Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Possible vaccines/treatment(s) for Coronavirus

Why disastrous? If the vaccine protects against hospitalisations then vaccinated people can further strengthen their immunity by safely catching variants such as this one.

The is no evidence from this study that it does protect against hospitalisations though - there were no hospitalisations in either the study or control group, so nothing to compare - also the participants were young and healthy and there were few of them, such that one wouldn’t expect to see any hospitalisations in such a cohort regardless of vaccination. The newspapers seems to be reaching for the ‘no hospitalisations’ bit of the story rather desperately, even though it doesn’t exist in any real sense.
 
Oh well I can't read the article so was just going by the headline.


Oxford/AstraZeneca jab fails to prevent mild and moderate Covid from S African strain, study shows Impact on hospitalisations and deaths caused by variant not yet determined, according to preliminary findings South Africa, where the 501Y.V2 variant was first identified, has received 1m doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine

The Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine does not appear to offer protection against mild and moderate disease caused by the viral variant first identified in South Africa, according to a study due to be published on Monday. Although none of the more than 2,000 mainly healthy and young patients in the study died or was hospitalised, the findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, could complicate the race to roll out vaccines as new strains emerge.

In both the human trials and tests on the blood of those vaccinated, the jab showed significantly reduced efficacy against the 501Y.V2 viral variant, which is dominant in South Africa, according to the randomised, double-blind study seen by the Financial Times. “A two-dose regimen of [the vaccine] did not show protection against mild-moderate Covid-19 due to [the South African variant]”, the study says, adding that efficacy against severe Covid-19, hospitalisations and deaths was not yet determined.

While all Covid-19 vaccines so far have largely held up against the B.1.1.7 variant that emerged in the UK, the strain that originated in South Africa has been more worrying. Both Johnson & Johnson and Novavax have said their vaccines were less effective against the strain in clinical trials conducted in South Africa. In trials, both vaccines offered complete protection against severe disease and death in relation to Covid-19.

Moderna has said it will test a booster shot and a reformulated vaccine to target the South African variant, after studies showed its vaccine was significantly less effective. BioNTech/Pfizer said their vaccine was slightly less effective in a lab study using a pseudovirus with some mutations from the 501Y.V2 variant, but have not published results of tests against the variant itself. There are caveats to the Oxford/AstraZeneca study, as the sample sizes were relatively small. The study, led by South Africa’s University of the Witwatersrand and Oxford university, enrolled 2,026 HIV negative individuals, with a median age of 31.

Half the group was given at least one dose of placebo, with the other half receiving at least one dose of vaccine. Tulio de Oliveira, who heads the Network for Genomic Surveillance in South Africa, told the Financial Times the findings were a “wake-up call to control the virus and increase the response to Covid-19 in the world”. Health authorities worldwide hope vaccines will reduce or completely eliminate the burden of hospitalisation, which would allow for lockdowns to be eased.

While important, it is relatively less urgent to avert symptomatic, but milder, infection that does not progress to hospitalisation. Any setback for the efficacy of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine would be particularly crucial for the developing world, as the partners are producing billions of doses on a non-profit basis during the pandemic.

The vaccine still appears to be fully effective in preventing hospitalisation and death caused by other variants of coronavirus, according to data from other studies. AstraZeneca initially declined to comment. It later said it had not been able to properly ascertain the effect of the vaccine on severe disease and hospitalisation caused by the South African variant in the study given most of the participants were young, healthy adults.

“We do believe our vaccine could protect against severe disease, as neutralising antibody activity is equivalent to that of other Covid-19 vaccines that have demonstrated activity against more severe disease, particularly when the dosing interval is optimised to 8-12 weeks,” it said. It added that other immune responses, such as T-cells, may protect against disease.

Initial data, it said, indicated those responses “may remain intact” against the South African variant. It noted that it had begun to adapt the vaccine against this variant with Oxford, advancing rapidly through clinical development “so that it is ready for autumn delivery [if] needed". Oxford declined to comment on the results of the study, saying only that it was working with partners across the globe, including in South Africa, to evaluate the effects of new variants on the first generation of its Covid vaccine.

“Oxford is working with AstraZeneca to optimise the pipeline required for a strain change should one become necessary,” the university said. “This is the same issue that is faced by all of the vaccine developers, and we will continue to monitor the emergence of new variants that arise in readiness for a future strain change.”

More infectious coronavirus variants will emerge, disease expert predicts The University of the Witwatersrand did not respond to requests for comment. South Africa’s Department of Health did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The 501Y.V2 variant, dominant in South Africa, has recently been discovered in countries all over the world, including the US and the UK.

South Africa took delivery of 1m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine last week, the first Covid-19 vaccines to arrive in the country, as part of a 1.5m dose order from India’s Serum Institute
 
Sorry if this has been covered before - can we become detrimentally immune to the vector adenovirus as used in the Oxford tech ?
I'm assuming that isn't the case as the second dose builds on the first.
Or is it a case that even if we're "immune" to a virus, there will be sufficient infection and replication BEFORE the immune system catches up with it ?
 
Sorry if this has been covered before - can we become immune to the vector adenovirus as used in the Oxford tech ?
I'm assuming that isn't the case as the second dose builds on the first.
Or is it a case that even if we're "immune" to a virus, there will be sufficient infection and replication BEFORE the immune system catches up with it ?

Yes we can, and do, 2hats has several times mentioned how heterologous (different virus vector) vectored boosting is a known improvement over homologous (same virus vector each time). This may well be why the 1/2 dose full dose AZ regime worked better, and also why they are saying that a 12 week gap between prime and boost is better than 3 or 4 weeks. It is also why they are starting studies on various mixed deliveries.
 
Last edited:
FT claims that a preprint on AZD1222 due out Monday will report that it doesn't offer protection against mild/moderate infections due to B.1.351.
(Apparent) data dribbling in ahead of preprint. AZD1222 efficacy to moderate/mild COVID-19 due to B.1.351 at 14 days post boost 10.4% (95CI: -78.8->54.8). Neutralising titres low too. BUT note dosing interval 4 weeks instead of 12 which already suspected to provide for much better immune response. Caution: this was a small study and had very small numbers of cases (20/714 in the placebo arm, 19/748 in the vaccine arm); the confidence intervals say it all.

Meanwhile:
 
Last edited:
An early attempt to investigate any viral load changes arising from the Israeli vaccination programme (predominately BNT162b2) by analysing cycle thresholds reported by one of the country's largest COVID-19 testing laboratories. Since the vaccination status of sample providers was not known the (predominately vaccinated) 60+ cohort were compared to the (largely unvaccinated) 40-60 cohort.
is-ct.jpg
There appears to be a reduction in viral load (perhaps in the range 1.6x to 20x). However note that vaccine efficacy, indeed wild type virus behaviour, may vary across age cohorts. Perhaps the viral load reduction will be more pronounced in younger cohorts, but results could be skewed by particular variants. Viral loads might be curbed due to cohabitation of many of the vaccinated. There is also no way of determining where in the infection cycle (viral load curve) each sample was taken: lone viral load measurements are not of themselves indicative of prior nor future viral shedding.
 
Interestingly, an outbreak of B.1.1.7 in a German care home setting where all residents had received their second dose of BNT162b2 by 25 January. The vaccination status of staff is not mentioned. 14 COVID positive cases recorded amongst residents and staff between 2-5 February. Note only asymptomatic or mild symptomatic cases thus far. Of course, immune response likely slower in older cohorts.
 
Hmm, I wonder how many years/decades before the extent of intentional infection for research purposes is revealed?
 
10% effectiveness in the Oxford vaccine - grim
Particularly so for the people of South Africa

What should the government do till a new updated vaccine comes out in Autumn (hopefully)?
Allow the SA variant to spread by opening society? Or try and squash it. Its going to be #1 isnt it.
 
10% effectiveness in the Oxford vaccine - grim
Particularly so for the people of South Africa

What should the government do till a new updated vaccine comes out in Autumn (hopefully)?
Allow the SA variant to spread by opening society? Or try and squash it. Its going to be #1 isnt it.
I suppose it depends what 'living with it' looks like. If the vaccine does at least prevent serious cases and hospitalisation, that might be something they'd consider. But whilst I'm no virologist (to say the least) the 10% headline figure doesn't suggest it will stop serious cases. Anyway, this is still a very depressing development.

It also reinforces the criminal stupidity of those tories who are braying to open everything up.
 
Interestingly, an outbreak of B.1.1.7 in a German care home setting where all residents had received their second dose of BNT162b2 by 25 January. The vaccination status of staff is not mentioned. 14 COVID positive cases recorded amongst residents and staff between 2-5 February. Note only asymptomatic or mild symptomatic cases thus far. Of course, immune response likely slower in older cohorts.

Was anyone seriously ill tho?
 
Was anyone seriously ill tho?

Not so far, so hopefully they will not.

It is unclear why the seniors got infected despite the vaccination. They may have become infected between their two vaccination appointments or within the week after the second vaccination when full protection was not yet in place. The manufacturer of the inoculated substance, Biontech / Pfizer, is also not assuming 100 percent protection, but around 95 percent. The question of whether people who have been vaccinated can still pass the infection on to other people has not yet been researched. And scientists also still have little knowledge about the British variant of the corona virus that broke out in Belm. After all, the fact that the elderly have had mild disease so far could be due to the vaccination, said the medical officer.
 
Was anyone seriously ill tho?
Interestingly, an outbreak of B.1.1.7 in a German care home setting where all residents had received their second dose of BNT162b2 by 25 January. The vaccination status of staff is not mentioned. 14 COVID positive cases recorded amongst residents and staff between 2-5 February. Note only asymptomatic or mild symptomatic cases thus far. Of course, immune response likely slower in older cohorts.
 
I wonder what approach the WHO will settle on for now. Not easy given the relative lack of data, I would err on the side of caution, but several conflicting forms of caution are involved, and which vaccines are actually available for Covax use, and when, would likely influence my decision.

On Monday, a 15-member panel of WHO advisers were deciding on their usage recommendations for the AstraZeneca vaccine, including for older adults.

The WHO said the recommendations on who it should and should not be used for would be made public later this week.

The recommendations could impact the WHO’s vaccine strategy. That’s important, because many low-income countries are heavily reliant on a WHO-led vaccine-sharing scheme called Covax.

From 13:55 of BBC live updates page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55977904
 
Is there any increased danger of making variants more lethal in having wonky vaccines handed out in such a patchy way? Plasma therapy was singled out quickly as a possible source of the Kent strain and now its use has completely stopped interestingly Covid: 'Convalescent plasma no benefit to hospital patients'

It stands to reason a patient with a chronic infection is potentially a vector for a viral mutation party.

Misuse of anti-biotics gave us MRSA, resistant Gonorrhea etc so far. A haphazard vaccination program seems like we could just be poking away at a bigger bear than we have now without a reasoned plan.
 
Well they've restarted plasma trials since then, but this time for dealing with less ill patients. I dont have links handy but I commented on that restart a few times in recent weeks, after being surprised by a NHS England TV advert appealing for donors.

Vaccination in general will in theory lead to greater selection pressure on the virus. So yes there are a number of things that could go wrong on that front. And the UKs vaccine dose timing strategy did come up in that context, including at a press conference since one of the journalists had read SAGE or NERVTAG stuff where that risk was mentioned.

I doubt it is possible to come up with any sort of vaccination strategy that is entirely free of such risks. Our approach has probably raised to stakes further, but I dont have a proper sense at this time as to whether we will get away with it or not. Keeping infections down to a very low level before, during and after vaccine rollouts is one way to reduce mutation risks generally, but we've ended up with the very opposite of that.
 
Last edited:
Well they've restarted plasma trials since then, but this time for dealing with less ill patients. I dont have links handy but I commented on that restart a few times in recent weeks, after being surprised by a NHS England TV advert appealing for donors.

I did a blood test to be a plasma donor today. I got an email asking me to sign up shortly after my positive test result.
 
'Well they've restarted plasma trials since then, but this time for dealing with less ill patients.' Interesting move that,
I did a blood test to be a plasma donor today. I got an email asking me to sign up shortly after my positive test result.
Can you find out what they are using it for if its not hospitalised patients?
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55681051

Misuse of anti-biotics gave us MRSA, resistant Gonorrhea etc so far. A haphazard vaccination program seems like we could just be poking away at a bigger bear than we have now without a reasoned plan.
Vaccines are different to antibiotics in that they stimulate a similar immune response to that which is triggered by the virus. A partial immune response may create selection pressure for mutations which avoid the immune response, but partial immune responses will also be mounted by non vaccinated patients. Ultimately its the large number of infections worldwide which vastly increase the chances of mutations propagating.
 
'Well they've restarted plasma trials since then, but this time for dealing with less ill patients.' Interesting move that,

Can you find out what they are using it for if its not hospitalised patients?

This is what the first email said:


Thank you so much for volunteering to donate convalescent plasma for use in COVID–19 treatment trials.
We need more donors like you who might be able to provide the antibody-rich plasma – known as convalescent plasma - needed for transfusion to patients with COVID–19. The antibodies could help those who are struggling to develop their own immune response - including people who may not respond to a vaccination and those vulnerable, such as cancer patients and transplant patients.
The answers you have provided so far indicate that it may be possible for you to become a plasma donor.
As a next step, we would like to invite you to complete a blood sample test to assess your antibody level. This blood sample can be done at one of our donor centres or via a convenient home test kit, which is delivered to you and then you post it back to us in a prepaid package.
 
And the microchips.

Please if you have a different view Im sure it can be expressed...please do
I take history as the best teacher in this life and history teaches that governments do this shit, there is nothing in this world to indicate anything has changed, none have ever been proven trustworthy
Its a numbers game and any distasteful methods used to try winning it will be hidden for as long as possible, I am frequently surprised how many intelligent souls are naive enough to believe we live in more enlightened and considerate times
 
Please if you have a different view Im sure it can be expressed...please do
I take history as the best teacher in this life and history teaches that governments do this shit, there is nothing in this world to indicate anything has changed, none have ever been proven trustworthy
Its a numbers game and any distasteful methods used to try winning it will be hidden for as long as possible, I am frequently surprised how many intelligent souls are naive enough to believe we live in more enlightened and considerate times

WTF are you dribbling on about? Surely you don't actually believe the vaccines contain microchips? :hmm:
 
Back
Top Bottom