The Lemon Fool

servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives

It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives

It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.

I think "totally screwed up" is just a little wide of the mark

Arborbridge wrote:

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives

It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.

I think "totally screwed up" is just a little wide of the mark

OK, maybe hyperbole, but did you read the article I cited?

Arborbridge wrote:

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives

It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.

I think "totally screwed up" is just a little wide of the mark

indeed it would a bit like concentrating on those during the moderna trial who had a "systemic adverse reaction to the vaccine" because they had been given the highest dose they were testing
- that data was in the pre-release stuff (around phase 1) and removed for the marketing press release because they'd decided on their dosage
- the issue with the AZ is that they don't seem to have done that yet, and they've handled it quite poorly

- sd

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives

It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.

Someone certainly screwed up reporting those trials.

I wonder if there are cultural differences in evidence there? American and German efficiency vs British muddling-through?

If I expect to be given a choice, I might make the effort to try and inform myself. But that's never going to be easy, with all the rivalries out there, and the PR teams and political interests surrounding them.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Lootman wrote:

servodude wrote:Expect the AZ to be trash talked by the more expensive alternatives

It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.

Someone certainly screwed up reporting those trials.

I wonder if there are cultural differences in evidence there? American and German efficiency vs British muddling-through?

If I expect to be given a choice, I might make the effort to try and inform myself. But that's never going to be easy, with all the rivalries out there, and the PR teams and political interests surrounding them.

More bad news for AZN:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neca-model

Looks like it as been amateur hour in Oxford.

Lootman wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Lootman wrote:It is getting trash talked because it totally screwed up its trials.

Someone certainly screwed up reporting those trials.

I wonder if there are cultural differences in evidence there? American and German efficiency vs British muddling-through?

If I expect to be given a choice, I might make the effort to try and inform myself. But that's never going to be easy, with all the rivalries out there, and the PR teams and political interests surrounding them.

More bad news for AZN:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neca-model

Looks like it as been amateur hour in Oxford.

And yet, it seems to be the only one that prevents infection (as opposed to just suppresses symptoms), as the BBC seems to have been picking up on all day.

Mike4 wrote:

Lootman wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:Someone certainly screwed up reporting those trials.

I wonder if there are cultural differences in evidence there? American and German efficiency vs British muddling-through?

If I expect to be given a choice, I might make the effort to try and inform myself. But that's never going to be easy, with all the rivalries out there, and the PR teams and political interests surrounding them.

More bad news for AZN:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neca-model

Looks like it as been amateur hour in Oxford.

And yet, it seems to be the only one that prevents infection (as opposed to just suppresses symptoms), as the BBC seems to have been picking up on all day.

that's a pretty big claim to put about and we do know AZ seem to have muppets running their PR
- ultimately each of the vaccines works by training the immune response to target the virus spike protein and hence destroy the virus
- so the end result of each should be pretty similar, but the data that those running the trials are looking at will be different (or considered differently)

the AZ handling of their releases has been terrible - I suspect they're under external pressure that they are unaccustomed to
- compare that to Pfizer who have managed to stay relevant despite Moderna showing up immediately after with a significantly better offering

the FDA on the whole are harsh but fair, with a bit of a protectionist bent (if we ever need stuff approved by them rather than through a harmonised authority we make sure to have the paperwork go through an American subsidiary) and what they're saying about the Phase 3 AZ trials rings true
- its not uncommon to have to re-submit stuff for approvals a couple of times depending on their mood

AZ should just concentrate on getting their results and paperwork in order, rather than trying to rush things and dig themselves a deeper hole

truth is at this stage (or for the next couple of years) if you can make a vaccine that doesn't kill people it will be used

- sd

servodude wrote:
that's a pretty big claim to put about

Isn't it just!

Dr John Campbell (noted for his moderate and reliable analysis) seems to have swallowed it whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fXn1PC ... hnCampbell

Mike4 wrote:

servodude wrote:that's a pretty big claim to put about

Isn't it just!

Dr John Campbell (noted for his moderate and reliable analysis) seems to have swallowed it whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fXn1PC ... hnCampbell

It looks like it's an inferred result due to ongoing testing of the testing cohort

- https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/break ... 19-vaccine
"These data also suggest that this half dose and full dose regime could help to prevent transmission of the virus, evidenced by lower rates of asymptomatic infection in the vaccinees, with further information to become available when trial data are next evaluated."
- and a decent write up here: https://www.wired.com/story/does-the-as ... nsmission/

which all feels a bit of a stretch to say it's the only one that shows it
- certainly the only one to claim it
- though there's no easy way to know if there are parallels with data in the other vaccines' Phase 3 tests

- sd

I was watching a medical expert on tv talking about the Pfizer vaccine and was horrified and shocked when he announced that the vaccine does not necessarily prevent transmission. In other words, you have the vaccine and are protected from getting ill but you can still be asymptomatic and pass the virus to others who may, or may not, have been vaccinated. So if I get the vaccine ahead of younger people, or some choose not to have the vaccine, I could potentially catch the virus, suffer no symptoms and then pass it on and possibly kill someone! I realise that until the vaccines have been fully distributed, we will have to wear a mask, but for how long? If people choose not to have the vaccine, surely we are not expected to wear a mask for the rest of our lives in case we might infect an unvaccinated person? The government will surely eventually allow masks to no longer be required. When that happens, what happens to the people who have not been vaccinated? This could be up to 50% of the country, who knows? We will be no better off than before the vaccines were given out as far as stopping the pandemic. I cannot understand why, amongst all the excitement of the vaccine, this elephant in the room regarding transmission has not been fully discussed. Surely when people go to get the vaccine, questions will be asked, like “can I visit granny now I have been vaccinated?” and they will be horrified when they are informed that it is only safe if granny has been vaccinated as well. I think there will be uproar when the penny drops that things are not safe following the vaccination rollout. My cousin for example is well into her 80’s and can’t be persuaded to have the vaccine due to her age. Does this mean I can never see her again in case I inadvertently am carrying the virus asymptomatically as I have had the vaccine? I really think this problem with the transmission factor needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I would be interested in what others think as I thought the vaccine was the answer to our prayers and the virus would effectively be eliminated in due course. Now I am very unsure that is true.

Arizona11 wrote:I was watching a medical expert on tv talking about the Pfizer vaccine and was horrified and shocked when he announced that the vaccine does not necessarily prevent transmission.

My (limited) understanding is that this is currently unknown for the Pfizer vaccine, as it wasn't tested for in the trials. I think it was tested for, and confirmed, in the AstraZeneca vaccine trials.

Arizona11 wrote:My cousin for example is well into her 80’s and can’t be persuaded to have the vaccine due to her age.

Why not? At her age, what has she got to lose?

Arizona11 wrote:I really think this problem with the transmission factor needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I would be interested in what others think as I thought the vaccine was the answer to our prayers and the virus would effectively be eliminated in due course. Now I am very unsure that is true.

There will eventually be a range of different vaccines available and, over time, experience will show their individual characteristics.

Arizona11 wrote: the vaccine does not necessarily prevent transmission.
.
.
.
If people choose not to have the vaccine, surely we are not expected to wear a mask for the rest of our lives in case we might infect an unvaccinated person?
.
.
.
We will be no better off than before the vaccines were given out as far as stopping the pandemic.
.
.
.

“can I visit granny now I have been vaccinated?” ... My cousin for example is well into her 80’s and can’t be persuaded to have the vaccine due to her age. Does this mean I can never see her again in case I inadvertently am carrying the virus asymptomatically as I have had the vaccine?

I've abridged your post so as to emphasise the salient points I think I can address.

#1 - a scientist will always be cautious. "Not necessarily" = "not guaranteed 100%". The vaccine will reduce the transmission, both in duration and intensity, in some cases by 100%, but not in all.

#2 If a person chooses not to have the vaccine when offered, that's their problem. Blunt, but that's how it is, same as with any other vaccine. They are also being selfish by choosing to remain a potential source of infection to other people, some of whom may develop life-long health issues, or die, as a result of the anti-vaccer's choice. My sympathies are 100% with the innocent victim and not with the person who opts out.

#3 We will be a lot better off. See #1 above.

#4 If they roll out the vaccine in the sequence suggested by the government, granny should have already had the vaccine before the grandchild, unless the grandchild has other underlying health issues that bumped them up the queue, so this particular issue should be almost non-existent.

In the case of an elderly or vulnerable person choosing not to have the vaccine, they must also then choose what risks to take with their own health (and be aware that they themselves may be the asymptomatic super spreader...) If your cousin tells you she has refused the vaccine, but you have had it (and the time for it to take effect after receiving the jab has passed) then you should be relatively safe from her and also pose a lower risk than if you hadn't had the jab. However, she should be made aware that she is being selfish both to strangers (by being a potential spreader) and to her own family (by causing undue stress and worry).

I recently had a conversation with a chap in his 40's who has underlying health conditions that make him a higher priority than his age suggests. He was debating whether to have the jab, as he'd read that it could "give you Covid". Whilst that is absolutely incorrect, there does seem to be a lot of nonsense circulating about how the various vaccines can cause harm. It may be worth discussing with your cousin why she doesn't want the virus? Is it some side-affect she's heard about?

If it was my cousin, I'd be fairly blunt about the consequences of not having the jab, as outlined above, but only after trying to find out the underlying reasons for her decision.

VRD

It appears that some are being careful about what they claim and AstraZeneca less so

They've effectively extrapolated an observation from their Phase 3 trial to reach the comment about transmission (I posted this also on one of the other threads so apologies if you've had to read it twice)
from https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/break ... 19-vaccine

These data also suggest that this half dose and full dose regime could help to prevent transmission of the virus, evidenced by lower rates of asymptomatic infection in the vaccinees, with further information to become available when trial data are next evaluated.

There are a few things to think about

The claim is being made based on data from a secondary stream - the efficacy of the vaccine for trials has been being measured against "cases of disease" not "infection by the virus"
- AZ have made this observation because a subset of their cohort was also being regularly tested for infection and the pattern appeared
- there is no equivalent data set for the other vaccines' trials

All of the vaccines are ultimately designed to work (more or less) the same way - they simulate the spike protein of the virus and your immune system learns to deal with it
- depending on how well or closely they represent the spike there might be subtle differences but the principle for each is the same
- so if that method can lead you to having sufficient immunity that you eradicate any subsequent virus from yourself before you start to emit it then it should work for all of them (and for any case of re-infection after having previously had the disease)

Given we see cross immunity with the original SARS virus (which implies the immune system does a good job when it has the info it needs) I'm pretty hopeful that a working vaccine will drastically reduce the chances of someone being able to effectively spread the virus
- but it's a much harder thing to prove to any real degree (whereas the vaccine trials just count sick folk)

- sd

Arizona11 wrote:As the Pfizer vaccine is supposed to be 95% effective, how do I know if I am actually protected or unluckily one of the 5% not protected? If I have no reaction after having the jab, does that mean something or nothing? I hope to actually leave my house once vaccinated and maybe see someone for the first time since March, but I worry that I may be in the same situation as I am in now and may catch the virus as I will think I am protected when I am not. Then all my caution would have been for nothing.

Any advice or help would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Arizona11. If both you and your friend isolate for the 10 or 14 day period required. Cant remember the exact number of days but google is your friend, then you can both meet up safely knowing you both dont have anything.

Obviously that comment doesn't take into account local restrictions installed to slow transmission. Also it assumes you can travel without using public transport or walking through the crowds gathering outside shops or pubs.

No vax needed but 99.9999% safe

It raises 2 questions for me if anyone can enlighten me?

Which politicians (worldwide?) Have there money belt connected to Pfizer to be so keen to back it?

And are they the same politicians that agreed to protect Pfizer from any law suit if it goes wrong?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 65124.html


Sorry for the sinisicm.

We need a vaccine, people need to take it. It won't go. It will just be considered an acceptable risk of life, death rate .

The real problem is that the Pfizer jab does not appear to prevent transmission, although they are still testing that. So if everyone gets the jab, the virus will never go as it will just pass round and round between the population. Really we need a jab which kills the virus and I believe the AZ one does that, so really is a better bet long term.

Arizona11 wrote:The real problem is that the Pfizer jab does not appear to prevent transmission, although they are still testing that. So if everyone gets the jab, the virus will never go as it will just pass round and round between the population. Really we need a jab which kills the virus and I believe the AZ one does that, so really is a better bet long term.

Does that mean that everybody becomes a carrier of the virus, even though they don't suffer from it?

i.e. it cures the symptoms but not the disease?

TJH

tjh290633 wrote:

Arizona11 wrote:The real problem is that the Pfizer jab does not appear to prevent transmission, although they are still testing that. So if everyone gets the jab, the virus will never go as it will just pass round and round between the population. Really we need a jab which kills the virus and I believe the AZ one does that, so really is a better bet long term.

Does that mean that everybody becomes a carrier of the virus, even though they don't suffer from it?

i.e. it cures the symptoms but not the disease?

TJH

The vaccine trains the immune system to target and destroy the virus

If the virus enters someone's body it starts to multiply and invade cells
- once there's enough virus in the throat it is expelled through breathing to infect others
- eventually if it multiplies enough the person will probably catch the disease

We know that the vaccines have been shown to stop (or drastically reduce the chances of) people reaching that "having the disease" state (by destroying the virus)
- it's just not clear yet if that has happened before or after they were at the point they might have been infectious

-sd

tjh290633 wrote:

Arizona11 wrote:The real problem is that the Pfizer jab does not appear to prevent transmission, although they are still testing that. So if everyone gets the jab, the virus will never go as it will just pass round and round between the population. Really we need a jab which kills the virus and I believe the AZ one does that, so really is a better bet long term.

Does that mean that everybody becomes a carrier of the virus, even though they don't suffer from it?

i.e. it cures the symptoms but not the disease?

TJH

My understanding is the Astrazenica phase 3 trial tested for this specifically, and found it suppressed infection as well as COVID symptoms.

The Pfizer phase 3 trial ignored this and did not test any of the trial participants for SARS-CoV-2 infection, so may or may not perform similarly. We just don't know.