Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 153   Go Down

Author Topic: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine  (Read 107025 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #320 on: March 08, 2021, 07:17:34 pm »

Unnecessary. The currently known data was already covered in the article which you described as doublespeak. In addition, the article indicated that based on currently limited data you can't really make head to head comparisons among them.

But you can't really compare those numbers head to head, says Pierre, because "these were different trials in different places at different times," and the strains of the coronavirus running around were likely somewhat different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was tested more recently, including in South Africa and Brazil, at a time when more contagious variants of the coronavirus were widely circulating in those countries. The Moderna and Pfizer clinical studies, meanwhile, were started earlier, before such variants had become widespread.

Given those differences, Bibbins-Domingo says "the number you should probably compare is 85%" — that's how effective the J & J vaccine was found to be at preventing severe disease four weeks after immunization.

How the effectiveness of each will be judged over a longer period of time and a broader population is unknown. Efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines are two different measures. At the moment, all we have is limited data on efficacy and and even less data on effectiveness as new variants emerge.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants

So far, studies suggest that the vaccines currently in use can recognize the emerging variants — but they don’t provide as much protection against these new strains. The variant from South Africa, for example, reduced Pfizer-BioNTech’s antibody protection by two-thirds, according to a February study. Moderna’s neutralizing antibodies dropped six-fold with the South Africa variant.

(Experts say that it’s worth noting that Johnson & Johnson’s trials took place when the new variants had already become the dominant strains in South Africa and Brazil, while Moderna’s and Pfizer’s trials took place before that happened.)

Pfizer says South African variant could significantly reduce protective antibodies

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-variants/pfizer-says-south-african-variant-could-significantly-reduce-protective-antibodies

A laboratory study suggests that the South African variant of the coronavirus may reduce protective antibodies elicited by the Pfizer Inc/BioNTech SE vaccine by two-thirds, and it is not clear if the shot will be effective against the mutation, the companies said on Wednesday.

The study found the vaccine was still able to neutralize the virus and there is not yet evidence from trials in people that the variant reduces vaccine protection, the companies said.


https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy

Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in a disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial. It differs from vaccine effectiveness, which measures how well a vaccine works when given to people in the community outside of clinical trials.

Vaccine efficacy only provides information about how well a vaccine works under the conditions of the clinical trial. Scientists usually base it on factors that they can quantify, such as numbers of laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19.

But the ideal conditions of a clinical trial do not necessarily reflect what is happening in the real world outside of clinical trials.

Vaccine effectiveness tells us how well a vaccine works under real-world conditions once people outside of clinical trials receive the vaccine.

The article is doublespeak.  J&J vaccine is not as effective.  The scientists are trying to convince everyone to disregard the numbers because they want people to use this vaccine along with the other more effective vaccines.  So they're downplaying that it's less effective. 

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #321 on: March 08, 2021, 07:34:35 pm »

that is how you are interpreting it. We understand that.
Their presentation is factual. they are not trying to hide anything or lead you astray.


If you had the choice, which we understand you don't have to make anymore, which choice would you make  - AZ or wait another month or more ?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #322 on: March 08, 2021, 07:55:49 pm »

that is how you are interpreting it. We understand that.
Their presentation is factual. they are not trying to hide anything or lead you astray.


If you had the choice, which we understand you don't have to make anymore, which choice would you make  - AZ or wait another month or more?
It's this kind of doublespeak they presented that makes people wary of experts.  They should just say, yes it's 80% or 90% as effective as Moderna and the other but it's effective enough so that you want to take it immediately if it's available.  But they're afraid people won't take it and they want people to be vaccinated even if the effectiveness is slightly less.  But you can't deceive people.  It's like what they said about masks in the beginning.  Once you're caught lying, it's hard to regain trust.  So the reactions to their statements are met negatively.  People know when they're being bullshi**ed.

They are also trying to convince people only one Moderna shot is necessary.  They're doing this for the same reason they're pushing J&J.  They want as many people vaccinated as possible.  But the fact is Moderna has a two-shot protocol.  That's how they tested it.  Who knows what would happen if only one shot is given.  Maybe without the booster being given with the four-week period, the first shot wears off after a few weeks and becomes non-effective.  No one knows.  But so-called "experts" are trying to game the system, again losing the general public who knows doublespeak when they hear it. 

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #323 on: March 08, 2021, 08:14:33 pm »

The article is doublespeak.

That is obviously not true for anyone with average comprehension.

J&J vaccine is not as effective.

Unfortunately, you're still unaware of what the word effective means as applied to vaccines. It will require more time and a great deal more data before any reasonable comparison of effectiveness among various vaccines can begin to be made. Comparative effectiveness of different vaccines may vary by region depending on the predominant variants and any new ones that may arise.

The scientists are trying to convince everyone to disregard the numbers because they want people to use this vaccine along with the other more effective vaccines.  So they're downplaying that it's less effective.

Ignorance combined with paranoia create a poisonous cocktail for the mind.
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #324 on: March 08, 2021, 08:24:37 pm »

That is obviously not true for anyone with average comprehension.

Unfortunately, you're still unaware of what the word effective means as applied to vaccines. It will require more time and a great deal more data before any reasonable comparison of effectiveness among various vaccines can begin to be made. Comparative effectiveness of different vaccines may vary by region depending on the predominant variants and any new ones that may arise.

Ignorance combined with paranoia create a poisonous cocktail for the mind.
Thanks Dr. TeckTalk.  But I'll trust myself regarding my health rather than you. 

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #325 on: March 08, 2021, 08:27:00 pm »


But you can't deceive people.  It's like what they said about masks in ......


The data wasn't there that even minimal masks could have a positive effect no matter how weak. I had the same opinion.   The last thing we needed was a run on N95 masks as that shortage would leave the facilities with a severe shortage and could easily  lead to a collapse of the health care system.

On a public health basis ie across the population, it was demonstrated to help. I changed my mind and started wearing a home made mask before they changed the guidance.

 “ ... People know when they're being bullshi**ed. “

I am not sure anyone can say that with an honest face.


They are also trying to convince people only one Moderna shot is necessary.  They're doing this for the same reason they're pushing J&J.  They want as many people vaccinated as possible. 


For the good of all rather than the good of the individual ie you and me specifically. Efficacy of >50% still makes a big difference for the population. It just takes longer to get the spread reduced.


But the fact is Moderna has a two-shot protocol.  That's how they tested it.  Who knows what would happen if only one shot is given.  Maybe without the booster being given with the four-week period, the first shot wears off after a few weeks and becomes non-effective. 


The limited amount of data does suggest that extending the time between the two shots does not hurt the efficacy too much. You are correct, that approach has not been through a large third stage trial. There are some limited studies under way.


But so-called "experts" are trying to game the system, again losing the general public who knows doublespeak when they hear it.


Not gaming - as that implies deliberate distortion - except for the politicians and some of the media parroting them. Rather they have been transparent about their thoughts and also speculated. The latter gets you in trouble when you are not a politician and are looked at as “expert”.  Bad idea when you are espousing public policy and guidance. KISS has to be followed in that arena. Many experts have a hard time doing that as their world is in shades of gray and nuanced.


« Last Edit: March 08, 2021, 08:32:30 pm by degrub »
Logged

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #326 on: March 08, 2021, 08:27:50 pm »

It's this kind of doublespeak they presented that makes people wary of experts.

Baloney

They should just say, yes it's 80% or 90% as effective as Moderna and the other but it's effective enough so that you want to take it immediately if it's available.

They did... and more. You were unable or unwilling to comprehend it.
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #327 on: March 08, 2021, 08:41:26 pm »


But you can't deceive people.  It's like what they said about masks in ......


The data wasn't there that even minimal masks could have a positive effect no matter how weak. I had the same opinion.   The last thing we needed was a run on N95 masks as that shortage would leave the facilities with a severe shortage and could easily  lead to a collapse of the health care system.

On a public health basis ie across the population, it was demonstrated to help. I changed my mind and started wearing a home made mask before they changed the guidance.

 “the reactions to their statements are met negatively.  People know when they're being bullshi**ed. “

I am not sure anyone can say that with an honest face.


They are also trying to convince people only one Moderna shot is necessary.  They're doing this for the same reason they're pushing J&J.  They want as many people vaccinated as possible. 


For the good of all rather than the good of the individual ie you and me specifically. Efficacy of >50% still makes a big difference for the population. It just takes longer to get the spread reduced.


But the fact is Moderna has a two-shot protocol.  That's how they tested it.  Who knows what would happen if only one shot is given.  Maybe without the booster being given with the four-week period, the first shot wears off after a few weeks and becomes non-effective. 


The limited amount of data does suggest that extending the time between the two shots does not hurt the efficacy too much. You are correct, that approach has not been through a large third stage trial. There are some limited studies under way.


But so-called "experts" are trying to game the system, again losing the general public who knows doublespeak when they hear it.


Not gaming - as that implies deliberate distortion - except for the politicians and some of the media parroting them. Rather they have been transparent about their thoughts and also speculated. The latter gets you in trouble when you are not a politician and are looked at as “expert”.  Bad idea when you are espousing public policy and guidance. KISS has to be followed in that arena. Many experts have a hard time doing that as their world is in shades of gray and nuanced.



Fauci's favorite expression is, "...it seems likely..."   Now that really encourages trust in what he recommends.  How can the layman know what to do or what's best?  Then the politicians who tell you to wear a mask, open up the businesses again only to see the infections pick up, and oops, they shut them down again.  Another thing the public sees that engenders trust that our leaders don't know what they're doing.  So some experts now say we can ignore the Maderna two-shot studies because they know best.  Meanwhile, the two-shot pharmaceutical companies insist that two shots are the right and studied way to go.  So you have public experts disagreeing with the experts who made the vaccines.  But of course, Dr. TechTalk above has made his analysis, a guy who won't even give his first name and has never posted one photo he's ever taken in a photo forum he practices medicine in.  But we should trust his analysis as to the efficacy of the J&J vaccines and skip the second dose of Moderna.  Gee thanks, but no thanks.

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #328 on: March 08, 2021, 08:44:43 pm »

Thanks Dr. TeckTalk.  But I'll trust myself regarding my health rather than you.

You might want to consider listening to people that have spent their lives studying the sciences involved; who have experience in the field of epidemic viral pathology, prevention, and containment; and who develop the vaccines upon which we rely. They know far more about it than either of us.
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #329 on: March 08, 2021, 08:48:35 pm »

You might want to consider listening to people that have spent their lives studying the sciences involved; who have experience in the field of epidemic viral pathology, prevention, and containment; and who develop the vaccines upon which we rely. They know far more about it than either of us.
Exactly.   I trust the recommendations of the pharmaceutical companies that developed the vaccines.  They say take both shots.

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #330 on: March 08, 2021, 08:50:50 pm »

Fauci's favorite expression is, "...it seems likely..."   Now that really encourages trust in what he recommends.  How can the layman know what to do or what's best?  Then the politicians who tell you to wear a mask, open up the businesses again only to see the infections pick up, and oops, they shut them down again.  Another thing the public sees that engenders trust that our leaders don't know what they're doing.  So some experts now say we can ignore the Maderna two-shot studies because they know best.  Meanwhile, the two-shot pharmaceutical companies insist that two shots are the right and studied way to go.  So you have public experts disagreeing with the experts who made the vaccines.  But of course, Dr. TechTalk above has made his analysis, a guy who won't even give his first name and has never posted one photo he's ever taken in a photo forum he practices medicine in.  But we should trust his analysis as to the efficacy of the J&J vaccines and skip the second dose of Moderna.  Gee thanks, but no thanks.

See you down in the corner bar Alan, mask optional, buy you a brew or two. And no, i cannot get a shot yet nor have i had it. Cheers mate .
 ;)
Logged

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #331 on: March 08, 2021, 08:54:53 pm »

Exactly.   I trust the recommendations of the pharmaceutical companies that developed the vaccines.  They say take both shots.

Why ?
It is in their  interest to sell as many doses as possible.  They are just cya ing because they would get sued if they didnt have the stage 3 trial done and have a fed eua.
Governments are under no such restriction.
Logged

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #332 on: March 08, 2021, 08:58:18 pm »

But of course, Dr. TechTalk above has made his analysis, a guy who won't even give his first name and has never posted one photo he's ever taken in a photo forum he practices medicine in.  But we should trust his analysis as to the efficacy of the J&J vaccines and skip the second dose of Moderna.  Gee thanks, but no thanks.

Attacking me won't change any facts regarding: the science of vaccines; how they've been tested; their known efficacy; their unknown effectiveness long term; or the science and common sense applied to recommendations for their use in a pandemic. It will remain so regardless of your awareness of those facts or approval of them—or me.
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #333 on: March 08, 2021, 08:59:59 pm »

See you down in the corner bar Alan, mask optional, buy you a brew or two. And no, i cannot get a shot yet nor have i had it. Cheers mate .
 ;)
Well, my wife and I have had the Moderna shots and it's been two weeks since the last one.  So today, I went into the pizza store and actually ate my pizza slice without a mask on, tempting fate.  I made sure I sat ten feet from everyone else.  Then I sprayed my hands in 91% alcohol when I got back into the car which I just had washed and cleaned after one year of collecting mud.

When we got our first shots, I was concerned they would give our second ones away.  The nurse said we had nothing to worry about.  They were reserving all second shots for their patients who got the first one and we got them on time four weeks later.  Fortunately, the nurse didn't read those expert opinions and articles about skipping the second dose. So I have to admit, getting the two shots does make me feel safer although we're still wearing masks for the most part and aren't getting together with anyone else yet. 

I hope you and everyone else can get their shots as soon as possible.  It does give a lot of confidence that you can get on with your life relatively normally; hopefully not too much.

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #334 on: March 08, 2021, 09:05:25 pm »

You know that the shot only reduces your chances down to about 1 in 20 , at best, of getting a serious case or hospitalization from something close to 1in 1 if infected, all other things being equal ?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #335 on: March 08, 2021, 09:06:37 pm »

Why ?
It is in their  interest to sell as many doses as possible.  They are just cya ing because they would get sued if they didnt have the stage 3 trial done and have a fed eua.
Governments are under no such restriction.
I thought of that.  Except there would still be second shots coming afterwards.  And the more first shots they would give, the more second shots would have to be ordered.  They'd increase sales.

Plus, their recommendation jives with their studies.  How could they legitimately say it's OK to skip the second shot when their whole studies were with two shots and that's what the results concluded.  It would be malpractice for them to say skip the second.  Of course, some governmental guy who knows little about the research work done can theorize whatever he wants without doing any research at all.  He won't be sued.  But why would anyone trust him?

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #336 on: March 08, 2021, 09:09:29 pm »

Attacking me won't change any facts regarding: the science of vaccines; how they've been tested; their known efficacy; their unknown effectiveness long term; or the science and common sense applied to recommendations for their use in a pandemic. It will remain so regardless of your awareness of those facts or approval of them—or me.
If you took a poll, most people would select the more effective vaccine.  Which would you choose?

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #337 on: March 08, 2021, 09:14:13 pm »

First one available
Logged

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #338 on: March 08, 2021, 09:18:46 pm »

Exactly.   I trust the recommendations of the pharmaceutical companies that developed the vaccines.  They say take both shots.

Who advised you not to do so? It certainly wasn't me. The article that I linked, which began your tirade against "experts" and their suspicious (to you) motives, doesn't advise you not to "take both shots" either. If that's what you want to talk about make your own post about it; you don't need to do it by pretending that your replying to me about something that I never advocated.

Of course, that's one major advantage of the J&J vaccine. It's one and done. It's twice as fast at getting a large number of people fully vaccinated. It requires half the number of syringes, half the amount of vaccine, and the same number of personnel can vaccinate twice the number of people in a given period, reducing the load and burden on them by half as well, over time.

In fairness to those who have recommended lengthening intervals between administration of both doses of other vaccines, the recommendation from vaccine makers for dosage intervals — and the decision by some countries to extend those intervals by a certain number of days in order to deliver more first round doses to affect some degree of protective immunity in a larger set of the population more rapidly — is a calculation made on a limited set of data in both instances. Until studies on the relative effectiveness of individual vaccines given at varying intervals have been made thru acquisition of more data, the optimum effective intervals and the affect on overall containment and reduction of severity will remain uncertain for some time.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations

Interval between mRNA doses

The second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines should be administered as close to the recommended interval as possible, but not earlier than recommended (i.e., 3 weeks [Pfizer-BioNTech] or 1 month [Moderna]). However, second doses administered within a grace period of 4 days earlier than the recommended date for the second dose are still considered valid. If it is not feasible to adhere to the recommended interval and a delay in vaccination is unavoidable, the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may be administered up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose. Currently, only limited data are available on efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered beyond this window.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2021, 11:06:19 pm by TechTalk »
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
« Reply #339 on: March 08, 2021, 09:29:45 pm »

Isn't the J&J vaccine less effective than the other two?  I believe around 85% vs. 95%. Which would you rather take?

If you took a poll, most people would select the more effective vaccine.  Which would you choose?

You already asked me three days ago and I responded then. We've been thru this. Why pose your question again as if it's a reply to a later post of mine which is unrelated? If you want to start a poll, start a poll. You don't need my involvement.

First one available

Of course. As I told Alan the first time he asked, "I would follow the advice in the article and take whatever is available to me first." There's no reason to wait when the known risk far exceeds any uncertain potential benefit in waiting.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2021, 12:48:39 am by TechTalk »
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 153   Go Up