Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[yorksrob]

Sky News has the following text from one of it's reporters on the live feed.

It seems a plausible explanation but is also suggesting that vaccination therefore won't save the NHS from crisis. The end result, therefore, would be lockdown carrying on for longer until younger age groups are vaccinated "in order to protect the NHS".

They need to do something else then.

I've been saying similar since November but it too negative a thought for most people! Rather some restrictions would have to remain and gradually be removed as the younger age groups were vaccinated.

As we now have a more transmissibility virus the issue is worse as we open up and the unvaccinated age groups become more active.

The reality is that we will need 20-25% vaccination in the 18-50 age groups as a starting point to remove some of the tier 1/2 type restrictions and probably targeted vaccination for those with high contact levels first.

As always, there's a difference between "restrictions" generally and the sort of intolerable lockdown measures we're being required to endure again and again.

I'm quite prepared to go about my business in small groups, or even as a single household as one, whilst those not so vulnerable (including presumably myself) are vaccinated, however I see no justification for being under house arrest indefinitely once the most vulnerable have been done. If this happens I will be very angry indeed and will not forget it at the next election. I expect a real change to our circumstances once the key vaccinations have taken place.

 

[The Ham]

The latest official figure is 1.3m as at 3rd January (so before the rollout of the Oxford vaccine). I don't know where the "almost 1.5 million" came from, or what cut-off date it refers to, but it does not match any published figure I can find.

1.5 million is UK numbers whilst the 1.3 million is the official English NHS number, and so is part of that 1.5 million. As is the numbers from Scotland which are counted separately.

 

[158756]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55579028

An NHS nurse who has contracted Covid-19 three weeks after being vaccinated says she is "angry and heartbroken".
The hospital nurse, who works within the Hywel Dda University Health Board area, said morale is at an all-time low among her colleagues.
British Medical Association (BMA) Cymru Wales has already expressed concern about the length of time between doses.
The health board said the vaccination offers "the best protection we have, but no vaccine is 100% effective".

Some sensationalist reporting here from the BBC.

We know the vaccines are not 100% effective, and no one has tried to claim otherwise as far as I know. Are we going to have stories like this every time a vaccinated person catches Covid? If 1.5 million people have had a jab and it is 90% effective (the figure the BBC have used for the Pfizer vaccine), 150,000 of them could potentially still catch it. All this is likely to do is put people off having the vaccine.

They seem to be criticising the 12 week delay between jabs, and I've done plenty of that in this thread too, but if this nurse developed symptoms after 3 weeks the second dose is irrelevant - even if she'd had the second jab before the symptoms started it wouldn't have taken effect, and obviously the virus was already in her body well before then.

I'd also like to have her level of "difficulties getting an appointment" when I use the NHS - if she developed symptoms three weeks after the jab, passed it on to her family, got test results back and had it written up for the BBC whilst the vaccine has been available for a month today, she must have been one of the very first people in the country, and also the world, to receive the vaccine outside of clinical trials.

It just seems to me expectations are too high. It isn't 100% effective. It will take time to.roll out. We don't have an unlimited supply.

 

[yorksrob]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55579028

Some sensationalist reporting here from the BBC.

We know the vaccines are not 100% effective, and no one has tried to claim otherwise as far as I know. Are we going to have stories like this every time a vaccinated person catches Covid? If 1.5 million people have had a jab and it is 90% effective (the figure the BBC have used for the Pfizer vaccine), 150,000 of them could potentially still catch it. All this is likely to do is put people off having the vaccine.

They seem to be criticising the 12 week delay between jabs, and I've done plenty of that in this thread too, but if this nurse developed symptoms after 3 weeks the second dose is irrelevant - even if she'd had the second jab before the symptoms started it wouldn't have taken effect, and obviously the virus was already in her body well before then.

I'd also like to have her level of "difficulties getting an appointment" when I use the NHS - if she developed symptoms three weeks after the jab, passed it on to her family, got test results back and had it written up for the BBC whilst the vaccine has been available for a month today, she must have been one of the very first people in the country, and also the world, to receive the vaccine outside of clinical trials.

It just seems to me expectations are too high. It isn't 100% effective. It will take time to.roll out. We don't have an unlimited supply.

True. It will become an excuse for more lockdown though.

 

[kristiang85]

Wasn't the whole point of the vaccine always that it stopped you getting serious covid? Of course you can still get an infection, but it means your body will be able to fight it more effectively.

The BBC really are doing some irresponsible reporting.

 

[hwl]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55579028

Some sensationalist reporting here from the BBC.

We know the vaccines are not 100% effective, and no one has tried to claim otherwise as far as I know. Are we going to have stories like this every time a vaccinated person catches Covid? If 1.5 million people have had a jab and it is 90% effective (the figure the BBC have used for the Pfizer vaccine), 150,000 of them could potentially still catch it. All this is likely to do is put people off having the vaccine.

They seem to be criticising the 12 week delay between jabs, and I've done plenty of that in this thread too, but if this nurse developed symptoms after 3 weeks the second dose is irrelevant - even if she'd had the second jab before the symptoms started it wouldn't have taken effect, and obviously the virus was already in her body well before then.

I'd also like to have her level of "difficulties getting an appointment" when I use the NHS - if she developed symptoms three weeks after the jab, passed it on to her family, got test results back and had it written up for the BBC whilst the vaccine has been available for a month today, she must have been one of the very first people in the country, and also the world, to receive the vaccine outside of clinical trials.

It just seems to me expectations are too high. It isn't 100% effective. It will take time to.roll out. We don't have an unlimited supply.

While sensationalist it does serve as a useful example that they aren't 100% effective and that there will still be cases after vaccination just far fewer. It show help focus some minds on getting high levels of vaccination in the medium term i.e. if the whole family had been vaccinated it is unlikely others in the family would have got it as well.

We should also be studying those for whom the vaccine doesn't work as this may highlight some underlying health issues.

 

[158756]

Wasn't the whole point of the vaccine always that it stopped you getting serious covid? Of course you can still get an infection, but it means your body will be able to fight it more effectively.

The BBC really are doing some irresponsible reporting.

They've now edited the story, so instead of "Covid: Nurse 'angry' over positive test despite vaccination", the headline now reads "Care needed after getting Covid vaccine" , and the story begins

People who have had Covid vaccines are being warned to still take care.
Vaccination has been shown to prevent severe infection, so even if people do catch the virus, they would be protected from getting seriously ill.
The call comes as an NHS nurse working for the Hywel Dda University Health Board area said she contracted Covid-19 while waiting for her second dose.
The health board said while the vaccine "reduces your chance of suffering", "no vaccine is 100% effective".

 

[kristiang85]

They've now edited the story, so instead of "Covid: Nurse 'angry' over positive test despite vaccination", the headline now reads "Care needed after getting Covid vaccine" , and the story begins

Ah good, so someone high up pointed out the error of their ways then.

 

[MattA7]

With Moderna now approved in the UK and the government ordering 10 million more doses bringing the total to 17 million This could have a positive effect on the vaccination program.

I wonder if due to the fact it was tested on 12-18 year olds in the US Moderna will possibly be used to “normalize” secondary schools

although on a more negative note it isn’t expected to be available until March.

 

[brad465]

With Moderna now approved in the UK and the government ordering 10 million more doses bringing the total to 17 million This could have a positive effect on the vaccination program.

I wonder if due to the fact it was tested on 12-18 year olds in the US Moderna will possibly be used to “normalize” secondary schools

although on a more negative note it isn’t expected to be available until March.

Hopefully Pfizer and Oxford ones will keep us going until then; the fact that Moderna could be used to support younger ages who likely won't be in line for vaccination until at least sometime in Spring anyway should make its later availability a lesser concern.

 

[Richard Scott]

They've now edited the story, so instead of "Covid: Nurse 'angry' over positive test despite vaccination", the headline now reads "Care needed after getting Covid vaccine" , and the story begins

Does it say how many days before she'd had the vaccine? Isn't going to work immediately. Probably another scaremongering story?

 

[Domh245]

Does it say how many days before she'd had the vaccine? Isn't going to work immediately. Probably another scaremongering story?

Three weeks (although it isn't clear quite how long that is - could have been 18 days and they're overegging it, or 27 days) so will have been one of the unfortunate 5% where it's not worked

 

[HSTEd]

So they've found a single case?

 

[kristiang85]

I did read somewhere that vaccines might cause positive PCRs, but I have no idea if that's scientifically validated or not. I can't find where I saw it again, so it might have been rubbish.

Given we don't use blood testing, I would be surprised as it shouldn't cause an actual infection that can be picked up in a throat swab - but if anybody here knows more about the body's response to vaccines, can they comment on that?

 

[hwl]

Hopefully Pfizer and Oxford ones will keep us going until then; the fact that Moderna could be used to support younger ages who likely won't be in line for vaccination until at least sometime in Spring anyway should make its later availability a lesser concern.

You should be able to cover about 2/3rds of secondary (with 2 doses each) which should be pretty good as regards getting education nearer normal.

Does it say how many days before she'd had the vaccine? Isn't going to work immediately. Probably another scaremongering story?

Pfizer was day 12 before there is the start of a difference vs control group.

 

[Pete_uk]

I thought the jabs were to shop the worst effects of viruses, not stop you from actually contracting it.

 

[hwl]

I thought the jabs were to shop the worst effects of viruses, not stop you from actually contracting it.

Primarily, with secondary benefits of fewer mild cases and lower transmission (yet to be quantified)

 

[DelayRepay]

March for the Moderna vaccine is quite good timing - because from March we'll be scaling up the second shots of the two existing vaccines. So it should allow 'first shots' to continue using Moderna while supplies of the other two are used for second shots.

Fingers crossed!

 

[Dent]

1.5 million is UK numbers whilst the 1.3 million is the official English NHS number, and so is part of that 1.5 million. As is the numbers from Scotland which are counted separately.

The latest figures I can see are 1,092,885 for England and 1,296,432 for the UK for 1st doses.

I can't see where this 1.5m comes from, and without the cut-off date being specified it is meaningless anyway. My guess would be that Boris Johnson was rather generously rounding up 1,296,432 to "nearly 1.5 million".

 

[johntea]

The NHS Trust where I work sent an email to me earlier inviting me to book a vaccination slot, availability seems pretty much immediate

Which is a bit strange as although I work for the NHS I'm not in a 'front line' role

 

[ninja-lewis]

The latest figures I can see are 1,092,885 for England and 1,296,432 for the UK for 1st doses.

I can't see where this 1.5m comes from, and without the cut-off date being specified it is meaningless anyway. My guess would be that Boris Johnson was rather generously rounding up 1,296,432 to "nearly 1.5 million".

The 1.3m was up to Sunday 3 January. So far data.gov.uk has been updated on Thursdays for the week ending on the previous Sunday (it should go to daily updates from Monday but its not clear what the lag period will be).

Whereas Boris has access to more current data which counted Monday-Wednesday this week when he announced the 1.5m on Thursday.

 

[The Ham]

They've now edited the story, so instead of "Covid: Nurse 'angry' over positive test despite vaccination", the headline now reads "Care needed after getting Covid vaccine" , and the story begins

I suspect that there's been some questioning over the speed of the infection.

If it takes 7 days for symptoms to show than at best that's 2 weeks for the vaccine to give benefit.

However how were they counting weeks, as on Monday you could say that Christmas was three weeks ago, as it isn't that week, or the week before but the week before that (however it would only be 17 days before).

However I would agree (regardless of the timeframe) that the main story is that whilst a vaccine gives you protection you shouldn't use that as an excuse to stop being careful. For instance wearing a cycle helmet is going to give you zero protection against your head being run over by a car, as such you should still cycle as if you're not wearing a helmet.

The same is true here just because you are at lower risk of harm from Covid-19 it doesn't make you invincible and so you should be carefully whilst there's still very high cases numbers (some areas have figures of 1.5% of the population having had a positive test in the last week, which given that Covid-19 can be around for over a week could easily mean that there's at least 3% who are infectious, possibly higher when you consider asymptomatic cases who aren't being tested, although you'll be picking up some who are being tested as a matter of course).

 

[Yew]

Primarily, with secondary benefits of fewer mild cases and lower transmission (yet to be quantified)

Indeed, they studied the development of the major symptoms, but there's probably a reasonable degree of sterilising immunity that's yet to be quantified.

The NHS Trust where I work sent an email to me earlier inviting me to book a vaccination slot, availability seems pretty much immediate

Which is a bit strange as although I work for the NHS I'm not in a 'front line' role

My understanding is that around 1/3 people in hospital with coronavirus caught it there, so a drive to reduce hospital-caught cases is probably worthwhile.

 

[jumble]

Unsubstantiated anecdotes like this should be treated with caution. Even if one person did say they would prefer the Oxford vaccine, we don't know whether it really was anything to do with nationalism.

It is not unsubstantiated
My partner works in a GP surgery and quite a lot of old folks told her this yesterday

 

[Wychwood93]

It is not unsubstantiated
My partner works in a GP surgery and quite a lot of old folks told her this yesterday

Our eldest works in a care home and she and at least one of the other Managers are having their vaccinations at a local surgery - with a choice of Pfizer or Oxford. The residents and other staff are having theirs in the home and it is to be the Oxford one.

 

[DustyBin]

It is not unsubstantiated
My partner works in a GP surgery and quite a lot of old folks told her this yesterday

Several people I know have said they’d prefer or only have the Oxford vaccine. I don’t think it’s anything to do with nationalism, but ‘Oxford’ sounds familiar and trustworthy whereas ‘Pfizer’ and ‘Moderna’ sound like faceless foreign pharmaceutical giants. That’s just how people think. If the ‘Oxford’ tag had never been used and it was known simply as the ‘AstraZeneca’ I suspect this wouldn’t be an issue!

 

[takno]

Several people I know have said they’d prefer or only have the Oxford vaccine. I don’t think it’s anything to do with nationalism, but ‘Oxford’ sounds familiar and trustworthy whereas ‘Pfizer’ and ‘Moderna’ sound like faceless foreign pharmaceutical giants. That’s just how people think. If the ‘Oxford’ tag had never been used and it was known simply as the ‘AstraZeneca’ I suspect this wouldn’t be an issue!

In spite of not generally preferring British or British-sounding names, and knowing that the numbers are better for the Pfizer one, I would probably still prefer the Oxford one if offered a choice. It's slightly less innovative, and doesn't need scary-sounding levels of cold. I mean I know they defrost it before they give it to you, but I've still got visions of people in hazmat suits pulling giant needles of experimental gunk out of blocks of dry ice.

As I understand it for people in homes though, they will largely only be offered the Oxford vaccine, just because it's more practical to distribute there.

 

[DustyBin]

In spite of not generally preferring British or British-sounding names, and knowing that the numbers are better for the Pfizer one, I would probably still prefer the Oxford one if offered a choice. It's slightly less innovative, and doesn't need scary-sounding levels of cold. I mean I know they defrost it before they give it to you, but I've still got visions of people in hazmat suits pulling giant needles of experimental gunk out of blocks of dry ice.

As I understand it for people in homes though, they will largely only be offered the Oxford vaccine, just because it's more practical to distribute there.

I see your (sound enough) reasoning, but I suspect you’re better informed than the majority of people for whom the name is all that matters.

 

[takno]

I see your (sound enough) reasoning, but I suspect you’re better informed than the majority of people for whom the name is all that matters.

To be clear, I don't think my reasoning is good either. People should take whichever vaccine they are offered - the rollout is being done in such a way that any risks from any of the vaccines are unquestionably lower than the risk from the disease to the person being vaccinated. I was just suggesting that there's something a bit beyond the name and country of origin that's a bit less warm and fuzzy than the Oxford one.

 

[21C101]

In spite of not generally preferring British or British-sounding names, and knowing that the numbers are better for the Pfizer one, I would probably still prefer the Oxford one if offered a choice. It's slightly less innovative, and doesn't need scary-sounding levels of cold. I mean I know they defrost it before they give it to you, but I've still got visions of people in hazmat suits pulling giant needles of experimental gunk out of blocks of dry ice.

As I understand it for people in homes though, they will largely only be offered the Oxford vaccine, just because it's more practical to distribute there.

There is a reason so many things are called "Oxford" eg statonary sets.