Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[Yew]

NERVTAG released their report on the deadliness of the new variant.

They assess a "realistic possibility" it has a higher mortality risk.
Which the front page of their report helpfully says is 40-50% chance of the statement being true.

Quite simply, we can't make public health policy on such shoddy guesswork, we must base policy on hard facts and evidence, and all measures should meet rigorous harm/benefit analysis.

"We have to do something" is no justification for doing anything.

 

[The Ham]

Quite simply, we can't make public health policy on such shoddy guesswork, we must base policy on hard facts and evidence, and all measures should meet rigorous harm/benefit analysis.

"We have to do something" is no justification for doing anything.

They are using facts, the fact being that there's a 40-50% likelihood of the current variant being more harmful based on the information currently available.

Over time that figure will likely be refined and they could find that it's no more harmful or that it's actually more harmful.

The problem is that to get a more refined answer takes a long time.

For instance early on the numbers dying looked like that they were higher than we currently think, however it is also possible that we could have under estimated the numbers and the figures could have been higher.

Science doesn't know for certain all that much when something's new, and it takes time to know what the actual risks are. We tend to be more cautious until we know otherwise.

 

[HSTEd]

Assuming that the Scotish forbidden document data can be pro-rata'd to the entire population, we would expect about 505,000 doses per day on average from Monday up to the 17th April.

That is enough to come within a few million doses of covering all second doses that come due and covering the entire adult population with a first dose.

It wouldnt take many J&J and Novavax vaccines to have the first time around the entire population completed by mid April!

 

[takno]

They are using facts, the fact being that there's a 40-50% likelihood of the current variant being more harmful based on the information currently available.

Over time that figure will likely be refined and they could find that it's no more harmful or that it's actually more harmful.

The problem is that to get a more refined answer takes a long time.

For instance early on the numbers dying looked like that they were higher than we currently think, however it is also possible that we could have under estimated the numbers and the figures could have been higher.

Science doesn't know for certain all that much when something's new, and it takes time to know what the actual risks are. We tend to be more cautious until we know otherwise.

Boris needlessly announced this finding a long time before it was oven-ready. I'm struggling to understand how a 40-50% likelihood on a 50-50 question is evidence of anything tbh, and certainly doesn't sound like anything they should have been bothering the prime minister with. Nobody is going to take us out of lockdown in the next week anyway, so there's no real rush.

I can't think of any additional measures you'd actually take anyway. We're already treating the disease as if it's 10x as deadly as it actually. What does something as small as 1.3x even matter in that context?

 

[Bertie the bus]

They are using facts, the fact being that there's a 40-50% likelihood of the current variant being more harmful based on the information currently available.

That isn't what a fact is. A fact is a statement of truth. A best guess based on limited data is not a fact.

 

[Richard Scott]

That isn't what a fact is. A fact is a statement of truth. A best guess based on limited data is not a fact.

So why did he say anything, if not a fact then don't speculate?

 

[Bertie the bus]

He said something because he wants to prevent any push for the relaxation of lockdown in mid-Feb.

 

[The Ham]

That isn't what a fact is. A fact is a statement of truth. A best guess based on limited data is not a fact.

The vast majority of science is a best guess often based on limited data.

That the vaccine will even work as well as it's recorded to do so is based on a small subset of the current human population.

It's likely to be a fairly accurate guess as the studies should be set up well to try and give us a fairly good picture. However given that we're not entirely sure as to why some people survive from Covid-19 and others which "should" be low risk die, we may not have created the study as well as we should.

As such the "fact" that we'd get 95% protection from the vaccine could be wrong, especially if it doesn't take into account a key variable which was overlooked. For instance, by not testing the subjects in the study and just looking for symptoms (which wasn't the way that the Oxford vaccine did it) it could be that the infection rate after vaccine could be higher.

 

[packermac]

That isn't what a fact is. A fact is a statement of truth. A best guess based on limited data is not a fact.

And of course if they had said nothing in a couple of weeks the press would want to know why things were being "hidden" from the public.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The vast majority of science is a best guess often based on limited data.

That the vaccine will even work as well as it's recorded to do so is based on a small subset of the current human population.

It's likely to be a fairly accurate guess as the studies should be set up well to try and give us a fairly good picture. However given that we're not entirely sure as to why some people survive from Covid-19 and others which "should" be low risk die, we may not have created the study as well as we should.

As such the "fact" that we'd get 95% protection from the vaccine could be wrong, especially if it doesn't take into account a key variable which was overlooked. For instance, by not testing the subjects in the study and just looking for symptoms (which wasn't the way that the Oxford vaccine did it) it could be that the infection rate after vaccine could be higher.

I know how much of science works, thanks, and I'm well aware that much of it is based on probability and not hard facts. It wasn't the science I was commenting on but your statement that it was a fact.

As for your assertion that it is likely to be fairly accurate, that is based on nothing but your hope that it is. This piece of research isn't even the first into the mortality rate of this variant and the first piece of research, which was only a week or so ago, totally contradicted it.

 

[The Ham]

I know how much of science works, thanks, and I'm well aware that much of it is based on probability and not hard facts. It wasn't the science I was commenting on but your statement that it was a fact.

As for your assertion that it is likely to be fairly accurate, that is based on nothing but your hope that it is. This piece of research isn't even the first into the mortality rate of this variant and the first piece of research, which was only a week or so ago, totally contradicted it.

And I was responding to someone who was saying that it was:

we must base policy on hard facts and evidence, and all measures should meet rigorous harm/benefit analysis

In that context the information that we have available is as close to a fact that we have at this point.

As to regards if others say that there's as different interpretation of the evidence that they have, again that's fairly normal. It will often take time to determine who is correct and requires pier reviews and ongoing research.

A good example; most of us would have been taught the fact that Pluto was a planet, whilst as more had been discovered it's no longer classed as a planet, bit rather a dwarf planet along with at least two others which exist in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune and is as wide as 2/3 the width of the solar system (like the asteroid belt only much larger having a width of circa 20x the distance between the sun an the earth compared to the asteroid belt which has a width circa 3x times e distance between the sun and the earth - only because it's so much further out of covers a much larger area of space).

 

[takno]

A good example; most of us would have been taught the fact that Pluto was a planet, whilst as more had been discovered it's no longer classed as a planet, bit rather a dwarf planet along with at least two others which exist in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune and is as wide as 2/3 the width of the solar system (like the asteroid belt only much larger having a width of circa 20x the distance between the sun an the earth compared to the asteroid belt which has a width circa 3x times e distance between the sun and the earth - only because it's so much further out of covers a much larger area of space).

That's a great example. The IAU decided to do it, mostly because they knew it would generate a bunch of news stories and some social media fluff. There wasn't really any good reason to change it, it hasn't suddenly turned out to be smaller, and we knew it was a bit rubbish when it was discovered. A large proportion of relevant experts didn't agree with the change, but it raised public awareness.

Absolutely as pointless as the prime minister doing a national press conference to worry the public with hopelessly early stage speculative science results.

 

[The Ham]

More on subject, over the last 7 days for which there's data the UK managed 2.3 million first doses and whilst there's been 21,000 second doses (which still leaves a lot of catching up to do when we start focusing on them).

Even if we don't increase that rate then by the end of February that's another 11.5 million. On top of the 5.8 million, done to date (potential 17.3 million total).

To get 2 doses to the circa 50 million adults in the would then take a total of 32 weeks from now, meaning that we'd be looking at completing this about the 5th September.

 

[HSTEd]

To get 2 doses to the circa 50 million adults in the would then take a total of 32 weeks from now, meaning that we'd be looking at completing this about the 5th September.

We would expect rate to oincrease substantially again once the Novavax and J&J vaccines appear, especially the later as it is one-and-done.
(Assuming they both work that is).

I honestly expect first time round on everyone to be done by the end of April, if not earlier.

 

[6862]

We would expect rate to oincrease substantially again once the Novavax and J&J vaccines appear, especially the later as it is one-and-done.
(Assuming they both work that is).

I honestly expect first time round on everyone to be done by the end of April, if not earlier.

I wonder whether we might reach a point where the limiting factor is no longer vaccine supply but rather capacity to inject them while maintaining social distancing? Bearing in mind we don't have an infinite supply of people to do the jabs, so even if the number of vaccine centres increases, we might be limited by other factors. I doubt April is a realistic timescale unfortunately.

 

[HSTEd]

I wonder whether we might reach a point where the limiting factor is no longer vaccine supply but rather capacity to inject them while maintaining social distancing?

The training standard necessary to give injections into someone's arm is relatively low.
We could probably raise a huge new force of injection personnel with relative easy if it became necessary.

I doubt April is a realistic timescale unfortunately.

It looks like we gave 500,000 vaccinations yesterday.

In 84 days (12 weeks) from now we would have to give ~6 million second doses, but even at that rate we would have administered 42 million doses.

That would give us 36 million people more than now, or 42 million people having recevied the first dose.
That is only about ten million short of all adults.

and thats assuming the best we can manage is 500,000 per day.

 

[Chester1]

My very elderly grandfather, who has heart problems (amongst others), got covid about 10 days or so after having the Oxford vaccine. He is doing well (he thinks he has a mild chest infection). The nursing home staff are optimistic, the residents who have caught it at a similar time to him are doing much better previous ones. For a virus like covid a vaccine doesn't need to provide immunity, just a bit of an edge, to make a huge difference.

I think there is going to be a very nasty clash between those who want to get back to normal in the spring and those who won't accept any risk.

 

[brad465]

What are the effectiveness rates again at first dose only for each of Pfizer and AZ vaccines? For the former I've seen values like 52% or 90% quoted, and around 70% for the latter, hence the confusion.

 

[Chester1]

What are the effectiveness rates again at first dose only for each of Pfizer and AZ vaccines? For the former I've seen values like 52% or 90% quoted, and around 70% for the latter, hence the confusion.

That is about right in terms of PCR testing but real world success for both seems to be high 90s after three weeks. The risk becomes their ability to spread it, not become seriously ill themselves. The more people who get vaccinated the less of an issue this is. There is an obsession with case numbers. Hospitalisations are what matters and hopefully they should start dropping soon.

 

[Dent]

Hospitalisations are what matters and hopefully they should start dropping soon.

Hospitalisations already are dropping, and have been for about a week. The numbers in hospital is also starting to drop.

 

[yorkie]

And of course if they had said nothing in a couple of weeks the press would want to know why things were being "hidden" from the public.

Do you not think it may have been better to be honest and state that a study is underway and that early indications suggest there is a 40 to 50% chance it will be more deadly, but it's too early to draw any conclusions yet?

Has anyone said they should have "said nothing", or is that a strawman argument?

 

[778]

Do you not think it may have been better to be honest and state that a study is underway and that early indications suggest there is a 40 to 50% chance it will be more deadly, but it's too early to draw any conclusions yet?

Has anyone said they should have "said nothing", or is that a strawman argument?

I thought that viruses were supposed to become less deadly, but more transmissable the more they evolve?

Hospitalisations already are dropping, and have been for about a week. The numbers in hospital is also starting to drop.

Could this be signs that the vaccine is working, or is it still to early for that?

 

[Dent]

Could this be signs that the vaccine is working, or is it still to early for that?

Probably too early for vaccination, but it's roughly the expected lag period after cases peaked.

 

[The Ham]

Could this be signs that the vaccine is working, or is it still to early for that?

From first vaccine to hospitalisation rates falling would need about 4-5 weeks. (2-3 weeks for the vaccine to provide maximum protection, 1 week before symptoms show, 1-2 weeks before they need hospital treatment).

2 weeks ago we'd done 2.3 million and were doing less than 150,000 a day. I don't have the data for those done even 4 weeks ago but I suspect we'd be looking at less than half a million 6 weeks ago. As such the overall impact would be very limited and certainly a lot smaller than a lot of people limiting their contact with people.

 

[nlogax]

That is about right in terms of PCR testing but real world success for both seems to be high 90s after three weeks.

Which would be great news. I've not seen that reported anywhere, is there a source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/25/covid-vaccine-virus-variant/

The coronavirus vaccine developed by Moderna triggers an immune response that protected against two variants of the virus first detected in Britain and South Africa in laboratory tests, the company said Monday.

But the reassuring news that vaccine-elicited antibodies remained effective against concerning new variants was tempered by an ominous finding. Those antibodies were less efficient at neutralizing the South African variant in a laboratory dish — a sixfold reduction in response foreshadowed by a small, but mounting body of evidence that has trickled out showing that the variant may have the potential to elude parts of the immune response.

 

[HSTEd]

German press now claiming Astra Zeneca vaccine functionally useless in over-65s.

Whilst German government has been threatening Astra Zeneca to increase deliveries of said vaccine, or else.

EDIT:

At request of Moderation team, I've included Daily Mail article talking about the delay:

The EU's vaccine regulator is set to reject the UK's Oxford Covid jab for over-65s, according to reports in Germany.

German federal chiefs expect the jab to be just '8 per cent effective' in people over 65 years of age, the newspapers Bild and Handelsblatt said tonight.

The papers report how German officials fear that EU medicine regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), may not approve the Oxford vaccine for those aged over 65.

But the reports have sparked a furious denial by AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of the vaccine - which was developed by top Oxford University experts.

The British-Swedish firm say the reports are 'absolutely incorrect'.

Additionally a piece in the Guardian about the export problems over astra zeneca vaccine (which is apparently useless and yet they demand more be provided to them for some reason):

The EU has threatened to block exports of coronavirus vaccines to countries outside the bloc such as Britain, after AstraZeneca was accused of failing to give a satisfactory explanation for a huge shortfall of promised doses to member states.


The pharmaceutical company’s new distribution plans were said to be “unacceptable” after it “surprisingly” informed the European commission on Friday that there would be significant shortfalls on the original schedule.

 

[Richard Scott]

German press now claiming Astra Zeneca vaccine functionally useless in over-65s.

Whilst German government has been threatening Astra Zeneca to increase deliveries of said vaccine, or else.

Probably Das Bild is it, about as good as our gutter press and as keen on scaremongering. I'm sure those that developed and tested it may know slightly more than the press?

 

[Chester1]

Probably Das Bild is it, about as good as our gutter press and as keen on scaremongering. I'm sure those that developed and tested it may know slightly more than the press?

Yes it was. I have bought Das Bild when on holiday because its the only main German newspaper I can read (with great difficulty). Its written at a level that the average 8 year old German could read. Although, they wouldn't be allowed to read it because of multi topless and scantily clad women. Its the German Sun but worse.

 

[hwl]

Probably Das Bild is it, about as good as our gutter press and as keen on scaremongering. I'm sure those that developed and tested it may know slightly more than the press?

Quoting the German Health minister that it was less effective.

 

[Chester1]

Which would be great news. I've not seen that reported anywhere, is there a source?

It was reported about Christmas that were no hospitalisations of Oxford or Moderna trial subjects more than 3 weeks after first dose, regardless of when (or if) they had the second dose. I imagine the media would give huge coverage to anyone who gets hospitalised more than three weeks after Oxford vaccine dose. The first doses were given on 28th or 29th December so its been possible for a week and a half.

Quoting the German Health minister that it was less effective.

Which doesn't stack up with the EU threatening an export ban, supported by him.