@bostrav59 I am also in MA and furious with Charlie Baker. So frustrating, but lots of people are advocating for type 1s to move onto the co-morbidity list, so hopefully there is still hope.
1 Like
@JessicaD Isnât the issue more from the CDC? The CDC made the determination for some reason. Massachusetts is just following their own plan.
We have planned a trip to California for Memorial day. I hope weâll all be vaccinated by then.
1 Like
Many other states say âdiabetesâ generally or include both types 1 and 2. I am keeping fingers crossed for May as well!
1 Like
With the J&J vaccine coming online, things should speed up considerably.
2 Likes
My wife, who is a dentist and has already been vaccinated, is not so crazy about the J&J vaccine - says itâs 65% effective.
I like the idea of a one-dose shot that doesnât need such big deal storage requirements. Anybody have any perspectives or knowledge on this?
e
1 Like
One thing to keep in mind re the J&J efficacy trials vs the mRNA vaccines is that they. occurred at different times with different strains at play. So itâs entirely possible that neither Pfizer nor Moderna have the numbers they purport to in the current strain environment either⌠the gap may be smaller than it appears.
3 Likes
And Iâd gladly take a 65% protection vaccine over a 0% (my family is on no list atm so weâd take what we could get, whenever and whatever becomes available.) Itâs been stated that it may be possible to get multiple vaccines if there are no contraindications in doing so. Iâd prefer to be 65% protected than 0%.
2 Likes
At present in Oregon health factors do not become admissible until April; all the factors are based on either age or the likelihood of being in close contact with people outside your bubble. I have my first shot scheduled for April 9, on the basis of my T1D. My wife, a smoker, canât get one yet.
I certainly agree with the CDC. My wife goes out at least once a day, normally after dinner, to smoke her fag (âonly two puffsâ) and from time to time I join her. I shall be more regular; it might save my life if Oregon starts distinguishing between Type 1 and Type 2 health risks.[1]
Meanwhile, why isnât alcohol on that list? Does it only count if you get chronic liver disease? Thatâs a bit late, isnât it?[2]
[1] A note for US readers: I am entirely serious, this is not humour, not irony and not sarcasm.
[2] A note for US readers: I am entirely serious, this is not humour, not irony and not sarcasm.
2 Likes
Yes, the J&J vaccine continues to improve its efficacy with time, and at 45 days after inoculation is more than 90% effective at eliminating severe disease, which is within spitting distance of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, although it takes longer to get there. The fact that it only requires one shot and doesnât require extreme refrigeration is a big plus on getting everyone vaccinated, especially in more rural areas.
3 Likes
J&J is also trialing a 2 shot protocol, which I would put money on improving efficacy. I am not sure of timeline â they announced the trial in November, but looks like it didnât get underway in a meaningful way (with a push in the press) until mid-February. The protocol is for the second shot to be 57 days after the first!
That is a quick way to increase the number of units sold as well, win-win.
1 Like
Well it seems like both types of vaccines are highly effective at one dose, and then maybe both are maximally effective at 2âthat said, makes the UKâs approach to focus on first shots of Pfizer and Moderna for everyone and worry about second shots later seem as rationale as using the J&J vaccine. I would think that getting more people mostly immune faster is preferable in terms. of controlling spread than fewer people slightly more immune, especially since odds are we will all need boosters adjusted for new variants and to bolster immunity within 6-12 months from the first vaccine anyway.
3 Likes
But we have to keep in mind Pfizer and Moderna were both tested and approved as 2 shots and with specific intervals between shots 1 and 2. So, while it may be true that 1 shot is most likely effective to some extent for both Pfizer and Moderna, to my knowledge that official testing hasnât been conducted yet so their efficacy is purely speculative at this point. I could be wrong.
FDA testing and approval was given to Pfizer for the specific 2-dose series separated by 21 days while they tested and approved Moderna for the specific 2-dose series separated by 28 days.
3 Likes
Oh sure, but evidence is definitely mounting that one shot provides a good amount of coverage. Also the guidelines suggest you need to wait at least that interval between shots, but do not suggest a longer interval is a problem (and some are suggesting longer may be a better strategy). What you said is the reason they arenât doing any of that, but itâs entirely plausible that an alternate approach would be the more effective choice re herd immunity and that functionally, the two types of shots have similarly efficacy at one vs two shots. Based on the numbers we are now seeing and increasing evidence for one shot reducing both serious outcomes and transmission, if I were in charge of everything and the limited amounts of vaccines, Iâd want everyone to get a first shot before we worry about second shots. Maybe Iâd say still give elderly or immunosuppressed folks both to be sure, since their immune systems might need the full push, but everyone else, seems better to get full population coverage. The longer we have community spread, even among healthier younger adults and kids, the more new and dangerous strains we risk developing.
But thatâs all just my opinion from following the emerging science.
4 Likes
Iâm going to rant a bit because it bothers me how much misunderstanding there is about âefficacyâ of the three vaccines. Itâs an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect to say that vaccine A had an efficacy in the trial of 95% and vaccine B had an efficacy in its trial of 77% so the first one vaccine is better. Such a conclusion is unsupported.
First of all, efficacy is with respect to a specific outcome in a specific population. Whatâs the efficacy of all 3 vaccines at preventing death from covid? It seems to be about 100% after full vaccination. Whatâs the efficacy of all 3 vaccines at preventing hospital admission for treatment of covid? That also seems to be about 100%.
If the Pfizer vaccine had an efficacy of 95% in the trial, what exactly did they find out? What did 95% of the trial participants avoid? Death? Severe disease? Symptomatic disease? You need to know the answer to that to know what 95% efficacy means.
Then thereâs the population in the trial. If one trial was conducted on a population with higher proportion of old people, higher proportion of people of color, and in a location that had higher incidence of the UK and South African variants, of course weâd expect to see more people getting sick. It would be unsound to conclude from this that the vaccine was less good, even though the âefficacyâ numbers from the trial would look worse.
7 Likes
Thanks for your explication. It did seem confusing that these vaccines had an âefficacy ratingâ that was one number yet there are so many different ranges of outcomes from the disease.
Me, Iâll take whatever they want to give me.
e
2 Likes
Loved this, @bkh. Thanks for the post. I know my family and I will take anything thatâs offered because to have nothing means you have zero chance of being protected at all.
1 Like
We are also in with whatever is available. Hoping for J&J due to the ease of only needing one appointment, but will take the last drop of any.
2 Likes
There are other things like saying it wonât be a bad case of it, or you wonât die, or wonât need to go to the hospital, etc. And these companies pay people to look at the numbers and come up with the best way to describe their numbers, and do it in a way that makes their vaccine look good. We donât need refrigeration! Ours is more effective! Ours only requires one shot! Ours comes with a free piece of chocolate!
But just based on the trial tests, and who did get the virus after the vaccine, here are the raw numbers.
(And yes, there are differences in variants and differences in the trial group participants. Who knows - maybe some of them were hanging out in bars and bowling alleys the whole time while other groups stayed locked up tight in their houses. The only way to know for sure would be to give someone the vaccine and then spray Covid in their face. But the trials donât do that.)
Trial group numbers, who got Covid after getting the vaccine?
Pfizer (after 2nd shot)
8 out of 21,720
0.0368%
Moderna (after 2nd shot)
5 out of 15,000
0.0333%
J&J
18 out of 5,000
0.360%
Note the extra zero in the Pfizer and Moderna numbers, and also the fact that their trial groups were much larger for Pfizer and Moderna. Take it for what it is worth, consider the difference in variants or other factors, but these are the raw numbers I found.
5 Likes
Yes, but it is a Coronavirus. There is no cure for the common cold[1][2][3], and that is just the first three results I found.
The best one of those links IMO is the Scientfic American one, the second. It refers to Rhinoviri, which, as this wikipedia article explains, is one of several related complex chemicals which cause âthe common coldâ. Like diabetes the description is more symtomatic than useful; hey, weâre all diabetics because we have insulin resistance, right[sarcasm]?
The point I take from the SA article is:
âThe main challenge with rhinovirus is the number of circulating strains,â
Permit me to restate that:
The main problem with coronavirus is the number of circulating strains.
Now we monkeys are incredibly lucky. Until two years ago there wasnât a variant of coronavirus that both killed us and wasnât rapidly detectable. Oops.
So now we need a vaccine that can be redeveloped every year, administered to most of the population every year and is easy, cheap and reliable. I get a flu shot every year, I almost certainly get flu every year, I just donât notice it.
I believe in this species, I will get a coronavirus shot every year, almost certainly in the same shot as my flu shot, I will get COVID-20, COVID-21, COVID-22 etc every year.
Iâm pretty sure I had COVID-18, it was a bummer, but Iâm pretty sure Iâve had COVID-19 too, probably several times because Iâve been getting an abnormally large number of cold symptoms.
As a capitalist I was initially mystified as to why AstraZeneca made their vaccine available at cost. Eventually I realized the problem they were solving; they had to build production facilities across the globe to produce enough vaccine for everyone on this planet. That cost a lot of money. Once they have those production facilities in place they will be able to refactor them to produce the vaccine for COVID- every year, at the same cost, which will be a profit, a big profit, for them. I trust everyone on this planet will thank them both for being capitalists and good capitalists. I wish I was that intelligent [not sarcasm, not irony, true.]
5 Likes