Will you vaccinate with Conoravirus vaccine when one is available?

[CityRail]

According to reports, coronavirus vaccine is entering its final phase of testing and very soon we will have millions of coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out, hopefully from September.

By then, should a coronavirus vaccine is available, will you vaccinate it?

Personally speaking, as a 30 year old young person, I will not vaccinate myself with Coronavirus, because:

1. It is just a small flu for young people, we won't die;
2. The vaccine is rushed and I cannot guarantee if I vaccinate myself, I will be immune to Coronavirus and not get killed by the vaccine;
3. The coronavirus vaccine is just a step to reopen our borders so that we can travel overseas again.

I am not anti-vaxier, however I only think that Coronavirus vaccine is just a political ticket for politicians to explain to the public that they can now open the international borders again and ease off travel bubbles.

What do you think?

 

[Pushka]

I thought so too.

The medical fraternity is also seemingly split about following schedule of vaccination vs requirement of giving any level of protection possible in areas besieged by the virus (i.e. second doses later).

No easy answers but a little protection is better than none. There apparently is little fear or concern of the virus evolving to be immune to the vaccines if not fully immunised per schedule, which would be my primary reservation.

And this is why I wish that the medical experts and epidemiologists would confine their discussions to their appropriate bodies and Govt authorities because all this does is muddy waters and create confusion.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

And this is why I wish that the medical experts and epidemiologists would confine their discussions to their appropriate bodies and Govt authorities because all this does is muddy waters and create confusion.

Yeah, but in the age of social media, everyone has a valid opinion. It would be too hard to get any solidarity with the consensus/final view.

 

[drron]

Here is a journal article from a week ago with the head of the team leading the Oxford research.reading between the lines it seems they believe there is a disinformation campaign against the Oxford vaccine.I would assume@RAM knows where it might be coming from.

Why did your group wait longer than the other trials, such as those run by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna, to release its phase III protocol?​

All the way through I think we’ve followed the normal processes, and actually, for our studies, we’ve got five publications on the clinical trials. All of the data are out there for people to see. And it’s a bit perplexing that there’s this constant accusation of a lack of transparency. It’s actually something that, as a university, we’re absolutely committed to and have been doing all the way through.

What we normally do with our research projects is write a protocol paper, and BMJ Open is one of the places we usually launch those. I have to say that, in this pandemic, we’ve just been a bit busy. We didn’t focus on publishing a protocol paper as we’ve gone along; we just said that we’ll put it in the publications when we get there. But I think it’s just the scale of what we’ve been doing as a small university research group: we just couldn’t do everything that maybe the big pharmaceutical companies could.

And an interesting point about a delayed second dose.The evidence is that this actually increases the eventual immune response.Because the initial trials assumed a one dose protocol there was a delay in the earlier patients getting a second dose.

"As a result, we had to then manufacture enough doses to give the second dose, and that inevitably led to a delay in having the second dose available. That’s given us this really interesting phenomenon in our trial, which wasn’t intended at the beginning, where we [now] have some people who were vaccinated a month after the first dose and some people, because they’d been vaccinated before the manufacturing happened, who had to wait almost three months for their second dose.

So, we’ve got this spectrum of people between four and 12 weeks who were vaccinated, and the regulator has approved that interval because there’s a lot of data over those different intervals. Absolutely fascinatingly, and perhaps predictably, those who had a longer interval actually make much better immune responses after the second dose. We see that with other vaccines, such as the cervical cancer vaccine."

How the Oxford-AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine was made | The BMJ

And it was also pointed out that the trials are still ongoing in the UK,Brazil and south Africa so they will be getting the evidence of their vaccines effect on the new UK and SA mutations.

 

[Pushka]

Here is a journal article from a week ago with the head of the team leading the Oxford research.reading between the lines it seems they believe there is a disinformation campaign against the Oxford vaccine.I would assume@RAM knows where it might be coming from.

Why did your group wait longer than the other trials, such as those run by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna, to release its phase III protocol?​

All the way through I think we’ve followed the normal processes, and actually, for our studies, we’ve got five publications on the clinical trials. All of the data are out there for people to see. And it’s a bit perplexing that there’s this constant accusation of a lack of transparency. It’s actually something that, as a university, we’re absolutely committed to and have been doing all the way through.

What we normally do with our research projects is write a protocol paper, and BMJ Open is one of the places we usually launch those. I have to say that, in this pandemic, we’ve just been a bit busy. We didn’t focus on publishing a protocol paper as we’ve gone along; we just said that we’ll put it in the publications when we get there. But I think it’s just the scale of what we’ve been doing as a small university research group: we just couldn’t do everything that maybe the big pharmaceutical companies could.

And an interesting point about a delayed second dose.The evidence is that this actually increases the eventual immune response.Because the initial trials assumed a one dose protocol there was a delay in the earlier patients getting a second dose.

"As a result, we had to then manufacture enough doses to give the second dose, and that inevitably led to a delay in having the second dose available. That’s given us this really interesting phenomenon in our trial, which wasn’t intended at the beginning, where we [now] have some people who were vaccinated a month after the first dose and some people, because they’d been vaccinated before the manufacturing happened, who had to wait almost three months for their second dose.

So, we’ve got this spectrum of people between four and 12 weeks who were vaccinated, and the regulator has approved that interval because there’s a lot of data over those different intervals. Absolutely fascinatingly, and perhaps predictably, those who had a longer interval actually make much better immune responses after the second dose. We see that with other vaccines, such as the cervical cancer vaccine."

How the Oxford-AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine was made | The BMJ

And it was also pointed out that the trials are still ongoing in the UK,Brazil and south Africa so they will be getting the evidence of their vaccines effect on the new UK and SA mutations.

Just like the stories about the accidental half dose when in reality the scientists deliberately reduced dosage due to production methods in Italy (Although the reported outcome of doing that wasn't expected)

 

[Lynda2475]

Based on my demographic I suspect I wont get a choice but to get the Oxford vaccine, as the better ones will be adminsitered to those higher up the priority list.

But I really want to see some research re safety and efficacy if you have multiple vaccines.

If the results from roll-out in UK (where they have been screwing around with the timing) and other places, proves Oxford vaccine is less effect in preventing spread and severe disease I would want to pay privately to access a better vaccination when possible, but not if this hasnt been proven safe.

As someone longing to be able to travel internationally, I want the best protection available for when I do.

 

[Must...Fly!]

On the flip side, from trial data the Oxford is more successful at preventing serious disease than the Pfizer.

The jury is very much out on the Pfizer being the "better" vaccine @Lynda2475

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

There is also the unknown as to how long one is “protected” by each vaccine.

 

[drron]

Sorry @Pushka this statement is wrong.
"Just like the stories about the accidental half dose when in reality the scientists deliberately reduced dosage due to production methods in Italy (Although the reported outcome of doing that wasn't expected)"

The reason for the half dose was because they were desperately short of vaccine definitely so they contracted an Italian manufacturer to make extra doses.their method of production was different and when density testing was done by the Oxford group on the Italian version it gave a 2X result hence half a dose was given.
As always if there is a choice between a stuff up and a conspiracy the stuff up wins every time.A quote told to me by a rare animal,an honest politician ,Steele Hall.

 

[Lynda2475]

The jury is very much out on the Pfizer being the "better" vaccine

Undersatnd that, but being so low down on the priority list for receiving one, I am hoping the true better is known by then, given millions around the world wil have been vaccinated long ahead of me. And I will move to get the best once that is known,

 

[Pushka]

Sorry @Pushka this statement is wrong.
"Just like the stories about the accidental half dose when in reality the scientists deliberately reduced dosage due to production methods in Italy (Although the reported outcome of doing that wasn't expected)"

The reason for the half dose was because they were desperately short of vaccine definitely so they contracted an Italian manufacturer to make extra doses.their method of production was different and when density testing was done by the Oxford group on the Italian version it gave a 2X result hence half a dose was given.
As always if there is a choice between a stuff up and a conspiracy the stuff up wins every time.A quote told to me by a rare animal,an honest politician ,Steele Hall.

Umm. That’s exactly what I said. The Italians manufactured it differently so they deliberately amended the dosage.

 

[kpc]

Working in health at the frontline in a major Sydney hospital, we should be getting the Pfizer vaccine in mid to late Feb based on the PMs announcement last week. I think it is probably good we don't have /get a choice to which vaccine we get as amongst ourselves we can't unanimously decide as to whether we prefer the Pfizer (mRNA) or Astra Zeneca (Oxford) vaccine...we do unanimously agree however that getting any vaccine is better than getting Covid!

 

[drron]

Umm. That’s exactly what I said. The Italians manufactured it differently so they deliberately amended the dosage.

The word deliberately is what makes the statement wrong.Their tests suggested that it should be a half dose not that they decided amongst themselves it should be a half dose.

 

[Pushka]

The word deliberately is what makes the statement wrong.Their tests suggested that it should be a half dose not that they decided amongst themselves it should be a half dose.

I believe you are reading the word ‘deliberately’ in a different context. My take - it’s a deliberate action versus an accidental one. Black and white.

 

[drron]

I believe you are reading the word ‘deliberately’ in a different context. My take - it’s a deliberate action versus an accidental one. Black and white.

We should be having this discussion in the grammar thread.
The word deliberately suggests to me that they knew they were giving a half dose when in fact they thought they were giving a full dose by the result of their testing.So to me it suggests an accident or stuff up.

 

[Lynda2475]

Paul Kelly predicted that the long term vaccine will be a protein based one (Novavax?) But due to long timeframe probably not widely til 2022.

 

[prozac]

I anticipate due to need of extreme cold chain logistics, front line and high risk groups will be given the Pfizer vac in a hospital situation. The rest of us likely will get the less temperature critical Astrazenecca vac. in GP surgeries and vaccine clinics.
@drron, given a choice, and I don't expect I will get a choice, which vaccine would you opt for? I am not really bothered but interested to know.

 

[ethernet]

The Cwth has been lousy with their press releases. Mentioning 'safety' of the vaccine only, failing to emphasize 'efficacy'. Argument by omission. Someone mentioned when Astra Zeneca (Oxford) provide more data to TGA in Feb. The presumption is Oxford KNOW when more shots are delivered, the performance gap between them and the others will narrow. And outright bias for 'Made in Australia at CSL' - this should not be said until after approval. It stinks of some secret deal/commercial arrangement.

Someone mentioned a $20 Million advertising blitz for the jab when available. Pre-release Anti Vax concept would be a poster bold words 'DON'T RISK IT' a picture of flesh eating covid zombies - yes thay made a movie - same title - superimposed on a wall plastered with posters urging you to take the nochoice Astra Zeneca Oxford - . Underneath a disclaimer "As the TGA are withholding baseline data not in the public domain - don't risk it. Wait for full disclosure. Demand the choice as to what gets injected, and proper efficacy comparison charts. Legally risky to use 'Dont accept 2nd best' (because Modena and the Russian one may be in 1st and 3rd place by then), so a second backup poster 'Say NO' will hammer in disgust, and derail shady deals in potentially home grown 4th place one

I am comfortable with the Oxford one, and know they have been talking to the Russians, and skeptical of the mrna number of 94-95%, knowing they were not looking for bad events - set off against Israel going full bore to confirm that early bold claim.

I suspect AFF members would like the Pfizer one first,because overseas flights/travel for the vaccinated with the Oxford one may have to wait an extra 2-3 months.

 

[drron]

I anticipate due to need of extreme cold chain logistics, front line and high risk groups will be given the Pfizer vac in a hospital situation. The rest of us likely will get the less temperature critical Astrazenecca vac. in GP surgeries and vaccine clinics.
@drron, given a choice, and I don't expect I will get a choice, which vaccine would you opt for? I am not really bothered but interested to know.

I am quite happy to go with the Oxford vaccine.It is older technology which has been used before.
They have put more information into the medical journals than Pfizer or Moderna-they have had 5 articles on the results of their trials.
They have given a lot more information on the side effects of their vaccine.Only 1 severe reaction that is likely to have been due to the vaccine and one possible-the patient is still in the trial and not known if they are in the active or control group.More severe effects noted in the control group.

Less severe cases of covid in their phase 3 trial than in the Pfizer Phase 3 trial.
Also evidence that if the second dose is delayed the effect is an improvement of immunity.
The working group says that it will be just as easy to modify their vaccine as with the RNA vaccines.

I know now that I won't be getting the vaccine as a hospital worker as the hospital is getting it's supply after my time is up.So I will be in my own age group when it comes around.Though having turned 75 I will be high up that way.

 

[clifford]

I suspect AFF members would like the Pfizer one first,because overseas flights/travel for the vaccinated with the Oxford one may have to wait an extra 2-3 months.

I'd like whichever one gives me the best chance of not being killed or maimed by this virus (well, who wouldn't).

My priority is not overseas travel (or any other sort of travel) in the short term, but merely staying healthy, with my family and friends likewise.

Travel can be done later when there is less chance of getting sick / dying overseas, and IMHO a vaccine with high efficacy will be needed to do this (or take your chances).

Note that I am BA Gold and UA Plat (to name but a couple), but I'm not rushing to resume my regular travel patterns at this stage. Each to their own, however.

 

[prozac]

I am quite happy to go with the Oxford vaccine.It is older technology which has been used before.
They have put more information into the medical journals than Pfizer or Moderna-they have had 5 articles on the results of their trials.
They have given a lot more information on the side effects of their vaccine.Only 1 severe reaction that is likely to have been due to the vaccine and one possible-the patient is still in the trial and not known if they are in the active or control group.More severe effects noted in the control group.

Less severe cases of covid in their phase 3 trial than in the Pfizer Phase 3 trial.
Also evidence that if the second dose is delayed the effect is an improvement of immunity.
The working group says that it will be just as easy to modify their vaccine as with the RNA vaccines.

I know now that I won't be getting the vaccine as a hospital worker as the hospital is getting it's supply after my time is up.So I will be in my own age group when it comes around.Though having turned 75 I will be high up that way.

Thank you the concise overview @drron