COVID Vaccine on the way?

24

Comments

  • I've had Covid and after 6 weeks, I'm still having some chest issues. 
    I would still take the vaccine, but there are lot of people who wont and to some extent, I do understand.

    1) It seems the main trials didn't included anybody over the age of 65 and anyone with pre-existing conditions, so the most vulnerable groups have had very little exposure to the vaccine during testing.

    2) The efficacy calculations are strange.   There may have been 20,000 people in the trial, but when the 1st results were announced, only 94 people contracted Covid.  10% of these 94 had taken the vaccine, so that means it's 90% effective.   Well that isnt really true. 
    In effect you have a sample of 94 only and in such a small dataset, there must be so many variables such as age, sex, ethnicity, location, family structure. health that proclaiming 90% efficacy seems a bit presumptuous.  That is why these trials normally take place over years

    Still - The good news is that the 1st 2 people were vaccinated yesterday in the UK !!


  • Dinosaur David BDinosaur David B Posts: 18,271
    edited December 2020
    My company alone is supporting 280 COVID trials (including Moderna) with more than 400K subjects. 


    Post edited by Dinosaur David B on
    I threw me guitar out. Why bother? Why bother? Use it as a coffee table. Because I can't play it like that. 
    -- David St. Hubbins.
  • Dave

    I appreciate there are lots of people in the trials, but the efficacy calculations are based only on those that contract the virus.  So in the Pfizer trials, there were 40,000 people, but in the initial results there were only 94 cases of Covid.

    The other 39906 people made no difference to the calculations.

    Of the 94 cases, from memory,  85 had had the placebo and 9 had received the vaccine, hence they arrive at 90% efficacy.

    I have no axe to grind and will take the vaccine myself.  However, I have seen no breakdown of the sex, age, ethnicity, life style, family size or health condition of those 94. people and it seems a pretty small statistical set on which to base the claims.


  • JoebuddhaJoebuddha Posts: 2,143
    I am excited about it myself. I have a good friend who is a microbiologist who specializes in infectious diseases and she says the research is solid and that the technology used to create this vaccine may lead to other vaccines for other diseases being developed soon. 
     Unfortunately a lot of my family members seem convinced that Bill Gates is secretly implanting the worlds population with microchips in order to create "automated cities" whatever the Hell that is. Let's just say that not having to see the family at holidays because of Covid can actually be a blessing. At least for this year.
  • No need for chips, we have phones, alredy. 
  • Seven MoonsSeven Moons Posts: 8,934
    I won't hurry. Later in 2021 I may consider one of the vaccines based on classic "recipes", but not the new RNA-based ones until a few years of independent studies, experience and feedback, have passed. 
  • Dr NickDr Nick Posts: 3,701
    Well my hospital performed nearly 1000 vaccinations last week. 
    It's a start.
  • Dinosaur David BDinosaur David B Posts: 18,271
    edited December 2020
    I appreciate there are lots of people in the trials, but the efficacy calculations are based only on those that contract the virus.  
    I honestly haven't looked at exactly how they are conducting the studies, but how could you base it on anything else? 

    I have no reason to question the data you're quoting, but as I mentioned, I know for a fact that my company ALONE is supporting over 400,000 subjects in COVID trials.  That's at least 10 times more subjects going through trials than you mention from just the Pfizer study. And not every company or trial is using our software. So there's a lot more data points than what you mention in this particular instance. 

    Dr Nick said:
    Well my hospital performed nearly 1000 vaccinations last week. 
    It's a start.


    One thing's certain. For better or worse, the first responders like Nick are going to be the vaccine's guinea pigs. The rest of us will have the comparative "luxury" to wait and see if the first people inoculated have any adverse side effects in any kind of numbers to worry about.

    EVERY drug ever created has potential side effects to someone. All you have to do is watch any drug commercial on TV to hear of all the potential SCARY-sounding side effects.

    Has that stopped you from taking a drug you needed based on your MD's recommendation? Even if you saw the commercial. Seems to me it's a pretty simple potential risk vs. reward proposition you make based on your own situation and knowledge of your own health. 

    If you're not very old or very young, and you're relatively healthy -- without some pre-existing medical compromise, the odds are in your favor that the potential reward of the vaccine (any vaccine, actually) outweighs any risks.

    I won't hurry. Later in 2021 I may consider one of the vaccines based on classic "recipes", but not the new RNA-based ones until a few years of independent studies, experience and feedback, have passed. 

    Are non RNA-based vaccines even in the works?
    I think the RNA-based vaccines are very exciting, and perhaps point toward a whole new, and potentially more effective way treating many things.  The yearly flu shots typically have under 50% efficacy. I think the RNA approach could make that a rate lot higher, and I think (Nick?) would be less dependent on guesswork about which flu strain will be prevalent in any given year. 

    I don't have "blind faith" in science, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxer either. Plus I work in the clinical trial field, so I have a good idea of the trial process and phases in non-pandemic conditions. They are ridiculously regulated and rigorous. Shit, we just make the software companies like Moderna use, and our software development process is extremely regulated and rigorous because it's part of the whole clinical trial picture.

    Of course, under pandemic conditions, everything is accelerated because the normal 10+ years of trials and testing it normally takes to bring most drugs to market would cost millions of lives if applied to a COVID vaccine.  But my understanding is that the acceleration here is less about being thorough, and more about fast-tracking through much of the bureaucratic bullshit that normally surrounds the process. You can cut a lot of that bullshit out if everyone involved in the process drops whatever other drugs they're working on, moves COVID to the front of the line, and prioritizes it over the zillions of other drugs currently being developed.  And I think that's what's being done.
    Post edited by Dinosaur David B on
    I threw me guitar out. Why bother? Why bother? Use it as a coffee table. Because I can't play it like that. 
    -- David St. Hubbins.
  • Dr NickDr Nick Posts: 3,701
    edited December 2020
    Are non RNA-based vaccines even in the works?
    I think the RNA-based vaccines are very exciting, and perhaps point toward a whole new, and potentially more effective way treating many things.  The yearly flu shots typically have under 50% efficacy. I think the RNA approach could make that a rate lot higher, and I think (Nick?) would be less dependent on guesswork about which flu strain will be prevalent in any given year. 

    Oh definitely. 4 types of vaccine:
    -Whole virus (killed or attenuated), the most common vaccine for, well, anything.
    -Protein subunit (the bits of the virus that cause an immune reaction), also quite commonly used (meningitis, Hep B) 
    -RNA/DNA (instructions to the person's cells to MAKE the bits of virus that then trigger an immune reaction), new tech
    -Viral vector (variation on the RNA/DNA one, where the instructions are added to another harmless virus), new-ish tech, hard to make

    Pretty sure all 4 are being tried. 
    I've not had the jab yet, might get called before Christmas, but care home residents and staff are #1 on the list. 
    Post edited by Dr Nick on
  • Seven MoonsSeven Moons Posts: 8,934
    edited December 2020
    I won't hurry. Later in 2021 I may consider one of the vaccines based on classic "recipes", but not the new RNA-based ones until a few years of independent studies, experience and feedback, have passed. 

    Are non RNA-based vaccines even in the works?
    I think the RNA-based vaccines are very exciting, and perhaps point toward a whole new, and potentially more effective way treating many things.  The yearly flu shots typically have under 50% efficacy. I think the RNA approach could make that a rate lot higher, and I think (Nick?) would be less dependent on guesswork about which flu strain will be prevalent in any given year. 
    Yes, other options are in the final stages as the RNA-based ones. You have a panorama here:
    Post edited by Seven Moons on
  • BytorBytor Posts: 1,687
    Does anyone know how long these last?
  • I appreciate there are lots of people in the trials, but the efficacy calculations are based only on those that contract the virus.  
    I honestly haven't looked at exactly how they are conducting the studies, but how could you base it on anything else? 

    I have no reason to question the data you're quoting, but as I mentioned, I know for a fact that my company ALONE is supporting over 400,000 subjects in COVID trials.  That's at least 10 times more subjects going through trials than you mention from just the Pfizer study. And not every company or trial is using our software. So there's a lot more data points than what you mention in this particular instance. 

    As I said, I have no axe to grind and i have recommended my mother, aunt and step-mother (all in their 80's) to take the vaccine as soon as it is available to them and I will take it myself.

    One of the reasons that normal vaccine testing and approvals takes years is because it takes that long to build up a large statistical dataset to analyse. 

    The current testing seems to prove that the vaccine is 'safe' although it was strange that they forgot to tell people with any bad allergy issues that they shouldn't take it. This after 2 NHS workers had reactions on the 1st day.

    Most people I talk to seem to think that the vaccine means that 90% of people wont catch the virus. 
    They don't seem to realise that the vaccine doesn't stop you from contracting the virus, nor is it guaranteed to stop you being infectious (although there are signs it may help this).  It will simply reduce the effect of the virus on you.

    Strange times...





  • Yeah, Dave, I'd tried many drugs with side efects, legal and ilegal. Why not a vaccine?
  • Dr NickDr Nick Posts: 3,701
    Well, it wasn't soon enough. Spending Christmas in quarantine: managed to come down with the damn Covid last weekend. Not too ill; no fever, not breathless, just shivery and "off". My son has it too. Wife & daughter got it last month. Youngest is still OK so far. 
    Happy Christmas everyone. 
  • Ugh. Get well soon, Nick. 

    I threw me guitar out. Why bother? Why bother? Use it as a coffee table. Because I can't play it like that. 
    -- David St. Hubbins.
Sign In or Register to comment.