|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 25, 2021 23:05:29 GMT
Yes I found it thanks Matt and edited into my post before you posted here, what are your thoughts on what I've said please? It is a pretty small sample and one that isn’t too representative, but it is encouraging they got such high titres from these folks even if they are on the healthy side. The concern was initially that it simply wouldn’t happen at all, so to see 99.5% (I think they’ve rounded the figure to 100%), is really encouraging as is the fact its comparable to younger folks who you would expect the vaccine to work in. What’s not ideal though is as we’ve both said before, AZ still have their over 65 trials running as far as I know and that the efficacy calculation was done on mainly 18-55 year olds. Over 70s form a small slice of that calculation (around 200 or so from memory, and then 600 or so being 56-69). It doesn’t make much sense if those titres, similar for all age groups from the November study don’t confer protection to just the elderly. But the question I guess is, are all over 65s going to generate those titres in response to vaccination? That’s a big question! They finished recruiting for the much larger elderly cohorts now (I think) and I imagine they are waiting for cases go accrue before they release another interim analyses from these trials. They will be some of the most crucial data ever released and hopefully released sooner rather than later to back up what they are saying in that statement. AZ had arguably the head start on this, I find it annoying tbh their studies got bogged down and stratified like this. The ease with which the Pfizer paper reads in NEJM is miles ahead of the AZ one in The Lancet just because they didn’t have to slice it up so many times.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 25, 2021 23:16:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stokeykez on Jan 25, 2021 23:18:27 GMT
This........doesn't sound great if remotely true So europe doesn't get its way against a top pharmaceutical company so instead will through shit and rumours around to discredit the jab efficacy. If the efficacy is so low why are they pushing for doses asap
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 25, 2021 23:21:54 GMT
The trouble with this thread is that it leads with the 8% figure, but then goes on to cite insufficient data in over 65s (which is true, see my response to Paul). Which begs the question, where has that 8% figure come from and how you can you possibly lead with it if you then concede there is not enough data. Seems a bit back to front. I can sort of understand not sharing sources, but that analyses seems mighty important.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 25, 2021 23:22:31 GMT
Yes I found it thanks Matt and edited into my post before you posted here, what are your thoughts on what I've said please? It is a pretty small sample and one that isn’t too representative, but it is encouraging they got such high titres from these folks even if they are on the healthy side. The concern was initially that it simply wouldn’t happen at all, so to see 99.5% (I think they’ve rounded the figure to 100%), is really encouraging as is the fact its comparable to younger folks who you would expect the vaccine to work in. What’s not ideal though is as we’ve both said before, AZ still have their over 65 trials running as far as I know and that the efficacy calculation was done on mainly 18-55 year olds. Over 70s form a small slice of that calculation (around 200 or so from memory, and then 600 or so being 56-69). It doesn’t make much sense if those titres, similar for all age groups from the November study don’t confer protection to just the elderly. But the question I guess is, are all over 65s going to generate those titres in response to vaccination? That’s a big question!They finished recruiting for the much larger elderly cohorts now (I think) and I imagine they are waiting for cases go accrue before they release another interim analyses from these trials. They will be some of the most crucial data ever released and hopefully released sooner rather than later to back up what they are saying in that statement. AZ had arguably the head start on this, I find it annoying tbh their studies got bogged down and stratified like this. The ease with which the Pfizer paper reads in NEJM is miles ahead of the AZ one in The Lancet just because they didn’t have to slice it up so many times. Indeed it is the big question and (as you know) I've been keeping my eye out for this data for a long time now and that's why I was pretty confident it hadn't been published. I do now vaguely remember the November paper in the Lancet now that I've read it again but I'd kind of mentally dismissed it, due to the small sample size and have been waiting to see something from them akin to the Pfizer paper ever since. It really can't come soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 25, 2021 23:25:04 GMT
Question I'd like to know the answer too. Who are these people still flying in sufficient numbers that if you were to stop it then it would be a 'body blow' to the airline industry? I get it that freight still needs to go and that in turn needs a minimal crew. But passenger travel, who and why and where and is it all legit? I mean it's as plain as the nose on your face that the Brazilian and South African variants are already here and they won't be contained to the '77 known cases' or whatever it is so maybe it's just all too late, who knows. But 350 folks flying from Sao Paolo to London rammed in to a sealed sardine can. It all just seems crackers. More on this question which went unanswered. So I switch on Newsnight this evening and they've wheeled out some turkey called Joss Croft representing tourist industry talking about the anticipated plan for further quarantine following flights to the UK and he says “Tourism has already been decimated this year and this is the last thing we need.“ And you think to yourself, seriously who the heck is crossing national borders right now in large numbers for tourism in order to come to COVID central, Britain?! I just find this whole flights/tourism thing bewildering. I mean we need to call 'time' on it don't we before some other exotic flavour of the virus comes to these shores to render the good work on the vaccine program redundant.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 25, 2021 23:28:30 GMT
It is a pretty small sample and one that isn’t too representative, but it is encouraging they got such high titres from these folks even if they are on the healthy side. The concern was initially that it simply wouldn’t happen at all, so to see 99.5% (I think they’ve rounded the figure to 100%), is really encouraging as is the fact its comparable to younger folks who you would expect the vaccine to work in. What’s not ideal though is as we’ve both said before, AZ still have their over 65 trials running as far as I know and that the efficacy calculation was done on mainly 18-55 year olds. Over 70s form a small slice of that calculation (around 200 or so from memory, and then 600 or so being 56-69). It doesn’t make much sense if those titres, similar for all age groups from the November study don’t confer protection to just the elderly. But the question I guess is, are all over 65s going to generate those titres in response to vaccination? That’s a big question!They finished recruiting for the much larger elderly cohorts now (I think) and I imagine they are waiting for cases go accrue before they release another interim analyses from these trials. They will be some of the most crucial data ever released and hopefully released sooner rather than later to back up what they are saying in that statement. AZ had arguably the head start on this, I find it annoying tbh their studies got bogged down and stratified like this. The ease with which the Pfizer paper reads in NEJM is miles ahead of the AZ one in The Lancet just because they didn’t have to slice it up so many times. Indeed it is the big question and (as you know) I've been keeping my eye out for this data for a long time now and that's why I was pretty confident it hadn't been published. I do now vaguely remember the November paper in the Lancet now that I've read it again but I'd kind of mentally dismissed it, due to the small sample size and have been waiting to see something from them akin to the Pfizer paper ever since. It really can't come soon enough. The Nov paper is important justification for a Phase 3 trial in over 65s and has its uses but its doing heavy lifting at the moment as you say. I did an experiment with my not so scientifically literate (😂) mother when they both came out. I just asked her which one was the easier to read and most concise. She responded with Pfizer in NEJM and I think even one can tell by eye, without having in depth understanding of the actual content that it’s the “cleaner” paper.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 25, 2021 23:38:47 GMT
Just a final point on efficacy again, as I posted a few days ago, efficacy is defined by endpoints.
If your efficacy is measure on the endpoint being Negative PCR samples, 3 people testing negative and 1 testing positive is an efficacy of 75% assuming 4 age matched controls test positive let’s say. (You obviously need bigger numbers than this for statistical significance)
If your endpoint is severe disease and hospitalisation and let’s just say for example none of those 3 positive cases end up in hospital and 3 aged matched placebo did end up in hospital then your efficacy is 100%.
It would be useful whenever someone (press or scientific body) used the term efficacy, they actually state what endpoint that efficacy is being calculated on. It’s not a single term describing a single thing. This was really important when the Israelis were talking about 33% efficacy in preventing positive cases with or without symptoms, and JCVI were saying 89% at preventing symptomatic cases and the numbers were conflated as talking about the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jan 25, 2021 23:42:31 GMT
Indeed it is the big question and (as you know) I've been keeping my eye out for this data for a long time now and that's why I was pretty confident it hadn't been published. I do now vaguely remember the November paper in the Lancet now that I've read it again but I'd kind of mentally dismissed it, due to the small sample size and have been waiting to see something from them akin to the Pfizer paper ever since. It really can't come soon enough. The Nov paper is important justification for a Phase 3 trial in over 65s and has its uses but its doing heavy lifting at the moment as you say. I did an experiment with my not so scientifically literate (😂) mother when they both came out. I just asked her which one was the easier to read and most concise. She responded with Pfizer in NEJM and I think even one can tell by eye, without having in depth understanding of the actual content that it’s the “cleaner” paper. Maybe this is the reason there's trials going on that involve mixing the AZ vaccine with the Russian Sputnik vaccine to improve efficacy.
|
|
|
Post by mutters on Jan 25, 2021 23:49:09 GMT
If we’re being lied to, how utterly ridiculous is that? And how much are we being lied to? I don’t believe the films in intensive care units are lies, or the expression on my neighbour’s face when I see her come home from a night shift as a children’s nurse drafted into adult intensive care to deal with covid, or the accounts from a friend who is an intensive care consultant about covid, or the description of long covid from someone I know who got ill in April and has barely been physically able to work since. Those aren’t lies. Boris Johnson got to his position of power by lying. He has been sacked for lying on several occasions. I am sure he frequently lies to us. What about the lady who filmed in Cheltenham and wasn't it showing very limited occupancy? I am sure there are wards stretched to capacity on a daily basis, but are they wards that are not? One thing I find frustrating about these films at hospitals or care homes, is that the cameramen / reporter can go to them, but I have friends and relatives who are unable to visit elderly relatives living in care homes, but a TV camera crew can? Why? More questions than answers
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 25, 2021 23:53:43 GMT
Do we know how many Pfizer vaccines we've got in the country? Those little fuckers could be goldust if the Oxford Vaccine proves to be a flop.
Let's hope the German article is horribly wrong. The EU's in a bad place right now isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 25, 2021 23:53:47 GMT
Just a final point on efficacy again, as I posted a few days ago, efficacy is defined by endpoints. If your efficacy is measure on the endpoint being Negative PCR samples, 3 people testing negative and 1 testing positive is an efficacy of 75% assuming 4 age matched controls test positive let’s say. (You obviously need bigger numbers than this for statistical significance) If your endpoint is severe disease and hospitalisation and let’s just say for example none of those 3 positive cases end up in hospital and 3 aged matched placebo did end up in hospital then your efficacy is 100%. It would be useful whenever someone (press or scientific body) used the term efficacy, they actually state what endpoint that efficacy is being calculated on. It’s not a single term describing a single thing. This was really important when the Israelis were talking about 33% efficacy in preventing positive cases with or without symptoms, and JCVI were saying 89% at preventing symptomatic cases and the numbers were conflated as talking about the same thing. Absolutely. Encouraging news from Israel when the end point efficacy is determined by hospital admissions ...
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 25, 2021 23:56:13 GMT
Just a final point on efficacy again, as I posted a few days ago, efficacy is defined by endpoints. If your efficacy is measure on the endpoint being Negative PCR samples, 3 people testing negative and 1 testing positive is an efficacy of 75% assuming 4 age matched controls test positive let’s say. (You obviously need bigger numbers than this for statistical significance) If your endpoint is severe disease and hospitalisation and let’s just say for example none of those 3 positive cases end up in hospital and 3 aged matched placebo did end up in hospital then your efficacy is 100%. It would be useful whenever someone (press or scientific body) used the term efficacy, they actually state what endpoint that efficacy is being calculated on. It’s not a single term describing a single thing. This was really important when the Israelis were talking about 33% efficacy in preventing positive cases with or without symptoms, and JCVI were saying 89% at preventing symptomatic cases and the numbers were conflated as talking about the same thing. Very good post.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jan 26, 2021 0:01:57 GMT
Just a final point on efficacy again, as I posted a few days ago, efficacy is defined by endpoints. If your efficacy is measure on the endpoint being Negative PCR samples, 3 people testing negative and 1 testing positive is an efficacy of 75% assuming 4 age matched controls test positive let’s say. (You obviously need bigger numbers than this for statistical significance) If your endpoint is severe disease and hospitalisation and let’s just say for example none of those 3 positive cases end up in hospital and 3 aged matched placebo did end up in hospital then your efficacy is 100%. It would be useful whenever someone (press or scientific body) used the term efficacy, they actually state what endpoint that efficacy is being calculated on. It’s not a single term describing a single thing. This was really important when the Israelis were talking about 33% efficacy in preventing positive cases with or without symptoms, and JCVI were saying 89% at preventing symptomatic cases and the numbers were conflated as talking about the same thing. Absolutely. Encouraging news from Israel when the end point efficacy is determined by hospital admissions ... But this is purely based on the Pfizer vaccine not the AZ vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 26, 2021 0:03:00 GMT
I guess we might not know yet, or it might not be getting released, but I wonder how many people who’ve had the vaccine (first or second dose) have actually then contracted the virus? Would it be a few months before cases start to trickle through. I’d have expected some now given the first dose doesn’t provide near full immunity. Yep good question. I'd like to see the data on this. Surprised (but not really surprised) the media haven't asked for this.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 26, 2021 0:04:14 GMT
Absolutely. Encouraging news from Israel when the end point efficacy is determined by hospital admissions ... But this is purely based on the Pfizer vaccine not the AZ vaccine. Oh absolutely mate, that's the point ...
|
|
|
Post by mutters on Jan 26, 2021 0:05:50 GMT
Question I'd like to know the answer too. Who are these people still flying in sufficient numbers that if you were to stop it then it would be a 'body blow' to the airline industry? I get it that freight still needs to go and that in turn needs a minimal crew. But passenger travel, who and why and where and is it all legit? I mean it's as plain as the nose on your face that the Brazilian and South African variants are already here and they won't be contained to the '77 known cases' or whatever it is so maybe it's just all too late, who knows. But 350 folks flying from Sao Paolo to London rammed in to a sealed sardine can. It all just seems crackers. More on this question which went unanswered. So I switch on Newsnight this evening and they've wheeled out some turkey called Joss Croft representing tourist industry talking about the anticipated plan for further quarantine following flights to the UK and he says “Tourism has already been decimated this year and this is the last thing we need.“ And you think to yourself, seriously who the heck is crossing national borders right now in large numbers for tourism in order to come to COVID central, Britain?! I just find this whole flights/tourism thing bewildering. I mean we need to call 'time' on it don't we before some other exotic flavour of the virus comes to these shores to render the good work on the vaccine program redundant. How long would you be happy to go for without going abroad for a foreign holiday? 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 5 years? Again, there doesn't seem to be any timescales set by our government. Indeed, those who are advocating lockdowns / restrictions, when we look at New Zealand they have the 2 week quarantine now, so not doing much for their tourism sector for overseas visitors coming to the country The difference is that New Zealand has compared to the UK is that they have limited transport links to a small number of countries eg Australia, Fiji in terms of flight times compared to the UK with access to lots of countries across Europe and further afield Do we really see this as a long term benefit to the UK - and that is without defining long term?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jan 26, 2021 0:05:51 GMT
But this is purely based on the Pfizer vaccine not the AZ vaccine. Oh absolutely mate, that's the point ... I've got bad vibes about the AZ vaccine, I hope they are wrong or we really are in the shit.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 26, 2021 0:17:01 GMT
Oh absolutely mate, that's the point ... I've got bad vibes about the AZ vaccine, I hope they are wrong or we really are in the shit. Yes mate, the data that they've presented (so far) has been an absolute dog's dinner when compared to Pfizer. And it's hard not to be suspicious that the whole thing has been clumsily pushed through due to political pressure. The only way those suspicions are going to be alleviated, is if they finally produce some pretty robust and clear data from the most recent trials, especially with regard to the elderly and those in the at risk groups. It really can't come soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 26, 2021 0:17:57 GMT
If anyone knows, roughly how many Pfizer vaccines do we have in the UK and when are we planning to roll out the Oxford/AZ vaccines?
Just trying to work out how fucked we are if the AZ vaccine proves to be a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 26, 2021 0:29:09 GMT
If anyone knows, roughly how many Pfizer vaccines do we have in the UK and when are we planning to roll out the Oxford/AZ vaccines? Just trying to work out how fucked we are if the AZ vaccine proves to be a disaster. It's a difficult question to answer Nick. We have ordered 40 million doses from Pfizer and 100 million from AstraZeneca but how many we're actually going to get, is a different matter. Both companies have already said that they have serious production issues and they won't be able to fulfill the orders thst they have in the medium term but it seems that the EU are going to get hit much harder than us on deliveries of the AZ vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jan 26, 2021 0:34:00 GMT
If anyone knows, roughly how many Pfizer vaccines do we have in the UK and when are we planning to roll out the Oxford/AZ vaccines? Just trying to work out how fucked we are if the AZ vaccine proves to be a disaster. We'd be quite fucked short term. Have a read about the Novavax vaccine though, they've got 15,000 people in the UK enrolled in the stage 3 trials and over 25% over 65. It's manufactured in Stockton on Tees and we have first dibs on the 60m we've ordered. Unfortunately this is going to be a few weeks away so is more of a medium term solution.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 26, 2021 0:42:45 GMT
In a few hours from now ... what if it has just been a bad dream ...
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jan 26, 2021 1:23:56 GMT
BBC News - Coronavirus: EU to tighten vaccine exports amid row with AstraZeneca www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55805903There's clearly some type of special arrangement with UK supplies of the Oxford AZ vaccine possibly because of the investment the UK government made to the Oxford research initially.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jan 26, 2021 1:36:11 GMT
BBC News - Coronavirus: Hungary first in EU to approve Russian vaccine www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55747623Looks like some EU countries will have to resort to the Russian Sputnik vaccine if supplies of the Pfizer and AZ vaccine are insufficient. There are trials going on with a collaboration of the Astrazenica and Sputnik vaccines, where you get one shot of each hoping to improve the efficacy of them combined.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 26, 2021 1:58:15 GMT
If anyone knows, roughly how many Pfizer vaccines do we have in the UK and when are we planning to roll out the Oxford/AZ vaccines? Just trying to work out how fucked we are if the AZ vaccine proves to be a disaster. My Dad had AZ on Satdee. The risk it won't work properly in over-65s is stressing me out a bit, he's comfortably over that. But it's all rumours and v small samples so not letting it get to me too much.
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Jan 26, 2021 6:04:20 GMT
If we’re being lied to, how utterly ridiculous is that? And how much are we being lied to? I don’t believe the films in intensive care units are lies, or the expression on my neighbour’s face when I see her come home from a night shift as a children’s nurse drafted into adult intensive care to deal with covid, or the accounts from a friend who is an intensive care consultant about covid, or the description of long covid from someone I know who got ill in April and has barely been physically able to work since. Those aren’t lies. Boris Johnson got to his position of power by lying. He has been sacked for lying on several occasions. I am sure he frequently lies to us. Perhaps you should start to question what he’s telling you then?
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Jan 26, 2021 7:22:38 GMT
Great, you wake up on a Tuesday morning to find out the government have been injecting your grannies and grandads with Buxton spring water.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jan 26, 2021 7:26:51 GMT
I can’t see any of this potential ‘issue’ with the AZ vaccine on any British news outlets?
No surprise though I guess.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 26, 2021 7:34:23 GMT
I don’t believe the films in intensive care units are lies, or the expression on my neighbour’s face when I see her come home from a night shift as a children’s nurse drafted into adult intensive care to deal with covid, or the accounts from a friend who is an intensive care consultant about covid, or the description of long covid from someone I know who got ill in April and has barely been physically able to work since. Those aren’t lies. Boris Johnson got to his position of power by lying. He has been sacked for lying on several occasions. I am sure he frequently lies to us. What about the lady who filmed in Cheltenham and wasn't it showing very limited occupancy? I am sure there are wards stretched to capacity on a daily basis, but are they wards that are not? One thing I find frustrating about these films at hospitals or care homes, is that the cameramen / reporter can go to them, but I have friends and relatives who are unable to visit elderly relatives living in care homes, but a TV camera crew can? Why? More questions than answers Isn’t it to provide us with a true picture of what is going on? I get what you are saying though. I am sure some hospitals are quieter than others. But when patients are being sent all around the country from London as there is no capacity in London then I think we need to be sensible and realise it is a pretty bad situation in hospitals (particularly as I live in London!).
|
|