COVID chat - week of 1/25

[aurora]

Merck is giving up on their vaccines:

apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-5e0de4fdbceea5b2517af7c7846aff5c

A good reminder that these things don't always work out and to be thankful to the scientists/doctors/researchers who worked so hard to get us the vaccines we do have.

[Velar Fricative]

Yup. And it goes to show that these studies are rigorous, and they're not just throwing everything out there to see what sticks. There are standards. I'm glad they're refocusing on potential treatments since covid is likely never going away.

[formerlyak]

This question may simply highlight that it’s been a long time since I’ve taken a science class, but there is research in Moderna’s summaries being reported by several sources saying if you look at infection rates starting two weeks after the first dose of the Moderna, it seems to be 75-80% effective. The lower effective rates we see include people who were infected in the first 14 days after shot one. If it’s the case that starting on day 14 after dose one, it’s 75-80% effective, and we have a shortage of vaccine, why does it not make sense to get one dose in twice as many people and then give the booster at 3-6 months? Wouldn’t that mean more people have some immunity faster?

[icedcoffee]

Here's one thing I don't really understand. Maybe someone can help me out. So Moderna and Pfizer have figured it out. I understand that for normal non-pandemic vaccines they would not give out their secret since they need to make money. Given that this is causing the world to shut down why can't they give other vaccine developers the recipe and have them help with production? Shouldn't this be an all hands on deck situation?

[aprilsails]

Jan 25, 2021 9:31:32 GMT -5 formerlyak said:

This question may simply highlight that it’s been a long time since I’ve taken a science class, but there is research in Moderna’s summaries being reported by several sources saying if you look at infection rates starting two weeks after the first dose of the Moderna, it seems to be 75-80% effective. The lower effective rates we see include people who were infected in the first 14 days after shot one. If it’s the case that starting on day 14 after dose one, it’s 75-80% effective, and we have a shortage of vaccine, why does it not make sense to get one dose in twice as many people and then give the booster at 3-6 months? Wouldn’t that mean more people have some immunity faster?

The problem is that the studies were not done this way and we cannot be certain that spacing out the doses will provide the same ultimate level of protection (ie you may need three shots or additional boosters). There are some jurisdictions where they are choosing to space out the shots due to shortages in supply (in Canada our supply has suddenly dried up and been delayed so there is likely to be some delays for second doses).

These are governments creating their own studies. To some extent, in the general population, I can see your point. However right now we are vaccinating the most vulnerable. I want those people to have the best possible outcomes.

[raangoli]

icedcoffee , I do not have a source other than my own (admittedly limited) knowledge from work, but Moderna and Pfizer are able to use contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) to help with production. But that also still takes time to build out and ramp up production, there can be equipment failures, etc. Finally, there are still quality thresholds that need to be met.

Edit: so they are likely trying to produce as much as fast as they can, but there will still be bottlenecks. 

[eddy]

Jan 25, 2021 9:35:22 GMT -5 icedcoffee said:

Here's one thing I don't really understand. Maybe someone can help me out. So Moderna and Pfizer have figured it out. I understand that for normal non-pandemic vaccines they would not give out their secret since they need to make money. Given that this is causing the world to shut down why can't they give other vaccine developers the recipe and have them help with production? Shouldn't this be an all hands on deck situation?

This is a very good question.

I read that J&J wanted to pay Merrick to use some of their production space. But it was going to take 6+ months to set up the production so it wasn't going to be a short- term solution.

I wonder if this one of the bigger barriers. You can't just snap your fingers and start making a vaccine. And our issue over and over again is we need it NOW.

[penguingrrl]

Jan 25, 2021 9:35:22 GMT -5 icedcoffee said:

Here's one thing I don't really understand. Maybe someone can help me out. So Moderna and Pfizer have figured it out. I understand that for normal non-pandemic vaccines they would not give out their secret since they need to make money. Given that this is causing the world to shut down why can't they give other vaccine developers the recipe and have them help with production? Shouldn't this be an all hands on deck situation?

I would guess that it’s not quick or simple to do that. Also, Merck is moving on to refining their treatments for this, which are also a critical piece of ending the pandemic. It may be that they’re going to shift to using all of their manufacturing capability for that part of it, which is also critical.

It they can make an antiviral similar to tamiflu or xofluza for this that will also help quickly reduce the burden on hospitals.

[aurora]

Jan 25, 2021 9:31:32 GMT -5 formerlyak said:

This question may simply highlight that it’s been a long time since I’ve taken a science class, but there is research in Moderna’s summaries being reported by several sources saying if you look at infection rates starting two weeks after the first dose of the Moderna, it seems to be 75-80% effective. The lower effective rates we see include people who were infected in the first 14 days after shot one. If it’s the case that starting on day 14 after dose one, it’s 75-80% effective, and we have a shortage of vaccine, why does it not make sense to get one dose in twice as many people and then give the booster at 3-6 months? Wouldn’t that mean more people have some immunity faster?

You're not the only person wondering this! I am not a medical researcher, but I do trust the scientific approval process, which hasn't been completed on that one dose question yet (even if some early studies are promising). It would be awful if we jumped ahead of the science and then found the 75-80% wasn't enduring and all of those people with just one dose got really sick in a couple of months as we had another massive outbreak because nobody was immune anymore, for example.

Hopefully we'll know more in the coming weeks/months and can update our plans accordingly. At least I have confidence that the Biden administration will make its decisions guided by the science.

[aurora]

Like Pfizer, Moderna offers protection against the British variant.

www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/25/covid-vaccine-virus-variant/

(Not behind a paywall)

[pixy0stix]

This is a mishmash of topics, but covid related - Budweiser, Coke, and Pepsi will not air Super Bowl commercials. InBev is instead giving money to the Ad Council to run public service announcements about the covid vaccine. And then this:

Instead of running a Super Bowl spot, Budweiser is releasing a 90-second ad it intends to run on digital outlets, calling attention to moments during the pandemic when being together matters. The last few moments of the ad, narrated by Rashida Jones, suggest that getting the coronavirus vaccine represents one more way that people can help each other.

variety.com/2021/tv/news/super-bowl-commercials-budweiser-pulled-anheuser-busch-1234891175/

[wanderingback]

Jan 25, 2021 9:31:32 GMT -5 formerlyak said:

This question may simply highlight that it’s been a long time since I’ve taken a science class, but there is research in Moderna’s summaries being reported by several sources saying if you look at infection rates starting two weeks after the first dose of the Moderna, it seems to be 75-80% effective. The lower effective rates we see include people who were infected in the first 14 days after shot one. If it’s the case that starting on day 14 after dose one, it’s 75-80% effective, and we have a shortage of vaccine, why does it not make sense to get one dose in twice as many people and then give the booster at 3-6 months? Wouldn’t that mean more people have some immunity faster?

I think the simple answer was that it wasn't studied that way. The scientist who are way smarter than me determined that the best efficacy would be 2 doses, so that's how they conducted the trials.
Therefore, the FDA isn't going to approve an off-label use, especially during emergency authorization.
Now yes some individuals (states, hospitals, etc) could decide to use the vaccine "off-label," but I think for now it's a good idea to stick to the science. We don't know the science behind getting a "booster" in 6 months at the moment. 

[rubytue]

Jan 25, 2021 9:31:32 GMT -5 formerlyak said:

This question may simply highlight that it’s been a long time since I’ve taken a science class, but there is research in Moderna’s summaries being reported by several sources saying if you look at infection rates starting two weeks after the first dose of the Moderna, it seems to be 75-80% effective. The lower effective rates we see include people who were infected in the first 14 days after shot one. If it’s the case that starting on day 14 after dose one, it’s 75-80% effective, and we have a shortage of vaccine, why does it not make sense to get one dose in twice as many people and then give the booster at 3-6 months? Wouldn’t that mean more people have some immunity faster?

We don’t know how long any immunity from the first shot lasts. It hasn’t been studied with a booster at 3-6 months. There is no evidence to support you’d have immunity between 3 weeks and 6 months. 

[aprilsails]

Jan 25, 2021 9:55:09 GMT -5 aurora said:

Like Pfizer, Moderna offers protection against the British variant.

www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/25/covid-vaccine-virus-variant/

(Not behind a paywall)

Yes my Mom was saying the spikes look the same but there’s a lot more of them. Since the vaccines recognize the spike protein we should be covered.

[glw]

Hopkins is hosting a free, public panel about covid vaccine development and distribution at 4:30 today if anyone is interested. Registration link.

[Velar Fricative]

Something that just popped into my head too - if the vaccine recognizes the spike protein, wouldn't that mean it provides immunity from all coronaviruses? I believe at least one exists that results in a common cold? Maybe I'm making this up.

[Velar Fricative]

Also in my head - I feel like real scientific modeling would show this, but I sense that there would be less spread of the virus if you have more people fully immunized with the two doses, versus more people partially vaccinated but fewer with both doses. I'm picturing charts in my head and expecting that you'd see a longer and higher line of cases if you don't have as many people who have full immunity.

[Susie]

We should be expecting to hear the results of Johnson & Johnson's phase 3 study soon, right?  Their vaccine candidate is single dose, adenovirus based, and vastly lower requirements for refrigeration, so I am so antsy to hear how their efficacy looks.  If it's good, this will be SUCH good news.

[suzyp]

Jan 25, 2021 9:40:26 GMT -5 raangoli said:

icedcoffee , I do not have a source other than my own (admittedly limited) knowledge from work, but Moderna and Pfizer are able to use contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) to help with production. But that also still takes time to build out and ramp up production, there can be equipment failures, etc. Finally, there are still quality thresholds that need to be met.

Edit: so they are likely trying to produce as much as fast as they can, but there will still be bottlenecks. 

I believe they are doing this. I am (hopefully) in a study for a the Pfizer vaccine and it sounds like it's bascially quality control. I was told that Pfizer normally manufactures its drugs itself, but they have contracted the manufacturing out so they can get it out as quickly as possible. Fromwhat I understand, they are testing the various lots to make sure that they are manufactured correctly since they already know that the vaccine is effective.

BUT here's another issue- the study was supposed to start last week. It's now slated to start on 2/15 because there's been a delay in getting all the stuff (my non scientist term) they need.  It is literally just three visits - 2 for the shots and one to confirm I have antibodies. 

[SusanBAnthony]

Jan 25, 2021 10:21:05 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Also in my head - I feel like real scientific modeling would show this, but I sense that there would be less spread of the virus if you have more people fully immunized with the two doses, versus more people partially vaccinated but fewer with both doses. I'm picturing charts in my head and expecting that you'd see a longer and higher line of cases if you don't have as many people who have full immunity.

I would guess the opposite (assuming the immunity lasts with both scenarios). Everyone at 80% protected is better than half of people 95% protected.

[cap]

Jan 25, 2021 10:18:23 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Something that just popped into my head too - if the vaccine recognizes the spike protein, wouldn't that mean it provides immunity from all coronaviruses? I believe at least one exists that results in a common cold? Maybe I'm making this up.

My guess is that spike proteins are different enough among coronaviruses that the vaccine wouldn't work on other types. 

[rubytue]

FWIW, it looks like the holiday/travel testing boom is waning. Was able to book a testing appointment for noon today. Just now (so roughly two hours from now). Most likely just a bad allergy attack, but... congestion in the time of covid.

[Velar Fricative]

Jan 25, 2021 10:29:25 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

Jan 25, 2021 10:21:05 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Also in my head - I feel like real scientific modeling would show this, but I sense that there would be less spread of the virus if you have more people fully immunized with the two doses, versus more people partially vaccinated but fewer with both doses. I'm picturing charts in my head and expecting that you'd see a longer and higher line of cases if you don't have as many people who have full immunity.

I would guess the opposite (assuming the immunity lasts with both scenarios). Everyone at 80% protected is better than half of people 95% protected.

Okay, in my head I was still thinking 50-60% is still more likely but if 80% is more the reality (I know it was mentioned above, but still sounds hypothetical?), then I agree. 

[aprilsails]

Jan 25, 2021 10:18:23 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Something that just popped into my head too - if the vaccine recognizes the spike protein, wouldn't that mean it provides immunity from all coronaviruses? I believe at least one exists that results in a common cold? Maybe I'm making this up.

The spike proteins are quite different. That being said, we could absolutely make vaccines for the common cold and other variants, however this hasn’t been pursued since there isn’t much interest since they don’t kill. They also mutate so you would need new vaccines and or boosters on some schedule. It would be a very expensive undertaking with a limited payoff.

[mbcdefg]

Interview with Anthony Fauci on his experience working with the previous administration: www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/health/fauci-trump-covid.html#click=https://t.co/YH9QzhYnze

At one point he received an envelope full of white powder in the mail, luckily it was benign.

[Velar Fricative]

Jan 25, 2021 10:35:56 GMT -5 aprilsails said:

Jan 25, 2021 10:18:23 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Something that just popped into my head too - if the vaccine recognizes the spike protein, wouldn't that mean it provides immunity from all coronaviruses? I believe at least one exists that results in a common cold? Maybe I'm making this up.

The spike proteins are quite different. That being said, we could absolutely make vaccines for the common cold and other variants, however this hasn’t been pursued since there isn’t much interest since they don’t kill. They also mutate so you would need new vaccines and or boosters on some schedule. It would be a very expensive undertaking with a limited payoff.

Oh yeah, I don't think we should pursue that for common colds, just wondered if this could be a nice additional consequence for this covid vaccine!

[cap]

Jan 25, 2021 10:23:23 GMT -5 Susie said:

We should be expecting to hear the results of Johnson & Johnson's phase 3 study soon, right?  Their vaccine candidate is single dose, adenovirus based, and vastly lower requirements for refrigeration, so I am so antsy to hear how their efficacy looks.  If it's good, this will be SUCH good news.

From what I read, they're hoping this week or next to send data to the panel. I also read they plan to have 100 million doses available in the US by April. 

I'm trying to temper my excitement, but am failing miserably. 

[Velar Fricative]

Good update - my mom finally caved and got her first dose on Friday night. For those who don't know, she's a hospital cleaner (and covid survivor who was hospitalized when she had it) who could have gotten it more than a month ago if she wanted but was fearful of the vaccine's effects. Unfortunately, quite a few co-workers had managed to scare her into not getting it and she can be vulnerable to misinformation. It didn't help that her sister, also a hospital cleaner, did get the first dose of vaccine early on and then came down with covid a week later (though it was likely that she was infected before the dose was given). I think she got annoyed by us begging her to get it and then when DH and I got it and didn't grow third arms, she started feeling better about it. But she still was delaying so much until she finally just did it.

[SusanBAnthony]

Jan 25, 2021 10:31:42 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Jan 25, 2021 10:29:25 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

I would guess the opposite (assuming the immunity lasts with both scenarios). Everyone at 80% protected is better than half of people 95% protected.

Okay, in my head I was still thinking 50-60% is still more likely but if 80% is more the reality (I know it was mentioned above, but still sounds hypothetical?), then I agree. 

I'm sure you could swing it either way within the margins of error we have now.

[ssmjlm]

We told FIL that they were scheduling his group. I need to DH to follow-up and see if he went online. Otherwise, I'll do it for him. They are just calling you back to schedule.

It's January 25 and my area is just now getting to the 75+.

It looks more and more like the only way DH and I will get it is via work.