The Vaccine Discussion Thread

[mevelandry]

My guess is that won't be enough. I think that Canada is saying that because that is the way they think they have to roll out the vaccine. I would be curious what Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca have to say about this. My concern for you all, is that due to the time between doses you won't get the antibody boost that is seen with them 3-4 weeks apart. Similar to people that have had covid, the antibodies have been shown to diminish over time. It could almost be like getting two first shots. I know when this was first talked about in Europe the vaccine manufacturers weren't happy that countries were choosing an untested path with the vaccine.

The above is speculation on my part. While I work in the sciences, this wasn't my specific field of study.

Recent data seems to show that even with four months between the two shots, the immunity is there (sufficiently)... Which reenforced the health department's decision to make it 3-4 months apart.

Time will tell if that was a good strategy but so far, so good.

 

[pjacobi]

In my opinion, the AstraZeneca vaccine issue was more about Anglo-French politics rather than science. Just watch this famous video and replace references to the Holy Gail with AstraZeneca vaccine:

Monty Python and the Holy Grail - The Insulting Frenchman - YouTube


-Paul

 

[brentm77]

I haven't looked at the underlying trial or data, so I am taking this article at face value, but it seems to be good news for the Oxford vaccine. I pulled a few points from the linked article:

Analysts cheer ‘surprisingly positive’ AstraZeneca U.S. trial data

• Monday’s trial results showed the vaccine had an overall efficacy of 79% in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 and was 100% effective in preventing severe disease and hospitalization.
• The trial of more than 30,000 participants in the U.S., Peru and Chile found that the vaccine had an overall efficacy of 79% in preventing symptomatic Covid and was 100% effective in preventing severe disease and hospitalization.
• Efficacy was consistent across age and ethnic groups, with 80% efficacy in participants at least 65 years old.
• Adam Barker, health-care analyst at Shore Capital, said: “This is arguably the first trial for AZD1222 which has shown compelling efficacy in those 65 years and older”. This is important because there were questions about efficacy in this age group. Previous studies were hampered by a smaller number of elderly participants. In this trial, 20% of the participants were 65 years or older and 60% had co-morbidities which put them at increased risk of developing severe disease.
• Monday’s trial data confirmed the safety profile of the vaccine. Barker said because the data is from a single trial using a single-dosing regimen, it removes the complications of data interpretation that has been seen in the past with the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine. Barker added that the lack of evidence for blood clots in the study was also reassuring given recent concerns. “However, we are not surprised by this data given the evidence for a link between the vaccine and blood clots was already fairly weak.”
• “This trial is based on dosing 4 weeks apart, but we know efficacy may be greater if you dose with a longer interval (up to 12 weeks) and countries like the U.K. have successfully used this ‘longer duration between doses’ strategy to vaccinate more people quickly,” Barker said. So the question for the FDA is whether it will recommend giving the two doses four weeks apart — given that’s what was tested in the U.S. trial — or include data from the U.K. and elsewhere that suggests a longer duration.
• Beyond dosing, analysts are also watching for detail on how the vaccine protects against different variants. This is expected to be included in the package of data submitted to the FDA.

 

[Intr3pid]

I haven't looked at the underlying trial or data, so I am taking this article at face value, but it seems to be good news for the Oxford vaccine. I pulled a few points from the linked article:

Analysts cheer ‘surprisingly positive’ AstraZeneca U.S. trial data

• Monday’s trial results showed the vaccine had an overall efficacy of 79% in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 and was 100% effective in preventing severe disease and hospitalization.
• The trial of more than 30,000 participants in the U.S., Peru and Chile found that the vaccine had an overall efficacy of 79% in preventing symptomatic Covid and was 100% effective in preventing severe disease and hospitalization.
• Efficacy was consistent across age and ethnic groups, with 80% efficacy in participants at least 65 years old.
• Adam Barker, health-care analyst at Shore Capital, said: “This is arguably the first trial for AZD1222 which has shown compelling efficacy in those 65 years and older”. This is important because there were questions about efficacy in this age group. Previous studies were hampered by a smaller number of elderly participants. In this trial, 20% of the participants were 65 years or older and 60% had co-morbidities which put them at increased risk of developing severe disease.
• Monday’s trial data confirmed the safety profile of the vaccine. Barker said because the data is from a single trial using a single-dosing regimen, it removes the complications of data interpretation that has been seen in the past with the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine. Barker added that the lack of evidence for blood clots in the study was also reassuring given recent concerns. “However, we are not surprised by this data given the evidence for a link between the vaccine and blood clots was already fairly weak.”
• “This trial is based on dosing 4 weeks apart, but we know efficacy may be greater if you dose with a longer interval (up to 12 weeks) and countries like the U.K. have successfully used this ‘longer duration between doses’ strategy to vaccinate more people quickly,” Barker said. So the question for the FDA is whether it will recommend giving the two doses four weeks apart — given that’s what was tested in the U.S. trial — or include data from the U.K. and elsewhere that suggests a longer duration.
• Beyond dosing, analysts are also watching for detail on how the vaccine protects against different variants. This is expected to be included in the package of data submitted to the FDA.

Yup, this is good news - particularly, for the older age demographic. The broader world isn't as aged as the North Americans and the Europeans, but it does help remove an important taboo. Only if they had done the trials correctly in the first instance...

The South African variant cases will still be noticeably absent, and that's probably just doing one step at a time.

In my opinion, the AstraZeneca vaccine issue was more about Anglo-French politics rather than science. Just watch this famous video and replace references to the Holy Gail with AstraZeneca vaccine:

-Paul

Well, that would be one heck of a self destructive move - though not the first - when you are staring down the barrel of a third wave!

 

[Intr3pid]

Pfizer is now working on a COVID-19 oral drug as a treatment - that is, for those who contract the virus:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/23/cov...inical-trial-testing-oral-antiviral-drug.html
Still in Phase 1 trials, the drug looks promising for cruise ships to help contain outbreaks on board. I feel that an effective treatment is crucial to a return to longer itineraries.

 

[brentm77]

I think this story is interesting: Trial looking at mixing-and-matching different COVID vaccines could be game-changer

They are looking at whether they can mix the type of vaccine a person could get for the first shot versus the second, which would allow easier distribution.

But, the cool part is they are hopeful the broader range covered by two different vaccines may provide better protection for variants. If it is safe to mix, I assume they will also be able to use a variant booster that is a different brand from your first shots, or a different booster to extend immunity, which would be helpful if boosters are ultimately needed.

 

[Auntof2]

At this point, the only cruises getting read to reopen (out of the Bahamas and the UK and I also read something about Israel) are all requiring vaccination. I wouldn't be surprised if all cruises required vaccinations when they re-open. (Also most countries that are opening to Americans are requesting vaccinated Americans). It's all wait and see until we have something in writing.

Does anyone think the cruise lines will require specific vaccines? I'd hate to get J&J, show up with that noted on a card, and get rejected for not having two doses even though it is supposed to be a single dose. The comments regarding AZ and the SA variant popped this worry into my head.

 

[Birdie dog]

Does anyone think the cruise lines will require specific vaccines? I'd hate to get J&J, show up with that noted on a card, and get rejected for not having two doses even though it is supposed to be a single dose. The comments regarding AZ and the SA variant popped this worry into my head.

From what I've seen so far, the cruise lines are accepting any accepted vaccine specific to the country. I looked at RCCL and they don't name specific vaccines. I think I read that Virgin cruises are accepting Pfizer, Moderna and Astra Zeneca. (Which makes sense as I don't know that J&J has been approved there yet).

 

[sabrecmc]

Pfizer's trail of 12-15 year olds shows 100% effectiveness. Link to Bloomberg article

 

[ninergrl6]

Does anyone think the cruise lines will require specific vaccines? I'd hate to get J&J, show up with that noted on a card, and get rejected for not having two doses even though it is supposed to be a single dose. The comments regarding AZ and the SA variant popped this worry into my head.

I highly doubt it. People don't have a choice of which vaccine they get. You take whatever is offered. I got J&J by a fluke; it was the only one being distributed that day at that location even though the advanced paperwork said it could be any one of the three.

 

[AquaDame]

I highly doubt it. People don't have a choice of which vaccine they get. You take whatever is offered. I got J&J by a fluke; it was the only one being distributed that day at that location even though the advanced paperwork said it could be any one of the three.

My father actually refused the J&J shot at his first appointment and made a second one at a place he verified would have Moderna. The site I volunteer at has had both Moderna and Pfizer - to some degree they were allowing people to choose, though on days they only have enough of X for second shots scheduled that day there may be no choice in the matter. At the end of the day if they have X & Y "leftover" then they also let people choose. It's also publicized which site has which vaccine now (probably to avoid people like my father who have a fit). If I'd wanted J&J I could have driven outside my city to one of the other two sites. I also watched a lot of cars drive away from the site I volunteer at; I'm not sure if they were disappointed or just didn't have appointments. Maybe I will volunteer as a greeter next time...

At any rate I also feel ANY of the vaccines that are approved for a country you embark from will be allowed if vaccination is required to sail. Can you imagine the uproar if it was then decided that not only were they not eligible for a second vaccine since they already had one but they STILL can't participate with the one they took in good faith?

 

[DisneYE]

At any rate I also feel ANY of the vaccines that are approved for a country you embark from will be allowed if vaccination is required to sail. Can you imagine the uproar if it was then decided that not only were they not eligible for a second vaccine since they already had one but they STILL can't participate with the one they took in good faith?

Isn't it the case that if someone already had Covid they're recommended/instructed to have ONLY one dose of the Pfizer/Moderna? That's the guideline in some countries, not sure about the US.
Yeah, ppl would be fuming if refused entry/boarding/attending places with only one dose.

 

[ninergrl6]

My father actually refused the J&J shot at his first appointment and made a second one at a place he verified would have Moderna. The site I volunteer at has had both Moderna and Pfizer - to some degree they were allowing people to choose, though on days they only have enough of X for second shots scheduled that day there may be no choice in the matter. At the end of the day if they have X & Y "leftover" then they also let people choose. It's also publicized which site has which vaccine now (probably to avoid people like my father who have a fit). If I'd wanted J&J I could have driven outside my city to one of the other two sites. I also watched a lot of cars drive away from the site I volunteer at; I'm not sure if they were disappointed or just didn't have appointments. Maybe I will volunteer as a greeter next time...

It sounds like you and your family have been fortunate with availability. Many people I know have struggled to get even one appointment, let alone have the luxury of walking away because the vaccine offered wasn't the one that was preferred, and everyone I know who has been vaccinated wasn't given a choice of which one they wanted.

 

[lanejudy]

I'd also be highly surprised if there is any requirement for a specific brand of vaccine. Most vaccines have multiple versions available, but nobody ever really thinks about it.

No choice on the COVID vaccines here, yet, though our governor has said that once we have enough supply in-state that info will be available when making an appointment so people can choose. I had a super hard time trying to confirm they would be giving Pfizer for my daughter's appointment because that's the only one she's eligible to receive (16 yrs old). I'll be highly annoyed if I bring her and find out they're only offering Moderna.

 

[hrhdhd]

It sounds like you and your family have been fortunate with availability. Many people I know have struggled to get even one appointment, let alone have the luxury of walking away because the vaccine offered wasn't the one that was preferred, and everyone I know who has been vaccinated wasn't given a choice of which one they wanted.

At the FEMA site here, they have J&J and Pfizer. Unless they run out of one, the person can choose.

 

[deliela999]

My state is putting that information on the website while you schedule. I know some people getting fussy about which one they get and driving further or waiting longer for an appointment. I went for first in my arm, which happened to be Pfizer.

 

[Auntof2]

My father actually refused the J&J shot at his first appointment and made a second one at a place he verified would have Moderna. The site I volunteer at has had both Moderna and Pfizer - to some degree they were allowing people to choose, though on days they only have enough of X for second shots scheduled that day there may be no choice in the matter. At the end of the day if they have X & Y "leftover" then they also let people choose. It's also publicized which site has which vaccine now (probably to avoid people like my father who have a fit). If I'd wanted J&J I could have driven outside my city to one of the other two sites. I also watched a lot of cars drive away from the site I volunteer at; I'm not sure if they were disappointed or just didn't have appointments. Maybe I will volunteer as a greeter next time...

At any rate I also feel ANY of the vaccines that are approved for a country you embark from will be allowed if vaccination is required to sail. Can you imagine the uproar if it was then decided that not only were they not eligible for a second vaccine since they already had one but they STILL can't participate with the one they took in good faith?

Why did he refuse J&J, if you don't mind my asking? Here people are searching for it and we seem to have plenty of Pfizer and Moderna. I actually have an appt for J&J on Saturday (I am TERRIFIED of needles - I do not get the flu shot). Of course today someone posted online about the needle for J&J being huge and painful and I'm totally freaked out.

 

[AquaDame]

Why did he refuse J&J, if you don't mind my asking? Here people are searching for it and we seem to have plenty of Pfizer and Moderna. I actually have an appt for J&J on Saturday (I am TERRIFIED of needles - I do not get the flu shot). Of course today someone posted online about the needle for J&J being huge and painful and I'm totally freaked out.

I have not heard about the needle..! AFAIK, all vaccines use the same size needle on the same person, though it can vary from person to person depending on the girth of the arm. We only have two sizes at my site, so if you are quite small they are just careful not to go in as far... maybe a nurse that administers can chime in! I know the actual dose of pfizer is a bit less also... .3mL compared to .5mL with Moderna and J&J.

Both my father and mother were upset about the use of stem cells (PER.C6 line) during its production. I had no idea they were concerned or I might have been able to talk with them about it ahead of time. I'm not sure if hearing the cells are not present in the vaccine itself would have made them feel better. This was the first time they've shown any hesitancy about the use of stem cells, though to be fair its also the first time they'd been directly impacted by it. I was pretty confused and panicked about finding another appointment for him when I'd heard as he has heart issues and my Mom is at risk as well, but thankfully a pharmacy about an hour away had an opening for him later the next week and were able to assure him it would be Moderna.

Edited to add I think being afraid of needles would be a good reason to want J&J..! One and done. I'm afraid of flying and I assure you if there were a way for me to only deal with a one way flight and still make it home from our vacations, I'd do it!

 

[sullivan.kscott]

I'd also be highly surprised if there is any requirement for a specific brand of vaccine. Most vaccines have multiple versions available, but nobody ever really thinks about it.

No choice on the COVID vaccines here, yet, though our governor has said that once we have enough supply in-state that info will be available when making an appointment so people can choose. I had a super hard time trying to confirm they would be giving Pfizer for my daughter's appointment because that's the only one she's eligible to receive (16 yrs old). I'll be highly annoyed if I bring her and find out they're only offering Moderna.

YMMV, but all of the pharmacy partners in my area list what you’re making an appointment to receive before confirming.

 

[soniam]

Why did he refuse J&J, if you don't mind my asking? Here people are searching for it and we seem to have plenty of Pfizer and Moderna. I actually have an appt for J&J on Saturday (I am TERRIFIED of needles - I do not get the flu shot). Of course today someone posted online about the needle for J&J being huge and painful and I'm totally freaked out.

The reported efficacy numbers for J&J are less than Pfizer and Moderna. However, there are a lot of reasons that they could look "worse". I am a bit reluctant, but if it were my only choice, I would take it. Something is better than nothing.

I too am phobic of needles, but I'm willing to suffer the 2 shots of Pfizer (that's what I am scheduled for 3 weeks from now) for possible better efficacy. Also, you don't really get a choice where I am. I am so terrified of needles that I didn't do an epidural when I gave birth. My husband will have to go with me, because I usually pass out. I have passed out before when seeing it TV. I don't have them as often now, but from the time I was a kid, I used to have a recurring nightmare about a shot. The same one every time.