UK NHS likely to roll out CoViD 19 vaccine as early as Dec 7.

[BacktoCricaddict]

This is great breaking news that I thought deserved its own thread.  Mods, if you disagree, please merge with other Pfizer thread.  Thanks.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/hospitals-england-told-prepare-early-december-covid-vaccine-rollout-nhs

 

Quote

Hospitals have been told to prepare for the rollout of a coronavirus vaccine in as little as 10 days’ time, with NHS workers expected to be at the front of the queue, the Guardian has learned.

NHS bosses said hospitals in England could expect to receive their first deliveries of a vaccine produced by Pfizer/BioNTech as soon as Monday 7 December, with regulatory approval anticipated within days.

According to sources at several hospitals across the country, NHS England said they should expect to get stocks of vaccine on 7, 8 or 9 December.

 

[mishra]

 

For past 2 months government has been recruiting people for the purpose. So we knew that vaccine rollout is imminent.

 

Interestingly they have elevated restriction level. I believe is is also down to vaccination program

 

 

[coffee_rules]

 

 

 

After any FDA approval, I will be willing. Lets see all side-effects. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

50 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 

 

After any FDA approval, I will be willing. Lets see all side-effects. 

UK's version of FDA (MHRA) is expected to approve this week.  FDA EUA should come through this week also. 

 

Side effect data are already available after Phase III trials (>41000 participants).  3.8 % experienced fatigue and 2% headache.  Of course, post-market monitoring may reveal more side-effects because of millions of doses given, but at this time, they are minimal. 

 

I am a skeptic until data show otherwise.  In this case, the data are there and the optimism is warranted.  When I post this on my SM, it is garnering much less enthusiasm than grandma's concoction of bleach, HCQ and herbal extracts from the Andes.  Pity.        

 

 

[dial_100]

In the meantime, someone please post any valuable information for the forum members, especially if there is any virologist or some one who understands virology in general. 

 

What exactly it means to take virus vaccine? What are the down sides of it once injected? I can easily search on YT but i wouldnt know which source to trust on this subject.

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

9 minutes ago, dial_100 said:

In the meantime, someone please post any valuable information for the forum members, especially if there is any virologist or some one who understands virology in general. 

 

What exactly it means to take virus vaccine? What are the down sides of it once injected? I can easily search on YT but i wouldnt know which source to trust on this subject.

 

 

 

Does a biochemist/molecular biologist who does HIV AIDS research count?  

[BacktoCricaddict]

What exactly it means to take virus vaccine? What are the down sides of it once injected? I can easily search on YT but i wouldnt know which source to trust on this subject.

 

Am not sure what you mean by "virus vaccine." I am guessing you mean to ask a vaccine that protects against a virus.

 

When your body encounters a foreign organism, it develops an immune memory.  Next time the same thing appears, your body launches its immune response quickly and neutralizes it.  Vaccines in general are designed to "mimic" an infectious organism minus the infectious properties. 

 

In the old days, they would simply kill the virus/bacterium using heat or some chemical and use it as a vaccine.  It is dead and harmless, it would still have some structure intact, and trigger an immune response (which is why you may experience mild symptoms).  More importantly, it creates the immune memory without causing the infection.  If you encounter the real organism at some point, the aforementioned immune response kicks in and neutralizes it.  

 

These days, things have got very sophisticated.  We can figure out the virus structure part by part.  Some of those parts are unique to that particular virus and are also enough to trigger the immune memory or response.  So, you don't even need to kill the whole virus.  Instead you can manufacture just the single unique part and inject it.  If the real virus with that part infects you, you are ready for it.  

 

The downsides are mild symptoms of the infection (usually muscle pain, fever, fatigue, headaches).  In some very rare cases, people's immune system can over-react and cause severe allergic complications.  Here is a list of side-effects for each vaccine:  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

 

Everything else you hear (like autism) are based on fraudulent claims or flimsy correlations and have been disproven again and again.   If you are interested in specifics, please ask and I will try to answer.  

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[dial_100]

23 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Does a biochemist/molecular biologist who does HIV AIDS research count?  

 

Dude. I am just a dump, old layman. Wouldnt know the difference of one from the other. So biochemist/molecular biologist sounds way to complicated for me but whoever understands the topic.

 

HIV AIDS research? NOT bad eh!. thats awesome. Good for you man.

[dial_100]

14 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

What exactly it means to take virus vaccine? What are the down sides of it once injected? I can easily search on YT but i wouldnt know which source to trust on this subject.

 

Am not sure what you mean by "virus vaccine." I am guessing you mean to ask a vaccine that protects against a virus.

 

When your body encounters a foreign organism, it develops an immune memory.  Next time the same thing appears, your body launches its immune response quickly and neutralizes it.  Vaccines in general are designed to "mimic" an infectious organism minus the infectious properties. 

 

In the old days, they would simply kill the virus/bacterium using heat or some chemical and use it as a vaccine.  It is dead and harmless, it would still have some structure intact, and trigger an immune response (which is why you may experience mild symptoms).  More importantly, it creates the immune memory without causing the infection.  If you encounter the real organism at some point, the aforementioned immune response kicks in and neutralizes it.  

 

These days, things have got very sophisticated.  We can figure out the virus structure part by part.  Some of those parts are unique to that particular virus and are also enough to trigger the immune memory or response.  So, you don't even need to kill the whole virus.  Instead you can manufacture just the single unique part and inject it.  If the real virus with that part infects you, you are ready for it.  

 

The downsides are mild symptoms of the infection (usually muscle pain, fever, fatigue, headaches).  In some very rare cases, people's immune system can over-react and cause severe allergic complications.  Here is a list of side-effects for each vaccine:  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

 

Everything else you hear (like autism) are based on fraudulent claims or flimsy correlations and have been disproven again and again.   If you are interested in specifics, please ask and I will try to answer.  

 

 

Well first off, I appreciate your efforts in explaining. I understand what you just said. What someone like me would need to understand if I die of a bad vaccine or not? Or just some bad symptoms and then I am ok without any benefit of vaccine against that particular virus. 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

37 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

What exactly it means to take virus vaccine? What are the down sides of it once injected? I can easily search on YT but i wouldnt know which source to trust on this subject.

 

Am not sure what you mean by "virus vaccine." I am guessing you mean to ask a vaccine that protects against a virus.

 

When your body encounters a foreign organism, it develops an immune memory.  Next time the same thing appears, your body launches its immune response quickly and neutralizes it.  Vaccines in general are designed to "mimic" an infectious organism minus the infectious properties. 

 

In the old days, they would simply kill the virus/bacterium using heat or some chemical and use it as a vaccine.  It is dead and harmless, it would still have some structure intact, and trigger an immune response (which is why you may experience mild symptoms).  More importantly, it creates the immune memory without causing the infection.  If you encounter the real organism at some point, the aforementioned immune response kicks in and neutralizes it.  

 

These days, things have got very sophisticated.  We can figure out the virus structure part by part.  Some of those parts are unique to that particular virus and are also enough to trigger the immune memory or response.  So, you don't even need to kill the whole virus.  Instead you can manufacture just the single unique part and inject it.  If the real virus with that part infects you, you are ready for it.  

 

The downsides are mild symptoms of the infection (usually muscle pain, fever, fatigue, headaches).  In some very rare cases, people's immune system can over-react and cause severe allergic complications.  Here is a list of side-effects for each vaccine:  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

 

Everything else you hear (like autism) are based on fraudulent claims or flimsy correlations and have been disproven again and again.   If you are interested in specifics, please ask and I will try to answer.  

 

 

 

In a population that is half-vaccinated and half not, wouldn't it cause the vaccination to be ineffective? Like the kids measles vaccine. There are a lot of people who don't give it to their kids due to some religious binding. Why would any religion decide this is alien to me, but some orthodox jews, Islam and probably christians probably mandate this. Would any of that factor in case of corona (like only some vaccinated, hence it will be ineffective to even those that are vaccinated)? Measles is also caused by virus, I suppose

[Clarke]

@BacktoCricaddict Once approved, this will be the first time an RNA vaccine will be used on humans on such a scale, correct ? 

 

What's your view on the reported neurological issues by a Chennai volunteer for the AstraZeneca vaccine ? Even if its a remote possibility, say one in hundred thousand, its a bit scary for common folks.

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 hours ago, dial_100 said:

 

Dude. I am just a dump, old layman. Wouldnt know the difference of one from the other. So biochemist/molecular biologist sounds way to complicated for me but whoever understands the topic.

 

HIV AIDS research? NOT bad eh!. thats awesome. Good for you man.

Thanks, but as my Telugu friends would say "antha scene lyaadu."  If the entire HIV AIDS research fraternity was the Indian team, I would be like maybe Jaydev Unadkat - honest trier with limited talent.

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

In a population that is half-vaccinated and half not, wouldn't it cause the vaccination to be ineffective? Like the kids measles vaccine. There are a lot of people who don't give it to their kids due to some religious binding. Why would any religion decide this is alien to me, but some orthodox jews, Islam and probably christians probably mandate this. Would any of that factor in case of corona (like only some vaccinated, hence it will be ineffective to even those that are vaccinated)? Measles is also caused by virus, I suppose

If you are vaccinated, you are covered even if 50% of the population is unvaccinated.  The problem will be protecting people who cannot get vaccinated due to compromised immune systems - e.g., people on immunosuppresant medicines for auto-immune conditions, people on chemotherapy, infants etc.  If >80% of the population was vaccinated, you form a shield around these unvaccinated vulnerable people.  With only 50% vaccinated, there are enough holes in the shield (the voluntary unvaccinated people) to let the infection reach the vulnerable.   

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 hours ago, dial_100 said:

 

Well first off, I appreciate your efforts in explaining. I understand what you just said. What someone like me would need to understand if I die of a bad vaccine or not? Or just some bad symptoms and then I am ok without any benefit of vaccine against that particular virus. 

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by a "bad" vaccine.  Maybe one with a manufacturing defect?  Rest assured that there are enough safeguards in place to prevent that from happening.  But, I would be dishonest if I told you there is a 0% chance, but it is very very very minuscule.  As a scientist, I cannot speak in absolutes; we leave that to the charlatans of the world.  Your chances of dying of the real infection are much higher than dying of the vaccine.  Another point to consider is that, by being vaccinated, you are also protecting those around you by containing the spread of the virus.   

[BacktoCricaddict]

10 hours ago, Clarke said:

@BacktoCricaddict Once approved, this will be the first time an RNA vaccine will be used on humans on such a scale, correct ? 

 

What's your view on the reported neurological issues by a Chennai volunteer for the AstraZeneca vaccine ? Even if its a remote possibility, say one in hundred thousand, its a bit scary for common folks.

You are right, it is scary.  This is why clinical trials are important to establish efficacy and record adverse events.  Never ever accept any medication or preventative unless clear-cut clinical trials have been done.  

 

Now, from a biological standpoint, adverse events are much less likely with an RNA vaccine than with the old "deactivated virus" method.  The reason is that the RNA alone is incapable of causing infection.  It is incapable of incorporating into your DNA.  It is a new method, yes, but is conceptually safer than the old method.  RNA vaccine would have been the old method, except we did not have the capability or technology to manufacture RNA consistently.  Now we do.  

 

The adverse event you describe, assuming the person is telling the truth, is still correlational.  1 volunteer who took either the vaccine has shown some symptoms that may ore may not be related to the vaccine.  There can be so many confounding factors.  Again, this is why you test it on 40000 random people and record everything that happens in their lives.  There was another volunteer in Brazil or Argentina who got a placebo (can't remember from which manufacturer) and reported an adverse event.  They stopped the trial, did a complete review and found that there was no causal relationship.  

 

Again, like I said above, can anyone guarantee 100% efficacy or 100% safety?  No.  But can you do it for airline travel?  Car driving?  Bunjee jumping?  Eating organic sprouts (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/10/e-coli-bean-sprouts-blamed)?  No, no, no and no. 

 

In the case of these highly tested, highly regulated vaccines, the benefits far far far outweigh the risks.  

 

 

 

 

[Clarke]

55 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

You are right, it is scary.  This is why clinical trials are important to establish efficacy and record adverse events.  Never ever accept any medication or preventative unless clear-cut clinical trials have been done.  

 

Now, from a biological standpoint, adverse events are much less likely with an RNA vaccine than with the old "deactivated virus" method.  The reason is that the RNA alone is incapable of causing infection.  It is incapable of incorporating into your DNA.  It is a new method, yes, but is conceptually safer than the old method.  RNA vaccine would have been the old method, except we did not have the capability or technology to manufacture RNA consistently.  Now we do.  

 

The adverse event you describe, assuming the person is telling the truth, is still correlational.  1 volunteer who took either the vaccine has shown some symptoms that may ore may not be related to the vaccine.  There can be so many confounding factors.  Again, this is why you test it on 40000 random people and record everything that happens in their lives.  There was another volunteer in Brazil or Argentina who got a placebo (can't remember from which manufacturer) and reported an adverse event.  They stopped the trial, did a complete review and found that there was no causal relationship.  

 

Again, like I said above, can anyone guarantee 100% efficacy or 100% safety?  No.  But can you do it for airline travel?  Car driving?  Bunjee jumping?  Eating organic sprouts (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/10/e-coli-bean-sprouts-blamed)?  No, no, no and no. 

 

In the case of these highly tested, highly regulated vaccines, the benefits far far far outweigh the risks.  

 

 

Google in its wisdom presented this link to me since it already knows the questions in my mind that i posted here :)

 

https://www.livemint.com/science/health/volunteer-s-doc-blames-sii-vaccine-for-neuro-disorder-11606880532345.html

 

The neurologist at Apollo thinks the vaccine is to blame since there doesn't seem to be any other root cause:

 

Quote

“The conglomerates of clinical, electro physiological and neuropsychological examinations, in the absence of other diagnosable modalities (despite several variety of tests at SRMC), the neurological dysfunction suffered by (the participant) subsequent to his vaccination relates to immunogenicity of Covishield covid-19 vaccine," Zaheer Ahmed Sayeed, a visiting neurologist at Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, said in a 21 November declaration. The participant’s name was removed from quote for privacy.

 

The article also mentions one of the present day acceptable rates of serious side effects: 

 

Quote

For smallpox, post-vaccine encephalitis affects about three vaccinees per million primary vaccinees, and 0.1 vaccinees per million repeat vaccinees, data from the National Institutes of Health-sponsored study of 2009 showed.

 

In a way, the later we get a dose of the vaccine, the more data is available on its safety record. 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Clarke

[Clarke]

Coming back to the Pfizer vaccine, it doesn't hold much relevance for us in India. The infra requirements are near impossible to meet. 

 

Even if Moderna were to tie up with one Indian manufacturer and the freezer temperatures are somewhat attainable on a limited scale, there hasn't been any testing with the local population. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

10 minutes ago, Clarke said:

 

Google in its wisdom presented this link to me since it already knows the questions in my mind that i posted here :)

 

https://www.livemint.com/science/health/volunteer-s-doc-blames-sii-vaccine-for-neuro-disorder-11606880532345.html

 

The neurologist at Apollo thinks the vaccine is to blame since there doesn't seem to be any other root cause:

 

 

The article also mentions one of the present day acceptable rates of serious side effects: 

 

 

In a way, the later we get a dose of the vaccine, the more data is available on its safety record. 

 

 

 

Sure, it's possible, and with no other data (other than lack of biological plausibility for RNA to cause this complication) to counter a neurologist, I may have to defer to their judgment.  On the flipside, they don't have anything other than elimination, either, so jury is still out.   

 

At any rate, this may still be a 1 in 10^6 occurrence, but showed up during the clinical trial.  Ongoing post-treatment monitoring (often called Phase IV) and data-reporting is critical.    

[BacktoCricaddict]

5 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Coming back to the Pfizer vaccine, it doesn't hold much relevance for us in India. The infra requirements are near impossible to meet. 

 

Even if Moderna were to tie up with one Indian manufacturer and the freezer temperatures are somewhat attainable on a limited scale, there hasn't been any testing with the local population. 

 

If the Pfizer vaccine is approved in India, it may be restricted to hospital staff at well equipped institutions.  Why India, even in the UK and US, Pfizer's vaccine's freezer requirement is a huge limitation. 

 

For India, Bharat Biotech's Covaxin and the adenovirus-based Oxford one are the best bets.  

[Clarke]

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/dec/03/vaccine-tourism-indians-keen-on-going-to-uk-to-get-pfizer-jab-travel-agencies-receive-enquire-2231292.html

 

Do they really think the vaccine will be available for sale any time soon