD

That's what I thought when I read it. Far more likely they had contracted it just before the vaccine or before it had had time to do the necessary. More worrying was an article in The Times yesterday which referred to boosters required to cope with viral evolution: "We may even need several, grouped in a "quadrivalent" vaccine, like the one for flu. This is when the viral vector approach, even if it does provide durable immunity, hits a problem. What if as well as gaining antibodies against the coronavirus, your body learns to fight the vaccine? If we move to annual boosters then anti-vector immunity may eventually build up to the point when it compromises immunity" (Eleanor Riley, prof. of immunology at the University of Edinburgh). Hopefully, they will have thought of a way to be one step ahead of the virus before that happens. Another Prof. suggests that the choice of vaccine may have to be tailored to the individual, depending on age and immune system, which sounds like a good idea if achievable in due course. A lot to challenge the scientists with.

Yes, developing antibodies against the viral vector is a concern that I have heard mentioned. I would love to hear some expert get quizzed on that. That’s one frustration in all of this for me, all these very weighty experts appearing on my TV screen every night but I’m at the mercy of the interviewers in regards whether they ask any of those experts the questions I really want answered, or at least some expert’s opinion or even hunch if there are no clear answers on certain topics yet.

I do note that Imperial College is working on RNA vaccines (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213313/ ... mutations/ ) and I read somewhere fairly recently that the U.K. had also commissioned some other company to deliver RNA vaccine technology but googling for U.K. RNA vaccine at the moment just throws up a gazillion hits on stuff about the Pfizer vaccine so I can’t provide a link on that other partnership that I read about. There is also work being done in quite a few places (that Imperial College team being one) on making the transport and storage requirements for RNA vaccines less demanding than they are with the current Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

With what appears to be spectacular efficacy for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines plus the ability to adapt RNA vaccines more quickly than alternative technologies, simpler manufacturing (as I understand it), and no issues of immunity to a viral vector emerging, plus all the research to make them more stable for transport and storage and no doubt rapidly increasing experience for building the processes to manufacture at scale, I wonder whether by 2023 or maybe even by the end of 2022 pretty much all SARS-CoV2 and Flu vaccines will be based on mRNA technology so your and my concerns might only be fleeting ones.

- Julian

[Itsallaguess]

Some further encouraging news this morning from the BBC -

Covid vaccines have had a significant impact on the risk of serious illness in Scotland, an analysis shows -

The work led by Public Health Scotland found by the fourth week after the first dose hospitalisations were reduced by 85% and 94% for the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs respectively.

It is the first sign of the real world impact of the Covid vaccination programme in the UK.

Figures for England are expected to be released later.

Among the over 80s, the combined figure was an 81% reduction.

The preliminary data from the EAVE II project covers 1.14 million vaccinations given between 8 December and 15 February.

Lead researcher Prof Aziz Sheikh said: "These results are very encouraging and have given us great reasons to be optimistic for the future."

"We now have national evidence - across an entire country - that vaccination provides protection against Covid-19 hospitalisations."

Public Health Scotland's national Covid incident director, Dr Jim McMenamin, said the results were "important as we move from expectation to firm evidence of benefit from vaccines.

"Across the Scottish population the results show a substantial effect on reducing the risk of admission to hospital from a single dose of vaccine."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56153600

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Bouleversee]

You left out this bit:

"Trials of both vaccines had suggested they would have a significant impact at preventing hospitalisations.

But for the Pfizer vaccine studies, that had involved a second dose being given after three weeks.

The UK has adopted a policy of delaying the second jab of both vaccines by three months, which had led some to question whether the approach would give sufficient immunity.

The trials of the AstraZeneca looked at a longer dosing interval so there was more confidence about that vaccine.

Dr Josie Murray, of Public Health Scotland, said the findings were "brilliant news" and suggested the vaccine programme was working.

Edit: My quote didn't go far enough first time.

[Mike4]

So it looks as though the early and really long term predictions about this pandemic seem likely to come to pass.

That the human population acquires a enough immunity to the disease to prevent the vast majority of people catching it dying or ending up in hospital, and it becomes 'just another illness' for us all to hope we don't get. And if we do get it, we take to out beds at home until we get better.

So eventually it might turn out to be "just like the 'flu" after all!

[Leif]

So it looks as though the early and really long term predictions about this pandemic seem likely to come to pass.

That the human population acquires a enough immunity to the disease to prevent the vast majority of people catching it dying or ending up in hospital, and it becomes 'just another illness' for us all to hope we don't get. And if we do get it, we take to out beds at home until we get better.

So eventually it might turn out to be "just like the 'flu" after all!

We get exposed to the four other common coronaviruses in childhood which creates a degree of lifelong immunity such that we only suffer mild cold symptoms in later life. The same will be true of covid 19, so there may no need for vaccinations in a generation or two. I suppose it is possible that the vaccine will have the same long term effect, so revaccinations are not needed. Time will tell.

Of course the bigger problem is future viruses. This is the second coronavirus from China this century, the first being SARS in 2004. We also had MERS from the Middle East in 2012.

I certainly hope Our Glorious Leader is planning for future pandemics so we don’t have another muck up.

[zico]

So it looks as though the early and really long term predictions about this pandemic seem likely to come to pass.

That the human population acquires a enough immunity to the disease to prevent the vast majority of people catching it dying or ending up in hospital, and it becomes 'just another illness' for us all to hope we don't get. And if we do get it, we take to out beds at home until we get better.

So eventually it might turn out to be "just like the 'flu" after all!

This was always going to happen, but the big issue was whether people just caught the virus and either lived or died, or whether scientists could develop vaccinations enabling us to either avoid catching the virus, or avoiding being seriously affected by it.

Important to remember that when people said "it's just like the 'flu" they were spreading misinformation, either accidentally or deliberately.

I'd like to see the actual Scottish report with the data on reducing serious illness - so far, it's just been reporters' summaries.

[Mike4]

oronavirus from China this century, the first being SARS in 2004. We also had MERS from the Middle East in 2012.

I certainly hope Our Glorious Leader is planning for future pandemics so we don’t have another muck up.

Our dear leaders started planning for this one too, in a pleasingly timely manner. It was called "Exercise Cygnus", but unfortunately I don't think the recommendations were acted upon as considered too expensive.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... id-it-find

[dealtn]

You left out this bit:

"Trials of both vaccines had suggested they would have a significant impact at preventing hospitalisations.

But for the Pfizer vaccine studies, that had involved a second dose being given after three weeks.

The UK has adopted a policy of delaying the second jab of both vaccines by three months, which had led some to question whether the approach would give sufficient immunity.

The trials of the AstraZeneca looked at a longer dosing interval so there was more confidence about that vaccine.

Dr Josie Murray, of Public Health Scotland, said the findings were "brilliant news" and suggested the vaccine programme was working.

Edit: My quote didn't go far enough first time.

So those that made the decision by looking at a wide remit of the science, and not just the science of the Pfizer trial, could feel confidence their (controversial) decision is beginning to look justified.

[servodude]

You left out this bit:

"Trials of both vaccines had suggested they would have a significant impact at preventing hospitalisations.

But for the Pfizer vaccine studies, that had involved a second dose being given after three weeks.

The UK has adopted a policy of delaying the second jab of both vaccines by three months, which had led some to question whether the approach would give sufficient immunity.

The trials of the AstraZeneca looked at a longer dosing interval so there was more confidence about that vaccine.

Dr Josie Murray, of Public Health Scotland, said the findings were "brilliant news" and suggested the vaccine programme was working.

Edit: My quote didn't go far enough first time.

So those that made the decision by looking at a wide remit of the science, and not just the science of the Pfizer trial, could feel confidence their (controversial) decision is beginning to look justified.

yeah it should be policy from now on to disregard the instructions of pharmaceutical manufacturers

interesting that the AZ cohort shows a noticeably better result in the figures than the Pfizer
- that's possibly down to sample sizes? ratio of Pfizer to AZ vaccinees?
- though as with most of the reporting of "this kind of stuff" what they've put in the text of the article leaves a lot of blanks as to how they've derived their headline figures

- sd

[Julian]

You left out this bit:

"Trials of both vaccines had suggested they would have a significant impact at preventing hospitalisations.

But for the Pfizer vaccine studies, that had involved a second dose being given after three weeks.

The UK has adopted a policy of delaying the second jab of both vaccines by three months, which had led some to question whether the approach would give sufficient immunity.

The trials of the AstraZeneca looked at a longer dosing interval so there was more confidence about that vaccine.

Dr Josie Murray, of Public Health Scotland, said the findings were "brilliant news" and suggested the vaccine programme was working.

Edit: My quote didn't go far enough first time.

So those that made the decision by looking at a wide remit of the science, and not just the science of the Pfizer trial, could feel confidence their (controversial) decision is beginning to look justified.

yeah it should be policy from now on to disregard the instructions of pharmaceutical manufacturers

interesting that the AZ cohort shows a noticeably better result in the figures than the Pfizer
- that's possibly down to sample sizes? ratio of Pfizer to AZ vaccinees?
- though as with most of the reporting of "this kind of stuff" what they've put in the text of the article leaves a lot of blanks as to how they've derived their headline figures

- sd

Well, regarding disregarding “instructions of pharmaceutical manufacturers”, in fairness off label prescribing isn’t exactly a new thing, there’s even at least one NHS leaflet explaining it to the general public - https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/patient-guide/le ... censed.pdf . Not to be taken lightly and by no means a preferred course I grant you but at the time the decision to extend dosing intervals was made the U.K. still seemed to be running headlong into an ever worsening hospitalisations and deaths crisis so the government did have a very serious situation on its hands.

On the trial results Chris Whitty was warning in the PM’s briefing today that study numbers might yet change and these results are being reported at the moment as not yet peer reviewed but I do note that in the phase 3 trials the AZ vaccine also showed better results than the Pfizer vaccine in terms of preventing hospitalisations. They were very low numbers of course so take that for what it’s worth (probably nothing) but in the phase 3 trials the AZ active treatment group got a clean sweep of zero hospitalisations vs the Pfizer active treatment having a non-zero although still extremely small number of hospitalisations (it might even have been as low as a single hospitalisation, or maybe only 2 or 3, I forget the exact number).

- Julian

[servodude]

So those that made the decision by looking at a wide remit of the science, and not just the science of the Pfizer trial, could feel confidence their (controversial) decision is beginning to look justified.

yeah it should be policy from now on to disregard the instructions of pharmaceutical manufacturers

interesting that the AZ cohort shows a noticeably better result in the figures than the Pfizer
- that's possibly down to sample sizes? ratio of Pfizer to AZ vaccinees?
- though as with most of the reporting of "this kind of stuff" what they've put in the text of the article leaves a lot of blanks as to how they've derived their headline figures

- sd

Well, regarding disregarding “instructions of pharmaceutical manufacturers”, in fairness off label prescribing isn’t exactly a new thing, there’s even at least one NHS leaflet explaining it to the general public - https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/patient-guide/le ... censed.pdf . Not to be taken lightly and by no means a preferred course I grant you but at the time the decision to extend dosing intervals was made the U.K. still seemed to be running headlong into an ever worsening hospitalisations and deaths crisis so the government did have a very serious situation on its hands.

Indeed

I do think there's a bit of a difference between using a drug to treat something is was not intended for, and using a drug to treat what it was intended for in a way that the manufacturer explicitly says you should not
It would have been better if Pfizer had been less outright in their critique of the plan, but I don't blame the JCVI for trying to do what they believed they needed to

On the trial results Chris Whitty was warning in the PM’s briefing today that study numbers might yet change and these results are being reported at the moment as not yet peer reviewed but I do note that in the phase 3 trials the AZ vaccine also showed better results than the Pfizer vaccine in terms of preventing hospitalisations. They were very low numbers of course so take that for what it’s worth (probably nothing) but in the phase 3 trials the AZ active treatment group got a clean sweep of zero hospitalisations vs the Pfizer active treatment having a non-zero although still extremely small number of hospitalisations (it might even have been as low as a single hospitalisation, or maybe only 2 or 3, I forget the exact number).

- Julian

Feels very much like everyone's taking part in the big ongoing phase 4 trials
I'm looking forward to more data coming in
- especially if things keep going the way they seem to be

- sd

[jfgw]

That Scottish study suggests that the vaccine efficiency peaks at 28 to 34 days for all age groups (table at the bottom),

https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/ ... eprint.pdf

Note that this relates only to the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing hospital admissions.

The report also notes,

"Individuals aged ≥80 years have been universally offered vaccination, whereas only those designated as clinically extremely vulnerable or at high occupation risk have been targeted for the receipt of a vaccine amongst the 18-65 year age group".


Julian F. G. W.

[dealtn]

That Scottish study suggests that the vaccine efficiency peaks at 28 to 34 days for all age groups (table at the bottom),

https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/ ... eprint.pdf

That "peaking" is interesting, and may have some relevance on when the appropriate time for the second dose actually turns out to be (although they are different things). The sample sizes are small, as would be expected, but there are also issues that might be influencing the figures for the sub-groups. Since there was a prioritisation process that determined who was vaccinated, and when, there could easily be other factors driving that small drop off post the 28-34 "peak". Those in the >42 day sub-group may be older, and have additional underlying conditions, to those in the 28-34 day sub-group (and indeed other sub-groups). The effect of such prioritising, even within age groups, should it exist, would need to be accounted for in addition.

No doubt there are additional studies taking place, but in general it appears the vaccine is making a significant difference, which is clearly good news.

[88V8]

The NHS is now looking through and beyond the current problems, and thinking how to tackle the ballooned waiting lists.
Eventually, the finger will be pointed at those who are refusing vaccination and consequently clogging up NHS capacity with unnecessary admissions.

Hopefully, 'vaccine passports' and the fear of being shut out of activities will help to apply social pressure.

V8

[Nimrod103]

That Scottish study suggests that the vaccine efficiency peaks at 28 to 34 days for all age groups (table at the bottom),

Julian F. G. W.

Does it peak? That suggests it subsequently went down, but the graph in https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -show.html, shows the blue green and purple trend lines for the different age groups still going up.

[Mike4]

That Scottish study suggests that the vaccine efficiency peaks at 28 to 34 days for all age groups (table at the bottom),

Julian F. G. W.

Does it peak? That suggests it subsequently went down, but the graph in https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -show.html, shows the blue green and purple trend lines for the different age groups still going up.

It's an interesting question, because I remember news reports of the phase 1 trials (or maybe the phase 2) saying efficacy of the vaccine performance was disappointing, waning rapidly, and they were experimenting with giving a second dose to see if that helped. Then later on, another slew of news reports saying vaccine performance was vastly improved with a 2nd dose given as a booster, and barring any safety issues revealed in phase 3 trials, the vaccine worked well and would be our saviour.

Does anyone else remember the newsflow going like this? Because of this I was very taken aback when the guvverment announced the dropping of the 2nd dose.