Vaccine/Antibody updates

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Discussed with my 13 YO while hiking in the woods the philosophical and ethical issues of whether I should get the vaccine early or move to the back of the line.  He immediately said that I should go to the end of the line.   He rightly points out that in 6-8 months it will be like getting a booster.   

Raising another smart one.

If it were me, I would consult someone who is an expert in the field versus banking on an immune response assumption.  I don't think this is as clear-cut as you would like to believe to only bucket it as an ethical question versus one of safety for front for a frontline worker.

[tower912]

You are saying you don't trust the antibodies developed through the virus.   Is it the strength or the duration that concerns you?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

You are saying you don't trust the antibodies developed through the virus.   Is it the strength or the duration that concerns you?

I've read that there is some predictability & strength benefits of a vaccine versus natural infection.  I am not a medical professional and don't know enough to make a recommendation.  I've just seen enough discussion about the topic by experts that would make me do more homework before declining.

Edit: by the way, you will probably have a good set of role models soon.  If ER docs who have had infection start posting that they got the vaccine (or for that matter are forgoing), that should be a good signal of which way you should go.

[rocky_warrior]

Interesting that Astra Zeneca is feeling pressure by Pfizer/Moderna to show 90% efficacy results (could happen with 2 shots).  70% is still pretty good with one shot.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/covid-19-oxford-astra-zeneca-vaccine-shows-over-70-efficacy-080349205.html


edit: incorrect information

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Interesting that Astra Zeneca is feeling pressure by Pfizer/Moderna to show 90% efficacy results (could happen with 2 shots).  70% is still pretty good with one shot.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/covid-19-oxford-astra-zeneca-vaccine-shows-over-70-efficacy-080349205.html

My understanding is that both efficacy numbers are two shots.  It's just that the higher efficacy was half dose then full and the lower efficacy was full dose & full dose. 

[rocky_warrior]

My understanding is that both efficacy numbers are two shots.  It's just that the higher efficacy was half dose then full and the lower efficacy was full dose & full dose.

Thanks for the correction.  70% was the average of the two dosing schemes

https://apnews.com/article/astrazeneca-vaccine-third-cheaper-oxford-c99d26eb2946f6fde45a1edc002ff028

The AstraZeneca trial looked at two different dosing regimens. A half-dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose at least one month later was 90% effective. Another approach, giving patients two full doses one month apart, was 62% effective.

That means that, overall, when both ways of dosing are considered, the vaccine showed an efficacy rate of 70%.

Seems like one of those dosing methods should not be used

Also, pricing is nice:

AstraZeneca, which has pledged it won't make a profit on the vaccine during the pandemic, has reached agreements with governments and international health organizations that put its cost at about $2.50 a dose. Pfizer's vaccine costs about $20, while Moderna's is $15 to $25, based on agreements the companies have struck to supply their vaccines to the U.S. government.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm guessing the less extreme temperature requirements and price will make AZ the vaccine of choice in less developed countries.

[forgetful]

Interesting that Astra Zeneca is feeling pressure by Pfizer/Moderna to show 90% efficacy results (could happen with 2 shots).  70% is still pretty good with one shot.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/covid-19-oxford-astra-zeneca-vaccine-shows-over-70-efficacy-080349205.html


edit: incorrect information

I'm interested in seeing some of the finer grain detail in how these calculations have been made. Particularly as it relates to identifying and defining "positive cases."

AZ has suggested that their lower efficacy is in part based on more stringent definition of positive cases than Pfizer and Moderna used. Without seeing full reports, I can't evaluate the validity of that claim, or how one can define a positive case differently.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

My understanding is that both efficacy numbers are two shots.  It's just that the higher efficacy was half dose then full and the lower efficacy was full dose & full dose.

Can you sciencey type folks explain why a half dose/full dose regimen is more effective than a full dose/full dose regimen? Just curious.

[forgetful]

Can you sciencey type folks explain why a half dose/full dose regimen is more effective than a full dose/full dose regimen? Just curious.

Honestly, not relly. And I'm not sure they can explain it either. The best anyone can really do on that is make a couple educated guesses.

My best guess would be something along the first lower dose priming the whole system for a more robust and highly-specific response upon the second full dose.

In the other dosing regime, the first full dose may elicit a more full immune response, that is simply re-initiated upon the second dose.

But that is merely a guess.

[GooooMarquette]

Can you sciencey type folks explain why a half dose/full dose regimen is more effective than a full dose/full dose regimen? Just curious.

It's a really odd situation, which I found very surprising.

The article below suggests that it might just be a statistical anomaly, based on the fact that only a small number of participants got the half-dose regimen. And if it isn't an anomaly, the article suggests two possible mechanisms that could explain the result.

Bottom line: lots of immunologists and biostatisticians are scratching their heads right now.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03326-w

She has two leading theories for why a lower first dose might have led to better protection against COVID. It's possible that lower doses of vaccine do a better job at stimulating the subset of immune cells called T cells that support the production of antibodies, she says.

Another potential explanation is the immune system's response against the chimpanzee virus. The vaccine triggers an immune response not only to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, but also to components of the viral vector. It's possible that the full first dose blunted this reaction, says Ewer. She plans to look at antibody responses against the chimpanzee virus to help address this question.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

It was also an accident.  No one was supposed to receive a half dose. 

[GooooMarquette]

It was also an accident.  No one was supposed to receive a half dose.

Yeah - I first heard that late last night.

It shows how sometimes we might stumble into some of the best answers by chance. The first pacemaker was the result of a guy who accidentally put the wrong transistor into a heart rhythm recording device he was building....

[forgetful]

It's a really odd situation, which I found very surprising.

The article below suggests that it might just be a statistical anomaly, based on the fact that only a small number of participants got the half-dose regimen. And if it isn't an anomaly, the article suggests two possible mechanisms that could explain the result.

Bottom line: lots of immunologists and biostatisticians are scratching their heads right now.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03326-w

She has two leading theories for why a lower first dose might have led to better protection against COVID. It's possible that lower doses of vaccine do a better job at stimulating the subset of immune cells called T cells that support the production of antibodies, she says.

Another potential explanation is the immune system's response against the chimpanzee virus. The vaccine triggers an immune response not only to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, but also to components of the viral vector. It's possible that the full first dose blunted this reaction, says Ewer. She plans to look at antibody responses against the chimpanzee virus to help address this question.

The statistical anomaly is likely the best explanation. Otherwise it is pretty much guesswork.

[mu_hilltopper]

I think .. this is relatively impressive. 

All Pick n Save / Metro Market pharmacy locations are offering COVID anti-body testing.  $25 .. and results in 15 minutes. 

https://www.picknsave.com/rx/guest/antibody

[real chili 83]

I think .. this is relatively impressive. 

All Pick n Save / Metro Market pharmacy locations are offering COVID anti-body testing.  $25 .. and results in 15 minutes. 

https://www.picknsave.com/rx/guest/antibody

Most insurances will cover it for free.  15 min is impressive, though.

[Galway Eagle]

I think .. this is relatively impressive. 

All Pick n Save / Metro Market pharmacy locations are offering COVID anti-body testing.  $25 .. and results in 15 minutes. 

https://www.picknsave.com/rx/guest/antibody

Wow really? If that gets picked up around the other associated stores they own (marianos) it could be a big tool in getting the world back to normal in the Midwest and having a vaccine roll out that focuses on people without antibodies first.

[JWags85]

I think .. this is relatively impressive. 

All Pick n Save / Metro Market pharmacy locations are offering COVID anti-body testing.  $25 .. and results in 15 minutes. 

https://www.picknsave.com/rx/guest/antibody

FWIW, this is the test I mentioned in the Close to Home thread that returned that my GF was still "COVID positive". It's very good for the antibodies, but in terms of antigen, take with a grain of salt and don't expect questions to be readily answered by the technician

[MUfan12]

I went and got a rapid test at UWM yesterday and it couldn't have been easier. The only thing is the waiting... the seating is spaced, but you're still in a ballroom with a bunch of people. Thankfully it was nice enough to go outside on the balcony.

[Sir Lawrence]

I went and got a rapid test at UWM yesterday and it couldn't have been easier. The only thing is the waiting... the seating is spaced, but you're still in a ballroom with a bunch of people. Thankfully it was nice enough to go outside on the balcony.

I went there as well, and saw zero reason to wait.  The results are emailed.  What's the point of waiting in that (admittedly large) ballroom for results, when the result is emailed?  All it took for me to walk straight out, down the steps and out the door was a young gal hacking into her mask.  But it was a very easy and efficient process.

[MUfan12]

I went there as well, and saw zero reason to wait.  The results are emailed.  What's the point of waiting in that (admittedly large) ballroom for results, when the result is emailed?  All it took for me to walk straight out, down the steps and out the door was a young gal hacking into her mask.  But it was a very easy and efficient process.

It's the lack of accuracy. If you're there, they would then administer a PCR test if you test positive, or are symptomatic and test negative.

[Sir Lawrence]

It's the lack of accuracy. If you're there, they would then administer a PCR test if you test positive, or are symptomatic and test negative.

Ah.  Makes sense. Thx.

[rocky_warrior]

Damn those cute little mink!

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Denmark-finds-covid-strain-that-might-hamper-15701598.php

They might still get the last laugh: "Culled mink rise from the dead to Denmark's horror"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/25/culled-mink-rise-from-the-dead-denmark-coronavirus

[GooooMarquette]

Looks like the AstraZeneca vaccine might be a little further off than we realized, due to the dosing mistake discussed earlier, but also some spotty disclosure practices and other 'irregularities' discovered by regulators.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

But since unveiling the preliminary results, AstraZeneca has acknowledged a key mistake in the vaccine dosage received by some study participants, adding to questions about whether the vaccine's apparently spectacular efficacy will hold up under additional testing.

Scientists and industry experts said the error and a series of other irregularities and omissions in the way AstraZeneca initially disclosed the data have eroded their confidence in the reliability of the results.

Officials in the United States have noted that the results were not clear. The head of the flagship federal vaccine initiative suggested that the vaccine's most promising results may not have reflected data from older people.

The upshot, the experts said, is that the odds of regulators in the United States and elsewhere quickly authorizing the emergency use of the AstraZeneca vaccine are declining, an unexpected setback in the global campaign to corral the devastating pandemic.

--------------

Good thing the Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna vaccines seem to be very close....

[Jockey]

Some pretty strong side effects from vaccine.

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/11/doctors-urge-cdc-admit-side-effects