The Vaccine Thread

[frogger]

54 minutes ago, Plum said:

Haven’t read responses. How does that make sense when they need to cohort patients? They can’t assume covid and put a flu patient in the covid ward. They have to have proof or the patient gets isolated as a rule out and there’s definitely not enough room for many of those. 

🤷. I have no idea. Nothing she says makes sense. She doesn't work in billing. She isn't in charge of testing. She just doesn't believe that everyone has Covid that she is told has Covid. Certainly, many of my them have other things in her mind.  

[Drama Llama]

I hope that hospitals get paid more for covid patients.  I don't have experience with an actual covid patient, but there were times during my son's hospital stay when he was considered to be a potential covid case.  Even though everyone agreed that the chances he actually had covid were low, the precautions they needed to take were time consuming, and I'm sure the extra PPE they used cost money.  It complicated everything, and probably impacted the nursing ratios, and R.T. ratios as well.  Why wouldn't those costs be passed on to insurers?  

[dirty ethel rackham]

On 12/15/2020 at 11:09 AM, Terabith said:

Apparently my husband may qualify for the 1a vaccine.  He does IT for a hospital but works 100% from home.  I’m honestly lividly angry because the hospital (a major monopoly in our area) has gotten enough vaccine to vaccinate all their workers, even the low risk ones, but I can guarantee that smaller nursing homes in our area will not be able to access the vaccine for their employees. So while selfishly, I am grateful my husband can get the vaccine, I feel like it’s not equitable or morally right.  

I'm in this no man's land when it comes to qualifying for the vaccine.  I am a sonography (ultrasound) student doing clinicals in a hospital.  I don't work with known Covid or PUI patients.  Those are all portable exams handled by qualified staff in full PPE.  So, I'm not front-line.  Also, I am not staff.  So I don't fall anywhere on the healthcare worker timeline.

But that doesn't mean I'm not at risk. Although I don't scan C+ or PUI, I do, however, work with outpatients (who may or may not have been telling the truth at the registration screening for symptoms - I was coughed on repeatedly by an outpatient who "passed" this screening) and ER patients who don't have covid-specific symptoms.  I also work with inpatients with a negative Covid test (which could have been days ago and they haven't noticed covid symptoms to trigger another test.)  I am in a small room within arms' reach of the patient for a minimum of 30 minutes   Since the population served by this hospital has one of the highest positivity rates in the state, the risk from these patients is not insignificant.  I have to say I am grateful that our department supervisor recognizes the risk and insists that we all wear N95 masks with a procedure mask over it and a face shield as well as a gown over our scrubs.  

 

On 12/19/2020 at 12:04 PM, Bootsie said:

There is some truth to hospitals receiving a higher payment if there is a COVID diagnosis:

"The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients to account for both anticipated and unanticipated increases in the cost of care for these medically complex patients," explained Dr. Summer McGee, dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven.

As Badger highlighted, instead of getting paid the DRG rate, a hospital that admits a coronavirus patient will receive 20 percent more compensation than they would for providing that same care to a non-coronavirus patient.

"Imagine two Medicare patients, one with COVID-19 and another one not, with pneumonia in the same ICU. Medicare will pay, for example, $10,000 for the pneumonia patient who doesn't have COVID-19 and $12,000 for the patient who does," he surmised. "The rationale is that this provides a sort of rough justice method of making sure that hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government."

Hospitals are paid more for Medicare patients confirmed or presumed to have coronavirus | Fox News

 

 

Many (if not most) hospitals treating a high number of covid patients are likely in areas where a higher percentage of the patients they serve do not have insurance.  These hospitals are hanging on by a thread.  That bump for COVID is a drop in the bucket compared to the financial burden that this disease has put on them (not all severely ill patients qualify for Medicare.)  

On 12/20/2020 at 12:32 PM, ScoutTN said:

All the docs and nurses I know who work in local hospitals get their first vax dose this week.  

I'm so jealous.  We definitely have an inequitable distribution of Covid vaccines in our state.  My local hospital system that serves a much wealthier population was able to acquire enough doses for every worker in the hospital/clinic system.  The hospital where I am doing clinicals is only offering the vaccine to frontline staff ... those that work with direct contact with known Covid or PUI patients.  The ultrasound department had to fight to be included in that.  The positivity rate in zip codes served by the hospital I work at is almost triple that of the hospital near my house.  The Covid patient numbers reflect that ratio.  

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-23/should-covid-19-ring-vaccinations-begin-now-in-northern-beaches/13006536
 

Looks like health experts are having some discussions around using a ring vaccination technique in Sydney though it’s uncertain how effective it will be until we know if the vaccines prevent transmission effectively.

[Terabith]

So, newest information is that my husband will not qualify for vaccination with the health care workers, since the hospital did not get all of the shots they asked for.  

Honestly, I'm okay with this.  

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nanoparticles-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-rare-allergic-reactions
 

if PEG is the allergen in Pfizer vaccines we should see some similar reactions in Moderna.  If we don’t thats probably an indication that another component of the vaccine is causing it.

[hopeallgoeswell]

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nanoparticles-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-rare-allergic-reactions
 

if PEG is the allergen in Pfizer vaccines we should see some similar reactions in Moderna.  If we don’t thats probably an indication that another component of the vaccine is causing it.

I wonder if the vaccine could possibly be taken with no adverse reaction at the time of administration but create high levels of anti-PEG antibodies which set off a future adverse event the next time a person is exposed to PEG in another vaccine or drug?  In other words, the reactions from the vaccines will not be high but subsequent reactions to other pharmaceuticals containing PEG would rise?

Edited December 23, 2020 by hopeallgoeswell

[wathe]

5 hours ago, Plum said:

There is a disconnect for some HCW. I’ve heard quite a few stories of doctors and nurses letting predispositions and biases alter their perceptions. Dh has a coworker that works with the FDA all the time but didn’t trust them with the vaccine. Another example is HCWers that excel in their department are unaware or don’t connect to what is happening in the rest of the hospital. 
Example: Dh was talking to a director and someone asked about hospital capacity. He said it’s packed! She says it’s not that bad. He asks her why she thinks that? She thinks about the total bed count and the # of admitted patients and figures there must still be room in the hospital somewhere. He points out that over 100 beds in that total bed count is pediatrics, NICU, pediatric oncology, L&D. Areas where there are very few to no covid patients. They are actively discharging as soon as possible to maintain the capacity they are at. They have patients waiting in the ED. Sometimes when people are exhausted, have tunnel vision for their department only or have misperceptions based on their reality they say things because they don’t understand what they are seeing. It’s like when everyday citizens tried to film their hospital because a quiet ED or empty parking lot was proof that covid was fake. 

Right. In a recent week we were "only" at 80-some-odd % of capacity officially, and yet had 20-something patients sitting in ED admitted to no bed.......  Specialized beds aren't interchangeable.  Can't put adults in NICU beds!  Or sick medical patients in mental health beds etc.

Also, HCW are really just regular people, with the whole range of cognitive errors, psychology, personality and general weirdness of being regular humans.  Who may not know a whole lot outside their narrow area of expertise.  And may have had very narrow education and training.

[Melissa Louise]

I'm sorry, I accidentally 'rated' this thread while reading on mobile but did not mean to! Can't seem to edit the rating. 

 

[Ausmumof3]

5 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

I wonder if the vaccine could possibly be taken with no adverse reaction at the time of administration but create high levels of anti-PEG antibodies which set off a future adverse event the next time a person is exposed to PEG in another vaccine or drug?  In other words, the reactions from the vaccines will not be high but subsequent reactions to other pharmaceuticals containing PEG would rise?

Yep I wondered exactly that - good question.  Particularly problematic if it becomes a yearly vaccine.

[Lanny]

I have probably lost my interest in getting the vaccination for COVID-19.  Until a few weeks ago I was very interested. My primary interest was in the Moderna vaccine, because I'd read months ago that they found in the early testing that it is also very effective among elderly people and I am elderly.

Now, I am thankful that I am in Colombia and that the government here is watching what is happening in other countries where vaccinations have begun. Here in Colombia, they are planning to begin giving vaccinations in February 2021.  I believe there are 5 or 6 different vaccines they are looking at.

I read something yesterday that said (I think this is for the USA) that if they can vaccinate 20% of the population they will get "herd immunity"?

[denarii]

9 hours ago, wathe said:

Right. In a recent week we were "only" at 80-some-odd % of capacity officially, and yet had 20-something patients sitting in ED admitted to no bed.......  Specialized beds aren't interchangeable.  Can't put adults in NICU beds!  Or sick medical patients in mental health beds etc.

Also, HCW are really just regular people, with the whole range of cognitive errors, psychology, personality and general weirdness of being regular humans.  Who may not know a whole lot outside their narrow area of expertise.  And may have had very narrow education and training.

In Alberta they've had to combine PCICU and PICU rooms to make room for more ICU patients. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/7-pediatric-patients-relocated-from-stollery-icu-for-covid-19-patients-1.5848494

"The move means patients and parents in the PICU will no longer have a private room equipped with a couch for parents to sleep on, among other amenities.

Those patients will now be in two-person rooms in the PCICU with only one visitor allowed per patient.

It also means there may not be a chair available for parents who wish to stay with their child overnight."

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, Lanny said:

 

I read something yesterday that said (I think this is for the USA) that if they can vaccinate 20% of the population they will get "herd immunity"?

I believe that's incorrect.

The CDC says that the percentage of the population that will need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity for Covid 19 is unknown.

Johns Hopkins says that for most vaccines the number if somewhere between 50 and 90 percent.

I suppose how many people need to be vaccinated before herd immunity is achieved also depends (at least somewhat) on how many people acquire Covid naturally and recover from it, too.

But nowhere have I seen any reputable epidemiologist, infectious disease specialist or other expert say that 20 percent vaccination rate will be enough to achieve herd immunity.

[ktgrok]

 

1 hour ago, Lanny said:

I have probably lost my interest in getting the vaccination for COVID-19.  Until a few weeks ago I was very interested. My primary interest was in the Moderna vaccine, because I'd read months ago that they found in the early testing that it is also very effective among elderly people and I am elderly.

 

Can I ask why? Nothing I'm seeing is showing the side effects of the vaccine to be worse than the risks of the disease itself. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 hours ago, Lanny said:

I read something yesterday that said (I think this is for the USA) that if they can vaccinate 20% of the population they will get "herd immunity"?

I really doubt it. I’ve never seen anyone say that.

[Pam in CT]

** blinking **

 

 

ETA and the winner is...

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Pam in CT

[Corraleno]

7 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

But nowhere have I seen any reputable epidemiologist, infectious disease specialist or other expert say that 20 percent vaccination rate will be enough to achieve herd immunity.

 

6 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I really doubt it. I’ve never seen anyone say that.

A doctor from Johns Hopkins (Marty Makary) was on Fox News recently saying that we only need to vaccinate 20% of the population — based on his completely absurd assumption that up to half of all Americans are already immune to covid:

“There’s a recommendation that we need to get every American immunised in order to get a handle on the pandemic. The reality is that about 25 to 50 per cent of Americans have already had the infection and have some natural immunity. Now, we don't know if that's a little better, a little worse, or the same as vaccinated immunity, but ... we may only need to get an additional 20 per cent of the population immunised by February or March to really hit those 70 per cent herd immunity levels.”

Besides the fact that there is ZERO data suggesting that 165 million Americans have already had covid and are now immune, even if this absurd claim were true, we have less than 20 million confirmed cases, so how in the world would we know who the other 145 million previously infected people were who supposedly don't need to be vaccinated??? And that's not even taking into consideration whether mild or asymptomatic cases actually provide long-term immunity.

This is incredibly dangerous propaganda, because it will convince a lot of people, like Lanny, that they don't need to "risk" a vaccine reaction, they can just let other people get it and then they'll be protected by herd immunity. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Corraleno

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

 

A doctor from Johns Hopkins (Marty Makary) was on Fox News recently saying that we only need to vaccinate 20% of the population — based on his completely absurd assumption that up to half of all Americans are already immune to covid:

“There’s a recommendation that we need to get every American immunised in order to get a handle on the pandemic. The reality is that about 25 to 50 per cent of Americans have already had the infection and have some natural immunity. Now, we don't know if that's a little better, a little worse, or the same as vaccinated immunity, but ... we may only need to get an additional 20 per cent of the population immunised by February or March to really hit those 70 per cent herd immunity levels.”

Besides the fact that there is ZERO data suggesting that 165 million Americans have already had covid and are now immune, even if this absurd claims was true, we have less than 20 million confirmed cases, so how in the world would we know who the other 145 million previously infected people were who supposedly don't need to be vaccinated??? And that's not even taking into consideration whether mild or asymptomatic cases actually provide long-term immunity.

This is incredibly dangerous propaganda, because it will convince a lot of people, like Lanny, that they don't need to "risk" a vaccine reaction, they can just let other people get it and then they'll be protected by herd immunity. 

Thanks for explaining where this is coming from. (Not that I'm surprised.) 

Yeah, I have to say, this is absurd. First of all, we already know that "natural" COVID immunity doesn't last that long. Secondly, I would guess we're currently picking up a good fraction of the cases -- probably like a third. That means that we've had at most a fifth of the country infected... and a fair number of those in the spring, whose immunity may very well have worn off. 

Bleh. I guess I'm not surprised we're going to continue to be responsible for our own safety, but it's a bummer. 

 

[Matryoshka]

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

A doctor from Johns Hopkins (Marty Makary) was on Fox News recently saying that we only need to vaccinate 20% of the population — based on his completely absurd assumption that up to half of all Americans are already immune to covid:

“There’s a recommendation that we need to get every American immunised in order to get a handle on the pandemic. The reality is that about 25 to 50 per cent of Americans have already had the infection and have some natural immunity. Now, we don't know if that's a little better, a little worse, or the same as vaccinated immunity, but ... we may only need to get an additional 20 per cent of the population immunised by February or March to really hit those 70 per cent herd immunity levels.”

Besides the fact that there is ZERO data suggesting that 165 million Americans have already had covid and are now immune, even if this absurd claim was true, we have less than 20 million confirmed cases, so how in the world would we know who the other 145 million previously infected people were who supposedly don't need to be vaccinated??? And that's not even taking into consideration whether mild or asymptomatic cases actually provide long-term immunity.

This is incredibly dangerous propaganda, because it will convince a lot of people, like Lanny, that they don't need to "risk" a vaccine reaction, they can just let other people get it and then they'll be protected by herd immunity. 

Not to mention the fact, that since we don't know who these mysterious people who have been infected but we don't know it are, some of the people who are immunized are likely to be among them, so our rate of vaccinating the non-exposed would be eve% he's guessing.  The whole thing is absurd.  He should not be in medicine.  WTH.

[Terabith]

I think we can safely conclude that being struck by lightning 28 days after vaccination is not related to the vaccine, but I guess we have to include it anyway.....

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I think we can safely conclude that being struck by lightning 28 days after vaccination is not related to the vaccine, but I guess we have to include it anyway.....

THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK!! 

[Corraleno]

35 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK!! 

Clearly the microchip in the vaccine causes heart problems when you're near 5G towers, but Bill Gates is so devious he designed it to look like a fake lightning strike! 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Clearly the microchip in the vaccine causes heart problems when you're near 5G towers, but Bill Gates is so devious he designed it to look like a fake lightning strike! 

Don't put that on FB. People will believe it 😛 

[EKS]

On 12/22/2020 at 10:19 AM, Not_a_Number said:

One of my relatives is a physicist who currently works in geology, and he constantly complains about how people abuse statistics.

Maybe we're related! 

My father is a geologist who was originally trained as a physicist, and he complains about the same thing--that people (who should know better) use statistics software without understanding the statistical tests they are employing and so they will use tests that are totally inappropriate to the situation.

[EKS]

20 hours ago, Terabith said:

I think we can safely conclude that being struck by lightning 28 days after vaccination is not related to the vaccine, but I guess we have to include it anyway.....

I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry as a scientist turned medical writer, and it's true--ALL adverse events are initially included until they can be determined to be unrelated to treatment.  Even dying after getting hit by a bus.

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, EKS said:

Maybe we're related! 

My father is a geologist who was originally trained as a physicist, and he complains about the same thing--that people (who should know better) use statistics software without understanding the statistical tests they are employing and so they will use tests that are totally inappropriate to the situation.

Yep, sounds VERY familiar.

My “relative” is really my first stepdad, lol. (I’ve now had two, neither of whom is married to my mom anymore.) I sometimes say “relative,” since my family tree is a bit complicated...

Is your father an academic?

[Ausmumof3]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN29000W?__twitter_impression=true
 

Boston doctor has had a severe allergic reaction to the modern vaccine.  I guess that means it could still likely be the PEG that is the issue?

[Lanny]

I have changed my mind, completely, over the past few months about the idea of getting the vaccination(s) for the COVID-19 coronavirus.  I went from enthusiastic about the idea. to where I am now, which is that I am not planning to get it.  I am elderly and there is much more risk of getting COVID-19.  The possibility of having a reaction after getting the shots is real, but the real downer for me is that I read a month or 2 ago that Moderna (the company I had the most interest in because they discovered in early trials it is extremely effective in elderly people) said that it is only good for approximately 90 days.  For 90 days I can continue to "SIIP" (Shelter in Place" in our house as I have been doing since last March.  The "Herd Immunity" will probably require a huge percentage of the people to have been exposed and/or had the vaccination, but I think that will provide longer lasting "protection".     When I was young, I remember getting the Polio vaccine. I think it was on a Sugar Cube?  I also think if not "permanent" it was valid for a number of years, before requiring a booster.  The idea of going thru the hassle of 2 shots and possible reactions and then only having about 90 days of protection is what has really turned me off of the idea. They will begin giving the vaccine here in Colombia during February 2021. First to  Medical people and to people above the age of 80.

[Drama Llama]

8 minutes ago, Lanny said:

I have changed my mind, completely, over the past few months about the idea of getting the vaccination(s) for the COVID-19 coronavirus.  I went from enthusiastic about the idea. to where I am now, which is that I am not planning to get it.  I am elderly and there is much more risk of getting COVID-19.  The possibility of having a reaction after getting the shots is real, but the real downer for me is that I read a month or 2 ago that Moderna (the company I had the most interest in because they discovered in early trials it is extremely effective in elderly people) said that it is only good for approximately 90 days.  For 90 days I can continue to "SIIP" (Shelter in Place" in our house as I have been doing since last March.  The "Herd Immunity" will probably require a huge percentage of the people to have been exposed and/or had the vaccination, but I think that will provide longer lasting "protection".     When I was young, I remember getting the Polio vaccine. I think it was on a Sugar Cube?  I also think if not "permanent" it was valid for a number of years, before requiring a booster.  The idea of going thru the hassle of 2 shots and possible reactions and then only having about 90 days of protection is what has really turned me off of the idea. They will begin giving the vaccine here in Colombia during February 2021. First to  Medical people and to people above the age of 80.

Can you link what you wrote that talks about 90 days.  Because what you're saying doesn't match with my understanding of the virus at all.  

[RootAnn]

@Lanny They don't know yet how long it will last. When you read that, they likely only had 90 days of data so they couldn't promise beyond it. By Feb, the companies will habe more data. Keep an open mind, please!!

@BaseballandHockey Here is a recent commentary on a very small study about Moderna's antibodies:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/12/22/the-moderna-vaccines-antibodies-may-not-last-as-long-as-we-hoped/amp/

Letter in New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195?query=RP

Edited December 26, 2020 by RootAnn
Added another link

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

@Lanny They don't know yet how long it will last. When you read that, they likely only had 90 days of data so they couldn't promise beyond it. By Feb, the companies will habe more data. Keep an open mind, please!!

Yep. Exactly. We'll know a LOT more soon. I'm also waiting to see how much the vaccines cut infectiousness as opposed to disease. 

[Lady Florida.]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread as there are so many threads going. 

Ddil got the Moderna vaccine this week. She's a nurse and while she didn't turn it down she's annoyed that she was one of the first while dss, a firefighter/paramedic isn't even anywhere in line. Florida's first responders have not been considered in the first group of people to get it. Ddil works in a hospital but doesn't have contact with patients in her current position, but they still gave it to her.

Anyway, back to the vaccine. She said that her arm is sore in a way that she's never  experienced. She said that while it doesn't feel very sore in general, if someone should bump into her near the injection spot it sends shock waves through her. She hasn't had an actual reaction, just that very, very sore arm.

[mathnerd]

6 hours ago, Lanny said:

I have changed my mind, completely, over the past few months about the idea of getting the vaccination(s) for the COVID-19 coronavirus.  

@LannyThough I know that it is frustrating, they don't know enough, yet, to give out authoritative information. The elderly got vaccines in the UK starting in Dec. There will be more data out by next Feb. So, please don't give up hope!

[catz]

So I would consider this a wait and see and show me the data situation, but AstraZeneca is now saying they've tweaked their vaccine to similar have efficacy to Pfizer and Moderna's vaccine options.  Quote and link below.  

======================

The Covid-19 vaccine developed by the British drugs group AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford has achieved a "winning formula" for efficacy, the company's chief executive said on Sunday.

The vaccine, currently being evaluated by Britain's independent medicines regulator, provides "100 percent protection" against severe Covid disease requiring hospitalization, Pascal Soriot said in an interview with the Sunday Times newspaper.

He added he believes trials will show his firm has achieved a vaccine efficacy equal to Pfizer-BioNTech at 95 percent and Moderna at 94.5 percent.

https://news.yahoo.com/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-winning-formula-102823220.html

[Not_a_Number]

32 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

So I would consider this a wait and see and show me the data situation, but AstraZeneca is now saying they've tweaked their vaccine to similar have efficacy to Pfizer and Moderna's vaccine options.  Quote and link below.  

I mean... I hope so, but I really need to see the data 😛 . As you say. 

[Not_a_Number]

25 minutes ago, kand said:

This Twitter thread from epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding gives some additional info on the new research from AZ as well as why this particular vaccine is so important. It doesn’t require refrigeration, is cheap, and is the one on order for 40% of the world’s population. Let’s hope this new data holds up:

 

I really hope it does work. 

I'm feeling a bit lazy about going down the vaccine rabbit hole... is this spinning off from the earlier accidental "half dose" version? 

[JennyD]

That would be great news about the AZ vaccine, if true.   Their collection and release of data so far has not exactly been confidence-inspiring, but we certainly need all the good vaccine news we can get.  Fingers crossed, and I look forward to the scientists going through it all very closely.  

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, JennyD said:

That would be great news about the AZ vaccine, if true.   Their collection and release of data so far has not exactly been confidence-inspiring, but we certainly need all the good vaccine news we can get.  Fingers crossed, and I look forward to the scientists going through it all very closely.  

I hope so for us in Aus because we are building facilities to allow us to manufacture it locally.

[ieta_cassiopeia]

19 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I really hope it does work. 

I'm feeling a bit lazy about going down the vaccine rabbit hole... is this spinning off from the earlier accidental "half dose" version? 

Yes, this is a retrial based on deliberately giving everyone in the retrial the half-dose primer. It's also deliberately set out to get extra information on the effect it has on over-55s. It's particularly important since, by nature of where and when it was done, it will inevitably have tested against the new UK variant we've all heard about (a lot of the testing is happening in London and the South-East, where that's become the most common form of the virus due to out-competing other variants).

It's also indicating that the standard-dose people who were vaccinated in Phase I are still protected, 150 days later.

My one caution is that we're still waiting for peer review of the new study.

[JennyD]

Boy, Israel is just vaccinating up the wazoo.  It's a small country and they have a good public health infrastructure, but it's not exactly known for being a beacon of efficiency.  They're throwing everything they've got at this effort, though, vaccinating folks 24/7.  

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by JennyD

[Corraleno]

On 12/26/2020 at 8:46 AM, Lanny said:

I have changed my mind, completely, over the past few months about the idea of getting the vaccination(s) for the COVID-19 coronavirus.  I went from enthusiastic about the idea. to where I am now, which is that I am not planning to get it.  I am elderly and there is much more risk of getting COVID-19.  The possibility of having a reaction after getting the shots is real, but the real downer for me is that I read a month or 2 ago that Moderna (the company I had the most interest in because they discovered in early trials it is extremely effective in elderly people) said that it is only good for approximately 90 days.  For 90 days I can continue to "SIIP" (Shelter in Place" in our house as I have been doing since last March.  The "Herd Immunity" will probably require a huge percentage of the people to have been exposed and/or had the vaccination, but I think that will provide longer lasting "protection".     When I was young, I remember getting the Polio vaccine. I think it was on a Sugar Cube?  I also think if not "permanent" it was valid for a number of years, before requiring a booster.  The idea of going thru the hassle of 2 shots and possible reactions and then only having about 90 days of protection is what has really turned me off of the idea. They will begin giving the vaccine here in Colombia during February 2021. First to  Medical people and to people above the age of 80.

Either you have misunderstood the data provided by Moderna, or what you heard was purposely being spun by anti-vaxx media. Here is a report published by Moderna at the end of phase 2 trials. What it actually says is that when they measured neutralizing antibodies in trial participants 90 days after the 2nd dose (119 days after the first dose), they not only found that antibodies remained elevated, they were even higher than the average level of antibodies in patients who had actually had the disease.

Obviously they have no way of knowing at this point exactly how long immunity will last, since it's a brand new vaccine, but there is literally no evidence whatsoever that protection disappears after 90 days, and in fact their data clearly shows that significant levels of neutralizing antibodies were still present nearly 4 months after the first dose, and they are continuing to monitor those levels. And antibodies aren't the only immune response that matters — Moderna's vaccine also produced T and B cell responses, and they are tracking the longevity of those as well.

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Corraleno

[Not_a_Number]

48 minutes ago, JennyD said:

Boy, Israel is just vaccinating up the wazoo.  It's a small country and they have a good public health infrastructure, but it's not exactly known for being a beacon of efficiency.  They're throwing everything they've got at this effort, though, vaccinating folks 24/7.  

Oh, wow. Good for them. 

Perhaps we'll be visiting my dad sooner than I thought, lol. Sit out the rest of the pandemic in Israel, lol? 

[BeachGal]

The first batch of vaccine created by AstraZeneca’s Italian vaccine manufacturer was a bit too concentrated and that is why AZ decided to halve the first dose in that one particular group. I’m not 100% sure but I believe by the time they gave the second dose, the concentration had been corrected.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55308216

The Italian manufacturers used a different technique to Oxford to check the concentration of the vaccine - effectively how many viral particles are floating in each dose. When the Oxford scientists used their method, it appeared that the Italian vaccine was double strength. What to do? Calls were made to the medical regulators. It was agreed that volunteers should be given a half measure of the vaccine, on the basis that it was likely to equate to something more like a regular dose. This was partly a safety issue - they preferred to give them too little rather than too much.

But after a week, the scientists became aware that something unusual was going on. The volunteers were getting none of the usual side-effects - such as sore arms or fever. About 1,300 volunteers had only received a half-dose of the vaccine, rather than a full one. The independent regulators said the trial should continue and that the half-dose group could remain in the study. 

The Oxford team bristle at any suggestion that there was a mistake, error, call it what you will. Perhaps the most accurate characterisation is that the volunteers were inadvertently given a lower dose. In months to come, they would be the stellar group in terms of vaccine efficacy. 

 

ETA: India is probably going to start administering the AstraZeneca vaccine next week or so.

Edited December 30, 2020 by BeachGal

[Ausmumof3]

Astra Zeneca is approved for use in the UK

https://time.com/5925432/uk-authorizes-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=world_covid-19&linkId=108148073

[RootAnn]

I'm surprised there haven't been more stories about having to toss out Pfizer vaccine doses that haven't been used in the 5 days after removing them from super cold storage. It takes a lot of coordination to get all of them used quickly.

I am wondering if there will be stories about having to toss out the ones that have reached their super cold shelf life (30 days) because the US hasn't moved quickly enough to use their supplies.

[JennyD]

6 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

I'm surprised there haven't been more stories about having to toss out Pfizer vaccine doses that haven't been used in the 5 days after removing them from super cold storage. It takes a lot of coordination to get all of them used quickly.

I am wondering if there will be stories about having to toss out the ones that have reached their super cold shelf life (30 days) because the US hasn't moved quickly enough to use their supplies.

These stories about the vaccine rollout are making me angrier than I have been in quite a while.  I mean, I can't say that I'm surprised, but it's just beyond frustrating.

 

[Ausmumof3]

Astra Zeneca was approved in the UK but not on the half dose full dose schedule.  Apparently that data didn’t stand up to scrutiny.  They have reached 80pc efficacy (? Did I pick the right word) by giving two doses three months apart.  This is good but the effect is only about 50pc after the first dose which with the new more transmissible variant means that it might be a bit longer before it really helps make a difference.  Still better than nothing but it seems like allergies and cost and logistics issues aside the mRNA vaccines will be the better options.  Uk are also choosing to go with a full rollout of all available vaccine as first doses rather than holding some back for the follow up.  Which makes sense I guess with three months to get follow up doses sorted.

There was also a story run about someone getting infected with COVID six days after the first vaccine with one of the mRNA ones but that’s not overly surprising as it takes around 10 days to get to maximum protection and that’s only around 50pc or so from the first dose.

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Astra Zeneca was approved in the UK but not on the half dose full dose schedule.  Apparently that data didn’t stand up to scrutiny

They are being quite shady about their data. I don't like it. 

[Ausmumof3]

31 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

They are being quite shady about their data. I don't like it. 

No I agree.  But then I’m not sure why because they’ve agreed to supply at cost basically so what’s in it for them?  Maybe just prestige etc.  either way it’s the vax we most likely will get here 

[Corraleno]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

They are being quite shady about their data. I don't like it. 

I've been really surprised and dismayed by how disorganized their trials seem to have been and how non-transparent they have been with their data. I guess I naively thought the Oxford/AZ trials would be the most... academic? intellectually honest? least motivated by money? I was initially very skeptical of Moderna, whose execs were sending out super positive (but largely data-free) press releases over the summer and then selling off millions of dollars in stock when the share price jumped. But in the end their trials, and Pfizer's, seem to have been very well designed and well run and they have been pretty transparent with their data, while the Oxford/AZ trials seem to have been a total mess and they are being really shady about their results, despite the fact that it was supposed to be a nonprofit endeavor, with a pledge to sell the vaccine at cost.

I would love to know what the deal is there — do they just not want to admit they screwed up? Do they not have the funding for additional, better designed trials? Is the UK just desperate for access to a large volume of a cheap, easily administered vaccines, even if they are not nearly as effective as other options?