Jump to content
Duda Jarek

Covid-19 vaccines thread

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, AlexCaro said:

is it actually a good idea to skip phase III?

Since you are only injecting a substance into your bloodstream, probably you don't need to spend a lot of money on safety.

7 hours ago, AlexCaro said:

I saw on some news that his daughter already tried this vaccine

If Putin said it, it must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AlexCaro said:

is it actually a good idea to skip phase III?

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is their recent Lancet paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31866-3/fulltext

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-russia-vaccine/russias-covid-19-vaccine-showed-antibody-response-in-initial-trials-idUSKBN25V1I2

Looks promising, but there are some suspicions: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/10/scientists-question-russian-vaccine-trial-data-on-unlikely-patterns.html

Quote

In an open letter to the editor of the medical journal, 27 scientists said the data published was incomplete and had shown some “unlikely patterns.”

 

Yesterday WHO vaccine report: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines

A worse news, probably the most promising (AstraZeneca) trial is on hold: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02594-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duda Jarek said:

A worse news, probably the most promising (AstraZeneca) trial is on hold: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02594-w

It is not that bad (yet). In phase III a lot of folks are treated so it increases the risk that someone has an adverse reaction which might or might not be related to the treatment (e.g. an undiagnosed diseases). However as part of phaseIII it is necessary to make sure that they are indeed unrelated to the vaccine before they can continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame that we are still in the infancy of nanotechnology as I feel the future will be a better place to live regarding disease and viruses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2020 at 1:57 AM, Mnemonic said:

Shame that we are still in the infancy of nanotechnology as I feel the future will be a better place to live regarding disease and viruses.

Unless, of course it turns out that we actually to develop new ways to deal with resistant bacteria and/or they become resistant against the new weapons, too. Often it is not about having better and newer tools, but how prudent we are in their use.

And unfortunately our track record is not that great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't want to setup a separate thread so I'm putting this here;

"Genetic distance and molecular variation (AMOVA) analyses were not significant for the groups studied, presenting a variation component of 0.12 between populations and 4.46 within populations. The FST value (0.03) showed a low fixation index, with nonsignificant evolutionary divergences within and between groups, With a representative exception for haplotypes from Peru and Uruguai (Table 1) (Figures 1 and 2). A significant similarity was also evidenced for the time of genetic evolutionary divergence among all populations; supported by τ variations, mismatch analyses and demographic and spatial expansion analyses. With a representative exception for haplotypes from Venezuela (Table 2), (Figures 3, 4 5 and 6). The molecular diversity analyses estimated per θ reflected a significant level of mutations among all haplotypes (transitions and transversions). Indel mutations (insertions or additions) were not found in any of the six groups studied (Table 3). The D tests of Tajima and Fs de Fu showed disagreements between the estimates of general θ and π, but with negative and highly significant values, indicating, once again, an absence of population expansions (Table 4). The irregularity index (R= Raggedness) with parametric bootstrap, simulated new θ values for before and after a supposed demographic expansion and in this case assumed a value equal to zero for all groups"

Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.01.20205120v1.full.pdf

Does this mean in layman's terms that SARS-CoV-2 is not a fast mutating virus and the vaccine should be fairly easy and cheap to develop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfizer has announced early data shows their vaccine to be 90% effective... an incredibly high and helpful number if it works out

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/09/health/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-effective/index.html

Quote

Drugmaker Pfizer said Monday an early look at data from its coronavirus vaccine shows it is more than 90% effective -- a much better than expected efficacy if the trend continues.

The so-called interim analysis looked at the first 94 confirmed cases of Covid-19 among the more than 43,000 volunteers who got either two doses of the vaccine or a placebo. It found that fewer than 10% of infections were in participants who had been given the vaccine. More than 90% of the cases were in people who had been given a placebo.

Pfizer said that the vaccine, made with German partner BioNTech, had an efficacy rate higher than 90% at seven days after the second dose, which means protection is achieved 28 days after a person begins vaccination. The vaccine requires two doses. The US Food and Drug Administration has said it would expect at least 50% efficacy from any coronavirus vaccine.

In an interview with CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Monday morning, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called the Covid-19 vaccine "the greatest medical advance" in the world's last hundred years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iNow said:

Pfizer has announced early data shows their vaccine to be 90% effective... an incredibly high and helpful number if it works out

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/09/health/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-effective/index.html

 

The only think I am wondering about is how many infections they managed to observe. I mean, given the surges now it should not be that hard to hit the numbers, but still...

 

Edit: have not found a full report, but some articles reference 94 infections in total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Altorfer Christian said:

Who knows how long the immunity of this.corona vaccination will last?

What is the immunity only last for few months?

 

Then you will have to have another one.

It doesn't hurt.

Hundreds of millions now have the ordinary flu vaccine annually without problem, but to general benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccine questions

It seems the Phizer vaccine may not be the only option upcoming. Any harm, generally speaking, in taking more than one vaccine targeting the same thing? I'm not talking about follow up shots of the same vaccine. 

I would expect one would not take 2 at once, but spread them out sufficiently to allow time for an immune response.

Would taking an early one exclude or delay taking a possibly better future one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the four leading ( Western ) contenders, I'm not sure if taking more than one will be beneficial.
They all seem to get the same result through slightly different means.
The four leading Western COVID-19 vaccines (not from Asia) are all "expression-based," meaning that they introduce into the patient's cells the genetic code for a modified spike protein that can't trigger into the post-fusion form (After the virus enters the cell).
The Pfizer/BNT and Moderna are mRNA vaccines, AstraZenica/Oxford is a ChAdOx1-vectored vaccine, and the Johnson and Johnson/Jansen is an Adenovirus 26-vectored vaccine.
I think all require at least one booster within 3 weeks, and possibly yearly ( ? ) boosters thereafter.

I was originally thinking the same thing; if one vaccine gives you 90%, adding another, even with diminishing returns, would get you 95%, and a third might get you to 97%, and so on. But, if initial results pan out, they can get 90%, and start ramping up production/distribution in early 2021, we should be enjoying life again by early summer.
Most vaccinations are not even close to 100% ( Polio is, and measles at 97% ), but even at 70-80%, they have allowed us to control various diseases so that we don't even worry about them anymore.

Of course there will be people who cannot take the vaccines ( babies, children,allergic reactions, etc. ? ); and then there's the anti-Vaxxers ...

edit
CharonY may have more ( accurate ) information

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Similar topics merged

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Whooooo !
2nd Coronavirus vaccine shows Early success in US tests.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/2nd-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-early-success-in-u-s-tests/ar-BB1b3x07?ocid=msedgntp

94.5 % !!!

I wished the companies would release reports rather than providing press releases (I know, it is all for their shareholders, but still). As a whole the the reports are very encouraging. The major issues are basically the relatively low infections. In both reported about 95 folks were infected with around 5-10 people in the treatment group. While the data looks great, one should be careful not to take the numbers at face value, the numbers are likely to shift once more people are inoculated and exposed to the virus. Considering the surges we have, it may not take long. 

Another thing to note is that mRNA vaccines have not been as rigorously tested as the other forms. While all existing data indicate that it is likely to be safe, there is simply not as much history behind them as for other forms.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I wished the companies would release reports rather than providing press releases (I know, it is all for their shareholders, but still). As a whole the the reports are very encouraging. The major issues are basically the relatively low infections. In both reported about 95 folks were infected with around 5-10 people in the treatment group. While the data looks great, one should be careful not to take the numbers at face value, the numbers are likely to shift once more people are inoculated and exposed to the virus. Considering the surges we have, it may not take long. 

Another thing to note is that mRNA vaccines have not been as rigorously tested as the other forms. While all existing data indicate that it is likely to be safe, there is simply not as much history behind them as for other forms.  

 

Once one starts, the rest might feel the need to follow suit even if their results are preliminary, just to make sure they don't "miss out".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

Once one starts, the rest might feel the need to follow suit even if their results are preliminary, just to make sure they don't "miss out".

Of course, it is clearly a PR/financial decision. However, we are also in a public health crisis so that mix is a bit hard to digest, so to speak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In both reported about 95 folks were infected with around 5-10 people in the treatment group.

I would be very grateful if you would review / explain this sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, studiot said:

I would be very grateful if you would review / explain this sentence.

Of the people involved in the study, who got infected with Coronavirus, 90-95% received the placebo.
But 5 -10 people who received the actual vaccine treatment were also infected.

IOW, a small group of infected people from a large group of test subjects.
But as infections go up in the US, much clearer results should soon be available

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Also while the folks tried to have a somewhat diverse patient pool, the small numbers make it a bit difficult to assess overall efficacy in, say, elderly. There are also other challenges- mRNA are quite fragile so the logistics of storing and distributing them is going to be more finicky than most traditional vaccines. It also increases the risk of mishandling and resulting lack of protection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MigL said:

Of the people involved in the study, who got infected with Coronavirus, 90-95% received the placebo.
But 5 -10 people who received the actual vaccine treatment were also infected.

After how long? I guess they have reason to believe that the protection is not only temporary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

After how long? I guess they have reason to believe that the protection is not only temporary?

I do not recall that the press release covered that. Most likely one would need for the full report to see more. At max of course the time frame covered is from the start of phase 3 (I think end of July for the Moderna vaccine) until now. So we only have at most dat for 4 months (but not everyone in the trial was vaccinated at the same time, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.