Covid-19 vaccines and vaccinations

Last edited:
Binkie4 said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462

US trial confirms safety and efficacy of AZ vaccine. 32,000 participants in US, Chile and Peru with 20% aged over 65.

eta: 79% effective against symptomatic infection and 100% effective against becoming seriously ill is reported. Phase 3 trial results below.

eta2:https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-c...ca-us-vaccine-trial-met-primary-endpoint.html
Click to expand...

Is this the trial that Hilda Bastion referred to when she wrote that there was " a strong trial in progress" in relation to AZ vaccine? I think I saw the comment under the diagram drawn up by H B and posted earlier in the thread.
 
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/niaid-statement-astrazeneca-vaccine

NIAID Statement on AstraZeneca Vaccine


Late Monday, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) notified NIAID, BARDA, and AstraZeneca that it was concerned by information released by AstraZeneca on initial data from its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data. We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

This is why we can't have nice things!

edit - Update:
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-c...niaid-on-azd1222-us-phase-iii-trial-data.html
 
Last edited:
JemPD said:
and in english? I too foggy to work out what's going on can someone explain
Click to expand...
It would appear to be more of the 'campaign' against AZ, which just has to be totally unfounded, because the acknowledged experts of worldwide acclaim, on all things vaccines and vaccinations, Mr BoJo and Mr Macaroon, have both said it's absolutely fine.

It's so fine that everything they and the manufacturers AZ have previously said can be safely ignored.

Its just that good, and safe, really, really, really, safe.

So any data that may, or may not, have been 'withheld' has been superseded, by TV appearances and statements by these acknowledged experts, Mr BoJo and Mr Macaroon.

If I was to let my comedic imagination run riot then I would say that out of 20000 test subjects only 14 turned into zombies, but the decision was taken, as zombies are not legally people, and the testing was only to see what side effects happened to the people in the trial, that these results could be disregarded.

Or something like that ;)
 
Snow Leopard said:
The NIAID is accusing them of cherry-picking their data, to which AZ replied "nah mate we double checked and it's all good, no worries!"*

*It's possible the paraphrasing process may suggest a different nationality to those who made the comment
Click to expand...

Brilliant - thanks for the laugh & the insight @Snow Leopard

I've just had the AstraZenica vaccine and to adjust the phrase --- a (AstraZenica) vaccine in the arm is better than none (other option).

I'm getting a bit --- off that they seem incapable of following the rules --- first the bungled attempt at a phase 3 trial then this re the (forced) repeat of the phase 3 trial

There's a pandemic going on and if they just published the data I'm pretty confident that the regulators would approve it.

They seem to be getting the vaccine produced widely including in some countries outside Europe/US --- great.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...931d34-8bc3-11eb-a33e-da28941cb9ac_story.html

For weeks, the data board and the company had been going back and forth over how AstraZeneca was handling the data. When the experts initially saw the data supporting the 79 percent efficacy with data gathered through Feb. 17, they deemed that the vaccine efficacy number was “unstable” because of a large number of possible and probable cases that still needed to be adjudicated and might have changed the level of efficacy “enough to erode confidence in the results of the study.”

At a later meeting, with figures through March 16 that showed a vaccine efficacy of 75 percent, the data board advised that the data be released to the company but “strongly recommended” the drugmaker go through 33 remaining cases that were possible or probable cases of illness because the effectiveness could slide down to 69 percent.
Click to expand...
 
Re the blood clot/bleeding issues with the AZ vaccine, in Denmark the hypothesis of poor vaccination technique as a possible cause seems to be taking hold. Basically, poor vaccination technique can on very rare occasions lead to people getting the vaccine into their bloodstream and that's a place it really, really shouldn't be (this applies to the other vaccines, too, not just the AZ one). If the hypothesis is correct, at least the problem would be easily fixable (though tragically too late for some).
"When vaccinating, it is important to make sure that the vaccine does not go directly into the bloodstream. The plunger should be pulled back slightly, and if blood then gets into the plunger on the needle, it indicates that the head of the needle has hit one of the many blood vessels in the shoulder muscle. And then you have to find a new place to stick, ”said Torben Sørensen.

The technique of aspiration is also described in the Danish Health and Medicines Authority's guidelines (pages 62 and 63) for the administration of the covid-19 vaccines: " After insertion into the muscle, light aspiration is performed on the needle before injecting the vaccine to ensure that the vaccine is not mistakenly given intravenously."

Yet the technique of aspiration has largely NOT been used because it is not practice in the general guidelines."
Click to expand...
Remainder of article here:
https://translate.google.com/transl...-efter-meldinger-om-farlige-bivirkninger.html

More discussion on the same topic here:
https://translate.google.com/transl...aldene-maaske-bare-daarlig-vaccinationsteknik
 
Ravn said:
Re the blood clot/bleeding issues with the AZ vaccine, in Denmark the hypothesis of poor vaccination technique as a possible cause seems to be taking hold. Basically, poor vaccination technique can on very rare occasions lead to people getting the vaccine into their bloodstream and that's a place it really, really shouldn't be (this applies to the other vaccines, too, not just the AZ one). If the hypothesis is correct, at least the problem would be easily fixable (though tragically too late for some).
Click to expand...

But it's not just clotting, it is a rare autoimmune reaction to those clots that is the primary cause for concern.

I don't buy the poor technique argument. But I also don't believe this issue is specific to the AZ vaccine.
 
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...efficacy-of-76-for-covid-19-vaccine-1.4519848

AZ has reported a slightly lower efficacy rate of 76% (not 79% as initially reported) to the US monitoring board. It still reports 100% effectiveness against severe infection.

Reported efficacy in over 65s was 85%.


“The vaccine efficacy against severe disease, including death, puts the AZ vaccine in the same ballpark as the other vaccines,” said William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, adding that he expects the shot to gain US approval."
 
Snow Leopard said:
These 100% efficacy claims against hospitalisation/death are not genereralisable due to limited sample size and participation bias. We know from UK/Israel data that vaccinated individuals can still die of COVID19.
Click to expand...
Another thing is that we now have a South African variant which the AstraZeneca is 10% effective against i.e. 90% still get symptomatic disease. So maybe the South African variant can still be transmitted by people who've been vaccinated with AstraZeneca - transmission in the community is worrying re clinically vulnerable people.

Oh Australia - why can't we try that!
 
FMMM1 said:
Another thing is that we now have a South African variant which the AstraZeneca is 10% effective against.
Click to expand...

The bigger worry is what is going to emerge in 6-9 months time.

One thing that annoys me is the media keeps talking about the possibility of annual 'booster' shots. But they aren't 'booster' shots at all. Booster shots are an additional dosage of the same vaccine. If we need annual shots, it is going to be for different variants/strains, just like for Influenza vaccine.
 
Snow Leopard said:
One thing that annoys me is the media keeps talking about the possibility of annual 'booster' shots.
Click to expand...

The media misinformation has caused some real stupidity.

I was discussing this with a friend who has an in-law who works for the NHS in a quite high level position. The in law isn't going to get the vaccine because it's too new and therefore not safe.

But it's not like they had to completely reinvent the wheel to produce this vaccine. Although it is a new vaccine, it builds upon decades of research and experience of creating vaccines.

So, by the same logic, if they got sick and needed a new ventilator would they refuse to go on the latest model ventilator, preferring instead to wait until one of the older ones gets freed up?
 
Invisible Woman said:
But it's not like they had to completely reinvent the wheel to produce this vaccine. Although it is a new vaccine, it builds upon decades of research and experience of creating vaccines.
Click to expand...

There are "traditional" vaccines too, Novavax which is a subunit vaccine and CoronaVac from Sinovac, which is a inactivated virus vaccine. So the "this is new technology" argument only extends so far...
 
Invisible Woman said:
The media misinformation has caused some real stupidity.

I was discussing this with a friend who has an in-law who works for the NHS in a quite high level position. The in law isn't going to get the vaccine because it's too new and therefore not safe.

But it's not like they had to completely reinvent the wheel to produce this vaccine. Although it is a new vaccine, it builds upon decades of research and experience of creating vaccines.

So, by the same logic, if they got sick and needed a new ventilator would they refuse to go on the latest model ventilator, preferring instead to wait until one of the older ones gets freed up?
Click to expand...

It's interesting how many medical professionals have been reluctant to be vaccinated - even now when the data (showing lower incidence in medical professionals who've been vaccinated/their families) is available!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom