Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Possible vaccines/treatment(s) for Coronavirus

How effective are vaccines generally? I know flu vaccine has only up to 60%ish effectiveness but that's mainly because there are quite a few different strains and if the the one you get isn't included in the vaccine then it won't protect against it.

I think its probably too complicated for a generalised answer to be useful. And even with influenza vaccines there are lots of variables, it isnt just about poor strain match. For example the H3N2 component of the vaccine was performing extremely poorly in older people for quite a long time now, and they were prepared to draw more attention to this publicly only once a different (adjuvanted) vaccine was made available in the UK for the older age group.

eg:

There is increasing evidence of the poor performance of non-adjuvanted, standard influenza vaccines in older people. A meta-analysis of data between 2004 and 2015 did not show any significant efficacy for the inactivated influenza vaccine in the elderly against the A(H3N2) influenza virus (Bellongia et al., 2016).

From https://www.england.nhs.uk/south/wp...dvice-gps-cgs-influenza-accination-adults.pdf
 
All of this recent discussion has been very interesting, and I've learned a lot from these insights :cool:

But still no time for me to join in properly, for now :(

Moor later, etc. :oops:
 
This is worth reading in full.

The chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce has said the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines "is likely to be imperfect" and that they "might not work for everyone".

Writing in The Lancet, Kate Bingham said no vaccine in the history of medicine "has been as eagerly anticipated" and that "vaccination is widely regarded as the only true exit strategy from the pandemic that is currently spreading globally".


But she cautioned against over-optimism and that any vaccine might not work for everyone, or for very long.

 
Some speculation that the Pfizer vaccine may beat the Oxford one to be administered to the UK public first.


Speculation from Pfizer themselves by the looks of it. Buy Pfizer shares! Buy them now!
 
This is worth reading in full.




Bingham was interviewed in depth on the BBC yesterday. It was a long good interview, despite the interviewer clearly being a bit out of her depth and trying to get headline quotes. Bingham came across as brilliant, and spoke really well and clearly. Well worth a watch.
 
The reason today why today's Guardian annoyed me** was by using the word 'Annoyingmas' in the lockdown-related front page headline! :mad:

**(as not at all unusually! :hmm: )


Mind you, despite another headline-use of '[Censored]mas' :hmm: , I thought that the main contents of this big vaccine piece inside, were well worth the read :) :

Guardian headline said:
'It's possible' : the race to approve a Covid vaccine by [Censored]mas
At least three companies close to revealing results of phase three trials, but to be approved for use safety has to be ensured
And quoting Kate Bingham, described as head of the UK's vaccine taskforce :

Sarah Boseley said:
.... sometime in November or December, their independent monitoring boards will “unblind” their secret data to find out whether fewer people given the experimental vaccines are getting Covid-19.
The excitement is palpable. Bingham understands that.

“I can just see that it’s such an incredibly sensitive topic, that everyone is so desperate to be out of lockdown and get back to normal that everyone grabs at straws,” she said.
“I think my key message is, we’re in a very good place. The UK is well set up, we’ve got a very attractive portfolio. We are absolutely well-planned and well-organised in terms of having the right vaccines and knowing when they’re arriving.”

The UK has bought six of the hundreds of vaccines under development. It has two of the three companies heading down the final furlong – AstraZeneca’s and Pfizer’s. Bingham says she thinks there is a chance of a vaccine before [Censored!]mas

“They have to have enough cases to show vaccine efficacy and the regulator has to approve it. If all of that happens, then it’s possible that we could have a vaccine this side of [Censored!]mas,” she said.

“But, you know, I’ve called it a slim chance and I think it is a slim chance. I think we’ve got a better chance of generating that data early next year, but it’s not to say it’s impossible.”

If your read the whole article (and try to ignore the annoying Xmas references!), I think you'll see a half-way reasonable balance between unrealistic optimism (lots of caveats there) and stupidly pessimistic 'nothing until December 2021' ;)-type stuff ........

<crosses fingers yet again! ;) >
 
Bingham was interviewed in depth on the BBC yesterday. It was a long good interview, despite the interviewer clearly being a bit out of her depth and trying to get headline quotes. Bingham came across as brilliant, and spoke really well and clearly. Well worth a watch.

FFS. :mad:


I idiotically assumed she was some high up vaccine NHS expert, not a fucking venture capitalist married to a Tory. I'm fully able to believe the documents were labelled incorrectly, it's the private equity meeting that makes me puke.
 
Just today picked up on that later story about Kate Bingham :mad:

Yes, I was like you LynnDoyleCooper -- from that earlier Guardian story, she sounded like she knew what she was talking about :(

I guess this latest thing doesn't completely invalidate the one I quoted yesterday, but I should have been more suspicious of her Tory-type Xmas references :mad:
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDC
Good news. A week or two ago I read about a German initiative to have local vaccination centres setup to do covid shots within hours of a vaccine being approved. I was a bit pissed off that we hadn't heard anything similar in the UK.
 
Long read - update on the Oxford / AZ vaccine

-------
AstraZeneca has a good chance of delivering late-phase data on its COVID-19 vaccine this year, the chief investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial said. The timing gives AstraZeneca a “small chance” of being able to start distributing the AZD1222 vaccine in the U.K. before Christmas.

Andrew Pollard, M.D., Ph.D., made the comments at a meeting of a U.K. parliamentary committee in his capacity as chief investigator of global AZD1222 clinical trials sponsored by the University of Oxford. While AstraZeneca is the sponsor of late-phase AZD1222 trials in the U.S. and Russia, Oxford, the originator of the vaccine, is taking the lead on phase 3 studies in Brazil and the U.K.

Pollard’s prominent position in the COVID-19 vaccine race led politicians on the U.K.’s Science and Technology Committee to call him to give evidence on Wednesday. Asked about when AZD1222 will be available, Pollard explained that the first step is to reach the point at which data are ready for analysis.

“I'm optimistic that we could reach that point before the end of this year,” Pollard said.
If the data are positive, the vaccine will need to undergo regulatory review and then be deployed to the groups identified as the first recipients in a long queue. Pollard said the timelines for those steps “are not entirely clear to me at the moment.” Efforts to accelerate the steps could be complicated by the near-simultaneous submission of multiple COVID-19 vaccines for approval.

Faced with multiple uncertainties, Pollard said it is “very difficult” to say whether AZD1222 will come to market in the U.K. by Christmas. The Oxford professor sees a “small chance” of that happening.

The timing will depend, in part, on the efficacy of the vaccine. As Pollard explained, efficacy affects the number of COVID-19 cases a study needs to show whether a vaccine works. If the vaccine is only 50% effective, more participants in the trial will need to develop COVID-19 to show it works.
Pollard hopes AZD1222 and other vaccines will be more than 50% effective. That would cut the time it takes for sponsors to show efficacy and mean the vaccines are more impactful when rolled out to populations. Yet, Pollard also said policymakers may need to consider what they will do if vaccines fall short of the 50% effectiveness bar set by the FDA.
“If vaccines only prevented 40% of the cases, would that be useful for the NHS? These are the sorts of decisions that potentially policy makers may need to be thinking through in the months ahead depending on where vaccines land,” Pollard said.

Pollard spoke at the same session as Robin Shattock, the lead for Imperial College London’s COVID-19 vaccine. Imperial is developing a self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) vaccine.

Like mRNA vaccines such as those in development at BioNTech and Moderna, saRNA jabs carry nucleic acids designed to make cells in the body produce an antigen. The difference is saRNA also encodes for proteins that enable RNA vaccine replication, potentially enabling them to provide protection at lower doses than is possible with mRNA.
Working with a novel platform, Imperial trailed Oxford into the clinic and remains behind. Shattock said his team could generate an efficacy signal midway through 2021 “with the right level of support.” The U.K. government has helped Imperial reach this point. Shattock made the case for further support at the committee meeting.

“One of the advantages of the technology that we're developing is that it can be used for repeated boosting immunizations, either to boost existing vaccines or to boost itself. So, if immunity wanes we would be well positioned with this technology to provide boosting strategies for the U.K.,” Shattock said.
 
This is worth reading in full.



The more I think about it, the more it seems that any vaccine, especially if it comes in the next 12 months, is not going to be a 'Yay, we've vaccinated everyone, back to life as normal!' but more 'We're trying this out, but we don't know if it will work for everyone or for how long, so while we can reopen we're going to have to keep social distancing and masks so it won't just explode if we're wrong'
 
Start rolling out vaccine A to people X. After 3, 6, 12 months look to see how well it did.

Other countries will be rolling out vaccine B to people X. Did they do better or worse than us?

It's going to get really complicated to work out which vaccines are best. At least it will make our lives more normal while the boffins work out which vaccines win the race.
 
Yes, I can definitely see something like that happening, that would make sense - I think things will be able to reopen more, but still with distancing/limited numbers and masks, until we can understand more about what works.
 
A recent study by Zoufaly et al. published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine describes encouraging data from the first severe COVID-19 patient successfully treated with human recombinant soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (hrsACE2).1 The published data document upon treatment of an adaptive immune response, the disappearance of the virus swiftly from the serum, the nasal cavity and lungs, and a reduction of inflammatory cytokine levels that are critical for COVID-19 pathology. Notably, the use of hrsACE2 did not impede the generation of neutralizing antibodies, leading to a significant clinical improvement of the treated patient.
 
The more I think about it, the more it seems that any vaccine, especially if it comes in the next 12 months, is not going to be a 'Yay, we've vaccinated everyone, back to life as normal!' but more 'We're trying this out, but we don't know if it will work for everyone or for how long, so while we can reopen we're going to have to keep social distancing and masks so it won't just explode if we're wrong'

Sure but it was never likely to be. Because of the time frames involved the best we can really hope for is safe and good enough. It'll get better over time.
 
This sounds like quite a big logistical challenge.
If the claim (shareholders statement) is actually true then the roll out of 30m in the UK alone will be made more than a big logistical challenge . If the contract to distribute is anything like EVERY SINGLE THING that has preceded it then we have a long (and likely expensive) wait for any impact.

#glasshalffull
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom