Jump to content

Covid-19 News/Discussion


bucsfan333

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Ahh you're right - Pfizer and Moderna work the same way. J&J is different. My bad on that.

For a vaccine where the mechanism of action is the same, there's no reason to suspect otherwise. So what I said applies for Moderna/Pfizer. I'd agree that J&J would need more data supporting it. 

This is where i was really skeptical when presented with the option of mix-n-match vaccines. I opted for the double-double because it's something that has at least been ostensibly studied...But the mix of Pfizer/Moderna was something of an experiment.

 

But Canada have dabbled in the experiment and stood by it, while other countries refused to acknowledge "vaccine mixing".

And then there was the whole AstraZeneca fiasco, where they still legitimately don't seem to know what to do.  So they just had people getting like mRNA boosters.

 

Is that effective?  It seems questionable... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

This is where i was really skeptical when presented with the option of mix-n-match vaccines. I opted for the double-double because it's something that has at least been ostensibly studied...But the mix of Pfizer/Moderna was something of an experiment.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.10.21264827v1.full.pdf

So, to be clear, we do have data on all 3 version of mix-and-match.

Quote

Methods:
In this phase 1/2 open-label clinical trial conducted at ten U.S. sites, adults who received one of three EUA Covid-19 vaccines at least 12 weeks prior to enrollment and had no reported history of SARS-CoV-2 infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines (Moderna mRNA-1273 100-μg, Janssen Ad26.COV2.S 5×1010 virus particles, or Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 30-μg; nine combinations). The primary outcomes were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on study days 15 and 29.

Results:
458 individuals were enrolled: 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.CoV2.S, and 154 received BNT162b2 booster vaccines. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. Injection site pain, malaise, headache, and myalgia occurred in more than half the participants. Booster vaccines increased the neutralizing activity against a D614G pseudovirus (4.2-76-fold) and binding antibody titers (4.6-56-fold) for all combinations; homologous boost increased neutralizing antibody titers 4.2-20-fold whereas heterologous boost increased titers 6.2-76-fold. Day 15 neutralizing and binding antibody titers varied by 28.7-fold and 20.9-fold, respectively, across the nine prime-boost combinations.

 

58 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

And then there was the whole AstraZeneca fiasco, where they still legitimately don't seem to know what to do.  So they just had people getting like mRNA boosters.

 

Is that effective?  It seems questionable... 

Yeah I'm not keeping up on the AZ, so I can't speak to that. But at least among the 3 current EUA vaccines in the US, we do have all 9 cross-combinations studied with no safety or efficacy concerns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/secret-vaccine-contracts-governments-pfizer-165436379.html

@ramssuperbowl99 can you provide some insight here? Not trying to derail anything, but could use an opinion of someone in the field please.

Pharmaceutical pricing isn't my area, but in general, I wouldn't be surprised if they used how quickly this was available as leverage. The advanced orders and demand was at least mostly in public (and popular across each administration), so that doesn't feel scummy, and the relatively low price ($20/dose US, less in poorer countries) passes the smell test as acceptable to me, but I won't defend the pricing system for pharmaceuticals in this country at all.

Personally, I would be in favor of (at bare minimum) a law that puts a buyout clause in all New Drug Applications, where a one time payment would be made from the government to buy out any intellectual property, and the price on the buyout would have specific criteria and be subject to regulatory feedback prior to approval.

Don't really know if I can elaborate more than that without getting overtly political.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Personally, I would be in favor of (at bare minimum) a law that puts a buyout clause in all New Drug Applications, where a one time payment would be made from the government to buy out any intellectual property, and the price on the buyout would have specific criteria and be subject to regulatory feedback prior to approval.

Don't really know if I can elaborate more than that without getting overtly political.

Got it!

I figured that last sentence was a part of it, and I really showed some restraint by not going off on a rant, so I'll go ahead and pat myself on the back here.

Parks And Recreation America GIF

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Got it!

I figured that last sentence was a part of it, and I really showed some restraint by not going off on a rant, so I'll go ahead and pat myself on the back here.

For the secret court rulings/arbitration proceedings, I'd ask @SwAgif there's any justification beyond just "nothing to see here". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Africa:

 

https://www.who.int/news/item/30-07-2021-new-consortium-working-to-boost-vaccine-production-in-south-africa

 

It's like, why is the WHO funding vaccine "development" there?  When there are about a dozen functional vaccines already researched and ready to roll.  If there isn't enough supply, there are capacities in Africa to manufacture it.  But they're stuck sorta..."developing" their own version.  For no apparent reason other than profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 66 percent of the nation’s population has received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose, according to data tracked by The Washington Post. A growing number of industrialized countries have surpassed the United States on this count, even though many had later starts in their vaccine rollouts.

 

Pfizer and BioNTech reported their coronavirus vaccine is 91 percent effective in children 5 to 11 years old in documents posted Friday ahead of a Tuesday meeting where experts are scheduled to debate whether the shots are safe and effective.

 

Paywalled:

 

You’re not ‘fully vaccinated.’ You never will be.

It’s a goal for communities or nations, not for individuals

Quote

All of this boils down to, essentially, an ongoing attempt to define “fully vaccinated.” Who is “fully vaccinated” against covid-19, and for how long? The honest answer is that the target is moving before our eyes.  Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says people are fully vaccinated “2 weeks after their second dose” of Pfizer or Moderna, or “2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine” such as Johnson & Johnson. This definition is already obsolete; as of last month, the agency also recommends third doses of the Pfizer shot for high-risk groups after six months. Soon the recommendation is expected to extend to everyone over 40. There is legitimate disagreement among experts, and important debate as to the prudence of such a move, all part of the attempt to define “fully vaccinated.”  If “fully vaccinated” is useful as a concept, it’s more at the level of the population than the individual. There is probably no amount of vaccine that can guarantee an 84-year-old with blood cancer is absolutely protected from covid-19 — or from anything else. When people are old and sick, even a mild illness can push them over the edge into respiratory or cardiac failure. The goal of vaccination is to drive a virus out of a population. This means everyone getting their first and second doses so that everyone is functionally protected.                    

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/fully-vaccinated-coronavirus/2021/10/21/d0f9a2d4-321b-11ec-93e2-dba2c2c11851_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tugboat said:

It's like, why is the WHO funding vaccine "development" there?

I bet it's to help establish the South African mRNA technology transfer hub that will allow for greater and more diversified vaccines manufacturing capability, strengthen African regional health security and respond more equitably to the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second Moderna jab has absolutely annihilated me.   I've been down for a week.  Went to get tested for CoVid yesterday, thinking I had possibly, unknowingly, been exposed, and the timing was just coincidence; thankfully tested negative.  I had CoVid a year ago, and this is similar.  Lost taste and smell, but wasn't seeing where that was listed as a side effect of the vaccine.   First shot only had slight symptoms for maybe 6 hours, and then just some fatigue.  Second has been a completely different ball game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OkeyDoke21 said:

Second Moderna jab has absolutely annihilated me.   I've been down for a week.  Went to get tested for CoVid yesterday, thinking I had possibly, unknowingly, been exposed, and the timing was just coincidence; thankfully tested negative.  I had CoVid a year ago, and this is similar.  Lost taste and smell, but wasn't seeing where that was listed as a side effect of the vaccine.   First shot only had slight symptoms for maybe 6 hours, and then just some fatigue.  Second has been a completely different ball game.

That’s Moderna for you. At least you’ll be better protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...