- Time of past OR future Camino
- Annually - often more - from 2014
Pfizer vaccine news!
Refer to a reputable news provider of your choice.
Refer to a reputable news provider of your choice.
For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Covid vaccine: First 'milestone' vaccine offers 90% protection
The vaccine is a "significant step" forward for getting life back to normal, but challenges remain.www.bbc.co.uk
I was about to add a question mark to the thread title but decided to be positive...
Approval will take some weeks and there is then the problem of administering the vaccine.
It needs to be stored at around -80C (yes, minus 80 degrees Celsius) and requires 2 doses with a 3 week interval but anyway, GOOD NEWS.
I hope I am not being premature but my congratulations and thanks are offered to the team(s) involved.
PS : I see I have placed this in "Announcements" but perhaps it deserves to be there...
I have a huge freezer all welcome "Vorsprung durch Technik" well done.Covid vaccine: First 'milestone' vaccine offers 90% protection
The vaccine is a "significant step" forward for getting life back to normal, but challenges remain.www.bbc.co.uk
I was about to add a question mark to the thread title but decided to be positive...
Approval will take some weeks and there is then the problem of administering the vaccine.
It needs to be stored at around -80C (yes, minus 80 degrees Celsius) and requires 2 doses with a 3 week interval but anyway, GOOD NEWS.
I hope I am not being premature but my congratulations and thanks are offered to the team(s) involved.
Edited once to remove a note re opening a new thread.
I will change the title and make the thread a “sticky” in the covid sub-forum. No way (at least none that I know of) to make it the first post to come up on Latest Posts panel. But I’ll ask the management.Forgive my replying to my own post :
After reading the news on the BBC website at about 1430GMT I immediately came to this forum and found ...nothing (related) in the Latest Posts panel. So posted the not-news...
Should the first post on something of this nature remain in the Latest Posts for a fixed time rather than drop out in the usual fashion? Merely asking...
I know you are being humorous but it did make me think.I have a huge freezer all welcome
Invest in the companies that make dosage phials suitable for - 80 degree centigrade (-112 degrees Fahrenheit), and the syringes they need billions. Hopefully the glass is recyclable because that is an awful lot of very specialist glass, and seemingly cannot be manufactured until they know what size is needed.I know you are being humorous but it did make me think.
How about investing in firms which make laboratory freezers (able to achieve -85C) because we are going to need a lot of them?
Further reflection : we are probably already too late.
At the risk of being disciplined for thread drift...Invest in the companies that make dosage phials suitable for - 80 degree centigrade (-112 degrees Fahrenheit), and the syringes they need billions. Hopefully the glass is recyclable because that is an awful lot of very specialist glass, and seemingly cannot be manufactured until they know what size is needed.
It's a bit like painting a room, everyone thinks of the cost etc of the paint and many forget the applicators and other paraphernalia needed to actually do the job. Except in this case you may need to wait months for the phials and syringes. 50 million ordered by the UK alone if it gets through its independant regulatory tests seemingly.
Thanks for the heads up on the phial materials. Still billions to be made, as well as syringes, so lots of profits to be made. The temperature for the Pfizer stuff is right down to patient delivery.At the risk of being disciplined for thread drift...
The industry is ahead on this. It looks as though glass vials are a poor choice ; the material in favour for very low temperatures is "a cyclic olefin polymer" whatever precisely that may be.
I would expect syringes to be "normal" i.e plastic and disposable. It should not be too difficult to increase production to meet this new demand.
The low temperature storage requirement may only need to be enforced at what are called "high levels" in the supply chain (national and regional levels) with more modest requirements in the community.
It requires two injections as well.Thanks for the heads up on the phial materials. Still billions to be made, as well as syringes, so lots of profits to be made. The temperature for the Pfizer stuff is right down to patient delivery.
Back to thread, still looks like mid 21 before quantities available to carry out the minimum number of injections needed in Europe. To get good coverage though, after listening to the science all afternoon, probably much later in the year before it could initially be envisaged any relaxing of travel rules and social distancing. On the basis of those opinions my plans will be underway as of today for a toddle along the Way in 2022. Hopefully see some of you then.
And the 90% effectiveness rate is (according to the BBC) at day 7 after the second injection (and subject to further data analysis), and more testing is required to confirm how long the vaccine will provide protection. Nevertheless promising news.It requires two injections as well.
Not always the vaccine candidate (Pfizer) who is first to announce the victory, end up being the winnerThis is the second piece of excellent news I have received in as many days!
....... The data is from 94 people so a very small trial. .......
@arthur1218, did you bother following either of those exciting links you found? The Sputnik link is just a bit of spoof advertising and your NYT link is from 2009. Similar stories can be found in regard to most of Big-Pharma stretching back decades and from much more recent debacles.
I place no more faith in todays announcements than you appear to do but I'll not bother chasing internet bollocks to justify my scepticism. I'll just plan my next Camino for when I feel I am safe to walk it.
A very positive and welcome development. But be mindful that this is 'science by press release' and a long way from the gold standard of peer reviewed and government approval. The data is from 94 people so a very small trial. And big pharma is famous for later developments not living up to the promise of their early press releases.
But ever so hopeful that there may be something mid-late 2021.
I also thought this when I first read the article but further down it explains that thousands are in the trial and that the 94 number is the number of people infected, either after taking the placebo or the real vaccine.
They are apparently waiting for 146 people to be infected to check for side effects.
Thanks for the heads up on the phial materials. Still billions to be made, as well as syringes, so lots of profits to be made. The temperature for the Pfizer stuff is right down to patient delivery.
I enjoyed following the conversation so far. Reading what people think, what people know and what they don’t know, what they want to talk about because they find it relevant for their future camino plans and are excited about.those chirping about glass vs. plastic vials/syringes; about appropriate freezers/temps; about investing in -85 freezers (which are standard in every hospital, by the way), should remove themselves from the conversation. This expertise exists, but the forum is not the epicentre for that expertise.
You speak for me...it's all about being hopeful.Unlike some, I don’t see walking a camino as anything other than part of the established pattern of my life; and I welcome anything which might promise progress towards normality. I’m not minded to pack my bag this afternoon and head to the airport; but I feel more confident in anticipating that today than I did yesterday.
I appreciate your input and basically agree, but are you saying this thread should be closed by the mods as it has almost no value?This expertise exists, but the forum is not the epicentre for that expertise. Fred and Martha offering up freezer space in their Camino cooler by the side of the road adds nothing to the conversation.
Hopefully you did your laundry?
And I wanted to say I hoped he kept all the zippers shut to keep the bedbugs contained.Hopefully you did your laundry?
Hi, @Marbe2, I heard and read quite a bit about this exciting development yesterday, but one thing that stuck out is that Pfizer has not (yet, I assume) released the actual data, so lots of news outlets have many questions just like yours. I think we just sit tight and wait.It is hopeful....but I have not actually seen the stats and I have some real questions about the 90 percent efficacy. Can someone help me out here?
Could it be that that only 84 people got Covid from the placebo group
( approximately N= 22000) circa 4 in 1000? This is significantly less than one would expect, particularly when part of the sample was from the USA with a much higher infection rate... I am wondering whether both groups were sufficiently exposed to the virus?
We do not know the how long the antibodies will last? Right now I think, we only know it shows some protection for a few weeks, may turn out to be much longer, but we do not know that yet?
And we do not know how it will impact older populations and those with diabetes, heart disease asthma, etc.
While I welcome the news, I am not ready to buy a ticket just yet!
We should just step on the brakes and just be happy science is getting close.
it is apparent to me that no one here, including myself really knows what they are talking about. Especially those who seem to be in some manner, shape or form, anti-vaxxers.
Have been involved in medical research for decades. While we are all twitching to get back on the Camino, those chirping about glass vs. plastic vials/syringes; about appropriate freezers/temps; about investing in -85 freezers (which are standard in every hospital, by the way), should remove themselves from the conversation. This expertise exists, but the forum is not the epicentre for that expertise. Fred and Martha offering up freezer space in their Camino cooler by the side of the road adds nothing to the conversation. Sit back. Trust the experts. Plan your trip for 1.5-2 years from now. At the earliest.
@mjal, I for one, have always appreciated your input to these types of threads. You bring much "to the table" with your background as a medical doctor.
If you are like me you may simply try to understand what the figures mean that are bandied about. As far as I can make out: 94 persons in the trial are known to have been infected with this Coronavirus, 85 in the placebo group and 9 in the vaccinated group, hence the split is 90,4% and 9,6%. This is what I understand when they say in the press release that the vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective. The figure is likely to change as the trial progresses. Apparently, the equivalent number for flu vaccines is around 50%.Could it be that that only 84 people got Covid from the placebo group (approximately N= 22000) circa 4 in 1000? This is significantly less than one would expect, particularly when part of the sample was from the USA with a much higher infection rate... I am wondering whether both groups were sufficiently exposed to the virus?
There's the science; the logistics of delivery; and then there is the uptake.
Compulsory vaccination or not?
If you are like me you may simply try to understand what the figures mean that are bandied about. As far as I can make out: 94 persons in the trial are known to have been infected with this Coronavirus, 85 in the placebo group and 9 in the vaccinated group, hence the split is 90,4% and 9,6%. This is what I understand when they say in the press release that the vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective. The figure is likely to change as the trial progresses. Apparently, the equivalent number for flu vaccines is around 50%.
There is no way of knowing how many people in the trial had been exposed to a potential coronavirus infection. The Pfizer protocol says that they selected participants who, in the judgment of the investigator, are at higher risk for acquiring COVID-19 (including, but not limited to, use of mass transportation, relevant demographics, and frontline essential workers).
I think it is a dead end if you try to relate this 90% figure to infection rates.
There's apparently a difference between vaccine effectiveness and vaccine efficacy but I wouldn't be able to explain it.
Without having dived too deep into it, it seems to me that this number (> 90%) corresponds to how efficacy / effectiveness had been defined by the competent national authorities for large-scale trials (which are apparently called Phase III trials) in order to grant approval that will allow the product to be used as a vaccine for the population in general within that country.the numbers being provided in the sample group were relatively low in both groups compared to the general population and therefore are likely questionable for many a researcher.
I don't think that this is a decision to be made by the biotechnological and pharmaceutical companies who develop, test and market such products. It's up to the national authorities in every country to decide.What also concerns me is that nursing home patients have been identified for the vaccination ASAP.... Perhaps it would have made more sense to offer it to healthy seniors with no preexisting conditions for the trials, even if one had to offer a substantial fiscal incentive to participate, rather than to innoculate the most vulnerable unhealthy senior population?
, stupid me. I should have looked here: https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf - Point 9.4.2. Efficacy Analyses. It explains in some detail how the percentage/ratio is calculated. No wonder that there is no easy/accurate explanation to be found in most of the places where I had looked earlier.I confess that it took me a while and some reading/googling/discarding chaff from wheat to figure out how they obtained this "> 90 %" result
I personally have no opinion about which groups should be vaccinated first. As far as I can tell, the various countries have developed slightly different plans and scenarios in this respect. Also, there may well be quite different vaccines for COVID-19. As I understand it, Pfizer/Biontech, GSK/Curavac and Moderna are each developing a novel vaccine of a similar kind while others work on more conventional vaccines.Katerina, how can doctors decide if the vaccine will “do no harm” to folks in Senior living facililies if their physicians have Insufficient data to make that determination?
@Tincatinker, you are one of the forum treasures and I thank you for all the wise words you interject here and there. I am a lover of humor, and often you add a dry pun to your posts, which I always find amusing.My emphysema, and my heart disease, keep me pretty confined and lonely just now. But I sit with my sleeve rolled up waiting for a little injection of hope.
Meanwhile I wear my mask, carry my hand gel and “Ditch Pig” my local paths.
Life has never been “safe”, we die from disease, disaster, distraction and direction. Every new day is a bet against circumstance, happenstance and the random humour of our gods.
If you’re not sure what the answer is you’re probably asking the wrong question.
And Moderna has caught up with their competitors: more than 30,000 participants, 95 cases of which 90 in the placebo group and 5 in the vaccinated group and a "point estimate of vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (p<0.0001)".Pfizer/Biontech, GSK/Curavac and Moderna are each developing a novel vaccine of a similar kind while others work on more conventional vaccines.
Sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner. I apologize as I did leaveAs someone who commented earlier in the thread, I think you are overstating your case to say that "no one here....knows what they are talking about"
SThere are several on this forum who are scientifically or medically qualified ; I number myself among the latter. Many of my posts here are aimed at correcting misconceptions in the medical field. I claim no specialist experience in virology, immunology or epidemiology but I think that I am capable of reading original research and recording the salient features.
Now, you seem to have spotted "anti-vaxxers" posting in this thread ; I have not. The general tenor of the conversation, in my view, has been "bring it on".
For the record, I am entirely supportive of immunisations in general, as would be expected having been responsible for the administration of many hundreds in the past, and I shall certainly be taking up the offer of Covid-19 immunisation as soon as it is available...logistics permitting.
As I understand it, they are looking only at the study participants who did get sick, conformed by a PCR test. They determine the effectiveness of the vaccine by how many in the placebo group got sick vs those who got the vaccine.I have been following this thread off and on, and have read most of the posts. If this question has already been asked and answered forgive me.
I have a question about how the trial was conducted. My understanding is that volunteers were not purposefully exposed to the virus. That would be something called a challenge trial, I think. So if people were not purposefully exposed to the virus, how does Pfizer or any other drug company know if the people who didn’t get the virus were just lucky and never got exposed to it, or were exposed to it and didn’t get it?
As I understand it, they are looking only at the study participants who did get sick, conformed by a PCR test. They determine the effectiveness of the vaccine by how many in the placebo group got sick vs those who got the vaccine.
And Moderna has caught up with their competitors: more than 30,000 participants, 95 cases of which 90 in the placebo group and 5 in the vaccinated group
I believe that it's the statistical probabilities.Don’t they need to have some data on actual exposure to know about efficacy of the vaccine, or do statistical probabilities take care of that?
Yes, statistical probability. That is why the total number of participants is important. If there is a big enough number of participants AND the participant selection protocols are relatively unbiased AND they correctly adjust the results for small differences between the participant groups and the characteristics of the total population then they can have (a statistically significant) confidence in the results.So that means the assumption must be that if this is random, all volunteers were exposed to the virus at approximately the same rate? Otherwise, if only 5 people in the vaccinated group were exposed to the virus and all got sick, it would be meaningless. Don’t they need to have some data on actual exposure to know about efficacy of the vaccine, or do statistical probabilities take care of that?
The weakness that I see, comes about as a result of only testing participants who are obviously sick.
This means that the results of the vaccine as a protection from serious illness can be relied on but we don't know how effective it is in reducing the prevalence of the disease.
I suspect that secondary trials will be needed to get information on how effective the vaccines are at reducing the prevalence of the disease.
Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%
If you’re not sure what the answer is you’re probably asking the wrong question.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.