I just looked into the Lancet paper published in Dec. on the AstraZeneca vaccine and it does NOT support what you mentioned here. This technology (see this article for details) is very different from the mRNA technology used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. This interim analysis was actually triggered by >=53 cases in the COV002, SD / SD group. The primary overall efficacy rate of 62.1% is computed from symptomatic COVID-19 cases in the SD/SD group. Here, the interim data shows an abysmal efficacy rate of 3.8% for the cases classified as "asymptomatic or symptoms unknown" in the SD/SD group. Therefore, the efficacy rate assessed by NAAT-positive cases in the SD/SD group should be way lower than 62.1%. Meanwhile, according to Table 2, this number is 55.7% for both LD/SD and SD/SD groups.
There are several vaccines in Phase III worldwide, but ... Curevac's is mRNA-based like Moderna's but supposedly can be stored at room temps for up to 24 hours. J&J/Janssen's is similar to Oxford's vaccine and uses an inactivated cold virus.
The Mutated Virus Is a Ticking Time Bomb There is much we don’t know about the new COVID-19 variant—but everything we know so far suggests a huge danger. ZEYNEP TUFEKCIDECEMBER 31, 2020 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/12/virus-mutation-catastrophe/617531/ A more transmissible variant of COVID-19 is a potential catastrophe in and of itself. If anything, given the stage in the pandemic we are at, a more transmissible variant is in some ways much more dangerous than a more severe variant. That’s because higher transmissibility subjects us to a more contagious virus spreading with exponential growth, whereas the risk from increased severity would have increased in a linear manner, affecting only those infected. Increased transmissibility can wreak havoc in a very, very short time—especially when we already have uncontrolled spread in much of the United States. The short-term implications of all this are significant, and worthy of attention, even as we await more clarity from data. In fact, we should act quickly especially as we await more clarity—lack of data and the threat of even faster exponential growth argue for more urgency of action. If and when more reassuring data come in, relaxing restrictions will be easier than undoing the damage done by not having reacted in time. To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time. ...
Maybe someone with more expertise can explain something to me. 1. The new variant is 70% more transmissible (approximately, as far as we know). 2. This means that either: (a) individual virus particles are 70% better at entering cells, or (b) once hijacking a human cell they produce 70% more virus, or (c) some combo of a and b. 3. In general, a human gets more ill with a virus as the viral load increases in the body. (That's just in general, as I understand it.) So if 2 is true, how can it be that this new variant won't get people more sick? If it's better at spreading person to person, it seems like it will be better spreading from cell to cell, making people... 70% more sick. I could be totally wrong and am not a biologist. Maybe the new variant simply lives for a longer amount of time outside of the human body. That could make it more transmissible without increasing individual illness, I guess.
Not a clue. I read that the new variant mutation makes it bind more easily and enter cells easier ("stickier" that yield higher load). No data that it stays on surfaces or air longer. Maybe a higher viral load doesn't actually mean deadlier in and of itself? "If you have a high viral load, you are more likely to infect other people, because you may be shedding more virus particles. However, in the case of covid-19, it doesn’t necessarily follow that a higher viral load will lead to more severe symptoms."
My understanding is that "70% more transmissible" means a 70% increase in the basic reproduction number, which is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection. The number is affected by many different factors and it is normally negatively correlated with the death rate (since an infected person can no longer spread the virus if he / she is dead).
My girlfriend received the initial dose of the vaccine on Dec 20th (pfizer). On the evening of Dec 30th she lost her taste and smell. Tested positive for COVID on the 31st. Now it has to be noted she is a ER Nurse who has seen 5 COVID positive patients after getting the shot and prior to testing positive. So she was high-risk of getting it. The only symptoms she has right now is no taste and smell, headache and minor stuffiness in her sinus. Its like a cold pretty much is what she says. If those mild symptoms are of a result of having the vaccine and a built up immunity or not I don't know. Its crazy though, shes probably seen 1000+ patients who were C+ since this all began and literally right after she gets the vaccine she gets it. Just ugh, that's 2020 giving her one last F-U.
My dad got his vaccination today. He said it was pretty organized and quick. Hopefully, these initial road bumps in the rollout get cleaned up quickly. I think not holding any vaccine doses in reserve is probably the correct decision.
The worst part of retirement is seeing that ad while watching Andy Griffith, Gomer Pyle and Hogan's Heroes.
Hey, I live in a world of pollen and dust, so my sinuses love that thing. I didn't let Tom Selleck sell me a reverse mortgage, but that particular product is solid.
Can’t speak for your gfriend but I’m actually not that surprised so many people are getting it after the first dose. Mostly because I’ve learned from experience that being careful for 9 months and then once letting your guard down is exactly how I got it. I assume many folks after their first dose will understandably let their guard down. But honestly we have no idea if there’s something not caught in the trials. It was one of the most extensive studies ever done but never say never. I will say this though. The vaccine is risk/reward. Take it from me personally that if it is proven to protect or lessen the effects even a slight amount it’s worth the risk. Covid without the vaccine first for me has been a nightmare.
Could I ask where he lives and through what outlet he got the shot? I'm trying to help my parents navigate this in central TX. They just keep calling their doctor's office but aren't getting anywhere. (In their 80's, so I think they are relatively high priority.) Cheers.
