Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by shpalman » Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:21 pm

Ireland suspends AstraZeneca Covid vaccine over blood clot concerns
Ireland is suspending use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine against Covid as a precautionary measure following further reports of blood clots in people who have received it, this time from Norway.
The agency did not yet know whether more blood clots are happening than expected in the population generally. “But they do seem to have clustered together at a level and in younger people – I mean less than 65 – where we wouldn’t necessarily have expected them to happen and thus the question was should we just pause until we get that information, because above all we want to maintain confidence in the vaccine programme so that people can feel that what they are getting is safe, that any serious safety signal is being thoroughly investigated,” said Prof Karina Butler, the head of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC).
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by Sciolus » Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:53 pm

shpalman wrote:
Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:21 pm
Ireland suspends AstraZeneca Covid vaccine over blood clot concerns
Ireland is suspending use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine against Covid as a precautionary measure following further reports of blood clots in people who have received it, this time from Norway.
The agency did not yet know whether more blood clots are happening than expected in the population generally. “But they do seem to have clustered together at a level and in younger people – I mean less than 65 – where we wouldn’t necessarily have expected them to happen and thus the question was should we just pause until we get that information, because above all we want to maintain confidence in the vaccine programme so that people can feel that what they are getting is safe, that any serious safety signal is being thoroughly investigated,” said Prof Karina Butler, the head of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC).
Oddly, that article doesn't say how many people will die of covid while they're getting that information.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by shpalman » Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:27 pm

Fewer than will die via the rubbishness of AstraZeneca's "best effort" which will see only about a third of the doses delivered to the EU compared to what they originally projected for this quarter.

Ireland seems to have been vaccinating ~10,000 a day, although not all of them will be with AstraZeneca doses, and is currently at about 15 deaths per day.

But the people dying within a day or two of getting the vaccine (or falling ill within a day or two and dying 1-2 weeks later, or in the case of Norway not dying but "quite sick") are generally not particularly old or obviously at high risk from covid itself; they're being vaccinated now because rollouts had to be rearranged while the AstraZeneca vaccine hadn't been shown to be efficacious in older subjects.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

Aoui
Stargoon
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by Aoui » Mon Mar 15, 2021 10:25 am

The Dutch are taking a two week preventative break from using the Astra Zeneca vaccine. They have seen no issues in NL, but because of all teh reports in Scandinavia and, I assume, all the panic around it here they are doing this two week break thing. Glad as hell I already have mine first shot, because I am the last at work who actually wears a mask. At least I'm a little protected now.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:34 pm

If anyone is interested in learning more about the approval, safety monitoring & impact of the COVID vaccines, the EMA is running a free public stakeholder meeting all about this on 26th March

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by shpalman » Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:12 pm

EU threatens to halt Covid vaccine exports to UK unless it gets ‘fair share’
The majority of vaccines exported from the EU to the UK have been made by Pfizer, which distributes globally from its European production sites. The EU has blocked only one export request, a shipment of 250,000 Oxford/AstraZeneca doses from Italy to Australia.

Von der Leyen said that while BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna were meeting their contractual obligations to the bloc, AstraZeneca was on course to deliver just 30m of its promised 90m doses in the first quarter and 70m of a contracted 180m in the second.

The British government has repeatedly said it has not imposed an export ban on vaccine components or completed doses, but it did ensure that vaccine doses produced by Oxford/AstraZeneca at the sites in Staffordshire and Oxford would supply Britain first.
The EU overall has administered less than 12 doses per 100 people, the UK is at 39 per 100.

(Italy has used about 82% of the delivered doses and is in line with the EU generally so I expect the EU as a whole has used about 80% of the delivered doses. It's really the slow arrival of the doses which is delaying the rollouts in the EU, there's no reason we couldn't have all gone as fast as the UK did.)
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by Herainestold » Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:27 pm

Time to talk to Moscow and Beijing.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:22 pm


Abstract

BACKGROUND
Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa.

METHODS
We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose.

RESULTS
Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], −49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (92.9%) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, −76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS
A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2102214

tl;dr Astra Zeneca vaccine did not prevent mild to moderate infections of the South African variant.

Pretty sure we posted the preprint earlier. Now in article form.

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by snoozeofreason » Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:34 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:22 pm
... In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], −49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (92.9%) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, −76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups ...
Those are big confidence intervals.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:19 am

Herainestold wrote:
Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:27 pm
Time to talk to Moscow and Beijing.
About their thus far unapproved vaccines?
Time for China to apply by the normal channels, then same way RDIF eventually did, if they want to sell their vaccine in the EEA

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by bob sterman » Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:41 am

snoozeofreason wrote:
Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:34 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:22 pm
... In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], −49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (92.9%) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, −76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups ...
Those are big confidence intervals.
Indeed - with zero almost in the middle of them.

They give me the same sinking feeling I got when reading the first reports in the Lancet about the situation in Wuhan back in Jan 2020.

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by snoozeofreason » Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:21 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:41 am
snoozeofreason wrote:
Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:34 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:22 pm
Those are big confidence intervals.
Indeed - with zero almost in the middle of them.

They give me the same sinking feeling I got when reading the first reports in the Lancet about the situation in Wuhan back in Jan 2020.
It's not obvious how you would interpret the CIs here. They are often misinterpreted as representing a probable range for the effect being measured, but Bayesian types would say that you need to know prior probabilities to do that. In this case half of the CI is negative but I would guess that the prior probability of negative efficacy is pretty small.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:58 am

Thanks to the fantastically fast and detailed work of the EMA, the EU countries who panicked a bit are restarting their AZ vaccinations today or by Monday.

Spoiler:

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by shpalman » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:08 am

tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:58 am
Thanks to the fantastically fast and detailed work of the EMA, the EU countries who panicked a bit are restarting their AZ vaccinations today or by Monday.

Spoiler:
It would be great if we'd get to see some of this eventually, because from the outside it looks like "why are you stopping the AZ vaccine? it's safe*" "we've stopped giving the AZ vaccine but we know it's safe" "we've had a look and it turns out that yes it's safe"

It's not clear to me what these tiny details are and it seems like the regulator's decision was a foregone conclusion; what it sounded like on Tuesday was "we're going to investigate it and announce that it's safe after all on Thursday".

I mean, I already had the jab just about as soon as it was possible for me to get it (Monday morning) so I'm not the person you're trying to convince.

* - "efficacious and with a very small risk:benefit ratio especially compared to the present risk of covid" or however you best prefer to define this.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by discovolante » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:16 am

Yeah this does seem to be one of those 'nobody knows how much effort goes into this sh.t and they really should' situations.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:19 am

I get your point, however there is a very good reason why there is zero chance of people outside ever being invited into these meetings to witness the discussions.

The stopping had nothing to do with the EMA or the science of the thing & was 100% national politicians choosing to temporarily pause it because others had (once the first one panicked, the others were bound to - who wants to be the last one to stop giving the killer drug?)

The [EMA|https://www.ema.europa.eu/en] have actually published [very detailed but clear (at least to me) documents|https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid ... lood-clots] and did a press conference and stuff (Emer Cooke, head of the EMA, was broadcast on the BBC news at 6) to give as much detail as clearly as possible. I think they did as good a job as possible in the circumstances.

Ultimately, the extremely rare DIC & CSVT are probably not related, but it is not presently possible to exclude this possibility and so a warning has been added to the labelling.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am

discovolante wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:16 am
Yeah this does seem to be one of those 'nobody knows how much effort goes into this sh.t and they really should' situations.
The problem is, there are so many steps and they basically all involve people staring at computer screens and the first steps are about data and statistics, then the later steps are about complex medical terminology and in-depth analysis. To make it even vaguely interesting would take a lot of work and all the people involved are still assessing all the other data that is coming in each day to look for the next signal to investigate.

One thing that I think is a pity that nobody knows, is that the world of pharmacovigilance is mainly female-led. When I was listening in to the meeting it was almost all women's voices (only one bloke spoke, maybe twice and briefly each time, in about 3 hours of the meeting that I heard. The head of the EMA (who isn't in the PRAC, but is very important), the chair of the PRAC, the lead EMA assessor, the head of PV at the EMA, the EMA committee secretariat directly running the meeting and keeping things as smooth as possible: all women, and it shouldn't be remarkable, and in my career it hasn't been; but sadly in the wider world it is still noticeable (in fact, I only even thought about it 'cos of the violence against women thread making me think about gender issues at that moment).

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by shpalman » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:40 am

tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:19 am
I get your point, however there is a very good reason why there is zero chance of people outside ever being invited into these meetings to witness the discussions.
I wouldn't have expected that. I expected something more like the link you give below, except with some graphs or tables of data or something.

The past year has seen a lot of opening up of access, both in terms of real-time statistics on government websites, and in terms of preprints of scientific publications. Within the limits of industrial intellectual property protection and patient confidentiality I'd like to see the same from medicine regulators.

(The approval process seemed to go like "vaccine submitted to regulator and expected to be approved by [date]" "[date]: yep it's approved" as if the regulator just gives a meaningless rubber stamp to whatever the drug company says, and not a whole load of detailed rules and guidelines about how [and how not] to produce, transport, store, and administer the vaccine. Please explain this to us, because nobody else seems to be doing it.)
tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:19 am
The stopping had nothing to do with the EMA or the science of the thing & was 100% national politicians choosing to temporarily pause it because others had (once the first one panicked, the others were bound to - who wants to be the last one to stop giving the killer drug?)
Well, it wasn't the EMA but it was each nation's equivalent regulator which made the decision. In Italy's case it's the AIFA. I don't remember politicians here ever saying anything other than it was safe but let's check to be sure. France is a bit of a different matter, maybe.
tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:19 am
The [EMA|https://www.ema.europa.eu/en] have actually published [very detailed but clear (at least to me) documents|https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid ... lood-clots] and did a press conference and stuff (Emer Cooke, head of the EMA, was broadcast on the BBC news at 6) to give as much detail as clearly as possible. I think they did as good a job as possible in the circumstances.

Ultimately, the extremely rare DIC & CSVT are probably not related, but it is not presently possible to exclude this possibility and so a warning has been added to the labelling.
Thanks for the link. Of course I didn't see the BBC news.

I think the MHRA will need to be vigilant once the UK's mass vaccination campaign reaches the 40-50 age range. I look forward to moron UK journalists pouncing on rare adverse effects in younger* people.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by shpalman » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:50 am

tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am
discovolante wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:16 am
Yeah this does seem to be one of those 'nobody knows how much effort goes into this sh.t and they really should' situations.
The problem is, there are so many steps and they basically all involve people staring at computer screens and the first steps are about data and statistics, then the later steps are about complex medical terminology and in-depth analysis. To make it even vaguely interesting would take a lot of work and all the people involved are still assessing all the other data that is coming in each day to look for the next signal to investigate.
Maybe not that interesting to the general public, but you're dealing here with people who pull the daily numbers off git and play with them in spreadsheets and stats software. Or who hunt out preprints of trial data and sift through the tables.

Maybe all of us are to some extent the annoying xkcd physicist.
tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am
One thing that I think is a pity that nobody knows, is that the world of pharmacovigilance is mainly female-led. When I was listening in to the meeting it was almost all women's voices (only one bloke spoke, maybe twice and briefly each time, in about 3 hours of the meeting that I heard. The head of the EMA (who isn't in the PRAC, but is very important), the chair of the PRAC, the lead EMA assessor, the head of PV at the EMA, the EMA committee secretariat directly running the meeting and keeping things as smooth as possible: all women, and it shouldn't be remarkable, and in my career it hasn't been; but sadly in the wider world it is still noticeable (in fact, I only even thought about it 'cos of the violence against women thread making me think about gender issues at that moment).
Biological sciences are very strongly female-led in general, at least in my experience in Italy.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by discovolante » Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:10 am

tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am
discovolante wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:16 am
Yeah this does seem to be one of those 'nobody knows how much effort goes into this sh.t and they really should' situations.
The problem is, there are so many steps and they basically all involve people staring at computer screens and the first steps are about data and statistics, then the later steps are about complex medical terminology and in-depth analysis. To make it even vaguely interesting would take a lot of work and all the people involved are still assessing all the other data that is coming in each day to look for the next signal to investigate.

One thing that I think is a pity that nobody knows, is that the world of pharmacovigilance is mainly female-led. When I was listening in to the meeting it was almost all women's voices (only one bloke spoke, maybe twice and briefly each time, in about 3 hours of the meeting that I heard. The head of the EMA (who isn't in the PRAC, but is very important), the chair of the PRAC, the lead EMA assessor, the head of PV at the EMA, the EMA committee secretariat directly running the meeting and keeping things as smooth as possible: all women, and it shouldn't be remarkable, and in my career it hasn't been; but sadly in the wider world it is still noticeable (in fact, I only even thought about it 'cos of the violence against women thread making me think about gender issues at that moment).
Fair enough, I'm no PR person although there are ways and means to make stuff interesting, without boring people with spreadsheets. Put in some big numbers about how many data points people had to individually analysed etc, or something. And make a big noise about the women stuff, the size of the team and so on. I don't think it needs to be deeply technical. I dunno I appreciate that practically this is difficult to do when you don't have individual resources or the ability to bring in an outside PR company, it does just seem like it would be helpful to be able to promote this kind of work.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:53 am

discovolante wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:10 am
tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am
discovolante wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:16 am
Yeah this does seem to be one of those 'nobody knows how much effort goes into this sh.t and they really should' situations.
The problem is, there are so many steps and they basically all involve people staring at computer screens and the first steps are about data and statistics, then the later steps are about complex medical terminology and in-depth analysis. To make it even vaguely interesting would take a lot of work and all the people involved are still assessing all the other data that is coming in each day to look for the next signal to investigate.

One thing that I think is a pity that nobody knows, is that the world of pharmacovigilance is mainly female-led. When I was listening in to the meeting it was almost all women's voices (only one bloke spoke, maybe twice and briefly each time, in about 3 hours of the meeting that I heard. The head of the EMA (who isn't in the PRAC, but is very important), the chair of the PRAC, the lead EMA assessor, the head of PV at the EMA, the EMA committee secretariat directly running the meeting and keeping things as smooth as possible: all women, and it shouldn't be remarkable, and in my career it hasn't been; but sadly in the wider world it is still noticeable (in fact, I only even thought about it 'cos of the violence against women thread making me think about gender issues at that moment).
Fair enough, I'm no PR person although there are ways and means to make stuff interesting, without boring people with spreadsheets. Put in some big numbers about how many data points people had to individually analysed etc, or something. And make a big noise about the women stuff, the size of the team and so on. I don't think it needs to be deeply technical. I dunno I appreciate that practically this is difficult to do when you don't have individual resources or the ability to bring in an outside PR company, it does just seem like it would be helpful to be able to promote this kind of work.
I agree entirely, but senior bureaucrats of all stripes are very resistant to making too much of a show of themselves & even more resistant to spending money to do this; which is how one ends up in a situation where the public thinks that it's just a big money pit and we can do without them & enough of these so-called experts & so on.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:59 am

shpalman wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:50 am
tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am
discovolante wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:16 am
Yeah this does seem to be one of those 'nobody knows how much effort goes into this sh.t and they really should' situations.
The problem is, there are so many steps and they basically all involve people staring at computer screens and the first steps are about data and statistics, then the later steps are about complex medical terminology and in-depth analysis. To make it even vaguely interesting would take a lot of work and all the people involved are still assessing all the other data that is coming in each day to look for the next signal to investigate.
Maybe not that interesting to the general public, but you're dealing here with people who pull the daily numbers off git and play with them in spreadsheets and stats software. Or who hunt out preprints of trial data and sift through the tables.

Maybe all of us are to some extent the annoying xkcd physicist.
Maybe? [he says jovially]
FYI, the adrreports.eu website has been providing numbers and graphs of ADR reports to the public for years.
Couple that with one of the dashboards showing numbers vaccinated with each vaccine and you can do your own comparative analyses of vaccine safety (although remember prevalence in the vaccinated population for each ADR too).

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:08 am

shpalman wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:40 am
tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:19 am
I get your point, however there is a very good reason why there is zero chance of people outside ever being invited into these meetings to witness the discussions.
I wouldn't have expected that. I expected something more like the link you give below, except with some graphs or tables of data or something.

The past year has seen a lot of opening up of access, both in terms of real-time statistics on government websites, and in terms of preprints of scientific publications. Within the limits of industrial intellectual property protection and patient confidentiality I'd like to see the same from medicine regulators.

(The approval process seemed to go like "vaccine submitted to regulator and expected to be approved by [date]" "[date]: yep it's approved" as if the regulator just gives a meaningless rubber stamp to whatever the drug company says, and not a whole load of detailed rules and guidelines about how [and how not] to produce, transport, store, and administer the vaccine. Please explain this to us, because nobody else seems to be doing it.)
That's an interesting question.
Normally the expectedness of approval is far less certain. I will reply later about this, 'cos i want to give a full answer without writing too much.
shpalman wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:40 am
tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:19 am
The stopping had nothing to do with the EMA or the science of the thing & was 100% national politicians choosing to temporarily pause it because others had (once the first one panicked, the others were bound to - who wants to be the last one to stop giving the killer drug?)
Well, it wasn't the EMA but it was each nation's equivalent regulator which made the decision. In Italy's case it's the AIFA. I don't remember politicians here ever saying anything other than it was safe but let's check to be sure. France is a bit of a different matter, maybe.
I think that Italy were quite unusual in that regard. In most countries I think it was health secretaries/PHE equivalents.
shpalman wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:40 am
tom p wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:19 am
The [EMA|https://www.ema.europa.eu/en] have actually published [very detailed but clear (at least to me) documents|https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid ... lood-clots] and did a press conference and stuff (Emer Cooke, head of the EMA, was broadcast on the BBC news at 6) to give as much detail as clearly as possible. I think they did as good a job as possible in the circumstances.

Ultimately, the extremely rare DIC & CSVT are probably not related, but it is not presently possible to exclude this possibility and so a warning has been added to the labelling.
Thanks for the link. Of course I didn't see the BBC news.

I think the MHRA will need to be vigilant once the UK's mass vaccination campaign reaches the 40-50 age range. I look forward to moron UK journalists pouncing on rare adverse effects in younger* people.
Agree entirely

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by shpalman » Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:19 am

It was definitely AIFA and not the Istituto Superiore di Sanità.

Listening to an Italian press conference about it now.

(Wasn't it the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany?)
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Developing the Covid-19 vaccine

Post by tom p » Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:31 am

shpalman wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:19 am
It was definitely AIFA and not the Istituto Superiore di Sanità.

Listening to an Italian press conference about it now.

(Wasn't it the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany?)
NL & IE were not regulatory agencies though.
There's no single picture across the EU.

Post Reply