Vaccine progress

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.

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.


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Cliona O’Farrelly is Professor of Comparative Immunology at Trinity College Dublin

wrote an opinion piece in yesterday's Irish Times


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

 
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.

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.

Pfizer basically pays Tony Holohans wages to put it bluntly.

Bluntly? It's nonsense.
 
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:
 
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:
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.
 
Back
Top