The Vaccine Thread

[TCB]

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I really hope it’s a case of stop, review and find it’s purely coincidental.  We are very much relying on Astra Zeneca down here. 

It’s being widely used in the UK so you would think any problems would show up there.

[Roadrunner]

3 hours ago, TCB said:

It’s being widely used in the UK so you would think any problems would show up there.

It doesn’t take much to make an already skeptical public worry. 
I am mainly concerned with efficacy rates of the vaccine. 
My friend in Madrid and my mom decided Astra Zeneca is too risky for little reward. They say they want to wait until Pfizer becomes more widely available. 

[TCB]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

It doesn’t take much to make an already skeptical public worry. 
I am mainly concerned with efficacy rates of the vaccine. 
My friend in Madrid and my mom decided Astra Zeneca is too risky for little reward. They say they want to wait until Pfizer becomes more widely available. 

I think some of the problem is being able to get good information reliably out there. I believe there was a recent UK study which showed Astra Zeneca slightly outperforming Pfizer against serious disease and hospitalization after 1 dose.

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, TCB said:

I think some of the problem is being able to get good information reliably out there. I believe there was a recent UK study which showed Astra Zeneca slightly outperforming Pfizer against serious disease and hospitalization after 1 dose.

Ireland just suspended the use of AstraZeneca. There must be something in the reporting. 
I hope it turns out to be unrelated. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, TCB said:

I believe there was a recent UK study which showed Astra Zeneca slightly outperforming Pfizer against serious disease and hospitalization after 1 dose.

The numbers from AZ have been all over the place and really inconsistent. They reported 63% efficacy from 2 standard doses, then claimed 76% efficacy after a single standard dose. Then they said that efficacy was only 55% if the doses are given 6 weeks apart, but 80% if given 12 weeks apart, and that this was confirmed by immunogenicity studies, which did not include anyone over 55. They also had issues with some of the initial trials using the wrong dose for the first shot, and then it appeared that the "wrong" dose had much better results (80% efficacy), but they continue to use the standard dose. Their studies were a mess, and I take any numbers from AZ trials with a huge dose of salt.

RE: comparing AZ to Pfizer & Moderna after 1 dose: AZ reported 76% efficacy "between 22 and 90 days." Pfizer and Moderna both reported efficacy of 92% prior to administration of the second dose, at 21 or 28 days.

[Roadrunner]

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The numbers from AZ have been all over the place and really inconsistent. They reported 63% efficacy from 2 standard doses, then claimed 76% efficacy after a single standard dose. Then they said that efficacy was only 55% if the doses are given 6 weeks apart, but 80% if given 12 weeks apart, and that this was confirmed by immunogenicity studies, which did not include anyone over 55. They also had issues with some of the initial trials using the wrong dose for the first shot, and then it appeared that the "wrong" dose had much better results (80% efficacy), but they continue to use the standard dose. Their studies were a mess, and I take any numbers from AZ trials with a huge dose of salt.

RE: comparing AZ to Pfizer & Moderna after 1 dose: AZ reported 76% efficacy "between 22 and 90 days." Pfizer and Moderna both reported efficacy of 92% prior to administration of the second dose, at 21 or 28 days.

Doesn’t inspire confidence 

[Roadrunner]

Apparently US is holding millions of vaccines from AstraZeneca and we don’t need them. Europe is asking for it. Why don’t we give it away? Frankly we have enough of Moderna and Pfizer for our entire adult population. And we have less sexy J&J. And we have Novavax with great numbers coming this summer. Can somebody explain to me why we are hoarding AstraZeneca?

Edited March 14, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Roadrunner]

27 minutes ago, kand said:

Which is why the “one dose” nature of J&J seems like nothing more than a marketing gimmick to me. Pfizer and Moderna are more effective after one dose at 21 and 28 days than J&J with a 66% efficacy rate. Not to mention the J&J number is for preventing moderate to severe illness, not for any symptomatic illness. 
 

I am frustrated at all the reporting admonishing people for considering the J&J vaccine inferior, and then not fairly and accurately reporting what the actual differences are between the vaccines and trying to make them sound more similar than they are. Like this article I saw yesterday when looking for numbers: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-backlash-against-johnson-and-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-is-real-and-risky—heres-exactly-how-to-make-its-rollout-a-success/ar-BB1esnKA

This article says nothing about the different measurements of efficacy between the vaccines (moderate or severe disease vs any symptomatic disease), and it even low balls the Pfizer and Moderna numbers to make them look closer to the J&J one (it uses the words “at least 90%). I keep seeing articles like this, and it frustrates me because it seems they have an agenda rather than being fully accurate. I know it’s better for people to get the J&J vaccine than not to get a vaccine, and I think it’s ideal for a lot of situations, including perhaps kids, once testing is done, but it’s disingenuous in my opinion to represent it as being equivalent to the Pfizer and Moderna. 

I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. Now if they want to market J&J for younger people who already have a low risk of developing anything serious and entice them with a one shot deal, I could understand that. But for people who are fairly concerned for complications of this virus, we should continue to advocate a two shot vaccine. I mean if you are at risk of serious complications, J&J vaccine doesn’t give you much psychological relief if you ask me. 

[kokotg]

I've been surprised to see here (from watching local facebook groups for finding vaccine appointments) that J&J is in very high demand and hard to find. I'd love it if I could get one for my oldest who's about to fly back to Minnesota for college and then will be there for less than 2 months before coming back here and then summer travel plans shortly after that--since with his schedule and his low risk profile the one dose thing would be really helpful. I was glad that my husband and I got Moderna, but I'll take J&J gladly for my kids if I can get it. 

[Pawz4me]

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

I've been surprised to see here (from watching local facebook groups for finding vaccine appointments) that J&J is in very high demand and hard to find.

Our county health department started offering J&J last week. You knew what you were signing up for--they specifically listed the J&J separately from the two dose option--and I was surprised at how fast the slots were signed up for. If I were a younger, healthier person or really needle phobic then sure, the "one and done" aspect is appealing. But I'm neither younger nor without risk factors nor particularly bothered by needles, so personally--given the choice I'll be signing up for one of the two dose vaccines.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Pawz4me said:

Our county health department started offering J&J last week. You knew what you were signing up for--they specifically listed the J&J separately from the two dose option--and I was surprised at how fast the slots were signed up for. If I were a younger, healthier person or really needle phobic then sure, the "one and done" aspect is appealing. But I'm neither younger nor without risk factors nor particularly bothered by needles, so personally--given the choice I'll be signing up for one of the two dose vaccines.

I definitely can't imagine signing up for a less effective vaccine. I wouldn't feel nearly as relieved. 

[Corraleno]

50 minutes ago, kand said:

Which is why the “one dose” nature of J&J seems like nothing more than a marketing gimmick to me. Pfizer and Moderna are more effective after one dose at 21 and 28 days than J&J with a 66% efficacy rate. Not to mention the J&J number is for preventing moderate to severe illness, not for any symptomatic illness. 

Exactly. And now J&J are saying their 2-dose trial will complete sometime in May, so they are likely to release their data and apply for approval for a second dose in June — after having delivered the full order of first doses. They are also trialing a different 2-shot protocol with lower doses in each shot. By splitting one dose into two, they can charge twice as much.

50 minutes ago, kand said:

I am frustrated at all the reporting admonishing people for considering the J&J vaccine inferior, and then not fairly and accurately reporting what the actual differences are between the vaccines and trying to make them sound more similar than they are. Like this article I saw yesterday when looking for numbers: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-backlash-against-johnson-and-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-is-real-and-risky—heres-exactly-how-to-make-its-rollout-a-success/ar-BB1esnKA

This article says nothing about the different measurements of efficacy between the vaccines (moderate or severe disease vs any symptomatic disease), and it even low balls the Pfizer and Moderna numbers to make them look closer to the J&J one (it uses the words “at least 90%). I keep seeing articles like this, and it frustrates me because it seems they have an agenda rather than being fully accurate. I know it’s better for people to get the J&J vaccine than not to get a vaccine, and I think it’s ideal for a lot of situations, including perhaps kids, once testing is done, but it’s disingenuous in my opinion to represent it as being equivalent to the Pfizer and Moderna. 

I think public health experts are trying to disguise the fact that J&J is a "lesser" vaccine for two reasons: (1) from a public health standpoint, reducing hospitalizations and deaths is the primary goal so a "lesser" vaccine now is better than a more effective vaccine later, and (2) they want to avoid the appearance that there are two vaccine tiers: highly effective expensive vaccines for the privileged and a cheaper, less effective vaccine for the poor and marginalized. Since J&J was technically approved as "one dose," that is the one most likely to be used in transient populations like the homeless, incarcerated people, migrant workers, etc. And it is also the one they are currently sending to pharmacies, which is where poor people are more likely to get vaccinated. 

 

 

 

[Corraleno]

28 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Our county health department started offering J&J last week. You knew what you were signing up for--they specifically listed the J&J separately from the two dose option--and I was surprised at how fast the slots were signed up for. 

I think most people really do not understand efficacy rates, really do not understand how mRNA vaccines work, and really do not understand how vaccines are developed.

They just see scary FB posts about how the mRNA vaccines "change your DNA" and how they were "rushed" through development too fast, and they have some vague impression that Bill Gates bribed Fauci, or Fauci owns the vaccine patents, or various other nonsensical conspiracy theories. They don't know that J&J started their trials much later than Pfizer and Moderna, so it appears that their vaccine was developed more slowly and carefully, and since it's a "regular" vaccine, not some newfangled technology, they assume it's the "better" and safer choice.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

I think most people really do not understand efficacy rates, really do not understand how mRNA vaccines work, and really do not understand how vaccines are developed.

They just see scary FB posts about how the mRNA vaccines "change your DNA" and how they were "rushed" through development too fast, and they have some vague impression that Bill Gates bribed Fauci, or Fauci owns the vaccine patents, or various other nonsensical conspiracy theories. They don't know that J&J started their trials much later than Pfizer and Moderna, so it appears that their vaccine was developed more slowly and carefully, and since it's a "regular" vaccine, not some newfangled technology, they assume it's the "better" and safer choice.

Ugh. I know you're right, but that's so depressing. 

I mean, I can imagine rational reasons to pick J&J -- you want one dose, or maybe the side effects are less (I am not sure this is true, but it seems not unlikely -- the mRNA vaccines are a doozy, by all accounts.) But not picking a more effective vaccine for reasons like this just seems sad. 

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Ugh. I know you're right, but that's so depressing. 

I mean, I can imagine rational reasons to pick J&J -- you want one dose, or maybe the side effects are less (I am not sure this is true, but it seems not unlikely -- the mRNA vaccines are a doozy, by all accounts.) But not picking a more effective vaccine for reasons like this just seems sad. 

J&J doesn't contain PEG and I believe their rate of anaphylactic reactions is lower, so it could be a good choice for people who are concerned about it. But for people who just want one shot, they may still be better off getting Pfizer or Moderna and just not getting the 2nd shot. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

J&J doesn't contain PEG and I believe their rate of anaphylactic reactions is lower, so it could be a good choice for people who are concerned about it. But for people who just want one shot, they may still be better off getting Pfizer or Moderna and just not getting the 2nd shot. 

Good point. If I remember correctly, they were still close to 90% if you waited a few weeks after one shot, which is better than J&J. Anyone remember if I'm right about that? 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Corraleno]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Good point. If I remember correctly, they were still close to 90% if you waited a few weeks after one shot, which is better than J&J. Anyone remember if I'm right about that? 

They are both supposedly ~92% efficacy before the 2nd shot, which would be 21 days for Pfizer & 28 days for Moderna. And that's efficacy against testing positive, vs 85% efficacy against severe disease after 28 days with J&J.

Quoting from this article:

"Their analysis concludes that prior to the second dose, BNT162b2 [Pfizer} has an efficacy of 92.6%."

First dose efficacy for Moderna "was reported to be 92.1% in an FDA briefing document, published on December 17, 2020."

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Corraleno
add link

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

They are both supposedly ~92% efficacy before the 2nd shot, which would be 21 days for Pfizer & 28 days for Moderna. And that's efficacy against testing positive, vs 85% efficacy against severe disease after 49 days with J&J.

Quoting from this article:

"Their analysis concludes that prior to the second dose, BNT162b2 [Pfizer} has an efficacy of 92.6%."

First dose efficacy for Moderna "was reported to be 92.1% in an FDA briefing document, published on December 17, 2020."

Ooh, that's even better than what I remembered. So really they could have marketed themselves as one shot if they wanted. 

[Roadrunner]

I guess the good news so far is you can’t get an appointment in my county for a vaccine. It’s good because people are signing up! The early fears that the population would refuse haven’t materialized so far. I personally managed to convert a number of crunchy family members. Hopefully more people get vaccinated, more others will follow suit. 
I am horrified about Europe’s third lockdown. Numbers are terrible in France, Italy, Hungary. I won’t even go into Brazil. Just heartbreaking. 
We need to get people vaccinating in poor countries to prevent more variants. Apparently the large number of immunosuppressed individuals (poorly managed HIV positive in the case of  South Africa) just makes the virus worse because they can effectively mutate in these people. I say we give whatever vaccine we have and next year when production capacity is higher and demand lower, we do boosters. 

[Corraleno]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Ooh, that's even better than what I remembered. So really they could have marketed themselves as one shot if they wanted. 

There were reports from Israel with lower numbers, but also earlier assessment — 57% against any symptomatic illness, and 74% against hospitalization, within 14 days of the first dose, but even that is not far off from J&J's 66% efficacy against moderate illness and 85% against severe illness after 28 days. I haven't seen any data for J&J at 14 days, when rates would presumably be a lot lower. And from the trial data, Pfizer and Moderna were way ahead by 21-28 days.

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There were reports from Israel with lower numbers, but also earlier assessment — 57% against any symptomatic illness, and 74% against hospitalization, within 14 days of the first dose, but even that is not far off from J&J's 66% efficacy against moderate illness and 85% against severe illness after 28 days. I haven't seen any data for J&J at 14 days, when rates would presumably be a lot lower. And from the trial data, Pfizer and Moderna were way ahead by 21-28 days.

What were J&J's rates if you restrict to "standard" variants? Did they have that data? 

[Corraleno]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

What were J&J's rates if you restrict to "standard" variants? Did they have that data? 

If you just look at J&J's data for the US, when the variants would not have been widespread here, they reported 72% against moderate to severe illness after 28 days. There is no data for J&J against mild illness or (AFAIK) earlier than 28 days.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Corraleno said:

If you just look at J&J's data for the US, when the variants would not have been widespread here, they reported 72% against moderate to severe illness after 28 days. There is no data for J&J against mild illness or (AFAIK) earlier than 28 days.

So, not great even just in the US. 

[Corraleno]

Data on the Pfizer vaccine from Israel show 97% efficacy against symptomatic illness, and 94% efficacy against asymptomatic illness, 14 days after the second dose. Since 80% of the cases in Israel are the UK variant, this shows that Pfizer is just as effective against the UK variant as against the original strain, which is awesome news.

"Those who did not receive the vaccine were up to 44 times more likely to develop symptomatic disease, and 29 times more likely to die from COVID-19."

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pfizer-vaccine-shows-94-effectiveness-asymptomatic-transmission-covid/story?id=76389615

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Data on the Pfizer vaccine from Israel show 97% efficacy against symptomatic illness, and 94% efficacy against asymptomatic illness, 14 days after the second dose. Since 80% of the cases in Israel are the UK variant, this shows that Pfizer is just as effective against the UK variant as against the original strain, which is awesome news.

"Those who did not receive the vaccine were up to 44 times more likely to develop symptomatic disease, and 29 times more likely to die from COVID-19."

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pfizer-vaccine-shows-94-effectiveness-asymptomatic-transmission-covid/story?id=76389615

Israel is an excellent test case. 

[Drama Llama]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

They are both supposedly ~92% efficacy before the 2nd shot, which would be 21 days for Pfizer & 28 days for Moderna. And that's efficacy against testing positive, vs 85% efficacy against severe disease after 28 days with J&J.

Quoting from this article:

"Their analysis concludes that prior to the second dose, BNT162b2 [Pfizer} has an efficacy of 92.6%."

First dose efficacy for Moderna "was reported to be 92.1% in an FDA briefing document, published on December 17, 2020."

 

I thought those numbers were for symptomatic infections, not for positive tests.  

[Corraleno]

28 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

I thought those numbers were for symptomatic infections, not for positive tests.  

I don't think either Pfizer or Moderna distinguished between symptomatic and asymptomatic positive tests. They were not routinely testing asymptomatic people, but I don't believe they excluded positive tests for people who were asymptomatic (e.g. someone who did not have symptoms but chose to test after exposure to someone at work or at home). Any positive test was counted as a vaccine failure in those trials. And the real world data from Israel shows that the efficacy rates for asymptomatic and symptomatic illness are nearly identical.

[TCB]

When we ran the vaccination event with J&J many people said they were glad to be getting it and only needing one dose. No-one I spoke to expressed any disappointment with not getting an mRNA one.

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, TCB said:

When we ran the vaccination event with J&J many people said they were glad to be getting it and only needing one dose. No-one I spoke to expressed any disappointment with not getting an mRNA one.

Hmmm, interesting. I don't think people spend too much time comparing efficacies, I guess. 

[Penelope]

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I think most people really do not understand efficacy rates, really do not understand how mRNA vaccines work, and really do not understand how vaccines are developed.

They just see scary FB posts about how the mRNA vaccines "change your DNA" and how they were "rushed" through development too fast, and they have some vague impression that Bill Gates bribed Fauci, or Fauci owns the vaccine patents, or various other nonsensical conspiracy theories. They don't know that J&J started their trials much later than Pfizer and Moderna, so it appears that their vaccine was developed more slowly and carefully, and since it's a "regular" vaccine, not some newfangled technology, they assume it's the "better" and safer choice.

Probably true. 

But there are also problems in the way these vaccines are being compared in this thread that don’t have anything to do with conspiracy theories. You would need to compare two or three vaccines in the same trial to meaningfully compare their effectiveness. You can’t look at one percentage vs. another in separate vaccine trials with numbers like these and say that one is definitely better, when the trials have different inclusion population, different criteria for a Covid diagnosis, and were done at different times and places. It just doesn’t work that way. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Penelope said:

You can’t look at one percentage vs. another in separate vaccine trials with numbers like these and say that one is definitely better, when the trials have different inclusion population, different criteria for a Covid diagnosis, and were done at different times and places. It just doesn’t work that way. 

Their numbers are off by fairly wide margins. When you restrict to specific areas, there's still a striking difference. If you look at how Pfizer is doing in real life in Israel, it's in line with the data from the trial. 

I mean, it's possible that we can't be SURE, but the evidence currently leans towards "the mRNA vaccines are much more effective." 

 

2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

You would need to compare two or three vaccines in the same trial to meaningfully compare their effectiveness.

That's not going to happen, I'd wager. So we're going to do our best with the data we actually have. 

[kristin0713]

Well, maybe I have fallen for the marketing of the J&J shot. I still stand by my reasons stated in the other thread. One reason that the one-shot was appealing to me was because the easiest appointment for me to get (which would have been Pfizer) was two hours away. Then openings started showing up close to me the week that J&J arrived, and on the first try I was able to get a J&J only 30 minutes away.  I could have kept trying for a Moderna or Pfizer but the potential for lower side effects was also very appealing so I grabbed the spot.  Add to that my DH's paranoia about the other vaccines and the fact that he was generally comfortable with me getting this one.  I am not high risk for covid complications; I do have mild asthma, but I am 42, thin, and very healthy. Plus, my parents are now vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer and my sister is getting Moderna on Monday.  I guess when it comes down to it, I feel that the J&J is good enough for me personally and those that are higher risk in my family are covered with the other ones. Now if it is shown that a booster increases efficacy, I'm fine with getting a booster. 

I mean, this is what the CDC is promoting:

Information on how well the vaccine works

• The J&J/Janssen vaccine was 66.3% effective in clinical trials (efficacy) at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in people who had no evidence of prior infection 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine. People had the most protection 2 weeks after getting vaccinated.
• The vaccine had high efficacy at preventing hospitalization and death in people who did get sick. No one who got COVID-19 at least 4 weeks after receiving the J&J/Janssen vaccine had to be hospitalized.
• Early evidence suggests that the J&J/Janssen vaccine might provide protection against asymptomatic infection, which is when a person is infected by the virus that causes COVID-19 but does not get sick.

CDC

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by kristin0713
Sorry, I tried to edit the size of that text and I can't.

[Corraleno]

50 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Their numbers are off by fairly wide margins. When you restrict to specific areas, there's still a striking difference. If you look at how Pfizer is doing in real life in Israel, it's in line with the data from the trial. 

Yes, this. For example, you can't really compare Novavax's 89% efficacy to Pfizer or Moderna's 95% and conclude that Novavax is inferior, because those percentages are really close, and Novavax was dealing with more variants — their rate is over 90% if they exclude South Africa. So in that case the differences may be more statistical than real. And I don't even know how to compare AZ's numbers to any other vaccine, because their trials were a mess, they were pooling data from trials with different doses, etc.

OTOH, it's not unreasonable to assume that a vaccine with an efficacy rate of 74% in the US alone is less effective than one with a 94% efficacy rate that included trials in South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and Turkey. It's not unreasonable to compare Pfizer's 97% efficacy in Israel, where 80% of cases are the UK variant, to J&J's 66% efficacy in the UK itself. 

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, kristin0713 said:

• The vaccine had high efficacy at preventing hospitalization and death in people who did get sick. No one who got COVID-19 at least 4 weeks after receiving the J&J/Janssen vaccine had to be hospitalized.
• Early evidence suggests that the J&J/Janssen vaccine might provide protection against asymptomatic infection, which is when a person is infected by the virus that causes COVID-19 but does not get sick.

Do you know how many hospitalizations there were in each group? I know the death numbers were so tiny as to not be super useful. 

[Corraleno]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Do you know how many hospitalizations there were in each group? I know the death numbers were so tiny as to not be super useful. 

There were 31 total hospitalizations, with 29 in the placebo group and 2 in the vaccine group, out of ~40K total trial participants.

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There were 31 total hospitalizations, with 29 in the placebo group and 2 in the vaccine group, out of ~40K total trial participants.

Hmmmm. Well, this trial is definitely underpowered for estimating this. It's BETTER than the Pfizer and Moderna ones for evaluating this outcome, actually (they had like 10 hospitalizations or something), but it's way underpowered.

I'd feel a lot better if they had a few hundred hospitalizations, and the same percentage (I guess around 6%?) was in the vaccinated groups. 

[Not_a_Number]

I'm going to feel a lot better about the J&J if the results about hospitalization and deaths hold up when it's tried on more people 🙂 . 

[Ausmumof3]

11 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

Apparently US is holding millions of vaccines from AstraZeneca and we don’t need them. Europe is asking for it. Why don’t we give it away? Frankly we have enough of Moderna and Pfizer for our entire adult population. And we have less sexy J&J. And we have Novavax with great numbers coming this summer. Can somebody explain to me why we are hoarding AstraZeneca?

I guess one thing we don’t know yet is how long vaccine induced immunity lasts for so maybe it’s a backup plan?  I do think the world needs to prioritise helping everyone get frontline workers etc vaccinated though.

[Ausmumof3]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2B60L6?__twitter_impression=true
 

 

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2B60L6?__twitter_impression=true
 

 

Apologies if it’s already even posted 

“AstraZeneca's review, which covered more than 17 million people vaccinated in the United Kingdom and European Union, comes after health authorities in some countries suspended the use of its vaccine over clotting issues.

"A careful review of all available safety data of more than 17 million people vaccinated in the European Union and UK with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has shown no evidence of an increased risk of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis or thrombocytopenia, in any defined age group, gender, batch or in any particular country," the company said.”

[Roadrunner]

9 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I guess one thing we don’t know yet is how long vaccine induced immunity lasts for so maybe it’s a backup plan?  I do think the world needs to prioritise helping everyone get frontline workers etc vaccinated though.

Maybe.

I am just concerned that if we get all immunized here while everywhere else the virus is raging and mutating, our immunity will be no good anyway. We almost need to extinguish this everywhere simultaneously. Forget philanthropic reasons and look at selfish ones. 

I would love to see what production capacity looks like this year for various vaccines es to get a more global picture

[Ausmumof3]

26 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Maybe.

I am just concerned that if we get all immunized here while everywhere else the virus is raging and mutating, our immunity will be no good anyway. We almost need to extinguish this everywhere simultaneously. Forget philanthropic reasons and look at selfish ones. 

I would love to see what production capacity looks like this year for various vaccines es to get a more global picture

Yep.  Agreed.  Short of everyone having closed borders till vaccines are done worldwide risk of variants will be universal.  

[Laura Corin]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/15/evidence-oxford-vaccine-blood-clots-data-causal-links

[Roadrunner]

12 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/15/evidence-oxford-vaccine-blood-clots-data-causal-links

I saw that.
In total 8 counties suspended. I hope they will resume at closer examination. 

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

My husband got the Janssen shot last week.  No side effects other than a sore arm for a day.

Locally; officials are pushing the Janssen shot because there’s been a significant percentage of people who don’t go back for the second dose of the others. 

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, Laura Corin said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/15/evidence-oxford-vaccine-blood-clots-data-causal-links

This is interesting on the precautionary principle 

BBC News - Is Europe's AstraZeneca jab decision-making flawed?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56360646

[wathe]

4 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

This is interesting on the precautionary principle 

BBC News - Is Europe's AstraZeneca jab decision-making flawed?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56360646

Yes, opportunity-cost.  Halting the vaccine because a very tiny number of people might have a complication which might not actually have anything to do with the vaccine needs to be balanced with the risk of not vaccinating.  And that risk is knowable and countable and predictable: deaths from covid. Deaths that are preventable with vaccination.

Edited March 15, 2021 by wathe

[Penelope]

16 hours ago, kand said:

I agree completely with this, and I think it makes complete sense from a public health standpoint. What I don’t understand, is why reporters are parroting it without giving the caveats. It’s not their job to have to say the same thing that the public health people are saying. It seems funny for me to say this, because I am on board with what public health in doing, and especially in a situation like this, it’s essential for us to get as many people vaccinated as possible. But, I also like  information to be accurate.  Information becomes less trustworthy to me when it is clear that the whole truth is not being given.

I think you make some good points here, and they can’t be exactly compared. That’s actually part of what I was saying, in that the efficacy rates weren’t even based on the same thing, so to compare Johnson and Johnson’s 66% with Pfizer’s 95% or whatever  without explaining that difference comes across as deceptive to me. I think with a lot of reporters, the truth is probably that they’re not actually realizing the difference, but the scientists certainly know better.  I do realize though that as I said above, my public health standpoint, the elimination of severe illness and death is really what counts. It’s just when it gets to the individual level that that ceases to be a high enough bar for some people.

I think it totally makes sense for a lot of people to go for the Johnson and Johnson shot. It does seem like some people who are on the fence are more willing to take that one than one of the mRNAs, which makes me extra glad that we have that option. What bothers me isn’t the difference between the shots, or that some people prefer the Johnson and Johnson, but the efforts to make it seem like there isn’t a difference. I just feel like that should be more transparent.

I think that reporting has been a problem throughout the pandemic, and accurate information about vaccinations has been more of the same. There has been a crazy amount of inaccurate and confusing information reported about variants. 
Reporters aren’t scientists, and even science reporters can get things wrong or leave out important caveats. And scientists themselves aren’t always the best messengers. They geek out about some things that aren’t settled or that the public don’t need to be significantly concerned about. Some scientists go beyond their area of expertise in interviews or podcasts. And some scientists are popular with journalists, while others and their different viewpoints are not. And on and on.
 

It’s very difficult to know what to think as a member of the public, which leads to the other issue of so many of us thinking that because we can Google, read studies, and follow scientists on social media, that we have a deep understanding of any of these issues that come up. We don’t. Thinking we can evaluate and compare trials ourselves provides a sense of control to the analytically-minded among us, but it’s really a false sense. 
If you go back and read Covid threads on this board from the beginning, as an observer, it’s interesting. It doesn’t help that some of what passes for “science” in the past year is junk science. I don’t mean that the vaccine trials are junk science, but comparing one vaccine to another by just looking at percentages in trials with data that went out only a month or so post-vaccination is not scientific thinking, it is just a guess.

I do agree that if we have a choice personally, we have our best guess to make, and if I were 75 years old maybe my best guess at this movement in time would be to take the two-dose Pfizer or Moderna. But in the long run, that may turn out to be the equivalent or even the inferior choice. I think that is why we don’t hear messaging that there is a difference. We just can’t tell that there is a real difference from the information we have. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Penelope

[ieta_cassiopeia]

Not to mention that with a lot of people, getting the message that any of the vaccines is worthwhile is already difficult. Saying that the type of vaccine needs to be critiqued even if it's been approved for use makes it even more difficult to get doses in arms.

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

Not to mention that with a lot of people, getting the message that any of the vaccines is worthwhile is already difficult. Saying that the type of vaccine needs to be critiqued even if it's been approved for use makes it even more difficult to get doses in arms.

Oh yes. I am talking to friends and family in Europe amd nobody wants to even consider AstraZeneca now.