# Vaccine progress



## odyssey06

A vaccine jointly developed by Pfizer and BioNTech was 90% effective in preventing Covid-19 infections in ongoing Phase 3 trials, the companies has announced today, exceeding the expectations of experts. Protection in patients was achieved seven days after the second of two doses, and 28 days after the first, according to preliminary findings... Based on supply projections, the companies said they expect to supply up to 50 million vaccine doses globally in 2020, and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021. 








						'A watershed moment': Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine is '90% effective' in preventing the illness, company says
					

The results are in from its phase three trial.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Purple

Great news. The NY Times just references Pfizer. For a vaccine to produce herd immunity in a contagious disease such as Measles 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated. The MMR is 99% effective against Measles, slightly less so against Mumps and rubella. Therefore even with a 90% effective vaccine there is a good change that Covid19 will remain with us, just to a far lesser extent. Measles and Covid19 are both RNA viruses and so should share similar characteristics when it comes to vaccine effectiveness and mutation (which is good news).


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The stockmarket is welcoming it as well


----------



## imalwayshappy

Not sure how happy I would be to take a vaccine that is developed this quickly to be honest. It's great news but I myself would probably hold off for 18 months and see what the long term impact is...


----------



## odyssey06

imalwayshappy said:


> Not sure how happy I would be to take a vaccine that is developed this quickly to be honest. It's great news but I myself would probably hold off for 18 months and see what the long term impact is...



I think the roll out order will be front line staff, high risk age group, high risk medical conditions then to the general population.
Unless you fall into one of the first categories it could be months - to a year from now before considered.

There is the possibility that countries may restrict entry to people who don't have the vaccination once it has been rolled out. 
But that's a topic for different discussion.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

imalwayshappy said:


> Not sure how happy I would be to take a vaccine that is developed this quickly



They had 40,000 in the trial. 

I suppose it's possible that there could be side effects which might only show up a long time after being vaccinated, but I am sure that the scientists are on top of that. 

I would trust the scientists and the regulatory bodies.   

But if some people don't want to take it, it just means that the waiting time for the rest of us will be shorter. 



Brendan


----------



## odyssey06

More detail from the Guardian on the logistics of rollout:
_Many countries already have orders for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. *The UK has bought 30m doses – enough for 15 million people because two doses are required. The EU has secured 200m doses, which it will distribute.* The companies have a $1.95bn contract with the US government to deliver 100m vaccine doses beginning this year. There is an issue for low-income countries, however, because this is a vaccine that needs ultra-cold chain; it must be stored at -80C. The BioNTech chief executive, Uğur Şahin, has said his company is researching whether the vaccine might also be able to survive for up to five days at a normal fridge temperature of 4C. *In Germany, the government is planning to set up vaccination centres equipped with ultra-low-temperature freezers for the first phase of vaccinations.*_









						Hopes rise for end of pandemic as Pfizer says vaccine has 90% efficacy
					

Global stocks surge and experts optimistic as Covid vaccine exceeds expectations




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## iamaspinner

BMJ Editorial:



EDIT: I am not an anti-vaxxer at all!


----------



## imalwayshappy

It's only when you look at the last vaccine that was rushed through in Ireland/Europe back in 2009 I would have concerns.






						Narcolepsy Following 2009 Pandemrix Influenza Vaccination in Europe | Vaccine Safety | CDC
					

Some studies found a risk of narcolepsy following Pandemrix flu vaccine during the 2009-10 H1N1 pandemic. Other studies, including one by CDC in 2018, did not find an association. Pandemrix was used only in Europe.




					www.cdc.gov


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> They had 40,000 in the trial.
> 
> I suppose it's possible that there could be side effects which might only show up a long time after being vaccinated, but I am sure that the scientists are on top of that.
> 
> I would trust the scientists and the regulatory bodies.
> 
> But if some people don't want to take it, it just means that the waiting time for the rest of us will be shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> Brendan


That's just what Bill Gates and the Lizard People want you to believe!!! 
Never mind science and proof and logic and rationality, the Twits twittering on Twitter must be right.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Brendan Burgess said:


> They had 40,000 in the trial.



Just to clarify, though the results are encouraging, this is .

It looked only at the *first 94 confirmed cases* of COVID-19 from the 43,000 volunteers who received either 2 doses of the vaccine or 2 doses of the placebo.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

_The preliminary analysis looked at__ the first 94 confirmed cases of COVID-19 among the study's more than 43,000 volunteers who either received two doses of the vaccine or two doses of a placebo. It found that less than 10% of infections were in participants who had received the vaccine.
More than 90% of the coronavirus cases were in people who had received the placebo.






						Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Vaccine Candidate Against COVID-19 Achieved Success in First Interim Analysis from Phase 3 Study | Pfizer
					

Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis Analysis evaluated 94 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in trial participants Study enrolled 43,538 participants, with...




					www.pfizer.com
				



_
The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date, 38,955 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 8, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds. The trial is continuing to enroll and is expected to continue through the final analysis when a total of 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. 

The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a 2-dose schedule.

I am trying to understand these figures.





It seems like a very low infection rate overall?

Over what time period did they measure the chances of infection?    Let's say it was 60 days (27 August to 27 October) 

The 14 day incidence rate in Ireland is 175/100,000   or 17/10,000

But I think it has been much higher overall in the period 27 August to 27 October.  so 40 in 60 days seems very low.

Maybe the placebo is effective as well 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Maybe we are not comparing like with like. 

In Ireland we are testing suspect cases such as close contacts or those exposed to the virus through their work.

The Pfizer study tested a randomly selected group, where the incidence should be lower. 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06

Brendan Burgess said:


> Maybe we are not comparing like with like.
> In Ireland we are testing suspect cases such as close contacts or those exposed to the virus through their work.
> The Pfizer study tested a randomly selected group, where the incidence should be lower.
> Brendan



You are onto something... in that even the placebo figures are lower than results of mass testings.

I amnt sure if all participants were actually tested.
I dont think they tested all participants, just those who reported symptoms.
Unclear if vaccinated could still be spreaders - earlier animal trials showed no viral load.

So the figures are not like for like.


----------



## odyssey06

imalwayshappy said:


> It's only when you look at the last vaccine that was rushed through in Ireland/Europe back in 2009 I would have concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Narcolepsy Following 2009 Pandemrix Influenza Vaccination in Europe | Vaccine Safety | CDC
> 
> 
> Some studies found a risk of narcolepsy following Pandemrix flu vaccine during the 2009-10 H1N1 pandemic. Other studies, including one by CDC in 2018, did not find an association. Pandemrix was used only in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cdc.gov



Notwithstanding the increased incidence of narcolepsy in the european variant...
I havent seen anything to indicate that you were better off taking your chances with swine flu unaided.

Bearing in mind upper respiratory tract infections can trigger narcolepsy in susceptible individuals, and swine flu was a factor in approx 200 deaths of u18s in the US alone.


----------



## Sophrosyne

This article may explain things a little better.

“Dr Anne Moore, a senior lecturer in the UCC school of biochemistry and cell biology, said the Pfizer/BioNTech announcement is "really significant".

Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, she described it as "the first breakthrough" in relation to a vaccine that can protect against SARS Covid-2 infection.

She said this trial has so far immunised 43,000 people, including those who received the vaccine and those who got a placebo.

*It is an interim analysis, she said, which means they have looked very early on at a small cohort of people who have been diagnosed as Covid positive.

"So this actually is only looking at 94 individuals, not the whole 43,000," Dr Moore said. "That would be very difficult in such a short space of time."

She said that in those 94 cases of Covid-19, there were 90% fewer infections in the vaccinated population.

"Nine or ten of the infected are vaccinated and the other 80 plus people are in the placebo arm of the trial. So it is an interim analysis but it is very, very positive news.*

"It does show that there are significantly fewer cases when you're vaccinated. This is seven days after the second immunisation of these individuals, so we do need to see how long that can protect for, but it is a really significant finding."

Pfizer will spend the next month or two following up on all of those who were vaccinated, Dr Moore said, and will then apply for an 'Emergency Use Authorisation' so they can get a licence to distribute and sell the vaccine.


----------



## circle

I'd expect people who volunteer for a vaccination trial to tend to be more science-led and careful with a mask, social distancing etc. so it makes sense that both the vaccinated and the placebo groups would have lower rates than the general population.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

So they "treated" 43,000 people 

Somehow , they selected a sample of these for testing.  Maybe those who reported symptoms? 

94 had Covid, and most came from the placebo group.

Were there others who were tested who were negative? 

Clearly 9:1 is a very significant ratio. 

But with such a small percentage infected, could the results not be impacted by false negatives and false positives? 

Brendan


----------



## Sophrosyne

The press release does not specify the exact split of those who received the vaccine and those who received the placebo.

It said that of the 43,538 tested, only 94 reported systems and that the vast majority of those had been given the placebo.

That is really all we know until the full details of the trial are published and peer reviewed.

Only those participants who reported symptoms were tested. Potentially infected participants without symptoms were not tested, and their infections remain unknown for now.

Nothing is yet known of the age, medical background, ethnicity, etc of the participants or of those who tested positive.


----------



## Purple

A very high number of those who have been shown to be infected have been in care homes/ nursing homes so the figures are probably reflective of broader community infections. 
I think it's reasonable to assume that a major pharma company operating within FDA and EMA best practice guidance have taken account of most of the stuff we can come up with here.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sophrosyne said:


> It said that of the 43,538 tested, only 94 reported systems and that the vast majority of those had been given the placebo.



Hi Sop

I assumed that the control group was half the 43,000? 



Purple said:


> I think it's reasonable to assume that a major pharma company operating within FDA and EMA best practice guidance have taken account of most of the stuff we can come up with here.



Yes, and they will ask other questions as well. 

The scientific method is based on repeated questioning and challenging. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> Yes, and they will ask other questions as well.
> 
> The scientific method is based on repeated questioning and challenging.
> 
> Brendan


I haven't got any PM's from Dr. Fauci in weeks so I assume he's on top of things and doesn't need my help anymore. 
I won't give his username as it would breach the posting guidelines though he's found the Money Makeover section invaluable.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Sop
> 
> I assumed that the control group was half the 43,000?



If you look at the *Study design and demographics *and *Fig. 1 Study design* in Phase I/II of the Pfizer trials you can see the distribution of vaccine and placebo.

It is not known whether this was continued in Phase III.


----------



## joe sod

Purple said:


> I think it's reasonable to assume that a major pharma company operating within FDA and EMA best practice guidance have taken account of most of the stuff we can come up with here.


Yes exactly, but surely that also includes Tony Holohan he is hardly going to second guess a vaccine approved by countries like the US, Germany or UK,


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

circle said:


> I'd expect people who volunteer for a vaccination trial to tend to be more science-led and careful with a mask, social distancing etc. so it makes sense that both the vaccinated and the placebo groups would have lower rates than the general population.


Incorrect the FDA insisted on all ethnic groups and economic background be included it this study. That's why it went from 33k to 43k and probably will add more.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sophrosyne said:


> If you look at the *Study design and demographics *and *Fig. 1 Study design* in Phase I/II of the Pfizer trials you can see the distribution of vaccine and placebo.
> 
> It is not known whether this was continued in Phase III.


After phase 1 and 2 the FDA insisted on more ethnic group participation and that included economic circumstances. 

Phase 1&2 are just seeing if the vaccine is viable and most of the people in 1&2 would be part of the scientific community.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> A very high number of those who have been shown to be infected have been in care homes/ nursing homes so the figures are probably reflective of broader community infections.
> I think it's reasonable to assume that a major pharma company operating within FDA and EMA best practice guidance have taken account of most of the stuff we can come up with here.


I wouldn't be as confident,  the trial expanded but we don't know all the demographics of the volunteers......yet.

Irrespective of anything else identifying the protein that causes all this and then being able to "switch it off" is hugely important and the fact its a RNA protein just adds who factor, not a scientist by her indoors is and she explained it .

Shes also a overseer of the Quality of this vaccine


----------



## Leo

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Incorrect the FDA insisted on all ethnic groups and economic background be included it this study. That's why it went from 33k to 43k and probably will add more.



I'm sure @circle can clarify, but I don't think their point was anything to do with ethnicity of trial participants.

I'd agree with circle (my interpretation of their post) that those volunteering to participate in a medical trial of a COVID-19 vaccine would be expected to be trusting of the medical profession and more likely to take precautions to reduce their risk of exposure to COVIOD-19 than an anti-vaxxer or someone who doesn't believe the virus poses them any risk. 

That in no way negates the results of the study of course, as results there are based on the efficacy of the vaccine on those immunised versus the placebo group.


----------



## circle

Exactly, thanks Leo. The people volunteering for the trial by definition will be pro-vaccine, informed and proactive enough to be aware of the trial and I would think more likely to take the science-led advice of social distancing, washing etc.
Of course the same benefit would equally apply to both vaccination and placebo groups - and nothing to do with their ethnicity.


----------



## joe sod

Leo said:


> I'd agree with circle (my interpretation of their post) that those volunteering to participate in a medical trial of a COVID-19 vaccine would be expected to be trusting of the medical profession and more likely to take precautions to reduce their risk of exposure to COVIOD-19 than an anti-vaxxer or someone who doesn't believe the virus poses them any risk.


but most people on vox pops when asked about the vaccine said they would wait and see how it affected other people before they would take it themselves. Therefore these people that wont "risk" a new vaccine are risk adverse and are also probably more fearful of the virus so will be wearing masks and socially isolating. People that took part in the trial may be scientifically literate but are probably a bit younger not so afraid of the vaccine or the virus therefore they are probably out their mixing much more and socialising.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Joe

You could be right. But you could be wrong as well.

A lot of the anti-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists who believe the Corona Virus isn't real and so they don't wear masks. 

But it would be interesting to do a proper survey of people to see if those who are scared of the vaccine fit the profile you describe. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple

It's strange that people are unwilling to take this vaccine but are willing to take the brand new Flu vaccine every year.


----------



## Leper

I hope that those who do not want to take the vaccine will inform the authorities well beforehand so that those of us who do want to take the vaccine will get it sooner.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> It's strange that people are unwilling to take this vaccine but are willing to take the brand new Flu vaccine every year.


How do you know they are the same people? Also personally I don't think it is all that strange for some people to be apprehensive about taking a new vaccine which is being rushed through. I know where you're coming from Purple but I don't really like tarring everyone with the same brush here. Everyone is entitled to make up their own mind with regards to taking the vaccine when it is available and I don't think we should judge them on that. As Leper said, as long as those that want it are first in line that should be the most important thing.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> How do you know they are the same people? Also personally I don't think it is all that strange for some people to be apprehensive about taking a new vaccine which is being rushed through. I know where you're coming from Purple but I don't really like tarring everyone with the same brush here. Everyone is entitled to make up their own mind with regards to taking the vaccine when it is available and I don't think we should judge them on that. As Leper said, as long as those that want it are first in line that should be the most important thing.


The Flu vaccine is also rushed through; it is developed, made and shipped within 12 months.

And I absolutely will judge people for not taking the Covid vaccine. They are putting other people art risk by not doing so. 
It's the same as the MMR; you should be entitled to not give it to your child but the State should then be entitled to exclude your child from schools, parks and playgrounds. 
If you refuse to take this vaccine then you should be required to stay under lockdown while the people who don't think Bill Gates is some evil genius Bond Villain trying to make us infertile or slaves (or whatever crazy theory those people have under their tinfoil hats) can go about their business.


----------



## Leo

joe sod said:


> . Therefore these people that wont "risk" a new vaccine are risk adverse and are also probably more fearful of the virus so will be wearing masks and socially isolating.



Yeah, there will be some alright, but I'd imagine that the proportion of people who trust science to inform their fear of a virus but don't trust science to provide a safe vaccine is relatively small.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> If you refuse to take this vaccine then you should be required to stay under lockdown while the people who don't think Bill Gates is some evil genius Bond Villain trying to make us infertile or slaves (or whatever crazy theory those people have under their tinfoil hats) can go about their business.


Is there any possibility in your head at all for the fact there may be a group of people who don't want the vaccine and who also don't think Bill Gates is some evil genius Bond Villain trying to make us infertile or slaves (or whatever crazy theory those people have under their tinfoil hats)?


----------



## joe sod

I think the main point is that when a vaccine is widely available, then lockdowns and restrictions must end. If some people are afraid of the vaccine well then they must take responsibility to protect themselves and not expect society in general to be restricted for their benefit. The whole idea of lockdowns and restrictions was imposed to bide time until the arrival of the vaccine


----------



## Purple

joe sod said:


> I think the main point is that when a vaccine is widely available, then lockdowns and restrictions must end. If some people are afraid of the vaccine well then they must take responsibility to protect themselves and not expect society in general to be restricted for their benefit. The whole idea of lockdowns and restrictions was imposed to bide time until the arrival of the vaccine


If they don't take the vaccine they are putting those who can't take the vaccine (those who are immuno-complanised etc.) at risk. They should therefore be compelled to continue to wear masks and follow a higher level of restrictions.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Is there any possibility in your head at all for the fact there may be a group of people who don't want the vaccine and who also don't think Bill Gates is some evil genius Bond Villain trying to make us infertile or slaves (or whatever crazy theory those people have under their tinfoil hats)?


You mean people who are stupid but not paranoid? Sure, and they should have to continue to us masks and follow restrictions etc. Those who don't take it due to medical conditions should be exempt but stupid isn't a medical condition.


----------



## Leo

joe sod said:


> I think the main point is that when a vaccine is widely available, then lockdowns and restrictions must end. If some people are afraid of the vaccine well then they must take responsibility to protect themselves and not expect society in general to be restricted for their benefit.



The problem is the mere availability of a vaccine doesn't solve anything. For better *and *worse, our society doesn't work in a manner in which irresponsible people bear the full consequences of poor decisions with no impact on the broader population. As a society, we are intent on protecting those with unsustainable mortgages and the small strategic defaulter cohort from repossession, many of the rest of us pay the price for that in higher interest rates. I can't see a day where we direct our health service to refuse treatment to someone who is gravely ill based on whether or not they have availed of a vaccine. 

As a sole control measure, an 80% efficacy vaccine would need to be administered to 75% of the population. The fact that the efficacy of this particular vaccine looks to be high at around 90% at 28 days after initiation is very promising as that will mean a lower coverage requirement. But questions remain as to how long the protection lasts. It's expected we will get enough of this particular vaccine to immuinise around 20-30% of the population by the end of next year. As time goes on no doubt other producers will bring their vaccines to the market, but it will be some time before we get to a point where life can go back to normal.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> You mean people who are stupid but not paranoid? Sure, and they should have to continue to us masks and follow restrictions etc. Those who don't take it due to medical conditions should be exempt but stupid isn't a medical condition.


Or maybe they are not stupid or paranoid but just want to wait and see? Maybe they will wait to let those who really need it be first in line? It's not like there will be enough for everyone initially anyway. Maybe they will be happy to take it once they see it is working?
I don't see why you need to resort to name calling and mocking on this Purple. All I'm saying is that some people may be cautious or hesitant initially and they may change their mind once they see it is effective, that's hardly a controversial view but it does seem to be one you have difficulty with. As Leo said, we're not all going to be able to get it straight away anyway so a large number of us will have to continue with the social distancing, mask wearing, etc. for some time yet.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Or maybe they are not stupid or paranoid but just want to wait and see? Maybe they will wait to let those who really need it be first in line? It's not like there will be enough for everyone initially anyway. Maybe they will be happy to take it once they see it is working?
> I don't see why you need to resort to name calling and mocking on this Purple. All I'm saying is that some people may be cautious or hesitant initially and they may change their mind once they see it is effective, that's hardly a controversial view but it does seem to be one you have difficulty with. As Leo said, we're not all going to be able to get it straight away anyway so a large number of us will have to continue with the social distancing, mask wearing, etc. for some time yet.


The fact that higher risk groups will get it first is obvious and well flagged. 

People who don't accept the results of scientific studies based on international best practice with oversight from the FDA and EMA but will satisfy themselves based on LiveLine and how their Aunty Mary reacted to it... I don't know what else to call them.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Purple

I think that is an unfair comparison. 

This vaccine is going through emergency approval. 

It is not the same as a tried and tested vaccine like MMR. 

I presume that even after it is approved, there will be continuous scientific study of it. 

Given that there will be a queue for it, I don't think it matters that much if some people would prefer to wait and see if the longer term study shows it to be safe. 

Brendan


----------



## john luc

I would be a person that believes in Science and have faith in Science as a way to solve problems. However blind faith I do not have. Thalidomide is a classic example of a drug fully approved by regulators but went on to have dire consequences.


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Purple
> 
> I think that is an unfair comparison.
> 
> This vaccine is going through emergency approval.
> 
> It is not the same as a tried and tested vaccine like MMR.


No, but it's very similar to the seasonal flu vaccine. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> I presume that even after it is approved, there will be continuous scientific study of it.


  Yes, by definition there can't be any longitudinal studies of a new vaccine. There are ongoing studies for all sorts of vaccines, including the MMR.  




Brendan Burgess said:


> Given that there will be a queue for it, I don't think it matters that much if some people would prefer to wait and see if the longer term study shows it to be safe.


True.


----------



## Purple

john luc said:


> I would be a person that believes in Science and have faith in Science as a way to solve problems. However blind faith I do not have. Thalidomide is a classic example of a drug fully approved by regulators but went on to have dire consequences.


Do you accept that things have improved in that area in the last 70 years? 
Think about cars and aeroplanes and how many people would be dying in them if we were still using 1950's technology to make them. 
This is the same argument that people make against nuclear power; the technology from the 40's and 50's isn't safe so let's not build them now using modern technology. 
This has nothing to do with blind faith and everything to do with statistical probability and rationality.


----------



## Leo

john luc said:


> Thalidomide is a classic example of a drug fully approved by regulators but went on to have dire consequences.



The testing requirements in place back then were a world apart from what's in place now, but even then, the FDA did not approve it for sale in the USA due to concerns over lack of testing. The Thaladomide issue was responsible for the introduction or strengthening of regulated testing in many countries.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

john luc said:


> I would be a person that believes in Science and have faith in Science as a way to solve problems. However blind faith I do not have.



That articulates my view very well.


----------



## joe sod

Leo said:


> For better *and *worse, our society doesn't work in a manner in which irresponsible people bear the full consequences of poor decisions with no impact on the broader population.


But its the scale and cost of the corona virus that is different and dwarfs the other examples you mentioned. I agree that obesity and alcoholism are costs borne and accepted by society at large but they are miniscule in comparison to the corona. However it is not actually the costs that is the real issue but the restrictions imposed on society at large to contain corona. For example if you chose to be obese or an alcoholic (im over simplifying here) I am not restricted by your life choices even though I might bear some of the cost down the road. Also there is no vaccine for alcoholism or obesity they are not really comparable.
I think it is academic anyways because as other countries licence these vaccines and open up Ireland will be in no position to take a different approach especially as these pharma companies are the single biggest contributors to the irish economy and exchequer. Pfizer basically pays Tony Holohans wages to put it bluntly.


----------



## jackswift

Brendan Burgess said:


> They had 40,000 in the trial.
> 
> I suppose it's possible that there could be side effects which might only show up a long time after being vaccinated, but I am sure that the scientists are on top of that.
> 
> I would trust the scientists and the regulatory bodies.
> 
> But if some people don't want to take it, it just means that the waiting time for the rest of us will be shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> Brendan


You can have mine because I sure as hell won’t be taking it, it takes 10-15 years to develop a vaccine, 4-7 of those years are for testing alone and then you have people taking the government to court over the swine flu vaccine but they want to be shielded from any repercussions of the covid vaccine.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

_Cliona O’Farrelly is Professor of Comparative Immunology at Trinity College Dublin_ 

wrote an opinion piece in yesterday's Irish Times 









						A vaccine against Covid-19: Is it too early to celebrate?
					

There are still many questions that need to be answered about how inoculation would work




					www.irishtimes.com
				




_However, all news, even good news, comes with unknowns and questions to be answered. First of all, why did Pfizer release this information before completion of their trial? At the moment, we only know that the vaccine is protective 28 days after administration of the first shot (of a two-dose schedule). How long will the protection last? Will all types of people be protected? What about people with co-morbidities? What about people who are overweight? The study has not yet reached its target (it is due to be halted when 160 people have become infected) and so has not been written up in a formal paper, submitted to a journal and undergone peer-review. 

Has it been performed as rigorously as we would like? Have any shortcuts been taken? The initial results have been reported so early in the trial, it is unlikely that the 90 per cent efficacy will be maintained. Was news of this particular vaccine success released early because there were rumours that data from other vaccine trials might be equally exciting? _

What I found most interesting was that she didn't make any comment on the safety issue.  It's almost as if the safety is a given, and the question is about the effectiveness.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

There was an interesting piece in the Financial Times.

There are serious restrictions in place on insiders selling shares. However an exception is made for programmed sales i.e. where an executive sells shares according to a preset programme e.g. 5,000 shares on 1 November ever year. They can also be programmed to sell when a particular price is achieved.

Luckily for one of the guys in Pfizer his sale was scheduled the day after the announcement. If it had been triggered the day before the announcement, he would have missed out on the jump in the share price.    Or if the announcement was a few days later, he might have missed out.  But it's not known if the sale was triggered by the date or by the share price.

Brendan


----------



## joe sod

Brendan Burgess said:


> But it's not known if the sale was triggered by the date or by the share price.


being the CEO it would be pretty easy to pick the date, because they were not going to announce anything before the election, they did not want to be accused of influencing the election, so time your sale for a week after the election , they knew a month ago the timeline of the vaccine progess, so the election date was crucial to the announcement.


----------



## Sophrosyne

The US company, Moderna, has announced that interim results from an experimental vaccine has an efficacy rate of 94.5%.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> The US company, Moderna, has announced that interim results from an experimental vaccine has an efficacy rate of 94.5%.


The technology used for all of these viruses was originally intended to use in the development of cancer vaccines (and developed by a German husband and wife team) so this is very exciting as it may be the start of a whole new range of treatments.
He was born in Turkey which is nice considering that modern medicine is a Central Asian invention.


----------



## odyssey06

Sophrosyne said:


> The US company, Moderna, has announced that interim results from an experimental vaccine has an efficacy rate of 94.5%.



* Clinical trial with more than 30,000 participants.
* 95 cases of Covid-19 confirmed in the trial, with 90 of those observed in the placebo group.
* There were 11 severe cases of the disease, with all 11 found in the placebo group. 
* More than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65 were included in the trial
* It also included more than 5,000 people under the age of 65 who have high risk chronic conditions such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease.
* Requires two doses and is a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine.
* Expects to have approximately 20 million doses ready to ship in the US and it remains on track to manufacture 500 million to one billion doses globally in 2021.









						Coronavirus: Vaccine from US company Moderna 94.5% effective, according to early data
					

Its clinical trial involves 30,000 participants.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Leo

joe sod said:


> But its the scale and cost of the corona virus that is different and dwarfs the other examples you mentioned.



Absolutely, this is the biggest issue the majority of us have encountered in our lifetimes. 



joe sod said:


> I agree that obesity and alcoholism are costs borne and accepted by society at large but they are miniscule in comparison to the corona. However it is not actually the costs that is the real issue but the restrictions imposed on society at large to contain corona.



Those restrictions on our freedoms absolutely are a cost we are all paying at the moment, a significant element of that paying for the actions of an irresponsible minority. With debt building as we pay the ongoing supports with much of the economy on-hold, we will continue to pay for this for years to come. 



joe sod said:


> Pfizer basically pays Tony Holohans wages to put it bluntly.



Bluntly? It's nonsense.


----------



## 24601

Some additional great news about the Moderna vaccine is that it can be stored at -20c for 6 months and remains stable in a regular fridge for up to a month, and at room temperature for 12 hours:





						Moderna Announces Longer Shelf Life for its COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate at Refrigerated Temperatures | Moderna, Inc.
					

Vaccine candidate now expected to remain stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2° to 8°C (36° to 46°F) for 30 days, up from previous estimate of 7 days Shipping and long-term storage conditions at standard freezer temperatures of -20°C (-4°F) for 6 months mRNA-1273 to be distributed using




					investors.modernatx.com


----------



## Purple

24601 said:


> Some additional great news about the Moderna vaccine is that it can be stored at -20c for 6 months and remains stable in a regular fridge for up to a month, and at room temperature for 12 hours:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderna Announces Longer Shelf Life for its COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate at Refrigerated Temperatures | Moderna, Inc.
> 
> 
> Vaccine candidate now expected to remain stable at standard refrigerator temperatures of 2° to 8°C (36° to 46°F) for 30 days, up from previous estimate of 7 days Shipping and long-term storage conditions at standard freezer temperatures of -20°C (-4°F) for 6 months mRNA-1273 to be distributed using
> 
> 
> 
> 
> investors.modernatx.com


Seems strange since it's a mRNA vaccine and other similar vaccines such as the Ebola Vaccine also have to be kept at -60°C. It's good news though.


----------



## 24601

Purple said:


> Seems strange since it's a mRNA vaccine and other similar vaccines such as the Ebola Vaccine also have to be kept at -60°C. It's good news though.



There are no other similar vaccines?


----------



## Purple

24601 said:


> There are no other similar vaccines?


mRNA vaccines degrade quickly so need to be stored at very low temperatures and then used within 24 hours when brought to normal refrigeration. Google shows an Indian company which has used a novel technology to stabilise their vaccine at standard refrigeration temperatures.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> The technology used for all of these viruses was originally intended to use in the development of cancer vaccines (and developed by a German husband and wife team) so this is very exciting as it may be the start of a whole new range of treatments.
> He was born in Turkey which is nice considering that modern medicine is a Central Asian invention.


I've named them Mr and Mrs Curie of our century. 
There are others and 20 years ago mRna research was literally laughed at, the girl who helped Moderna is Hungarian and another Curie type person told repeatedly it won't work. 
Now its going to be like Schrodingers Cat we'll only know when we fully open the box,(es).
I have been watching the cancer developments since I got it back in 2007 and honestly it was a pipe dream but a hopeful one,  now with mRna and Crispr we might see cancer less lethal and become a disease people live with,  cure is another 50 years away Id say but its now a lot closer than 20 years ago.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> mRNA vaccines degrade quickly so need to be stored at very low temperatures and then used within 24 hours when brought to normal refrigeration. Google shows an Indian company which has used a novel technology to stabilise their vaccine at standard refrigeration temperatures.


The plan over 2021 and outwards is to lyophilize the Pfizer one and her indoors is getting involved,  no idea how but she was part of other powdering projects like Prenvar she is a VP of global quality for Pfizer.
Still has to take care of other things but hey life is hard.


----------



## Purple

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I've named them Mr and Mrs Curie of our century.
> There are others and 20 years ago mRna research was literally laughed at, the girl who helped Moderna is Hungarian and another Curie type person told repeatedly it won't work.
> Now its going to be like Schrodingers Cat we'll only know when we fully open the box,(es).
> I have been watching the cancer developments since I got it back in 2007 and honestly it was a pipe dream but a hopeful one,  now with mRna and Crispr we might see cancer less lethal and become a disease people live with,  cure is another 50 years away Id say but its now a lot closer than 20 years ago.


I find the whole area fascinating though I certainly don't fully understand it.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> Seems strange since it's a mRNA vaccine and other similar vaccines such as the Ebola Vaccine also have to be kept at -60°C. It's good news though.


There's a theory out there that the Ebola vaccine somehow had some effect on Covid in those areas it has been administered,  apparently pneumonia is also lower than normal again no studies done or buy it has been noted as an anomaly.


----------



## Purple

Paul O Mahoney said:


> The plan over 2021 and outwards is to lyophilize the Pfizer one


 Yea, that explains it though isn't it a new process for mRNA? 



Paul O Mahoney said:


> and her indoors is getting involved,  no idea how but she was part of other powdering projects like Prenvar she is a VP of global quality for Pfizer.
> Still has to take care of other things but hey life is hard.


 That's really cool though.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> I find the whole area fascinating though I certainly don't fully understand it.


Me either but the FT had a very good piece over the weekend explaining it.
Netflix has an excellent documentary on CRISPR, there are two docs, one is the above and another is about a guy in Vegas selling CRISPR kits to reverse aging . 

Worth a look.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> Yea, that explains it though isn't it a new process for mRNA?


Apparently its doable at low temperatures and big quantities so the plant in Belgium that will produce for Europe will produce and store on site and distribution will be then sent to local sites .
The Chinese plant apparently are tinkering now and it seemingly works. Just a final note each major market will have a regional production plant. Kilmazoo,  US, Purrs Europe , China a JV in Shanghai South America under discussion


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

All this is in the public domain so I'm not talking out of place .She tells me nothing away.


----------



## Purple

Paul O Mahoney said:


> All this is in the public domain so I'm not talking out of place .She tells me nothing away.


Have you any idea what the Indian company (linked in post 62 above) are talking about?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> Have you any idea what the Indian company (linked in post 62 above) are talking about?


No but I have been project managing renovations Ill have a look, Fierce Pharma is a great source btw.

Pfizer now think the effectiveness is now 94% but more significantly working in over 65 age group and no safety issues of significance,  feck we might get to the sun next year


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> mRNA vaccines degrade quickly so need to be stored at very low temperatures and then used within 24 hours when brought to normal refrigeration. Google shows an Indian company which has used a novel technology to stabilise their vaccine at standard refrigeration temperatures.


Moderna the same apparently but time will tell, there must be close to 50 candidates now, so it could be a good 2021


----------



## odyssey06

Something we still need certainty on is how effective the vaccines are at reducing the viral load.
We don't want to end up with vaccines which turn people from symptomatic (and thereby more aware of need to test and isolate) to asymptomatic shedders, or we are in for a storm in the period between start and end of vaccination. Especially if the vaccines prove less effective on the most vulnerable groups.
What we really need for herd immunity are vaccines like the current flu vaccine which prevents you from spreading the virus.

I am not saying the current vaccines don't do the above, but the current trial studies as constructed will not show this.


----------



## Sophrosyne

A good overview of some of the COVID-19 vaccines in development here.


----------

