Germany stop AZ vaccine for 65+

Vaccine BAN: Germany to stop giving AstraZeneca jab to over-65s in bombshell move
GERMANY has effectively banned adults aged over 65 from receiving the AstraZeneca covid vaccine, as the government instructs medics not to administer the jab to this age group.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/13 ... ne-covid19

L'Institut Pasteur has discontinued development of its COVID-19 vaccine.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/13 ... id-vaccine

In Scotland a COVID-19 vaccine is going into production before trials finish.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/larg ... n-scotland

In England I am disappointed to see that the number of vaccinations per day has dropped considerably compared with last week.

18/01 155K
19/01 170K
20/01 301K
21/01 320K
22/01 359K
23/01 425K
24/01 444K
25/01 199K
26/01 236K
27/01 260K
28/01 252K

Data source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/s ... cinations/

Many new vaccination sites are opening so how come the number of daily jabs has fallen so much? Has vaccine supply reduced considerably? If so, why - production problems, a refusal to sanction supply of the Pfizer vaccine to the UK?

art wrote:

L'Institut Pasteur has discontinued development of its COVID-19 vaccine.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/13 ... id-vaccine

In Scotland a COVID-19 vaccine is going into production before trials finish.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/larg ... n-scotland

Pasteur's was an initially promising --if not a bit odd-- candidate made by vectoring the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into replication-incompetent HIV, so basically a viral-based DNA vaccine, I hope they look into why it flopped.

The Valneva vaccine, from Scotland, is a pretty conventional strategy. They inactivate whole virus cultured on vero cells and then adjuvant it with aluminum and a special adjuvant called CpG (Cytidine-phosphate-Guanidine), which triggers an antiviral immune response. So it's similar to the Chinese and Indian candidates, but with an additional adjuvant that might make it work much better. I don't think it will work worse than the Chinese candidate and it may well work better and so if they can get the funding to start production early so that a lot of doses are available once it passes testing, then I'm all for it.

Remember, the Chinese candidate only had 50-60% vaccine efficacy but almost 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and so if we can reduce this virus to the level of a common cold, then that's good enough to re-open the world because it won't overwhelm hospitals. Obviously, I'd like everyone to be able to get a robust mRNA vaccine, but that's not practical.

DocLightning wrote:

art wrote:

L'Institut Pasteur has discontinued development of its COVID-19 vaccine.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/13 ... id-vaccine

In Scotland a COVID-19 vaccine is going into production before trials finish.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/larg ... n-scotland

Pasteur's was an initially promising --if not a bit odd-- candidate made by vectoring the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into replication-incompetent HIV, so basically a viral-based DNA vaccine, I hope they look into why it flopped.

The Valneva vaccine, from Scotland, is a pretty conventional strategy. They inactivate whole virus cultured on vero cells and then adjuvant it with aluminum and a special adjuvant called CpG (Cytidine-phosphate-Guanidine), which triggers an antiviral immune response. So it's similar to the Chinese and Indian candidates, but with an additional adjuvant that might make it work much better. I don't think it will work worse than the Chinese candidate and it may well work better and so if they can get the funding to start production early so that a lot of doses are available once it passes testing, then I'm all for it.

Remember, the Chinese candidate only had 50-60% vaccine efficacy but almost 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and so if we can reduce this virus to the level of a common cold, then that's good enough to re-open the world because it won't overwhelm hospitals. Obviously, I'd like everyone to be able to get a robust mRNA vaccine, but that's not practical.

Any opinions on the two most likely to be submitted for approval next here in the US (AZ and J&J)? I know the AZ data has been quite a mess and the effectiveness for those over 65 is largely. unknown, but a vaccine that is effective in even just the younger population would be highly useful in starting to vaccinate the general population. The one shot J&J would help logistics immensely, if they can scale up production effectively.

cledaybuck wrote:

Any opinions on the two most likely to be submitted for approval next here in the US (AZ and J&J)? I know the AZ data has been quite a mess and the effectiveness for those over 65 is largely. unknown, but a vaccine that is effective in even just the younger population would be highly useful in starting to vaccinate the general population. The one shot J&J would help logistics immensely, if they can scale up production effectively.

The AZ one really needs more data. Right now, I would have turned it down if offered it. That candidate uses an adenovirus with no spike protein on its surface to deliver a gene for the spike into the recipient's cells. The problem is that in the process, the vaccine probably generates antibodies against the adenovirus, so when they go to give the second dose, the antibodies raised by the first dose stop the second dose from being able to get into cells. The Russians got around this problem by using two different adenovirus vectors for each dose, first Adenovirus 5 for the first (prime) dose and then Adenovirus 26 for the second (boost) dose. I think that AZ should have gone for ChAdOx1 for the prime and ChAdOx2 for the boost. I hear that they are talking to Gamelaya about using their Adenovirus 26 as the boost, which sounds like a great idea to me because there are some problems with using Adenovirus 5.

The J&J vaccine is a single dose, which is really important because a "one-and-done" approach would really help to speed this process along. I'm just a bit skeptical about the durability and strength of a single-dose approach. They also use an Adenovirus 26 vector, similar to Gamelaya, but because they're J&J and thus are swimming in money, they were able to try a bunch of different tweaks in their preclinical primate trials and found the candidate that gave the best immune respnse (uses the native adenovirus promoter and a 2-proline stabilization alteration to the spike). I thought we were supposed to get results this week, but now they are saying probably next week.

DocLightning wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Any opinions on the two most likely to be submitted for approval next here in the US (AZ and J&J)? I know the AZ data has been quite a mess and the effectiveness for those over 65 is largely. unknown, but a vaccine that is effective in even just the younger population would be highly useful in starting to vaccinate the general population. The one shot J&J would help logistics immensely, if they can scale up production effectively.

The AZ one really needs more data. Right now, I would have turned it down if offered it. That candidate uses an adenovirus with no spike protein on its surface to deliver a gene for the spike into the recipient's cells. The problem is that in the process, the vaccine probably generates antibodies against the adenovirus, so when they go to give the second dose, the antibodies raised by the first dose stop the second dose from being able to get into cells. The Russians got around this problem by using two different adenovirus vectors for each dose, first Adenovirus 5 for the first (prime) dose and then Adenovirus 26 for the second (boost) dose. I think that AZ should have gone for ChAdOx1 for the prime and ChAdOx2 for the boost. I hear that they are talking to Gamelaya about using their Adenovirus 26 as the boost, which sounds like a great idea to me because there are some problems with using Adenovirus 5.

The J&J vaccine is a single dose, which is really important because a "one-and-done" approach would really help to speed this process along. I'm just a bit skeptical about the durability and strength of a single-dose approach. They also use an Adenovirus 26 vector, similar to Gamelaya, but because they're J&J and thus are swimming in money, they were able to try a bunch of different tweaks in their preclinical primate trials and found the candidate that gave the best immune respnse (uses the native adenovirus promoter and a 2-proline stabilization alteration to the spike). I thought we were supposed to get results this week, but now they are saying probably next week.

Thanks. I wonder why the UK and EU are going ahead with AZ (even if not approved for under 65 in Germany)?

cledaybuck wrote:

Thanks. I wonder why the UK and EU are going ahead with AZ (even if not approved for under 65 in Germany)?

I guess they're not exactly spoilt for choice?

DocLightning wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Thanks. I wonder why the UK and EU are going ahead with AZ (even if not approved for under 65 in Germany)?

I guess they're not exactly spoilt for choice?

True, but neither are we here in the US.

Is the UK government / NHS tracking infections among people who have received a vaccine?

art wrote:

In England I am disappointed to see that the number of vaccinations per day has dropped considerably compared with last week.

18/01 155K
19/01 170K
20/01 301K
21/01 320K
22/01 359K
23/01 425K
24/01 444K
25/01 199K
26/01 236K
27/01 260K
28/01 252K

Data source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/s ... cinations/

Many new vaccination sites are opening so how come the number of daily jabs has fallen so much? Has vaccine supply reduced considerably? If so, why - production problems, a refusal to sanction supply of the Pfizer vaccine to the UK?

If the vaccine delivery figures released (and withdrawn) by the Scottish government a little while ago are representative of the whole UK, then a fortnight ago we had next to none coming in. There are lags in the system, MRHA approval of batches etc, so I wonder if the drop is a result of that? If so, we'll see a big jump next week.

There's a graph here
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-eve ... y-12188909

DocLightning wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Thanks. I wonder why the UK and EU are going ahead with AZ (even if not approved for under 65 in Germany)?

I guess they're not exactly spoilt for choice?

That and "it works"?

Staff and residents at my wife's care home were vaccinated with the AZ vaccine a week after new year (1st dose only).
Sadly and frustratingly, after managing to keep the virus out of the home all this time, the new variant found its way in due to a simple slip up, 10 days after the vaccine was administered.
7 residents tested positive, all aged 84 to 94, all with underlying conditions.
4 were asymptomatic.
2 had very mild symptoms but recovered almost immediately
The 94 year old was poorly, but has not needed oxygen or hospitalisation.

I shudder to think how this would have ended if the vaccine had not been administered.

Just take the vaccine and stop being a dick.
It works ...

The Germans are just being arses

Rgds

DocLightning : interesting info about 2nd doses being different than first ones, that complicates logistics further, though. I'm already prepared to the idea of needing a third booster dose against new variants, though...

What do you think about mixing and matching vaccines, one dose here, one dose there ?

astuteman wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Thanks. I wonder why the UK and EU are going ahead with AZ (even if not approved for under 65 in Germany)?

I guess they're not exactly spoilt for choice?

That and "it works"?

Staff and residents at my wife's care home were vaccinated with the AZ vaccine a week after new year (1st dose only).
Sadly and frustratingly, after managing to keep the virus out of the home all this time, the new variant found its way in due to a simple slip up, 10 days after the vaccine was administered.
7 residents tested positive, all aged 84 to 94, all with underlying conditions.
4 were asymptomatic.
2 had very mild symptoms but recovered almost immediately
The 94 year old was poorly, but has not needed oxygen or hospitalisation.

I shudder to think how this would have ended if the vaccine had not been administered.

Just take the vaccine and stop being a dick.
It works ...

The Germans are just being arses

Rgds

We'll wait for a bit more scientific data but if it does it's good.

Novavax trial also shows high efficacy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55850352

CranfordBoy wrote:

Novavax trial also shows high efficacy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55850352

From the linked page:

'The Novavax jab, which is given in two doses, was shown to be 89.3% effective at preventing Covid-19 in participants in its Phase 3 clinical trial in the UK, and around 86% effective at protecting against the new UK variant.

The Phase 3 trials - the final stage before a vaccine is looked at by a regulator - enrolled more than 15,000 people aged between 18-84, of whom 27% were older than 65, US firm Novavax said.

In the South African part of the trial, where most of the cases were the South African variant of the virus, the vaccine was 60% effective among those without HIV.'

So it appears that the SA strain is considerably better at producing illness than the Kent, England strain.

Is that a problem? I am thinking that if this vaccine only protects 60% from the SA strain, how well will other vaccines protect? I imagine that vaccines which protect 90% or more are very effective at countering epidemics but 60% protection means 4 or more times as many people will become ill. Does not sound too good to me.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is about 66% effective per trials:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... e-globally

Johnson & Johnson said on Friday that its single-dose vaccine was 66% effective in preventing COVID-19 in a large trial against multiple variants across three continents.

In the trial of nearly 44,000 volunteers, the level of protection against moderate and severe COVID-19 varied from 72% in the United States, to 66% in Latin America and just 57% in South Africa, from where a worrying variant has spread.

A high bar has been set by two authorized vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, which were around 95% effective in preventing symptomatic illness in pivotal trials when given in two doses.

Those trials, however, were conducted mainly in the United States and before new variants emerged.

J&J’s main goal was the prevention of moderate to severe COVID-19, and the vaccine was 85% effective in stopping severe disease and preventing hospitalization across all geographies and against multiple variants 28 days after immunization.

ThePointblank wrote:

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is about 66% effective per trials:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... e-globally

Johnson & Johnson said on Friday that its single-dose vaccine was 66% effective in preventing COVID-19 in a large trial against multiple variants across three continents.

In the trial of nearly 44,000 volunteers, the level of protection against moderate and severe COVID-19 varied from 72% in the United States, to 66% in Latin America and just 57% in South Africa, from where a worrying variant has spread.

A high bar has been set by two authorized vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, which were around 95% effective in preventing symptomatic illness in pivotal trials when given in two doses.

Those trials, however, were conducted mainly in the United States and before new variants emerged.

J&J’s main goal was the prevention of moderate to severe COVID-19, and the vaccine was 85% effective in stopping severe disease and preventing hospitalization across all geographies and against multiple variants 28 days after immunization.

Here's an article that you don't need to register to read.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/health/j ... index.html

While not quite as good as Pfizer and Moderna, the encouraging part is this:
"Across all geographies, across all variants, we see 85% protection" against severe disease, he said. That trend increased over time, with no severe cases in the vaccinated group after day 49, according to the company.
From one month after the shot, all hospitalizations and deaths occurred in the placebo group.

cledaybuck wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is about 66% effective per trials:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... e-globally

Johnson & Johnson said on Friday that its single-dose vaccine was 66% effective in preventing COVID-19 in a large trial against multiple variants across three continents.

In the trial of nearly 44,000 volunteers, the level of protection against moderate and severe COVID-19 varied from 72% in the United States, to 66% in Latin America and just 57% in South Africa, from where a worrying variant has spread.

A high bar has been set by two authorized vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, which were around 95% effective in preventing symptomatic illness in pivotal trials when given in two doses.

Those trials, however, were conducted mainly in the United States and before new variants emerged.

J&J’s main goal was the prevention of moderate to severe COVID-19, and the vaccine was 85% effective in stopping severe disease and preventing hospitalization across all geographies and against multiple variants 28 days after immunization.

Here's an article that you don't need to register to read.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/health/j ... index.html

While not quite as good as Pfizer and Moderna, the encouraging part is this:
"Across all geographies, across all variants, we see 85% protection" against severe disease, he said. That trend increased over time, with no severe cases in the vaccinated group after day 49, according to the company.
From one month after the shot, all hospitalizations and deaths occurred in the placebo group.

And that is the key. The overwhelming health threats are hospitalizations and severe cases of COVID. If a vaccine is effective in combating those, it’s a win.

I heard that Pfizer and Moderna are researching booster shots to combat the South African variant. If they do end up doing this, then will everyone be required to take 3 shots? Or will they just mix the booster shot into the current two shot regimen?

DocLightning wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Thanks. I wonder why the UK and EU are going ahead with AZ (even if not approved for under 65 in Germany)?

I guess they're not exactly spoilt for choice?

it is of no consequence as long as under65ers are not 100% vaccinated.
( you just redirect the AZ to younger persons while the risky get the BioNtec stuff.)

If AZ were the only game in town though ...

WIederling wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Thanks. I wonder why the UK and EU are going ahead with AZ (even if not approved for under 65 in Germany)?

I guess they're not exactly spoilt for choice?

it is of no consequence as long as under65ers are not 100% vaccinated.
( you just redirect the AZ to younger persons while the risky get the BioNtec stuff.)

If AZ were the only game in town though ...

AZ for some reason chose a tiny sample of over 65, I think around 300. ONE got infected in both groups. Stats look bad but doesn't imply it doesn't work over 65.

In hindsight AZ should have picked a bigger sample or released age group data sooner.

Millions of doses are being given to 65+ in several countries. Let's wait for data to come back.

Non mRNA is the only game for several countries lacking infrastructure. Fortunately, there are options.

Part of a vaccine that 'works', is getting it delivered into the arms. Washington State (actually medical providers) had a bit of a meltdown last week. The Feds and States were advised to lower the age from 75 to 70, and then 65. This vastly increased the numbers of people requesting an appt. I suspect there should have been at least a week's delay in each of those step-downs. Things seem to have settled down. Next in line for us is teachers over age 50. The State is ensuring a system for registering them for appts without the mad scramble. Kaiser has been deputized to take the lead in this.

Maybe a helpful FAQ put out by one of the large insurers in California.


How soon will I gain immunity to COVID-19?
You will start to have some immunity seven days after your first dose. Your immunity will continue to build and will reach a peak about two to three weeks after the second dose. Keep in mind current COVID-19 vaccines are designed around the common variant, and their effectiveness against other strains is still not fully understood.

How long will immunity last?
It’s unknown how long immunity lasts after getting the vaccine. Future findings will show us whether or not people will need booster shots.

Will it be safe for me to gather with friends and family again?
After you, your family members and friends are vaccinated, it will theoretically be safer to gather together. However, it’s important to remember that children won’t be protected until a vaccine is approved for them. We will need to take ongoing precautions such as masking up and maintaining social distance and good hand hygiene for some period to come. Keep watching for updates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Can I still get COVID-19 but show no symptoms?
Although the vaccine does a good job in giving you personal immunity and significantly reducing potential COVID-19 symptoms, it is unclear whether you might still be able to get and pass on COVID-19 to others. Even as the population becomes vaccinated, it’s important to remain vigilant with preventive measures incorporated into your life.

When will COVID-19 end?
The more people who get the vaccine, the closer we get to ‘back to normal,’ and as a result, we should see reduced illness and hospitalizations. However due to the nature of viruses, new strains can develop which may require additional measures. Masking and social distancing are important parts of combating the ongoing transmission threat.

It bears repeating, but the goal of all this is TO PREVENT THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FROM BECOMING OVERWHELMED. Vaccination is NOT to "eradicate" COVID-19. So stop moving the goal posts already.
I suggest any reasonable person on this board to remember this and to call out others who attempt to continue to spread hysteria and disinformation.

acavpics wrote:

I heard that Pfizer and Moderna are researching booster shots to combat the South African variant. If they do end up doing this, then will everyone be required to take 3 shots? Or will they just mix the booster shot into the current two shot regimen?

What would probably happen is that they would recommend that the updated version be taken as a third dose (probably one will be enough given the similarity between the variants) for those who have already received V1.0 of their product.

Going forward, they will probably produce their product as a "bivalent" vaccine, which covers both variants. This is already done for a number of other diseases. Polio, for example, comes in three serotypes and the vaccines contain all three.

DocLightning wrote:

acavpics wrote:

I heard that Pfizer and Moderna are researching booster shots to combat the South African variant. If they do end up doing this, then will everyone be required to take 3 shots? Or will they just mix the booster shot into the current two shot regimen?

What would probably happen is that they would recommend that the updated version be taken as a third dose (probably one will be enough given the similarity between the variants) for those who have already received V1.0 of their product.

Going forward, they will probably produce their product as a "bivalent" vaccine, which covers both variants. This is already done for a number of other diseases. Polio, for example, comes in three serotypes and the vaccines contain all three.

Thank you for the input.

So if they do end up producing a "bivalent" vaccine, would the South African variant be covered in just two doses for those who have yet to be vaccinated?
In my case, am part of the "general public", which means that I will likely get my first dose in April earliest. Would I be able to have protection against this variant with just two doses by then? Or would it be several more months before they could give out the bivalent vaccine?

Dieuwer wrote:

It bears repeating, but the goal of all this is TO PREVENT THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FROM BECOMING OVERWHELMED. Vaccination is NOT to "eradicate" COVID-19. So stop moving the goal posts already.
I suggest any reasonable person on this board to remember this and to call out others who attempt to continue to spread hysteria and disinformation.

Aren't the vaccines supposed to get us out of this for once and forever?
Since when have the vaccines become about preventing the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed?
This is what they said about restrictions and lockdowns, this is the first time that I hear this being said about the vaccines.

Have you noticed the change of mood about the vaccines recently?
What happened to all the people cheering for the vaccines? Where did they go?
Why has the US administration become so quiet suddenly about the vaccines?

What is going on?

cledaybuck wrote:

Thanks. I wonder why the UK and EU are going ahead with AZ (even if not approved for under 65 in Germany)?

Immunobridging.

Basically, the AZ/Oxford trial in the UK was run by the University not AZ. It was viewed as unethical to give elderly volunteers doses early in the trial. Over 55's only started getting enrolled in August, you then have to have the two doses and wait a further 14 days. So the first of the ~2500 over 55's would only have been generating data at the start of October. The interim results were for up to 4th November, So when they were published in the Lancet, the over 55 cohort had not generated sufficient "events" - i.e. symptomatic infections, either in the control or the vaccinated.

To get round this they monitor the T-Cell and B-Cell responses and compare those with younger cohorts. If the responses are the same, you then extrapolate that the protection will be the same. Apparently they were remarkably similar for the Oxford jab. And, of course, you have safety data pretty quickly.

In addition the trial didn't stop in November - it's been generating data ever since, though none has been published in the public domain. There won't be a paucity of data now. It's interesting that the EU commission, who are contractually entitled to receive updates from the clinical trial (Para 4.2b of the AZ APA) have approved the vaccine for all adults.

It's pretty nasty what the Macron and the Germans have been up to - clearly political and it gives the impression that the scientists are winging it when nothing could be further from the truth. They're lapping it up on the Brexit thread though. Bet the anti-vaxxers are too.

Hornberger wrote:

Is the UK government / NHS tracking infections among people who have received a vaccine?

Yes, you can find everything you want to know, and far more you didn't, here.

acavpics wrote:

So if they do end up producing a "bivalent" vaccine, would the South African variant be covered in just two doses for those who have yet to be vaccinated?
In my case, am part of the "general public", which means that I will likely get my first dose in April earliest. Would I be able to have protection against this variant with just two doses by then? Or would it be several more months before they could give out the bivalent vaccine?

A bivalent vaccine for naive patients would probably be a two-dose series. What I don't know is whether those of us who got both doses of the monovalent vaccine would need one or two additional doses of the bivalent vaccine. I am going to guess that nobody knows yet, so studies will need to be done, but because clinical efficacy is a settled issue, they can probably use a smaller population and just go by neutralizing antibody response.

It seems like sputnik finally getting proper testing results and it looks good!

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia- ... t-covid19/

Moderna is proposing a change in how their vaccine is packaged, going from 10 doses a vial to 15 to help address capacity issues:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2A2041

(Reuters) - Moderna Inc said on Monday it is proposing filling vials with additional doses of the COVID-19 vaccine to ease a crunch in manufacturing as the company approaches the manufacturing of almost a million doses a day.

"The company is proposing filling vials with additional doses of vaccine, up to 15 doses versus the current 10 doses," Moderna said in an emailed statement.

Pfizer expects to be two months ahead of schedule on deliveries to the US.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/cor ... aaafea1425

A few updates:

1) The Gamelaya candidate Sputnik V, which is a heterologous prime-boost regimen using an Adenovirus 26 vector as the first dose (prime) and then an Adenovirus 5 vector for the second dose (boost) to get around immunity to the vector itself, published full results in Lancet today. I fully admit to having been skeptical of this candidate, given the political undercurrents in Russia, but the results are impressive. They got total 92-93% vaccine efficacy. I think that the choice to use two different vectors to boost immunity was a very smart choice. They also had very good safety results and side-effect profile.

My criticism of the study is that their study population was 92% White, but I can hardly fault them for that given that they are in Russia. . My other criticism is their choice of Adenovirus 5 as their second vector because prior investigations into this vector showed that it increased the risk of subsequent HIV infection perhaps by some arcane immune mechanism that I confess I don't quite understand, so I would recommend a prime-boost regimen of their Adenovirus 26 followed by the AZ ChAdOx1 at 1x1011 particles (currently AZ uses 5x1010 per dose). Hopefully, they will partner with AZ (or AZ will partner with J&J).

At this point, I would happily take that vaccine (if not for the fact that I already got Pfizer's).

2) Another study published by AstraZenica as a preprint, seems to indicate that their vaccine works better if the time between prime and boost doses is extended, supporting the UK decision to extend that timing. My guess is that the first dose induces an antibody response against the adenovirus vector, but because it is a nonreplicating vector and overall expression of adenovirus genes is very limited owing to the design of the vector, the immune response to the vector itself is quite poor. By waiting 12 weeks, circulating antibodies against the vector will drop and so we see an increased efficacy estimate if there are 12 weeks between doses. In addition, their study showed that a single dose was good enough to prevent severe disease with no hospitalizations noted in their study arm against 15 hospitalizations in their placebo arm.

These data do support the UK's strategy of waiting 12 weeks between doses. That said, in a pandemic situation, this still makes me uneasy because 12 weeks is a long time (12 weeks ago was election day in the US) and such a long interval might mean that a lot of people would fall through the cracks and forget to go back for their second dose. This is a bit easier to manage in a socialized healthcare system like the UK, but still, I would rather just get them done more quickly by using a heterologous prime-boost.

Looks like the Novavax vaccine is showing 89% and 60% efficacy, respectively, against the "mutant" strains of the UK and South Africa.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/440282 ... nt-strains

WallStreet is certainly impressed. NVAX stock up 90% in just two days.

DocLightning wrote:

A few updates:

1) The Gamelaya candidate Sputnik V, which is a heterologous prime-boost regimen using an Adenovirus 26 vector as the first dose (prime) and then an Adenovirus 5 vector for the second dose (boost) to get around immunity to the vector itself, published full results in Lancet today. I fully admit to having been skeptical of this candidate, given the political undercurrents in Russia, but the results are impressive. They got total 92-93% vaccine efficacy. I think that the choice to use two different vectors to boost immunity was a very smart choice. They also had very good safety results and side-effect profile.

My criticism of the study is that their study population was 92% White, but I can hardly fault them for that given that they are in Russia. . My other criticism is their choice of Adenovirus 5 as their second vector because prior investigations into this vector showed that it increased the risk of subsequent HIV infection perhaps by some arcane immune mechanism that I confess I don't quite understand, so I would recommend a prime-boost regimen of their Adenovirus 26 followed by the AZ ChAdOx1 at 1x1011 particles (currently AZ uses 5x1010 per dose). Hopefully, they will partner with AZ (or AZ will partner with J&J).

At this point, I would happily take that vaccine (if not for the fact that I already got Pfizer's).

2) Another study published by AstraZenica as a preprint, seems to indicate that their vaccine works better if the time between prime and boost doses is extended, supporting the UK decision to extend that timing. My guess is that the first dose induces an antibody response against the adenovirus vector, but because it is a nonreplicating vector and overall expression of adenovirus genes is very limited owing to the design of the vector, the immune response to the vector itself is quite poor. By waiting 12 weeks, circulating antibodies against the vector will drop and so we see an increased efficacy estimate if there are 12 weeks between doses. In addition, their study showed that a single dose was good enough to prevent severe disease with no hospitalizations noted in their study arm against 15 hospitalizations in their placebo arm.

These data do support the UK's strategy of waiting 12 weeks between doses. That said, in a pandemic situation, this still makes me uneasy because 12 weeks is a long time (12 weeks ago was election day in the US) and such a long interval might mean that a lot of people would fall through the cracks and forget to go back for their second dose. This is a bit easier to manage in a socialized healthcare system like the UK, but still, I would rather just get them done more quickly by using a heterologous prime-boost.

I think that’s great about the Sputnik vaccine. If the science supports its use, then I welcome it into the Covid-fighting arsenal (although the HIV infection bit is an interesting twist).

A more general question about what we’re seeing with the South African and Brazil variants...do we need to be as concerned as the media hysteria is hyping us up to be right now? Do they really change the ground game that much other than increasing the urgency for widespread vaccination? Certainly any mutations that could impact vaccine efficacy should be watched closely and Moderna developing a booster is a smart move, but from my understanding from what we’ve seen from Johnson & Johnson and studies from Pfizer and Moderna, even if efficacy against those variants is reduced to say 60%, those are still damn good vaccines, doubly so accounting for their ability to prevent severe cases and hospitalizations.

Dieuwer wrote:

Looks like the Novavax vaccine is showing 89% efficacy against the "mutant" strains of the UK and South Africa.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/440282 ... nt-strains

WallStreet is certainly impressed. NVAX stock up 90% in just two days.

Theirs is a very promising technology, although a variant of it was already used in GSK's "SHINGRIX," which has 97% efficacy in preventing shingles. Basically, the immune system seems to respond better when an antigen is clustered together in repeating units, kind of how it would appear on the surface of a virus. They combine these nanoparticle "bouquets" of spike with some chemicals that make the immune system angry and this raises absolutely ridiculous antibody titers without causing a lot of side-effects.

The big limit seems to be production. GSK quickly ran out of "SHINGRIX" right after their vaccine rolled out and there was a period of 8-9 months when patients just couldn't get it. Novavax seems to be having trouble making enough of their product. I don't know exactly what the steps in production are, but if they can figure out a way around this, this is also a promising approach for future pandemic viruses.

flyguy89 wrote:

A more general question about what we’re seeing with the South African and Brazil variants...do we need to be as concerned as the media hysteria is hyping us up to be right now? Do they really change the ground game that much other than increasing the urgency for widespread vaccination? Certainly any mutations that could impact vaccine efficacy should be watched closely and Moderna developing a booster is a smart move, but from my understanding from what we’ve seen from Johnson & Johnson and studies from Pfizer and Moderna, even if efficacy against those variants is reduced to say 60%, those are still damn good vaccines, doubly so accounting for their ability to prevent severe cases and hospitalizations.

I don't think it's that dire at this point. It's important to remember that viruses can mutate, but those mutations are constrained by evolutionary pressures. The mutants still need to be able to bind to the cellular virus receptor (ACE2 in this case) and the proteins still need to function as the nanomachines that they are. So there is a relatively limited set of amino acid changes that the spike can tolerate that will allow it to evade antibody responses while retaining its function.

In addition, jawed vertebrates respond to a foreign protein like the spike by making an entire set of different antibodies directed against it, each of which binds to a different part of the protein. This makes it impossible for the virus to mutate around all of those at once.

That said, we have seen some reduced vaccine efficacy on these variants, but the reduction is not catastrophic. More importantly, what really matters is that people getting infected do not get severely ill. If these vaccines don't prevent infection, but reduce the severity to something like a mild cold, then they're good enough and we can re-open society as long as enough people get vaccinated.

In the longer term, it does raise the possibility that the virus could mutate around the available vaccines and so we'd have to update the vaccines, but I don't expect this to become an issue anytime soon.

Novavax is seeking Health Canada approval:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no ... port-rules

And has struck an memorandum of understanding with the Canadian government to produce the vaccine in Canada at a National Research Council facility in Montreal:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/with-no ... -1.5291835

The catch is the facility is still under construction, and the earliest vaccines can roll off the production line is by the end of this year.

ThePointblank wrote:

Novavax is seeking Health Canada approval:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no ... port-rules

And has struck an memorandum of understanding with the Canadian government to produce the vaccine in Canada at a National Research Council facility in Montreal:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/with-no ... -1.5291835

The catch is the facility is still under construction, and the earliest vaccines can roll off the production line is by the end of this year.

That is quite a catch. But as Novavax is a new company, they do need to establish facilities for long-term vaccine production. I can see their technology being applied to multiple viruses such as RSV, influenza, varicella (shingles), and also potentially to improve some existing antibacterial vaccines such as pertussis or C. difficile. So they may be playing a longer game here.

I got my second shot two days ago (Moderna), and then yesterday it felt like I had the full blown flu. I'm pretty much back to feeling normal now, but I don't remember ever feeling that bad after a vaccine.

mke717spotter wrote:

I got my second shot two days ago (Moderna), and then yesterday it felt like I had the full blown flu. I'm pretty much back to feeling normal now, but I don't remember ever feeling that bad after a vaccine.

You're very young. How did you manage to qualify for a dose so early in the process?

And yeah, I've heard that the second dose of the Moderna product can get a bit rough. Pfizer was a bit unpleasant for me, but I was able to go swimming (albeit not my best day in the water) and go to work without too much trouble. I was just a bit achy and tired, but felt almost completely back to normal by 26 hours after my second dose.

mke717spotter wrote:

I got my second shot two days ago (Moderna), and then yesterday it felt like I had the full blown flu. I'm pretty much back to feeling normal now, but I don't remember ever feeling that bad after a vaccine.

My wife had the same when she got Moderna #2. I get Pfizer #2 tomorrow, hopefully it won’t be too bad.

DocLightning wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Novavax is seeking Health Canada approval:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no ... port-rules

And has struck an memorandum of understanding with the Canadian government to produce the vaccine in Canada at a National Research Council facility in Montreal:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/with-no ... -1.5291835

The catch is the facility is still under construction, and the earliest vaccines can roll off the production line is by the end of this year.

That is quite a catch. But as Novavax is a new company, they do need to establish facilities for long-term vaccine production. I can see their technology being applied to multiple viruses such as RSV, influenza, varicella (shingles), and also potentially to improve some existing antibacterial vaccines such as pertussis or C. difficile. So they may be playing a longer game here.

Yes, and I think there is also the fact that Canada has decided that it is very important to have vaccine production facilities in country. For reasons that have become sadly but honestly not unexpectedly, obviously with this pandemic.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Novavax is seeking Health Canada approval:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no ... port-rules

And has struck an memorandum of understanding with the Canadian government to produce the vaccine in Canada at a National Research Council facility in Montreal:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/with-no ... -1.5291835

The catch is the facility is still under construction, and the earliest vaccines can roll off the production line is by the end of this year.

That is quite a catch. But as Novavax is a new company, they do need to establish facilities for long-term vaccine production. I can see their technology being applied to multiple viruses such as RSV, influenza, varicella (shingles), and also potentially to improve some existing antibacterial vaccines such as pertussis or C. difficile. So they may be playing a longer game here.

Yes, and I think there is also the fact that Canada has decided that it is very important to have vaccine production facilities in country. For reasons that have become sadly but honestly not unexpectedly, obviously with this pandemic.

Tugg

Most of the countries that do have the ability to manufacture covid19 vaccines are leading the pack in terms of vaccination.

As a Canadian this comes a bit late for this pandemic but is good planning for the inevitable next one. We got a hard lession regarding the PPE crisis when this all started in March and April when the US government was trying to block 3M from exporting PPE to Canada and without current vaccine manufacturing we are at the whims of the EU now. Because of this were are being burned not on vaccine distribution as the administration facilities are ready to go but we are not getting enough doses from the manufacturers to fulfill demand.

This very well could and probably should cost Justin Trudeau is job although these production issues he is not solely responsible for.

We are more than capable of having these manufacturing facilities available and even though we are a middle power we need to be more self sufficient in making our own essential items. We have been burned by relying overly on the good graces of China and the United States.

StarAC17 wrote:

As a Canadian this comes a bit late for this pandemic but is good planning for the inevitable next one. We got a hard lession regarding the PPE crisis when this all started in March and April when the US government was trying to block 3M from exporting PPE to Canada and without current vaccine manufacturing we are at the whims of the EU now. Because of this were are being burned not on vaccine distribution as the administration facilities are ready to go but we are not getting enough doses from the manufacturers to fulfill demand.

This very well could and probably should cost Justin Trudeau is job although these production issues he is not solely responsible for.

We are more than capable of having these manufacturing facilities available and even though we are a middle power we need to be more self sufficient in making our own essential items. We have been burned by relying overly on the good graces of China and the United States.

Canada actually started off in a pretty good place with respect to PPE because of SARS-1. Canada stockpiled a lot of PPE after that introduction to "the kind of mess a coronavirus can make" and so when SARS-2 hit, they had a lot sitting around. They needed to see if it was still any good after some 17 years, but a lot of it was.

The problem is that after this pandemic, the world will be exceedingly well-prepared for...this pandemic. But the next pandemic could be an entirely different kind of virus. My personal nightmare is either a smallpox or other orthopoxvirus pandemic (because the smallpox vaccines are not good for immunocompromised people) or a picornavirus/adenovirus/calicivirus, all of which are sturdy virus particles that can hang out on surfaces for much longer than a coronavirus can. Or maybe it won't be a virus, but some multi-drug resistant bacterium against which we have no idea how to make a vaccine. Of course, if I can think of it, it probably won't be the one we get.

DocLightning wrote:

mke717spotter wrote:

You're very young. How did you manage to qualify for a dose so early in the process?

EMS personnel in Milwaukee County were eligible to start receiving the vaccine in early January. I must admit I was surprised the opportunity came up so early but I just decided to take care of it while I had the chance.

DocLightning, you seem to have a lot of faith in the vaccines and seem to be extremely knowledgeable about them.
Can you give us your timeline on where the vaccines are going to take us in the coming months and years, and when we will be freed from the pest?

Bad news

Michigan general public may not get vaccine until October. We are getting 150K doses a week, even with Biden plan to increase by 20%, there wouldn't be enough. So goal pushed by 4-5 months.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 406233001/

Listening to Andrew Cuomo last Friday, NY is not in good shape either. 7.5 Million eligible(half of NY State population) getting 300K a week. Approximately 25 weeks for current eligibility and 50 weeks to cover entire population.

Good News, apparently we flattened the curve, haven't checked the data to confirm.

As more people are vaccinated it likely will be that many people not spreading the virus (not demonstrated yet), so we may see the crisis slowly resolving. Particularly if people would continue (or begin - LOL) being careful.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Bad news

Michigan general public may not get vaccine until October. We are getting 150K doses a week, even with Biden plan to increase by 20%, there wouldn't be enough. So goal pushed by 4-5 months.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 406233001/

Listening to Andrew Cuomo last Friday, NY is not in good shape either. 7.5 Million eligible(half of NY State population) getting 300K a week. Approximately 25 weeks for current eligibility and 50 weeks to cover entire population.

Good News, apparently we flattened the curve, haven't checked the data to confirm.

I think October is ridiculously pessimistic unless the manufacturers can’t deliver as promised (and they are actually projecting early deliveries by the end of Q2). As for flattening the curve, we have no such thing. Cases are definitely down, but the curve looks like the Alps.