Covid Vaccines

[cwbullet]

Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be 90% efficacious in interim results, according to findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034201

I stand corrected. We will see if those numbers pan out. It is a live virus. That is a risk for some folks.

 

[cwbullet]

I like this statement, but with my condition I need the maximum protection. With my lungs basically at 40% operating capacity, I'm dead if I get the virus.

You should protect yourself and take the best vaccine you can get.

 

[BABAR]

Corrected typo: The US Military is now reviewing ways to screen AD who catch COVID. There is a significant risk for athletes to Sudden Cardiac Death for months after a COVID infection.

Your Radiologists and/or Cardiologists are gonna LOVE you!

 

[Ez2cDave]

I stand corrected. We will see if those numbers pan out. It is a live virus. That is a risk for some folks.

Chuck,

I have a question . . .

Since all of the vaccines are so different from each other, how can they all be 90% + effective ?

Dave F.

 

[cwbullet]

I think some of it is fuzzy math till we get more numbers.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Chuck,

I have a question . . .

Since all of the vaccines are so different from each other, how can they all be 90% + effective ?

Dave F.

I can see why some of them might not be as effective as others or even not effective at all, but why couldn't all the approved ones be over 90% effective, even if they are different?

 

[afadeev]

I can see why some of them might not be as effective as others or even not effective at all, but why couldn't all the approved ones be over 90% effective, even if they are different?

That's just natural selection of vaccines by the marketplace and the regulators, in action.
The two that had been conditionally approved in the US, had to have high efficacy rates to get out out Phase 3 trials.
Those that did not fare well in earlier Phases (e.g.: Merck's two vaccine candidates: V590 and V591), quickly got abandoned altogether:

Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker

A look at all the vaccines that have reached trials in humans.

www.nytimes.com

If you want vaccines with low or questionable efficacy rates, you will need to looks beyond the US borders. Alas, getting reputable data on Russian and Chinese vaccines is a challenge:

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

 

[Reinhard]

Since all of the vaccines are so different from each other, how can they all be 90% + effective ?

Not all numbers are 90%+. AstraZeneca/Oxford reports numbers as low as 62%. SinoVac as low as 50% and about 79% for Sinopharm. For some of those, multiple numbers are published, the above are the lowest I found.

Another way to look at it is how "ineffective" a vaccine is. 5% vs. 10% is quite a difference, even though 95% vs 90% efficacy sounds quite similar. This is a bit like being punched by a middleweight boxer vs. being punched by a heavyweight boxer. I imagine both have a 90%+ chance to knock out an untrained person with a single punch, but the residual chance of still standing after the punch is quite lower with the heavyweight.

Reinhard

 

[BABAR]

I have been reading that in the 5-10% that get Covid despite vaccine, most (but not all) cases seem to be milder.

 

[cwbullet]

Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be 90% efficacious in interim results, according to findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034201

Information. Released today indicates that JJ’S VACCINE is only 66% effective as a single shot. I would not wait for something that “might” be as effective in a single shot. I suspect this may not pan out.

 

[cwbullet]

Chuck,

I have a question . . .

Since all of the vaccines are so different from each other, how can they all be 90% + effective ?

Dave F.

Dave,

This spike protein is both the strength and weakness for this virus. It allows it to stick to everything and invade us, but it also make it easy for a vaccine and our immune systems to attack.

 

[jsdemar]

Information. Released today indicates that JJ’S VACCINE is only 66% effective as a single shot. I would not wait for something that “might” be as effective in a single shot. I suspect this may not pan out.

Here's the full press release from J&J on the single-dose results:
https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson...nterim-analysis-of-its-phase-3-ensemble-trial

A few points I clipped:

• 72% effective in the US for preventing moderate to severe covid after 28 days.
• The vaccine candidate was 85% effective in preventing severe disease across all regions studied (which included Africa).
• Efficacy against severe disease increased over time with no cases in vaccinated participants reported after day 49.
• Overall serious adverse events (SAEs) reported were higher in participants who received placebo as compared to the active vaccine candidate. No anaphylaxis was observed.
• Janssen’s single-dose vaccine candidate is estimated to remain stable for two years at -20°C (-4°F), at least three months of which can be at temperatures of 2-8°C (36°F–46°F).

The 2-dose phase 3 trial is ongoing.

I think the balance between the effectiveness and easier wide distribution is a big deal.

 

[cwbullet]

Here's the full press release from J&J on the single-dose results:
https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson...nterim-analysis-of-its-phase-3-ensemble-trial

A few points I clipped:

• 72% effective in the US for preventing moderate to severe covid after 28 days.
• The vaccine candidate was 85% effective in preventing severe disease across all regions studied (which included Africa).
• Efficacy against severe disease increased over time with no cases in vaccinated participants reported after day 49.
• Overall serious adverse events (SAEs) reported were higher in participants who received placebo as compared to the active vaccine candidate. No anaphylaxis was observed.
• Janssen’s single-dose vaccine candidate is estimated to remain stable for two years at -20°C (-4°F), at least three months of which can be at temperatures of 2-8°C (36°F–46°F).

The 2-dose phase 3 trial is ongoing.

I think the balance between the effectiveness and easier wide distribution is a big deal.

I agree that it is effective. The most recent evidence clearly indicates that it might not be the 90% quoted in prior research news articles.. More will will come as we complete the next phase.

 

[AstroArlo]

Isn't the acid test how the vaccine performs when administered to the general population?

Israel has the most effective vaccination plan and have vaccinated a significant portion of their population. They report it is 92% effective, and within the statistical margin of error of the claimed 95%.

Vaccine found 92% effective in Israel, in first controlled result outside trials

Only 31 out of 163,000 fully vaccinated Maccabi members caught virus, indicating Pfizer shots living up to expectations; expert: Results 'well within expected standard deviation'

www.timesofisrael.com

I live in Colorado and my 71 yo friend received the first vaccine a week ago with no problems, and is scheduled for his second dose. Colorado is following similar vaccination priorities as other states - health care workers, elderly care facilities. And vaccinating the groups with the highest incidents of severe illness/death - they added vaccinations to those over 70 a few weeks after starting. They want to vaccinate 70% of residents over 70 by the end of February.

I'm 65 and Colorado says they will start vaccinating people over 65 or with pre-existing conditions in February.

 

[jsdemar]

One thing to consider when comparing the vaccine trials from earlier in the pandemic to ones taking place now: the virus is more prevalent today, therefore more likely to get exposed to. The volunteers go about their daily lives in these trials, not a controlled environment. So it's likely that the latest trials will be skewed towards being less effective. Make sense?

 

[cwbullet]

One thing to consider when comparing the vaccine trials from earlier in the pandemic to ones taking place now: the virus is more prevalent today, therefore more likely to get exposed to. The volunteers go about their daily lives in these trials, not a controlled environment. So it's likely that the latest trials will be skewed towards being less effective. Make sense?

I agree. I think the biggest point I am trying to make is if you want a vaccine, don’t put it off. We cannot afford to lose any more rocketry folks.

 

[timbucktoo]

I agree. I think the biggest point I am trying to make is if you want a vaccine, don’t put it off. We cannot afford to lose any more rocketry folks.

Getting a vaccine is easier said than done.

 

[cwbullet]

Coming to a site near you - maybe. We are in the process of planning.

Pentagon close to reaching agreement to provide around 450,000 Covid-19 vaccinations a day if they're available

The Pentagon and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are negotiating the final terms of an agreement that could see the military provide around 450,000 Covid-19 vaccinations a day.

www.cnn.com

 

[Steve Shannon]

I can see why some of them might not be as effective as others or even not effective at all, but why couldn't all the approved ones be over 90% effective, even if they are different?

To follow up on this, are all the companies using the same definition for “effectiveness”?
For instance, is one vaccine more effective at preventing disease, but another more effective at keeping the disease from becoming dangerous?
On NPR a person from J&J was extolling the benefits of their vaccine and why their 66% for a single shot shouldn’t be weighed directly against 95% for two shots. I was just waking so I may have misunderstood, but I believe his point was that their vaccine would allow a much greater portion of the population to be protected at a higher level in a much shorter time than could be done with a single dose of a two dose vaccine. I believe that the ineffectiveness of the J&J vaccine still resulted in a level of protection that prevented death for otherwise healthy people or long term effects from COVID-19. Maybe I misunderstood.

 

[NateB]

The ease of storage, transportation, and single dose of the J&J vaccine is a huge benefit. Since it is showing to be very effective against serious complications, it could be a huge relief to places where it is difficult to administer and store the mRNA types or get people to return for the 2nd dose.

I also wonder about the list efficacy of the vaccines since they follow people "in the wild" and see who gets covid and who doesn't. I assume the large number of test participants gives researchers the evidence they need, but part of me struggles with tests that don't offer a concrete exposure. Obviously there are ethical concerns with human testing and forced exposure to potentially deadly disease with lifelong complications. I'm glad people far smarter than me are responsible for this.

 

[Ez2cDave]

To follow up on this, are all the companies using the same definition for “effectiveness”?
For instance, is one vaccine more effective at preventing disease, but another more effective at keeping the disease from becoming dangerous?
On NPR a person from J&J was extolling the benefits of their vaccine and why their 66% for a single shot shouldn’t be weighed directly against 95% for two shots. I was just waking so I may have misunderstood, but I believe his point was that their vaccine would allow a much greater portion of the population to be protected at a higher level in a much shorter time than could be done with a single dose of a two dose vaccine. I believe that the ineffectiveness of the J&J vaccine still resulted in a level of protection that prevented death for otherwise healthy people or long term effects from COVID-19. Maybe I misunderstood.

Theoretically, if 4 unmasked, un-vaccinated, people were in close, direct contact with a person with a severe case of Covid-19 for several hours, the following scenario might unfold.

They would have no idea why one person doesn't get it, at all . . . Another person gets it, but is asymptomatic . . . Another person gets a "mild case" OR . . . Another person gets it and is on life support, a few days later.

Frankly, without "challenge testing", where vaccinated people are directly exposed to full-strength Covid-19, no one REALLY knows how effective any of the vaccine(s) are.

Dave F.

 

[Buckeye]

Just like everything else over the past year, the vaccine rollout is another clusterf***.

My aged inlaws get up at 5am every day, log on to 5 devices, and try to schedule a vaccine appointment. At Publix!!!

My wife, a school teacher, got shot #1 from Pfizer. Now the county is switching to Moderna, with no plan for Pfizer #2 shots. Duh.

Here is an idea. Many people want to liken this to a war effort (Sleepy just said so again this week). Well, how about administer the vaccines like the Draft. Everybody has a birthday, SSN, or Medicare number. It is not hard to use that information to prioritize the elderly and at risk. A couple million senior citizens need that vaccine more than Kamala Harris's photo-op.

 

[cwbullet]

Just like everything else over the past year, the vaccine rollout is another clusterf***.

My aged inlaws get up at 5am every day, log on to 5 devices, and try to schedule a vaccine appointment. At Publix!!!

My wife, a school teacher, got shot #1 from Pfizer. Now the county is switching to Moderna, with no plan for Pfizer #2 shots. Duh.

Here is an idea. Many people want to liken this to a war effort (Sleepy just said so again this week). Well, how about administer the vaccines like the Draft. Everybody has a birthday, SSN, or Medicare number. It is not hard to use that information to prioritize the elderly and at risk. A couple million senior citizens need that vaccine more than Kamala Harris's photo-op.

I have to agree. I gave 5000 shots in 96 hours. Now I can't get any more vaccine. They need to redistribute the vaccine to areas that know how to give it. Either you know what you doing or you don't.

There is no way a healthy under 65 yr old would get the vaccine before the at-risk population, unless there are health care workers. Teachers are not at any more risk than the rest of the population.

 

[Ez2cDave]

My wife, a school teacher, got shot #1 from Pfizer. Now the county is switching to Moderna, with no plan for Pfizer #2 shots. Duh.

Have there been any studies of the effects of "mixing" two different types of vaccines ?

Dave F.

 

[cwbullet]

One more reason to be vaccinated:

| MDLinx

www.mdlinx.com

 

[cwbullet]

Have there been any studies of the effects of "mixing" two different types of vaccines ?

Dave F.

We have no way to know. It is not recommended in any shape or form. Most people experts have recommended restarting the series - get 2 shots of the new vaccine. We will see if the CDC recommends something different.

 

[modeltrains]

One more reason to be vaccinated:

| MDLinx

www.mdlinx.com

Oh, that's a bit of an issue,

The study included more than 200,000 coronavirus patients in the US

To conduct the study, the researchers looked at the health records of 236,379 US coronavirus survivors.

They found that, within six months, 33.6% of the coronavirus survivors received a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis; 13% received such a diagnosis for the first time.

Patients who'd been hospitalized, and particularly those who'd experienced encephalopathy, a broad term describing altered brain function or structure, were particularly at risk for mental illnesses.

Most of the conditions - including stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, dementia, and psychotic disorders - were more common than in a comparable group of patients who'd had the flu or a respiratory tract infection, the researchers found.

Haha, I know some in the disability and incurable chronic illness communities who would have a different experience from that, but that's for its own thread ...

It's unlikely simply being under clinicians' care is what led to an increase in mental health diagnoses, the authors said.

 

[cwbullet]

Oh, that's a bit of an issue,



Haha, I know some in the disability and incurable chronic illness communities who would have a different experience from that, but that's for its own thread ...

I think that depends on the medical provider. Some can send patients into a tizzy.

 

[cwbullet]

Single-dose of the vaccine? Recently, this question came up. J&J has said that in the U.S. and seven other countries, the single-shot vaccine was 66% effective overall at preventing moderate to severe illness, and much more protective—85%—against the most serious symptoms. Hmm, sounds like you should wait for the J&J - not so fast.

Moderna with a single shot is 80.6% and over 95% with two doses. Pfizer is similar. I would not wait for J&J. Your life is more important than avoiding a single shot and by the time it is given to the public, it might be two shots.

 

[cwbullet]

Single-dose of the vaccine? Recently, this question came up. J&J has said that in the U.S. and seven other countries, the single-shot vaccine was 66% effective overall at preventing moderate to severe illness, and much more protective—85%—against the most serious symptoms. Hmm, sounds like you should wait for the J&J - not so fast.

Moderna with a single shot is 80.6% and over 95% with two doses. Pfizer is similar. I would not wait for J&J. Your life is more important than avoiding a single shot and by the time it is given to the public, it might be two shots.

These vaccines are in their infancy. Data will change over time as we get more numbers.