Vacci-Nation [CLOSED DUE TO DISRESPECTFUL, INSULTING, POLITICAL POSTS

[Irace86.2.0]

I should have said that there was a second symptom. I have IBS, so I didn’t connect the vaccine with the mild laxative event that happened, but in light of this article, it could have been the vaccine. Specifically, it could have been the polyethylene glycol (PEG). It also could have been just something I ate, which is highly likely. Regardless, it was a mild, singular event.

Anaphylactic reactions seem to be a literal 1 in a million event. Nevertheless, if someone has a known PEG allergy then they might want to consider a different vaccine. With that said there is this:

Other scientists, meanwhile, are not convinced PEG is involved at all. “There is a lot of exaggeration when it comes to the risk of PEGs and CARPA,” says Moein Moghimi, a nanomedicine researcher at Newcastle University who suspects a more conventional mechanism is causing the reactions. “You are technically delivering an adjuvant at the injection site to excite the local immune system. It happens that some people get too much excitement, because they have a relatively high number of local immune cells.”

Others note the amount of PEG in the mRNA vaccines is orders of magnitude lower than in most PEGylated drugs. And whereas those drugs are often given intravenously, the two COVID-19 vaccines are injected into a muscle, which leads to a delayed exposure and a much lower level of PEG in the blood, where most anti-PEG antibodies are.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...rgic-reactions

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I should have said that there was a second symptom.

Other than a sore arm the next day (probably from sleeping on it) I haven't had any adverse reactions. My son pretty much the same, although he said he felt a bit flush for a few hours.

[JD001]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Other than a sore arm the next day (probably from sleeping on it) I haven't had any adverse reactions. My son pretty much the same, although he said he felt a bit flush for a few hours.

One or two jabs?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by JD001

One or two jabs?

First jab. Second jab will be in 2.5 weeks.

[JD001]

Great news, the Oxford University/ AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved for use in the UK. The period between first and second dose is greater therefore more people can be vaccinated.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by JD001

Great news, the Oxford University/ AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved for use in the UK. The period between first and second dose is greater therefore more people can be vaccinated.

Yes, but unfortunately the AstraZeneca vaccine had problems in its Phase 3 clinical trial:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03504-w

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/08/...rate-efficacy/

In my mind, the difficulties call the results into question. First, it seems that the mixed dosing regimen (low first dose + full second dose) was unintentional. It was given in error. This raises the question of what other errors might have occurred?

Second, the results are counter-intuitive. The low + standard dose gave greater effectiveness (90%) than the planned two standard dose regimen (62%). This suggests an inverted U-shaped dose-response curve. I spent my career in drug development, and while there are certainly examples of drugs with such inverted U-shaped dose-response curves, they are often problematic. At a minimum, it calls for questioning and looking into both whether the results are genuine, and why the lower dose regimen worked better than the higher standard dose.

The world desperately needs more SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. I fear that this dire need is pushing regulators to approve something that by customary clinical trial standards would otherwise be required to repeat the Phase 3 trial. The AstraZeneca vaccine is promising because of the easier storage conditions and lower cost, but the downside could be vaccinating millions of people with a product that turns out to be less effective than thought - putting those people at greater risk of infection.

[JD001]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

Yes, but unfortunately the AstraZeneca vaccine had problems in its Phase 3 clinical trial:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03504-w

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/08/...rate-efficacy/

In my mind, the difficulties call the results into question. First, it seems that the mixed dosing regimen (low first dose + full second dose) was unintentional. It was given in error. This raises the question of what other errors might have occurred?

Second, the results are counter-intuitive. The low + standard dose gave greater effectiveness (90%) than the planned two standard dose regimen (62%). This suggests an inverted U-shaped dose-response curve. I spent my career in drug development, and while there are certainly examples of drugs with such inverted U-shaped dose-response curves, they are often problematic. At a minimum, it calls for questioning and looking into both whether the results are genuine, and why the lower dose regimen worked better than the higher standard dose.

The world desperately needs more SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. I fear that this dire need is pushing regulators to approve something that by customary clinical trial standards would otherwise be required to repeat the Phase 3 trial. The AstraZeneca vaccine is promising because of the easier storage conditions and lower cost, but the downside could be vaccinating millions of people with a product that turns out to be less effective than thought - putting those people at greater risk of infection.

Yes, I was aware of the Phase 3 challenges, did find it rather strange that half dosage was giving better results...The first jabs start on the 4th Jan, unsure if the patient will get to choose which one they get.

I'm all for it as we need to get the economy back on track with people out and about doing stuff..

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by JD001

I'm all for it as we need to get the economy back on track with people out and about doing stuff..

Therein lies the problem. A vaccine with relatively low effectiveness against a highly transmissible virus might actually make things worse. This is especially worrisome in the U.K. where a more contagious SARS-CoV-2 mutation is becoming widespread.

The vaccine has been approved at the intended 2x standard dose regimen, that showed only 62% effectiveness in the clinical trial. While this ostensibly passes the goal of at least 50% effectiveness, think about how this might play out.

A person getting this vaccine has a 38% chance of not being protected. If 20 million people are vaccinated with the AstraZeneca product, that means close to 8 million of them could become infected with SARS-CoV-2. If those 20 million vaccinated people are out and about thinking they're 'immune' and 8 million of them fall ill - which seems likely, given the increased transmissibility of the new mutation - that could result in more ill people, more people in hospitals, and more deaths.

A vaccine that only provides 62% effectiveness will also not advance the goal of achieving 'herd immunity'. To break the cycle of infection, around 90% of people need to be immune, to no longer be capable of transmitting infection (again, especially with the more contagious new mutation). 62% protection won't provide that.

This vaccine could be beneficial to the community at large only if people would keep practicing other containment measures - wearing masks, observing social distancing, and continuing with closures of places where people gather indoors unmasked (such as restaurants, pubs, etc.). If that's what will be done in the U.K., then yes, even a modestly effective vaccine like this one will be helpful.

But that's the danger. Many people won't do that, and the government may feel under pressure to 'open things up for the sake of the economy'. It's a false pretense that could backfire. If a large number of people receive the AstraZeneca vaccine and then throw away their masks and gather in restaurants and pubs, the 'boost' to the economy will be very short term. If millions more become ill, people won't be well enough to be out and about, and the costs to the U.K. of caring for all of them could end up being higher than continuing with containment measures.

It's not a choice of 'lives' or 'money' (though a lot of politicians seem to think that). Experiences in other countries around the world have shown that economies thrive not only when people feel safe, but actually are safe enough to go out and spend money.

A number of countries have successfully contained the SARS-CoV-2 virus without a vaccine - New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, Finland, and even China. They did it the same way the 1918 Spanish influenza was ultimately controlled - with a proper lockdown for a long enough time that the cycle of transmission was broken. Then life was able to start returning to some semblance of (the new) 'normal', but only after the cycle of infection was stopped.

Sometimes, the urge to 'do something' and thinking that 'anything is better than nothing' only makes things worse.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

Yes, but unfortunately the AstraZeneca vaccine had problems in its Phase 3 clinical trial:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03504-w

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/08/...rate-efficacy/

In my mind, the difficulties call the results into question. First, it seems that the mixed dosing regimen (low first dose + full second dose) was unintentional. It was given in error. This raises the question of what other errors might have occurred?

Second, the results are counter-intuitive. The low + standard dose gave greater effectiveness (90%) than the planned two standard dose regimen (62%). This suggests an inverted U-shaped dose-response curve. I spent my career in drug development, and while there are certainly examples of drugs with such inverted U-shaped dose-response curves, they are often problematic. At a minimum, it calls for questioning and looking into both whether the results are genuine, and why the lower dose regimen worked better than the higher standard dose.

The world desperately needs more SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. I fear that this dire need is pushing regulators to approve something that by customary clinical trial standards would otherwise be required to repeat the Phase 3 trial. The AstraZeneca vaccine is promising because of the easier storage conditions and lower cost, but the downside could be vaccinating millions of people with a product that turns out to be less effective than thought - putting those people at greater risk of infection.

Who did/do you work for?

PM me if you would like - or not -

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by JD001

I'm all for it as we need to get the economy back on track with people out and about doing stuff..

"One fact that should sow concern at the end of any recession is that keeping a lean workforce is a time-honored way of driving profit growth. But for anyone counting on jobs to roar back as vaccinations proliferate, a subtler threat lies in the nature of the lockdown itself, a period when companies were rewarded grandly for figuring out ways of minimising the role of humans."

Stock pickers' tech addiction delivers a harsh blow to workers


Nothing new but covid may have accelerated the trend.

[x808drifter]

They took away our YT when the vid started and everyone went to telework.
Thankfully FB still works and I can relax to this.
(Santana Full Concert Circa 1970)

https://www.facebook.com/sabinerosga...erp_videos_tab

[Irace86.2.0]

It seems like supply is outpacing delivery. Obviously things will ramp up, but at the current rate, it will take 5-10 years to vaccine everyone. While 14-20 million doses will be delivered to the states by the end of the month, only 2.6-3 million doses will be given. Part of that is because of the holidays and weather, but it needs to improve quickly.

Meanwhile, yesterday saw 235,775 new cases and 3,882, and we crossed the 350k deaths mark.

On a separate note, all of the precautions for COVID has dramatically reduced our cases of the flu. In fact, I haven’t seen a single flu positive patient. A coworker says she saw one back in November. We have been doing a rapid COVID/FluA/B/RSV panel on all admits and suspected patients, yet we really haven’t seen any flu cases. Typically we have 3-5 of 26 ER rooms with positive patients mid day. In 2018 we saw one day with 12 of 26 beds with flu positive patients. It seems like with vaccines and masks, we could relatively eliminate flu cases and dramatically reduce deaths. Proportionally deaths wouldn’t fall as much, but would still greatly drop. Not saying we should all mask every winter—just pointing out that if there was any doubt that masks were effective then that has been resolved.

[spike021]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It seems like supply is outpacing delivery. Obviously things will ramp up, but at the current rate, it will take 5-10 years to vaccine everyone. While 14-20 million doses will be delivered to the states by the end of the month, only 2.6-3 million doses will be given. Part of that is because of the holidays and weather, but it needs to improve quickly.

Meanwhile, yesterday saw 235,775 new cases and 3,882, and we crossed the 350k deaths mark.

On a separate note, all of the precautions for COVID has dramatically reduced our cases of the flu. In fact, I haven’t seen a single flu positive patient. A coworker says she saw one back in November. We have been doing a rapid COVID/FluA/B/RSV panel on all admits and suspected patients, yet we really haven’t seen any flu cases. Typically we have 3-5 of 26 ER rooms with positive patients mid day. In 2018 we saw one day with 12 of 26 beds with flu positive patients. It seems like with vaccines and masks, we could relatively eliminate flu cases and dramatically reduce deaths. Proportionally deaths wouldn’t fall as much, but would still greatly drop. Not saying we should all mask every winter—just pointing out that if there was any doubt that masks were effective then that has been resolved.

Definitely anecdotal, but I can believe it.

Plus, while others may not like this idea, Asian countries have been doing the mask thing for flu/hay fever season for a long time. I'm sure, COVID or not, if we started trying to do the same thing we'd be better off.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by spike021

Definitely anecdotal, but I can believe it.

Plus, while others may not like this idea, Asian countries have been doing the mask thing for flu/hay fever season for a long time. I'm sure, COVID or not, if we started trying to do the same thing we'd be better off.

Anecdotal, but backed up by the evidence. We vaccinated more people:


https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...al-disparities


And the labs seem to be reporting a wide spread drop in cases:


https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm