Vaccine- who will have it?

[wrighty]

15 minutes ago, BenFairfax said:

Do you have a reference for this claim? With 21 day's original advice was at least 21 days, idea of exactly 21 days was invented by Lord Ashford. JCVI who I am sure carefully went through all data they had is very clear on this. Professor Wei Shen Lim, COVID-19 Chair for JCVI, said: "For both vaccines, high-levels of protection are evident after the first dose of vaccine. JCVI advises priority should be given to the first dose, to maximise the public health benefits in the current situation and save more lives."

They were talking about it on Radio 4 this morning - I'm sure it was a senior Pfizer person saying there's no data on what immunity a single dose gives beyond 21 days.  Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and it may be fine.  Scientifically though, I'm uncomfortable with making assumptions, or extrapolating data, or basing policy on retrospective sub-group analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/23/more-data-needed-before-second-vaccine-dose-diverted-to-first-timers-says-covid-adviser

The link is a week old - a long time in Covid - but says much the same.

[John Wright]

Just now, wrighty said:

They were talking about it on Radio 4 this morning - I'm sure it was a senior Pfizer person saying there's no data on what immunity a single dose gives beyond 21 days.  Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and it may be fine.  Scientifically though, I'm uncomfortable with making assumptions, or extrapolating data, or basing policy on retrospective sub-group analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/23/more-data-needed-before-second-vaccine-dose-diverted-to-first-timers-says-covid-adviser

The link is a week old - a long time in Covid - but says much the same.

@BenFairfaxi heard the guy from Pfizer on Radio 4 this morning, as well as wrighty. There’s no data, not even testing,  to support administration between 8-12 weeks. It’s probably contraindicated. The testing data on which emergency authorisation was granted is 21-28 days.

Yes, various people from JCVI have recommended it, based on “extrapolation from other vaccines”.

This is pure political motivation. It’s the must be seen as doing something, anything, school of political medicine. It’s almost identical to building unstaffable Nightingale hospitals, or pretending  you can objectively assess schooling outcomes by testing and publishing league tables.

[wrighty]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

@BenFairfaxi heard the guy from Pfizer on Radio 4 this morning, as well as wrighty. There’s no data, not even testing,  to support administration between 8-12 weeks. It’s probably contraindicated. The testing data on which emergency authorisation was granted is 21-28 days.

Yes, various people from JCVI have recommended it, based on “extrapolation from other vaccines”.

This is pure political motivation. It’s the must be seen as doing something, anything, school of political medicine. It’s almost identical to building unstaffable Nightingale hospitals, or pretending  you can objectively assess schooling outcomes by testing and publishing league tables.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/desperate-measure-desperate-times-regulator-recommends-single/

There's a statement from Pfizer in that article - it may be what they were referring to on R4

[TheTeapot]

The way I've read it regarding the Pfizer vaccine is that it does give an immune response after the first dose, but that it is inconsistent and not one that they would put their name to as a guarantee. They've put a lot of time, effort and money into designing a working vaccine, and it should be administered as designed.

The Oxford one on the other hand, I can't get my head around. Their trials seem to be all over the place, with inconsistent dosing and time scales, and various different degrees of efficiency. I'm a lot more suspicious of that one, it seems that the authorisation is somewhat rushed on hope. I'm no scientist though, so hope I'm wrong.

On the subject of the Oxford vaccine, why did Henrietta say yesterday that it is an rna vaccine similar to the Pfizer one? It isn't.

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

The way I've read it regarding the Pfizer vaccine is that it does give an immune response after the first dose, but that it is inconsistent and not one that they would put their name to as a guarantee. They've put a lot of time, effort and money into designing a working vaccine, and it should be administered as designed.

The Oxford one on the other hand, I can't get my head around. Their trials seem to be all over the place, with inconsistent dosing and time scales, and various different degrees of efficiency. I'm a lot more suspicious of that one, it seems that the authorisation is somewhat rushed on hope. I'm no scientist though, so hope I'm wrong.

On the subject of the Oxford vaccine, why did Henrietta say yesterday that it is an rna vaccine similar to the Pfizer one? It isn't.

Is she an expert on vaccines?

[Apple]

26 minutes ago, John Wright said:

This is pure political motivation. It’s the must be seen as doing something, anything, school of political medicine. It’s almost identical to building unstaffable Nightingale hospitals, or pretending  you can objectively assess schooling outcomes by testing and publishing league tables.

Agreed and well worth highlighting. 

Is there any commercial competitiveness between the different companies and their own vaccine I wonder ?

Anyway, the authorities should stay with the recommendations and the conditions attached to the approvals. And I know nothing about vaccines....

PS - who would trust Blair again - duh.

[TheTeapot]

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Is she an expert on vaccines?

She should be better informed than me.

[wrighty]

5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

 

On the subject of the Oxford vaccine, why did Henrietta say yesterday that it is an rna vaccine similar to the Pfizer one? It isn't.

I think she was trying to simplify the science for the purposes of radio.  The Oxford vaccine is an RNA vaccine, in a way - it's just that it delivers the RNA to the body via the medium of an altered chimp adenovirus, rather than a lipid envelope.  I'm quite sure Henrietta knows more than most how these vaccines work.

[TheTeapot]

1 minute ago, wrighty said:

I think she was trying to simplify the science for the purposes of radio.  The Oxford vaccine is an RNA vaccine, in a way - it's just that it delivers the RNA to the body via the medium of an altered chimp adenovirus, rather than a lipid envelope.  I'm quite sure Henrietta knows more than most how these vaccines work.

Fair enough, I found it confusing myself, as did some others.

[Happier diner]

8 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I think she was trying to simplify the science for the purposes of radio.  The Oxford vaccine is an RNA vaccine, in a way - it's just that it delivers the RNA to the body via the medium of an altered chimp adenovirus, rather than a lipid envelope.  I'm quite sure Henrietta knows more than most how these vaccines work.

I'm sure she does, but this is very specialised stuff.

[BenFairfax]

2 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

She should be better informed than me.

I was thinking the same, and add JVCI to list too. For confidence and clarity for all of us, be useful to have more details on this. In end, when I get appointment I will get down doctors pronto, whatever protocol is.

What will happen is UK will provide us with large data set on 1 dose schema from next week. If none 1 dosers turn up as positive, who likely been kissing grandkids by then, plan for here be clearer. Lord Ashford and Sir Quayle, let Jersey do beta on borders, and why not let UK do beta on vaccine timing?   

On IoM, if do 2 doses, will have grannies who go to Spain for bit of sun straight after 2nd jab, and then come back after 2 weeks posing risk to all other grannies.

[Non-Believer]

25 minutes ago, wrighty said:

it delivers the RNA to the body via the medium of an altered chimp adenovirus....

It'll be quite at home in some of the eventual recipients then.... 😂

[the stinking enigma]

How about one of these chimps getting an OBE?

[wrighty]

45 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

The way I've read it regarding the Pfizer vaccine is that it does give an immune response after the first dose, but that it is inconsistent and not one that they would put their name to as a guarantee. They've put a lot of time, effort and money into designing a working vaccine, and it should be administered as designed.

The Oxford one on the other hand, I can't get my head around. Their trials seem to be all over the place, with inconsistent dosing and time scales, and various different degrees of efficiency. I'm a lot more suspicious of that one, it seems that the authorisation is somewhat rushed on hope. I'm no scientist though, so hope I'm wrong.

"All over the place" trials can be useful as they're more like the real world.  I might be slightly wrong on this, but I think it's called 'an intention to treat' analysis.  So the Oxford lot intended to give a specific dose, twice, 3 weeks apart, but it ended up with some subjects getting half dosing, some having a longer interval etc.  It could be analysed by excluding all subjects that didn't get the exact protocol, in which case you might get better results, or it could be analysed warts and all, in which case you get results comparable to the real world situation.

 

[TheTeapot]

10 minutes ago, wrighty said:

"All over the place" trials can be useful as they're more like the real world.  I might be slightly wrong on this, but I think it's called 'an intention to treat' analysis.  So the Oxford lot intended to give a specific dose, twice, 3 weeks apart, but it ended up with some subjects getting half dosing, some having a longer interval etc.  It could be analysed by excluding all subjects that didn't get the exact protocol, in which case you might get better results, or it could be analysed warts and all, in which case you get results comparable to the real world situation.

 

I appreciate your response and understand your point, but isn't it a little hit and miss? When there is a lot of skepticism anyway don't you need clear and obvious safe trails and results? One of the chiefs described it as 'serendipity'. Basically luck. Maybe that's what is needed but it seems a bit dodgy to me. Obviously 'luck' has come in pretty handy in the past (penicillin discovery was kind of luck for example). Was watching a bit of cnn with some medical people discussing it, the oxford one is apparently unlikely to be authorised over there for a while over those kind of concerns. Maybe I'm reading to much into it.