Vaccine Development Summary
11-26-2020, 05:40 AM
#481
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,244
Originally Posted by GateAgent007
Boy things like nuance just go completely over your head, don't they?
From the article
It's going to take the better part of a year to vaccinate everyone. It's not unreasonable to taper the restrictions and monitor the results-as-you-go.
From the article
It's going to take the better part of a year to vaccinate everyone. It's not unreasonable to taper the restrictions and monitor the results-as-you-go.
Businesses will eventually evaluate whether it's worth requiring a vaccine passport for admission in order to remove the mask requirement. Depends on how covid liability evolves, and also the nature of the business.
In a restaurant, masks might be ok because we've already established you can take them off once seated. Although seating density might drive vaccination requirements in high-rent districts, just to pack in more revenue.
In bars/nightclubs, masks really suck... pretty much defeats the whole point (trying to get laid). Many such venues will likely go for the vaccine app to get back to a normal social environment. They're checking ID's at the door anyway, what's one more?
11-26-2020, 04:26 PM
#482
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,489
It may be serendipity...
But a very basic error does not give people much confidence that in the rush to get things out, things are getting overlooked:
https://apnews.com/article/internati...864b4b63de9897
it may work out just fine, but it comes across as sort of slapdash.
LONDON (AP) — AstraZeneca and Oxford University on Wednesday acknowledged a manufacturing error that is raising questions about preliminary results of their experimental COVID-19 vaccine.
A statement describing the error came days after the company and the university described the shots as “highly effective” and made no mention of why some study participants didn’t receive as much vaccine in the first of two shots as expected.
In a surprise, the group of volunteers that got a lower dose seemed to be much better protected than the volunteers who got two full doses. In the low-dose group, AstraZeneca said, the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective. In the group that got two full doses, the vaccine appeared to be 62% effective. Combined, the drugmakers said the vaccine appeared to be 70% effective. But the way in which the results were arrived at and reported by the companies has led to pointed questions from experts.The partial results announced Monday are from large ongoing studies in the U.K. and Brazil designed to determine the optimal dose of vaccine, as well as examine safety and effectiveness. Multiple combinations and doses were tried in the volunteers. They were compared to others who were given a meningitis vaccine or a saline shot.
DID RESEARCHERS MEAN TO GIVE A HALF DOSE?
Before they begin their research, scientists spell out all the steps they are taking, and how they will analyze the results. Any deviation from that protocol can put the results in question.
In a statement Wednesday, Oxford University said some of the vials used in the trial didn’t have the right concentration of vaccine so some volunteers got a half dose. The university said that it discussed the problem with regulators, and agreed to complete the late stage trial with two groups. The manufacturing problem has been corrected, according to the statement.
WHAT ABOUT THE RESULTS THEMSELVES?
Experts say the relatively small number of people in the low dose group makes it difficult to know if the effectiveness seen in the group is real or a statistical quirk. Some 2,741 people received a half dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose, AstraZeneca said. A total of 8,895 people received two full doses.
Another factor: none of the people in the low-dose group were over 55 years old. Younger people tend to mount a stronger immune response than older people, so it could be that the youth of the participants in the low-dose group is why it looked more effective, not the size of the dose.Another point of confusion comes from a decision to pool results from two groups of participants who received different dosing levels to reach an average 70% effectiveness, said David Salisbury, and associate fellow of the global health program at the Chatham House think tank.
“You’ve taken two studies for which different doses were used and come up with a composite that doesn’t represent either of the doses,″ he said of the figure. “I think many people are having trouble with that.″
A statement describing the error came days after the company and the university described the shots as “highly effective” and made no mention of why some study participants didn’t receive as much vaccine in the first of two shots as expected.
In a surprise, the group of volunteers that got a lower dose seemed to be much better protected than the volunteers who got two full doses. In the low-dose group, AstraZeneca said, the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective. In the group that got two full doses, the vaccine appeared to be 62% effective. Combined, the drugmakers said the vaccine appeared to be 70% effective. But the way in which the results were arrived at and reported by the companies has led to pointed questions from experts.The partial results announced Monday are from large ongoing studies in the U.K. and Brazil designed to determine the optimal dose of vaccine, as well as examine safety and effectiveness. Multiple combinations and doses were tried in the volunteers. They were compared to others who were given a meningitis vaccine or a saline shot.
DID RESEARCHERS MEAN TO GIVE A HALF DOSE?
Before they begin their research, scientists spell out all the steps they are taking, and how they will analyze the results. Any deviation from that protocol can put the results in question.
In a statement Wednesday, Oxford University said some of the vials used in the trial didn’t have the right concentration of vaccine so some volunteers got a half dose. The university said that it discussed the problem with regulators, and agreed to complete the late stage trial with two groups. The manufacturing problem has been corrected, according to the statement.
WHAT ABOUT THE RESULTS THEMSELVES?
Experts say the relatively small number of people in the low dose group makes it difficult to know if the effectiveness seen in the group is real or a statistical quirk. Some 2,741 people received a half dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose, AstraZeneca said. A total of 8,895 people received two full doses.
Another factor: none of the people in the low-dose group were over 55 years old. Younger people tend to mount a stronger immune response than older people, so it could be that the youth of the participants in the low-dose group is why it looked more effective, not the size of the dose.Another point of confusion comes from a decision to pool results from two groups of participants who received different dosing levels to reach an average 70% effectiveness, said David Salisbury, and associate fellow of the global health program at the Chatham House think tank.
“You’ve taken two studies for which different doses were used and come up with a composite that doesn’t represent either of the doses,″ he said of the figure. “I think many people are having trouble with that.″
it may work out just fine, but it comes across as sort of slapdash.
11-26-2020, 09:11 PM
#483
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,244
Originally Posted by Excargodog
But a very basic error does not give people much confidence that in the rush to get things out, things are getting overlooked:
https://apnews.com/article/internati...864b4b63de9897
it may work out just fine, but it comes across as sort of slapdash.
https://apnews.com/article/internati...864b4b63de9897
it may work out just fine, but it comes across as sort of slapdash.
But in all seriousness, at least they identified the error. Looks like they're going to run a new trial, to deliberately assess what they accidentally assessed in the first one.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN28620H
Last edited by rickair7777; 11-26-2020 at 09:22 PM.
11-26-2020, 09:30 PM
#484
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,489
Originally Posted by rickair7777
That's how Mr. Goodyear invented industrially useful rubber... sometimes better to be lucky than good.
But in all seriousness, at least they identified the error. Looks like they're going to run a new trial, to deliberately assess what they accidentally assessed in the first one.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN28620H
But in all seriousness, at least they identified the error. Looks like they're going to run a new trial, to deliberately assess what they accidentally assessed in the first one.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN28620H
All true, but it nonetheless makes them look like buffoons. And gross buffoonery is NOT the way to quiet anxiety of the vaccine wary.
It’s sort of like accidentally shipping six nukes from Minot to Barkesdale in total ignorance and without meaningful security and still getting away with it. It gives you zero confidence that people entrusted with important things actually know WTF they are doing.
11-27-2020, 07:28 AM
#485
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,244
Originally Posted by Excargodog
All true, but it nonetheless makes them look like buffoons. And gross buffoonery is NOT the way to quiet anxiety of the vaccine wary.
It’s sort of like accidentally shipping six nukes from Minot to Barkesdale in total ignorance and without meaningful security and still getting away with it. It gives you zero confidence that people entrusted with important things actually know WTF they are doing.
It’s sort of like accidentally shipping six nukes from Minot to Barkesdale in total ignorance and without meaningful security and still getting away with it. It gives you zero confidence that people entrusted with important things actually know WTF they are doing.
What would be interesting to know is whether the incorrect dosage was administered erroneously by the people executing the trial, or whether it was packaged/labelled incorrectly at the point of mfg. The later would need to be addressed.
11-27-2020, 07:51 AM
#486
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,489
Originally Posted by rickair7777
In fairness the people who developed the vaccine are not the same people who execute the trials... that was likely outsourced due to the size and urgency.
What would be interesting to know is whether the incorrect dosage was administered erroneously by the people executing the trial, or whether it was packaged/labelled incorrectly at the point of mfg. The later would need to be addressed.
What would be interesting to know is whether the incorrect dosage was administered erroneously by the people executing the trial, or whether it was packaged/labelled incorrectly at the point of mfg. The later would need to be addressed.
But the candidate vaccine was just 62% effective in the group that received two full doses.
Mene Pangalos, head of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, admitted to Reuters on Monday that some participants received a half dose and then a full dose due to a dosing error.
Pangalos called it a "useful mistake" in a later interview with the New York Times, published on Wednesday.
Oxford University said in a statement on Wednesday that some of the vials in the trial did not have the right concentration of vaccine. The university said the problem was discussed with regulators and they decided to complete the late-stage trial in two groups, according to the AP
Mene Pangalos, head of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, admitted to Reuters on Monday that some participants received a half dose and then a full dose due to a dosing error.
Pangalos called it a "useful mistake" in a later interview with the New York Times, published on Wednesday.
Oxford University said in a statement on Wednesday that some of the vials in the trial did not have the right concentration of vaccine. The university said the problem was discussed with regulators and they decided to complete the late-stage trial in two groups, according to the AP
Nah, a SNAFU of this magnitude on a process so simple either makes AstraZeneca look like idiots, or it makes everybody involved in the whole process look like idiots. where was the oversight?
Diabetics give themselves appropriate insulin dosages without inadvertently doubling or halving their dose every day. You are trying to save the world and you can’t get a dosage right?
Nurse Jess (see above) could have done better, and I don’t think she’s even a real nurse.
PS: Did you even notice the hypodermic?
Last edited by Excargodog; 11-27-2020 at 08:05 AM. Reason: Forgot sexist joke...
11-27-2020, 08:00 AM
#487
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,063
Originally Posted by GateAgent007
Boy things like nuance just go completely over your head, don't they?
From the article
It's going to take the better part of a year to vaccinate everyone. It's not unreasonable to taper the restrictions and monitor the results-as-you-go.
From the article
It's going to take the better part of a year to vaccinate everyone. It's not unreasonable to taper the restrictions and monitor the results-as-you-go.
11-27-2020, 08:05 AM
#488
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
Except for the part where he says you can be vaccinated, still get the virus, and still spread it, yeah.
Good lord, the whining is non-stop.
Edit: This vaccine may provide full immunity like the polio or rubella vaccine, but it also might only provide partial immunity, like the influenza vaccine. In the second case, you can still catch the Coronavirus. It just won't put you in the hospital anymore. If that is the case, then we'd have to wear masks until all the high-risk individuals were immunized. Which is why they're the priority below essential medical personnel.
Time will tell.
Last edited by GateAgent007; 11-27-2020 at 08:25 AM.
11-27-2020, 08:14 AM
#489
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,489
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
Except for the part where he says you can be vaccinated, still get the virus, and still spread it, yeah.
https://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts_zos.asp
and if they do get shingles, they can certainly transmit chickenpox to any susceptible they contact.
we simply aren’t going to know with COVID until enough people have actually been vaccinated long enough.
11-27-2020, 09:06 AM
#490
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,063
Originally Posted by GateAgent007
If the vaccine fails, then yes, you can still get COVID. There is nothing wrong with that speculative statement. If it bothers you so much, go get an antibody test after your vaccinations. If the vaccine is effective and you have antibodies, then you can go take off your mask.
Good lord, the whining is non-stop.
Edit: This vaccine may provide full immunity like the polio or rubella vaccine, but it also might only provide partial immunity, like the influenza vaccine. In the second case, you can still catch the Coronavirus. It just won't put you in the hospital anymore. If that is the case, then we'd have to wear masks until all the high-risk individuals were immunized. Which is why they're the priority below essential medical personnel.
Time will tell.
Good lord, the whining is non-stop.
Edit: This vaccine may provide full immunity like the polio or rubella vaccine, but it also might only provide partial immunity, like the influenza vaccine. In the second case, you can still catch the Coronavirus. It just won't put you in the hospital anymore. If that is the case, then we'd have to wear masks until all the high-risk individuals were immunized. Which is why they're the priority below essential medical personnel.
Time will tell.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
