[tomtom]

Reports from Israel suggesting that single Pfizer dose only 50% effective....

I’d heard 89% today from an NHS source (the wife). There’s also something on More or Less this week suggesting 90% for one dose - although was only half listening while fingerboarding, so not sure if that’s Pfizer or AstraZeneca.

Plus the fact the percentage was always highly likely to come down because the cohort which has had the vaccine, and which the data is based on, is hugely skewed towards the elderly and vulnerable.

Vaccine numbers are shite, not impressed!

Good point.

[Davo]

Reports from Israel suggesting that single Pfizer dose only 50% effective....

Hope not. As I got that vaccine today!!

[Stabbsy]

Reports from Israel suggesting that single Pfizer dose only 50% effective....

I’d heard 89% today from an NHS source (the wife). There’s also something on More or Less this week suggesting 90% for one dose - although was only half listening while fingerboarding, so not sure if that’s Pfizer or AstraZeneca.

Plus the fact the percentage was always highly likely to come down because the cohort which has had the vaccine, and which the data is based on, is hugely skewed towards the elderly and vulnerable.

Not sure I understand your point. Could you explain?

[spidermonkey09]

With the usual disclaimers/excuses about not being a scientist and fundamentally not knowing what I'm talking about...

As I understand it, the cohort that Pfizer tested the vaccine on will have been drawn from a wide range of different ages and backgrounds, including both relatively young people, the middle aged and the elderly. The effectiveness percentage quoted, of 90%, would be an average value, eg. some will have been almost entirely protected, others will have gained less protection. It seems reasonable to think that the clinically vulnerable /those with weakened immune systems/the elderly would be 'less protected' on average than someone younger with a healthy immune system. Given Israel, like us has rolled its vaccines out to the vulnerable and elderly first and is testing on them, it doesn't hugely surprise me that the effectiveness % being quoted is lower, partly due to barrows' point about when you should start measuring effectiveness after the jab, but also partly because the older and vulnerable will have been less protected from the outset. 50% seems like quite a drop and I suspect barrows is more right than me, but it doesnt seem a like for like comparison to me because the sample will be almost entirely comprised of older, more vulnerable people, whereas the trial group would have been more representative.

This may be complete bollocks so if so call me out!

[tomtom]

It’s a good point but iirc they didn’t find any drop off in effectiveness of the Pfizer jab in the older age groups? Though this is based on 30000 people and <300 positive cases right?

For the astraZ vaccine the (infamous) half first dose better results were from a sub 60 (maybe even sub 50) year old cohort - hence they were unable to apply those rates wider?

It’ll come out in the wash - but there’s another Q about the wrong choice being made by the govt if (and it’s an if) delaying the second dose has a much bigger than expected effect... (as in much worse protection). We’ll find out - through Israel has vaccinated the highest percentage of its population compared to any other country iirc. UAE is next..

[tomtom]

More from the Israeli study here - not just the radio interview.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-real-world-analysis-of-vaccine-in-israel-raises-questions-about-uk-strategy-12192751

Tldr is that they give everyone a second dose after 3 weeks - so they can only look at rates between week 2 and 3... (it doesn’t start working until week 2 anyway...)

[spidermonkey09]

It’ll come out in the wash - but there’s another Q about the wrong choice being made by the govt if (and it’s an if) delaying the second dose has a much bigger than expected effect... (as in much worse protection). We’ll find out - through Israel has vaccinated the highest percentage of its population compared to any other country iirc. UAE is next..

I still think delaying the second dose was the only sensible strategy given the mess we were in. Any future inquest will care much more about all the previous decisions which flew in the face of available evidence, rather than the one which was sensible and based on the facts we had at the time.

[spidermonkey09]

Mildly off topic, but Netanyahu has played an absolute blinder with Israel's vaccine strategy. He paid massively over the odds for being first in line and giving Pfizer real world data but Israel will be back to normal well before anyone else with all the economic benefits that entails, so Israel will probably save money in the medium term. He also did really well getting prominent rabbis from the ultra orthodox community on TV to advocate taking the vaccine and got jabbed on live TV himself. I absolutely hate him and his politics but fairs fair, hes played this well.

[Stabbsy]

With the usual disclaimers/excuses about not being a scientist and fundamentally not knowing what I'm talking about...

As I understand it, the cohort that Pfizer tested the vaccine on will have been drawn from a wide range of different ages and backgrounds, including both relatively young people, the middle aged and the elderly. The effectiveness percentage quoted, of 90%, would be an average value, eg. some will have been almost entirely protected, others will have gained less protection. It seems reasonable to think that the clinically vulnerable /those with weakened immune systems/the elderly would be 'less protected' on average than someone younger with a healthy immune system. Given Israel, like us has rolled its vaccines out to the vulnerable and elderly first and is testing on them, it doesn't hugely surprise me that the effectiveness % being quoted is lower, partly due to barrows' point about when you should start measuring effectiveness after the jab, but also partly because the older and vulnerable will have been less protected from the outset. 50% seems like quite a drop and I suspect barrows is more right than me, but it doesnt seem a like for like comparison to me because the sample will be almost entirely comprised of older, more vulnerable people, whereas the trial group would have been more representative.

This may be complete bollocks so if so call me out!

No, seems pretty logical. I’d say the limitation is how developed the data is that the Israel study is based on. From what I’ve read, Israel are giving the second dose at 3 weeks. So if we’re saying that the first dose takes 10 days to 2 weeks to become effective, then the numbers are based on a week of exposure.

Another criticism would be that the trial data was from a properly constructed trial - both vaccine and control group were given a shot of something. So no behavioural impact to take account of. The Israel study compares vaccinated with similar unvaccinated group where you might expect some behavioural difference with the unvaccinated continuing to shield.

My view would be it’s far too early to draw conclusions at this stage.

[tomtom]

Apparently (the BMJ blog article) there’s a fair bit of behavioural stuff with a double blind trial too - as it’s mostly quite obvious if you’ve had the trial vaccine (sore arm) compared to the saline in the placebo.

[SA Chris]

or if you are told it's a placebo

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntWO7jnOcWE

[Offwidth]

Useful FAQ to help fend off covid deniers, lockdown deniers and anti -vaxers. Tory MP Neil O'Brian (of Twitter scraps with Toby Young fame) is one of the authors.

https://www.covidfaq.co/

[spidermonkey09]

My view would be it’s far too early to draw conclusions at this stage.

Yeah, this is the long and the short of it. I do have a bit of an issue with the way these stories are being reported though as it just perpetuates concern over the vaccine when there is really no need yet. The only people who need to be aware of this testing in Israel are the government scientists really so they can keep an eye on it.

Tricky one though isnt it as its a slippery slope to not report things, but it does concern me.

[tomtom]

Just seen this https://twitter.com/wf_parker/status/1351644273725333505?s=21

Graphically compares US city death rates with vaccination rates. Interesting. But not checked it out more than a skim..

[Duma]

Much better vaccine figures today, nearly 350k.

[tomtom]

Much better vaccine figures today, nearly 350k.

I only noticed today - but there’s a 2 day lag in the figures. Today’s increase is actually up to end of 19th (Monday). Might explain the previous two days (weekend?) lower figs.

I hope...

[abarro81]

Much better vaccine figures today, nearly 350k.

I only noticed today - but there’s a 2 day lag in the figures. Today’s increase is actually up to end of 19th (Monday). Might explain the previous two days (weekend?) lower figs.

I hope...

Would work better as an explanation if the 19th weren't actually a Tuesday
I don't know if there's any reporting lag, like with deaths? I guess maybe no-one knows that yet?!

[tomtom]

:D toddler brain... maybe it was by 19th..

[Oldmanmatt]

Ah...

Right...

This is fine...

COVID-19: UK coronavirus variant may be more deadly than original, PM warns

[spidermonkey09]

https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1352671129748598786?s=19

[tomtom]

Govt playing a bit fast and loose with the 30% figure - it’s been estimated between 10 and 50%. Whichever - it’s not great news.

Copy paste from bbc website

Risk of death from UK variant may by up to 50% higher - scientist

Early evidence suggests the variant of coronavirus that emerged in the UK may be up to 50% more deadly, according to the scientist whose research led to today’s government announcement.

Nick Davies, assistant professor of mathematical modelling at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme the estimate that the risk of death increased by 30% was "uncertain".

"We think it could be anywhere between 10 to 50%, according to our analysis,” he said.

Mr Davies – a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M), which feeds into the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) – said it would be very important to get a variety of different streams of evidence, looking at the problem in different ways.

However, he added that “a number of groups have looked at the data in a number of different ways, and unfortunately come to similar conclusions”.

[Oldmanmatt]

From “Your local Epidemiologist” on FB:

“ Bad news about the circulating variants…The virus is getting smarter.

If you remember, the South Africa variant (better known as 501v2), Brazil variant (better known as B1.1.28/501.V3), and the UK variant (better known as B1.1.7/501Y.V1) have all recently grabbed the attention of scientists because each have mutations on the spike protein. These are important to investigate because the spike is the keys to our cells. In other words, the virus can mutate to make a smarter key.

There are two new pieces of information this week/today.

First, the 501v2 (South Africa) variant…

-What happened? On Jan 20, a preprint came out from Rockefeller University. They took the antibodies of 20 volunteers who received an mRNA vaccine and mixed it with viruses containing the mutations. This experiment, called an antibody neutralization assay, enables the researchers to determine whether vaccine-induced antibodies will be effective against the new variants of virus circulating globally.
-What did they find? The antibodies effectiveness against the mutations was reduced by a small (but statistically significant) degree (ranged from a 1- to 3-fold reduction).
-What does this mean? The vaccine is working against 501v2 (thanks to the polyclonal response), but these mutations *may* impact the efficacy of the vaccine. We need more “real-world” studies, in addition to the well-controlled, test-tube studies.

Second, the B.1.1.7 (UK) variant…

-What happened? Today, NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group) met to discuss new studies on B.1.1.7. They previously reported a study in which there was no increase in death due to the new variant. However, with more time comes more data.
-What did they report? There are three new studies (one by The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, one by Imperial College London, and one by University of Exeter) that all showed that the B.1.1.7 is more deadly by about 1.65 fold.
-What does this mean? "There is a realistic possibility that B.1.1.7 is associated with an increased risk of death compared to the virus without these mutations." While the risk of death remains low, this does increase it by a significant amount. There is a limitation to these studies... Only 10% of COVID19 deaths have their virus coded to know which mutation the person had. In other words, this could be a bias sample. Deaths are lagged from cases, so the more time goes by, the more and more accurate of a picture we will get.

Bottom line: The virus is getting smarter. Slowly but surely. This underscores the need to vaccinate as many people as quickly as we can, because these mutations are signals of antigenic drift.

Love, YLE

Data Sources:
Rockefeller study:  https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.426911v1.full.pdf
NERVTAG meeting minutes: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/955239/NERVTAG_paper_on_variant_of_concern__VOC__B.1.1.7.pdf
I knew the SA story was coming out at some point this week, so I prepared with two brilliant colleagues, Dr. Jessica Steier (public health scientist) and Dr. Andrea Love (immunologist). They are both doing wonderful work at The Unbiased Science Podcast (www.unbiasedscipod.com).”

[petejh]

U.K. Covid19 Vaccinations - 1st doses up to 22/01/21

5,383,103 people have now been vaccinated.

A 401,070 increase on yesterday, the highest daily figure to date and above average needed to hit target of 15m by Feb 15th.




(from: https://twitter.com/SharePickers )

[Oldmanmatt]

U.K. Covid19 Vaccinations - 1st doses up to 22/01/21

5,383,103 people have now been vaccinated.

A 401,070 increase on yesterday, the highest daily figure to date and above average needed to hit target of 15m by Feb 15th.




(from: https://twitter.com/SharePickers )

It’s good, isn’t it. The government are pulling out the stops, finally.

[Ru]

and above average needed to hit target of 15m by Feb 15th.

Does the average shown by the red columns assume that the previous red column target has been met, or it is the average needed based on the actual number vaccines previously given? Because if it's the former, the actual average would now be much higher than the red columns shown, given that we've missed all previous targets.