Vaccine Trials

[harllee]

50% effective vs. the South African strain. Other vaccines are showing less efficacy vs. this strain.

I think they just applied for EUA with the UK agency.

So I would imagine they'd do the same with the FDA soon.

We're suppose to get data from J&J next week.

Moderna reported that it's vaccine is "slightly" less effective against the the S. Africa variant--I have not been able to find any specific numbers but if the Moderna vaccine is 95% effective against other variants maybe it is only 85 to 90% effective against the S. Africa variant. In any event, Moderna is working on a booster shot for the S. Africa variant. I wonder if the other vaccines that have not been approved yet will hold up while they rework their vaccines to be effective against the S. Africa variant?

 

[explanade]

Moderna reported that it's vaccine is "slightly" less effective against the the S. Africa variant--I have not been able to find any specific numbers but if the Moderna vaccine is 95% effective against other variants maybe it is only 85 to 90% effective against the S. Africa variant. In any event, Moderna is working on a booster shot for the S. Africa variant. I wonder if the other vaccines that have not been approved yet will hold up while they rework their vaccines to be effective against the S. Africa variant?

Vaccines which are already in some trials may not change.

Depending on how long it would take them to reformulate.

 

[MrsHaloFIRE]

I was reading an article yesterday i cant recall where that said dont poopoo the J and J shot bc of the lower efficacy, thats 70pct or whatever was still excellent. I dunno but for my money I'll take the 95pct shot. Why would I want a lesser shot if I could find the higher efficacy one available? Anyone mobile and willing to travel will prob be in the same boat. Or am I being a jerk about it?

 

[braumeister]

I was reading an article yesterday i cant recall where that said dont poopoo the J and J shot bc of the lower efficacy, thats 70pct or whatever was still excellent. I dunno but for my money I'll take the 95pct shot. Why would I want a lesser shot if I could find the higher efficacy one available? Anyone mobile and willing to travel will prob be in the same boat. Or am I being a jerk about it?

I think the lower efficacy is because it's being tested against the newer, more virulent strains, unlike the first vaccines. It's probably fine. They will all most likely come out with reformulated vaccines for booster shots later.

 

[Aerides]

I was reading an article yesterday i cant recall where that said dont poopoo the J and J shot bc of the lower efficacy, thats 70pct or whatever was still excellent. I dunno but for my money I'll take the 95pct shot. Why would I want a lesser shot if I could find the higher efficacy one available? Anyone mobile and willing to travel will prob be in the same boat. Or am I being a jerk about it?

If the J&J shot means I can get it in April vs. August (my likely timeframe for pfizer/moderna, at 51), then you can jab me with that 66-70% right now thank you! Since it's looking like we might need annual boosters anyway, I would always "upgrade" later on if the better ones became more available.

I think it will be a long time before any of us can walk into the pharmacy and pick from a variety of available shots.

 

[audreyh1]

I think the lower efficacy is because it's being tested against the newer, more virulent strains, unlike the first vaccines. It's probably fine. They will all most likely come out with reformulated vaccines for booster shots later.

That single shot option sure is attractive, but I also have concerns about efficacy and not mRNA which is very safe.

 

[RetireBy90]

If the J&J shot means I can get it in April vs. August (my likely timeframe for pfizer/moderna, at 51), then you can jab me with that 66-70% right now thank you! Since it's looking like we might need annual boosters anyway, I would always "upgrade" later on if the better ones became more available.

I think it will be a long time before any of us can walk into the pharmacy and pick from a variety of available shots.

Heard I think a J&J guy on CNBC yesterday saying he thinks there will be some boosters to follow initial shots. I could see different levels of protection from different vaccines and another round in a year or 2 that would “top up” the immunity tank if you will. Just a crazy thought.

 

[REWahoo]

I was reading an article yesterday i cant recall where that said dont poopoo the J and J shot bc of the lower efficacy, thats 70pct or whatever was still excellent. I dunno but for my money I'll take the 95pct shot. Why would I want a lesser shot if I could find the higher efficacy one available? Anyone mobile and willing to travel will prob be in the same boat. Or am I being a jerk about it?

Don't think you are being a jerk, just voicing what many probably think regarding what we've been told about the efficacy of the various vaccines.

Had I not already received the first dose of Moderna a week ago and was still trying to find a way to get a vaccine, I would jump at the chance to get a J and J shot. Remember, not one person in the J and J trial died, or even got sick enough to be hospitalized. Knowing three people my age who died from Covid, that and 70% effectiveness sounds absolutely wonderful.

 

[stepford]

Does anyone know how much the likelihood of "long haul COVID" decreases in the absence of severe illness? Since the J&J shot is apparently quite effective at preventing serious illness, if it was similarly effective at preventing long haul COVID symptoms I would have no reservations whatsoever.

I'm not worried about feeling crappy for a month, but about long term debilitating symptoms or death. If the J&J vaccine prevents the latter at the expense of some increased risk of the former I would jump on it as soon as possible.

 

[Chuckanut]

I was reading an article yesterday i cant recall where that said dont poopoo the J and J shot bc of the lower efficacy, thats 70pct or whatever was still excellent. I dunno but for my money I'll take the 95pct shot. Why would I want a lesser shot if I could find the higher efficacy one available? Anyone mobile and willing to travel will prob be in the same boat. Or am I being a jerk about it?

Alas, the news media loves to toss out a number as though it was handed down from On-high but they don't really understand it.

According to an virologist I heard interviewed the J and J shot was still 85% effective in preventing severe problems from the corona virus. The test group for J and J vaccine was mostly in South Africa where it had to deal with a tougher variant. The might be the reason for the lower percentage. Or, maybe it's just not quite as good. But, it's one shot and easier to keep cool. That's a big plus when taking vaccine to the peasants who live in Lower Slobovia. Given the current chaotic rollout, I would get this vaccine in a heartbeat if it was offered to me today.

Emphasis added:

In South Africa, 95% of cases in the trial were due to a variant known as B.1.351, which is known to be more contagious and carries mutations that may make the virus less susceptible to the antibody immune response — including antibodies prompted by vaccination.
With that variant, “we have a lower protection against milder forms of Covid than we did in the United States, where there were more typical circulating variants,” Dr. Mathai Mammen, the company’s global head of research and development, told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

“Across all geographies, across all variants, we see 85% protection” against severe disease, he said. That trend increased over time, with no severe cases in the vaccinated group after day 49, according to the company.
From one month after the shot, all hospitalizations and deaths occurred in the placebo group.

 

[explanade]

Does anyone know how much the likelihood of "long haul COVID" decreases in the absence of severe illness? Since the J&J shot is apparently quite effective at preventing serious illness, if it was similarly effective at preventing long haul COVID symptoms I would have no reservations whatsoever.

I'm not worried about feeling crappy for a month, but about long term debilitating symptoms or death. If the J&J vaccine prevents the latter at the expense of some increased risk of the former I would jump on it as soon as possible.

I don't think any of them were monitoring long-haul symptoms.

Just whether you had symptoms and were confirmed by PCR tests to be positive.

They weren't monitoring for asymptomatic cases either.

Also the concern is that a lot of asymptomatic cases are shown to have lung scarring, which would at least affect lifestyle or make you vulnerable to other conditions.

 

[Born2Fish]

If the J&J shot means I can get it in April vs. August (my likely timeframe for pfizer/moderna, at 51), then you can jab me with that 66-70% right now thank you! Since it's looking like we might need annual boosters anyway, I would always "upgrade" later on if the better ones became more available.

I think it will be a long time before any of us can walk into the pharmacy and pick from a variety of available shots.

+1.

 

[harllee]

Are people with long haul Covid being advised to take the vaccine? Could it help them? I had reoccurring Shingles and after I took the Shingrix vaccine my Shingles completely stopped. Could there be something similar with the Covid vaccine?

 

[Katsmeow]

Are people with long haul Covid being advised to take the vaccine? Could it help them? I had reoccurring Shingles and after I took the Shingrix vaccine my Shingles completely stopped. Could there be something similar with the Covid vaccine?

I have not had Covid. I did have my first shot of the Moderna vaccine this week. They advised you not to poztpone the vaccine in 3 situations:

If you were sick the day of immunization

If you had received any vaccinations within 14 days or had received any other COVID vaccination

If you had been diagnosed with COVID within the last 90 days

If you had previously had a reaction to any COVID vaccine components (mRNA, several different lipid ingredients)

They said if sick to wait until symptoms are resolved. If had had COVID, wait until 90 days was up.

 

[explanade]

So it doesn't sound like they specifically bar people who've had covid, may still have symptoms, but are not testing positive.


One thing seems to be clear, that immunity from vaccination is stronger than immunity from previous infection. You have higher levels of antibodies and possibly more T and B cells.

But definitely antibodies.

Testing with plasma of recovered patients on new virus strains vs. plasma of vaccinated people showed the latter had more efficacy vs. those new strains, particularly the UK one.

So you do want to get vaccinated, even if you've already been infected.

 

[sengsational]

Are people with long haul Covid being advised to take the vaccine? Could it help them? I had reoccurring Shingles and after I took the Shingrix vaccine my Shingles completely stopped. Could there be something similar with the Covid vaccine?

If I were a long hauler, I'd try it, for sure. But also, I'd not expect much because I'm not so sure it's a problem of virus present and the body not recognizing it. The purpose of a vaccine is to train your body to recognize the bad guy (or actually the snippet of bad-guy-ness that was genetically programmed into the vaccine), and having the disease means the real and entire bad guy has been "seen" already. So theoretically, if you've had the disease, your body has what they call a polyvalent antibody response, and is trained on more pieces of the bad guy than just the spike protein. But because biology is what it is (messy), and there's essentially no risk to getting a vaccination, retraining your immune system to see the spike selected by the vaccine company can't hurt, and who knows, might "refocus attention" to the problem.

 

[bmcgonig]

So it doesn't sound like they specifically bar people who've had covid, may still have symptoms, but are not testing positive.


One thing seems to be clear, that immunity from vaccination is stronger than immunity from previous infection. You have higher levels of antibodies and possibly more T and B cells.

But definitely antibodies.

Testing with plasma of recovered patients on new virus strains vs. plasma of vaccinated people showed the latter had more efficacy vs. those new strains, particularly the UK one.

So you do want to get vaccinated, even if you've already been infected.

According to the TWIV guy on the podcast, you should definitely get vaccinated if you've had Covid recently.

 

[zedd]

What does it say? What does it mean?

I haven't looked at every covid thread so I apologize in advance if this has already been addressed.

Frequently I'm seeing covid vaccine efficacy rates touted in the 90 percentile range. At first blush, percentages like that sound wildly successful. But what does it really mean?

Let's take this study for example:
Peer-Reviewed Report on Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Publishes
Data from Phase 3 Clinical Trial Confirm Vaccine is Effective
December 30, 2020
Source:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/peer-reviewed-report-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-publishes

Highlights:
o Moderna's Covid vaccine, specifically messangerRNA-1273
o It was a trail that ran from July 27, 2020 thru November 21, 2020
o 30,420 participants in the trial
o 15,210 participants were injected with messangerRNA-1273
o 15,210 participants were injected with a placebo
o Thru November 25, 2020, 196 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 occurred
o That breaks down into 11 participants who were treated with the mRNA and 185 with placebo
o Moderna claims that the treatment had an 94.1% efficacy

How did they come up with 94.1% ?

Let's do the math:

In The Context Of This Study (ITCOTS), what was a placebo participant's chance of testing symptomatic for COVID-19?
(185÷15200) or 1.217%

ITCOTS, what was an mRNA participant's chance of testing symptomatic for COVID-19?
(11÷15200) or .072%

Plug those numbers into the following equation:
1 − ((11÷15200) ÷ (185÷15200)) results in .9405 Or as they state it 94.1%

As is common in these pharmaceutical trials, 94.1% is expressed as a RELATIVE difference. Stated another way, Moderna mRNA-1273 reduces the RELATIVE risk of symptomatic COVID-19 by 94.1%. Is that a good thing? It would be helpful to compare the RELATIVE difference to the ABSOLUTE difference.

Let's do the math:

1.217% - .072%, or 1.145%, is the ABSOLUTE percentage risk reduction

Stated another way, Moderna mRNA-1273 reduces the ABSOLUTE risk of symptomatic COVID-19 by 1.145%.

Which number is the barn--burner that gets your attention, 94.1% or 1.145% ?

In The Context Of This Study, stated in ABSOLUTE percentages:
o Placebo participant's had a 98.783% chance of not testing symptomatic COVID-19
o mRNA participant's had a 99.928% chance of not testing symptomatic COVID-19

I found this article to be helpful:
Reporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk |

 

[MichaelB]

I don’t understand the math here.

The Moderna number of 94.1% is not the reduction in relative risk. It’s vaccine efficacy. Of all the people in the vaccine trial it’s the % of people infected that were taking the placebo.

The 1.217% simply cannot be the risk of getting infected with covid, as close to 10% of the entire US population has already been infected.

 

[JoeWras]

I don’t understand the math here.

The Moderna number of 94.1% is not the reduction in relative risk. It’s vaccine efficacy. Of all the people in the vaccine trial it’s the % of people infected that were taking the placebo.

The 1.217% simply cannot be the risk of getting infected with covid, as close to 10% of the entire US population has already been infected.

It is in the time period of the study, which is relatively short (basically Aug-Nov), and not during a major peak time like Dec-Jan.

I'm not sure what zedd is trying to accomplish with the post except to say the absolute numbers during a time period don't look impressive. But those numbers add up over a year's long epidemic, so I'm confused by the post too.

If I walk out my door today and do things in the community, my absolute risk is low for that day. Now if I do that every day for 400 or 500 days? Do I need to get into probability theory to explain my risk for that long time period went up?

 

[Gumby]

Aren't all vaccines measured by relative risk, not absolute risk?

 

[ivinsfan]

It is in the time period of the study, which is relatively short (basically Aug-Nov), and not during a major peak time like Dec-Jan.

I'm not sure what zedd is trying to accomplish with the post except to say the absolute numbers during a time period don't look impressive. But those numbers add up over a year's long epidemic, so I'm confused by the post too.

If I walk out my door today and do things in the community, my absolute risk is low for that day. Now if I do that every day for 400 or 500 days? Do I need to get into probability theory to explain my risk for that long time period went up?

Well I know people who have gone out of their way not to mask and to be out and about more then normal during Covid as kind of a so what..they are 65.



So one year later they haven't had Covid..in a way it kinds of makes me mad.


My DH and I basically hermited so we didn't get covid either, but who had the best year..


On any given day when out and about you either contact Covid or you don't.

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it.



I'm not talking about medical people or in office workers here, just about the average joe.