OT: Coronavirus 4 - or is that thread 2.75?

[hockeynjune]

Deserves a second

 

[A Star is Burns]

Got my second dose of Pfizer this morning.

 

[Svechhammer]

From what I read, the data is showing that vaccinations ARE effective at limiting the spread so it isn't primarily a situation where "You might still catch it, because it doesn't make you immune to it, but it prevents a severe reaction." I'm sure there are some case of that, but the CDC data is saying that the vaccine's are 90% effective at preventing infections all together so you don't even catch it.

I think the data lines up more with what @MinJaBen said. The increase in spread is because of younger / non-vaccinated people who are catching and spreading it. The reason hospitalizations and deaths are down though is because: a) more of the "at risk population" is vaccinated so aren't catching it any longer and in the off chance they do, the vaccination keeps them from seriously getting sick and b) the population that is now catching/spreading it is younger and less prone to having worse effects from it. A 3rd factor might be (speculation) that a large number of the most vulnerable have perished from it already.

You know what, you are right.

And your situation is even overall better than mine. So yay

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

NVM...misread

 

[surfzone365]

We’re getting there. Glad some in here where able to get their jabs, and good luck to those still trying. Not out of the woods by any stretch but hopefully we’re on the right road. Stay safe folks

 

[Svechhammer]

Anyone in the triangle area who can make the drive, the UNC Health clinic in Smithfield was giving shots to walk-ins today. It's advisable to get an appointment, but apparently not necessary.

 

[LakeLivin]

From what I read, the data is showing that vaccinations ARE effective at limiting the spread so it isn't primarily a situation where "You might still catch it, because it doesn't make you immune to it, but it prevents a severe reaction." I'm sure there are some case of that, but the CDC data is saying that the vaccine's are 90% effective at preventing infections all together so you don't even catch it.

I think the data lines up more with what @MinJaBen said. The increase in spread is because of younger / non-vaccinated people who are catching and spreading it. The reason hospitalizations and deaths are down though is because: a) more of the "at risk population" is vaccinated so aren't catching it any longer and in the off chance they do, the vaccination keeps them from seriously getting sick and b) the population that is now catching/spreading it is younger and less prone to having worse effects from it. A 3rd factor might be (speculation) that a large number of the most vulnerable have perished from it already.

It's easy to misinterpret that quoted 90% efficacy rate. It doesn't mean that if you've been vaccinated and are subsequently exposed to the virus you'll have a 90% chance of avoiding infection. What it means is that out of all the subjects in the large study who did contract covid, 90% had received a placebo shot and 10% had received the actual vaccine. But there was no way for them to know how many of the study subjects had been exposed to the virus, so no way to get a percentage that reflects what most would intuitively interpret when they hear "90% efficacy rate".

Having said that, you're right about the vaccines preventing infections altogether. Secondary (but still very important efficacy parameters) are the ability to protect from severe reactions and death.

Two questions that I don't think have been definitively answered.

1. Even if a vaccinated person is protected from the virus, could they still pass it on?
2. How well will the current vaccines protect from the different covid mutations that are starting to spread?

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

It's easy to misinterpret that quoted 90% efficacy rate. It doesn't mean that if you've been vaccinated and are subsequently exposed to the virus you'll have a 90% chance of avoiding infection. What it means is that out of all the subjects in the large study who did contract covid, 90% had received a placebo shot and 10% had received the actual vaccine. But there was no way for them to know how many of the study subjects had been exposed to the virus, so no way to get a percentage that reflects what most would intuitively interpret when they hear "90% efficacy rate".

I don't think it's misinterpreted as discussed here, although I can see how it could be. It's simply statistics. As you mentioned, it's impossible to know who was and wasn't exposed because it's unethical in studies to purposely expose subjects to a virus to get exact, controlled experiment data, so studies need to look at large samples and draw conclusions from statistics from that sample size. It's not really that different than the efficacy numbers were initially reported for the vaccines in terms of preventing severe illness, as they couldn't guarantee who did and did not get exposed to the virus.

From what I understand in this data, this wasn't a controlled study of Placebo vs. vaccines. This was real world data that showed over a large sample of front line workers and only 3 (vaccinated) and 161 unvaccinated people, who were tested regularly, contracted the virus. While it's true we don't know which ones were really exposed to the virus, these were people that were "likely" more exposed to the virus (front line workers, medical professionals, etc..). Statistical analysis then calculates the efficacy. Whether the number is 90% or 95% or 75% is kind of irrelevant though. The main point is that the vaccine appears to be effective at preventing infection as well as preventing serious illness.

Having said that, you're right about the vaccines preventing infections altogether. Secondary (but still very important efficacy parameters) are the ability to protect from severe reactions and death.

Yes., that's the main point. Whether it's 75%, 90% or 95% isn't that relevant, it's effective at doing that.

The potential fly in the ointment is how well the current vaccines protect from the different covid mutations that are starting to spread.

Yes, that's a good point on the mutations.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

At a certain point, the number of exposed people plus the number of vaccinated people will be high enough to put us at herd immunity threshold, even with the known current mutations, which the vaccines are also demonstrably effective against.

Oxford study for reference: CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent individuals target conserved epitopes from multiple prominent SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants

 

[RibFrabcus]

Getting my first poke in the morning

 

[Svechhammer]

From what I have read, the Pfizer an Moderna vaccines should be pretty effective against future mutations, because they specifically target the spike gene, which shouldn't mutate with this type of virus. So no matter what it mutates to, as long as it still has that spike, the vaccine will have taught your immune system on how to actively fight it. So far, this has proven to remain true with mutations to date.

About the efficacy rates, if this was just one test, I would wonder just how accurate those numbers are, but that's not really the case here. These results are repeatable and centers are finding similar, if not the same, results every time they test, so they should be solid.

Overall, I think the big thing with COVID right now is to make sure a hefty majority of high risk individuals are vaccinated. Eliminate the strain that this virus put on medical facilities so that our healthcare workers are not completely overwhelmed, and things can go back to normal. Even if the college aged crowd continues to take this as lightly as they have, it won't be the kind of disaster we've seen, because we'll have effectively cut the head off the snake. And at a certain point, given how effective these vaccines are, we have to make the call that 'look, we can't protect everyone, the means to protect yourself are out there, if you get sick, its kind of on you now'.

 

[MinJaBen]

From what I have read, the Pfizer an Moderna vaccines should be pretty effective against future mutations, because they specifically target the spike gene, which shouldn't mutate with this type of virus. So no matter what it mutates to, as long as it still has that spike, the vaccine will have taught your immune system on how to actively fight it. So far, this has proven to remain true with mutations to date.

So, I'm not sure what you've read, but this is all wrong. While mutations can occur anywhere, the problematic mutations that do exist so far all have the concerning mutations in the receptor binding domains, also known as the spike protein. They are particularly concerning because that is where the mRNAs that make up the current vaccines (Phizer, Moderna) have specifically targeted, thus changes in the protein could lead to reduced neutralizing effects of the antibodies produced against those targets.

Here is some good information from the CDC about the variants.

Science Brief: Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants

 

[hblueridgegal]

Oh happy day!

 

[LakeLivin]

I don't think it's misinterpreted as discussed here, although I can see how it could be. It's simply statistics. As you mentioned, it's impossible to know who was and wasn't exposed because it's unethical in studies to purposely expose subjects to a virus to get exact, controlled experiment data, so studies need to look at large samples and draw conclusions from statistics from that sample size. It's not really that different than the efficacy numbers were initially reported for the vaccines in terms of preventing severe illness, as they couldn't guarantee who did and did not get exposed to the virus.

From what I understand in this data, this wasn't a controlled study of Placebo vs. vaccines. This was real world data that showed over a large sample of front line workers and only 3 (vaccinated) and 161 unvaccinated people, who were tested regularly, contracted the virus. While it's true we don't know which ones were really exposed to the virus, these were people that were "likely" more exposed to the virus (front line workers, medical professionals, etc..). Statistical analysis then calculates the efficacy. Whether the number is 90% or 95% or 75% is kind of irrelevant though. The main point is that the vaccine appears to be effective at preventing infection as well as preventing serious illness.

Yes., that's the main point. Whether it's 75%, 90% or 95% isn't that relevant, it's effective at doing that.

Yes, that's a good point on the mutations.

Sure, my explanation was for the benefit of the entire board since the actual meaning of "efficacy rate" for vaccines is so different from how most would interpret it. In a previous life I was a biostatistician working on new drug applications to the FDA, but until this pandemic I didn't know the actual meaning of the term as it applies to vaccines. I'd never worked in that therapeutic area before, and it really is different from any intuitive interpretation most would make.

One additional clarification: the large vaccine studies were well controlled (key components: placebo controlled, randomized, double blind). I only point this out because the last thing we need is anything that the [insert term of of your choice here] might use to add doubt about the scientific legitimacy of the vaccines. It's just that the nature of vaccine studies is, by necessity, different from most other studies (some aspects of which you point out). E.g., in most therapeutic areas, the size of the study is fixed up front. Before the study starts you'd calculate the total number of patients you need to enroll to demonstrate efficacy and do your analysis once you hit that number. With vaccine studies the enrollment size isn't fixed. You calculate the total number of infections you need to see to determine efficacy and then keep enrolling subjects until you get to that number. At that point you break the blind and compare how many of the infected subjects were from the vaccine group versus how many from the placebo group.

Anyways, sorry for the long post. Figured there might be another nerd or two on here who might find this interesting.

 

[Novacane]

Just scheduled my first dose with Pfizer at Duke next Friday!

5 more weeks until I can lick doorknobs guilt free!

 

[WreckingCrew]

Signed up last night to get my first dose this afternoon. Not sure if Pizer or Moderna but it required a 2nd schedule date (1 month later) so obviously it ain't no J&J

 

[hblueridgegal]

good to see

 

[MinJaBen]

Signed up last night to get my first dose this afternoon. Not sure if Pizer or Moderna but it required a 2nd schedule date (1 month later) so obviously it ain't no J&J

If it is a full month, it is the Moderna. Pfizer second dose is 21 days plus or minus a 4 day window. The Moderna vaccine second dose is 28 days after the first; I don't know what the window is on that one.

 

[WreckingCrew]

If it is a full month, it is the Moderna. Pfizer second dose is 21 days plus or minus a 4 day window. The Moderna vaccine second dose is 28 days after the first; I don't know what the window is on that one.

Looks like from CDC related to the Moderna vaccine
"Administer the second dose as close as possible to the recommended interval (28 days). If the second dose is not administered within 42 days of the first dose, the series does not need to be restarted. Doses inadvertently administered less than 28 days apart do not need to be repeated."

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/moderna/downloads/standing-orders.pdf

 

[Svechhammer]

Well this is interesting.

Looks like some of the lessons we learned with the development of the COVID vaccine are already paying off



That would be... uhhh.... big news. 97% effective in early trials.

 

[To Be Determined]

it feels like it has gotten a bit lost (like, oh, everything else) in the pandemic, but mRNA vaccines have mind-shatteringly incredible potential for humanity in the fight against disease.

 

[VibesAlive]

Got the Johnson and Johnson yesterday, and aside from my arm feeling like it's going to fall off, no other side effects. Glad I don't need another jab, that thing hurt.

 

[spockBokk]

I got my 1st Pfizer shot yesterday. Left arm is a little sore, no other side effects. 2nd dose scheduled for May 1, ready to have it over with.

 

[the halleJOKEL]

I got my 1st Pfizer shot yesterday. Left arm is a little sore, no other side effects. 2nd dose scheduled for May 1, ready to have it over with.

i had second pfizer dose this past saturday morning and was wiped out all day sunday. pretty much just wanted to lay around and sleep.

completely fine by monday, though

 

[Roboturner913]

Well this is interesting.

Looks like some of the lessons we learned with the development of the COVID vaccine are already paying off



That would be... uhhh.... big news. 97% effective in early trials.

Yes. mRNA has been in the works for at least a couple decades now because it promised to be effective against a whole multitude of viruses, long before anybody knew anything about COVID.

Basically when COVID hit they just fast-tracked research that was already pretty far along. It's exciting stuff. Has the potential to solve a whole bunch of different cancers and immunodeficiency diseases like lupus, things earmarked by chronic inflammation, etc., in addition to communicable diseases.

I have indolent lymphoma and I cannot tell you how amazing it would be to not deal with those flare-ups for the rest of my life.

Of course, we're still at least a decade away from any of these breakthroughs most likely. But still. This is some pretty baller stuff.