mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Dec 30, 2020 18:33:17 GMT
The UK MHRA was the first to approve the Pfizer and now the AstraZeneca vaccines, but still hasn't decided on the one by Moderna. The US FDA (supposedly having stricter checks) approved it on the 18th. Is the MHRA prioritising vaccines based on how many doses the Government pre-ordered?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 4,387
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 30, 2020 19:02:40 GMT
The UK MHRA was the first to approve the Pfizer and now the AstraZeneca vaccines, but still hasn't decided on the one by Moderna. The US FDA (supposedly having stricter checks) approved it on the 18th. Is the MHRA prioritising vaccines based on how many doses the Government pre-ordered? The 5 (or was it 7) million doses of the Moderna vaccine aren't due for delivery until April, so I guess no rush to approve it. Better off devoting resources to approving something that is available.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 4,387
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 30, 2020 20:12:05 GMT
Yes they do say that and they also trumpet its positive points and bury the negatives. As I understand it only around 131 people in the trial caught COVID. So less than half of those had the vaccine and they were all under 55 years old and didn't require hospitalisation. Is that really suggesting that it protects against serious symptoms ? I dunno, I'm just getting a real sense of because this is made in Britain, because its made at cost and will be a saviour to many billions around the world nobody is really wanting to say anything bad about it. Surely the bottom line is 62 vs 95 ? The medical experts who approved the AZ vaccine were on TV this morning explaining their decision. They said they thought AZ would be 70% effective 3 weeks after the first dose (bearing in mind 70% effective is very high for a vaccine). So, the options aren't 62 vs 95, it's 70 now vs 95 at some point in the future.
Personally, I would have thought that we should get everyone vaccinated with whatever is avaialble (Pfizer, Moderna or AZ) asap. This will get the virus under control, and when the dust settles the experts will have the opportunity to look at the results to decide the best way forward.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,421
Likes: 1,701
|
Post by benaj on Dec 30, 2020 21:00:25 GMT
😷
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Dec 30, 2020 21:16:05 GMT
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,463
Likes: 2,904
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 30, 2020 21:33:46 GMT
Yes they do say that and they also trumpet its positive points and bury the negatives. As I understand it only around 131 people in the trial caught COVID. So less than half of those had the vaccine and they were all under 55 years old and didn't require hospitalisation. Is that really suggesting that it protects against serious symptoms ? I dunno, I'm just getting a real sense of because this is made in Britain, because its made at cost and will be a saviour to many billions around the world nobody is really wanting to say anything bad about it. Surely the bottom line is 62 vs 95 ? The medical experts who approved the AZ vaccine were on TV this morning explaining their decision. They said they thought AZ would be 70% effective 3 weeks after the first dose (bearing in mind 70% effective is very high for a vaccine). So, the options aren't 62 vs 95, it's 70 now vs 95 at some point in the future.
Personally, I would have thought that we should get everyone vaccinated with whatever is avaialble (Pfizer, Moderna or AZ) asap. This will get the virus under control, and when the dust settles the experts will have the opportunity to look at the results to decide the best way forward.
So that's not an apples to apples comparison and more spin about the benefit of the azn. I definitely agree with you that despite that, we should offer the vaccine (any approved) to as many as possible as quickly as possible.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,338
Likes: 2,754
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Dec 30, 2020 21:54:43 GMT
I thought what they were saying is the AZ vaccine may not give 95% protection, but if you do catch the virus after having the vaccine you shouldn't end up in hospital, no one who got the AZ vaccine during the testing got severe Covid symptoms. The Pfiser jab is so difficult to handle it is going to be really slow to roll out (putting you and me many months away from vaccination) and there will be problems, like the batch that had to be discarded and maybe some will accidentally get used which isn't in perfect condition. I'd have either if offered. I'm also quite a way down the list so hoping the AZ can roll out quickly and at least protect against the worst of the symptoms if I do catch it. Yes they do say that and they also trumpet its positive points and bury the negatives. As I understand it only around 131 people in the trial caught COVID. So less than half of those had the vaccine and they were all under 55 years old and didn't require hospitalisation. Is that really suggesting that it protects against serious symptoms ? I dunno, I'm just getting a real sense of because this is made in Britain, because its made at cost and will be a saviour to many billions around the world nobody is really wanting to say anything bad about it. Surely the bottom line is 62 vs 95 ? Can't you and your family get the Sputnik one in Ukraine (I seem to remember that was where you were moving to)? Or are the Russians not rolling it out that far? Why is it a bad thing that it's British and cheap? And 65% soon versus 95% in many months time for most people in the UK is a good (even great) option. If you want to wait and/or eventually be able to pay for the jab you prefer that is your choice. Next year you may be able to easily choose to buy whichever you want, this year you get what you get (if you're lucky enough to get anything).
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Dec 30, 2020 22:18:27 GMT
On comparing AZ with say the Pfizer - it be difficult as they were two different teams with different parameters. I don't think you can read straight across from one to the other. But if you need to; the figures are effectively more approximate.
I'm no expert.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 30, 2020 22:52:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 30, 2020 23:22:52 GMT
On comparing AZ with say the Pfizer - it be difficult as they were two different teams with different parameters. I don't think you can read straight across from one to the other. But if you need to; the figures are effectively more approximate.
I'm no expert.
It was clear that a big point was being made in today's briefing of giving Jonathan Van-Tam [or JVT as Boris now apparently feels matey enough to call him] plenty of airtime to pre-empt and undermine press space/time on the AZN vaccine being inferior; and also the likely 'bad' reporting of the strategy to go for a single dose regimen. How truthful he was being is I guess a subjective decision, but I suspect many have a higher level of trust in him than in the Bumbling Blonde Buffoon. I found his commentary interesting. in terms of comparisons between AZN and Pfizer, he stressed that the measurements used for efficacy in the two trials were different, and therefore to be careful to not read too much in the apparent differences: an interesting point, assuming its true. Of course the flip side/cynical take on that is "they would say that wouldn't they". The shift in strategy to maximising number of recipients of first dose seems to be a major one. And I can't help but think it is driven by the emergence of the new strain. I also can't help but conclude that the assembled experts think that the UK is now in a real world of deep **** thanks to the latest strain, and that is driving the revised thinking. Unless of course it was the insightful genius of Tony Blair. [for the avoidance of doubt, that last bit was a joke] Stay safe. Happy New Year. May all your vaccines come early and be fruitful.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 31, 2020 12:24:55 GMT
Tier 3 as of midnight... So that's... 2/12->18/12 T2 19/12->26/12 T1 26/12->30/12 T2 31/12-> T3 Three changes in 12 days, two in five days. .. Up, down, up, down, shake it all about. You botch and bungle, And U-turns abound. That's what this Government’s all about! For example, look at the school situation. Pre hols councils being threatened with legal action if they close schools a couple of days early. Now schools to stay closed for up to an extra two weeks post the hols. Schools and tiers: are these bungling U-turns, or are they just sensible adaptations to the newly discovered, far more virulent, mutation? We must surely expect the political advice to mirror the ever-changing scientific landscape? Easy to criticise, but this must be an unenviable balancing act for HMGov't.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 31, 2020 12:54:27 GMT
Up, down, up, down, shake it all about. You botch and bungle, And U-turns abound. That's what this Government’s all about! For example, look at the school situation. Pre hols councils being threatened with legal action if they close schools a couple of days early. Now schools to stay closed for up to an extra two weeks post the hols. Schools and tiers: are these bungling U-turns, or are they just sensible adaptations to the newly discovered, far more virulent, mutation? We must surely expect the political advice to mirror the ever-changing scientific landscape? Easy to criticise, but this must be an unenviable balancing act for HMGov't. Sort of agree with you, though another take is that in doing this they've just been trying to avoid doing the obvious and putting in national restrictions, those being a red rag to the flabby gammon-cheeked bull that is the nether regions of the Conservative party. Today, I'm instead rather more cross about the stamp duty holiday policy, squirreled in as an emergency covid measure, which from day 1 was clearly not at all necessary (serving only to even further inflate house prices that were already going up anyway). Still, what's £4bn between friends?
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,421
Likes: 1,701
|
Post by benaj on Dec 31, 2020 13:38:06 GMT
🩸
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 31, 2020 13:52:44 GMT
Up, down, up, down, shake it all about. You botch and bungle, And U-turns abound. That's what this Government’s all about! For example, look at the school situation. Pre hols councils being threatened with legal action if they close schools a couple of days early. Now schools to stay closed for up to an extra two weeks post the hols. Schools and tiers: are these bungling U-turns, or are they just sensible adaptations to the newly discovered, far more virulent, mutation? We must surely expect the political advice to mirror the ever-changing scientific landscape? Easy to criticise, but this must be an unenviable balancing act for HMGov't. Oooh, let me think... 8th December - Government says schools can close one day early for Xmas (last day 17th instead of 18th). 10th December - Daily stats start to show increase in new cases. www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/ - three-day rolling average rises from ~15k towards ~21k 14th December - Mayor of London calls for schools to close earlier, re-open later. Government threatens assorted London boroughs with legal action if they close schools early. The same day, Hancock briefs Parliament on the new variant. 16th December - Starmer suggests suspending five-day Xmas open-season tier suspension at PMQs, Johnson accuses him of trying to "steal Christmas", and says no change. Same day, government start talking about delaying school re-opening. 19th December - Johnson suspends the five-day Christmas. Three-day average hits 30k. ...and that's just off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by stevepn on Dec 31, 2020 13:59:52 GMT
Does wearing a mask actually prevent the spread of covid?
|
|