Pffft! Who needs Pfizer vaccine? Moderna's has ~95% effectiveness and doesn't need dry ice to stay fresh

[Meghan54]

You mean the 5.6m worth he sold the day of the announcement?

From what I understand, and that ain’t much, when a principle of a company, such as CEO, etc., wants to sell owned stock in said company, that usually has to be planned quite a while in advance. Not something he/she gets to do on a whim.

 

[brycejones]

From what I understand, and that ain’t much, when a principle of a company, such as CEO, etc., wants to sell owned stock in said company, that usually has to be planned quite a while in advance. Not something he/she gets to do on a whim.

Depends on what country's laws apply. I don't have a problem with his stock sell being on the same day announced as long as he didn't already know about the results for this other vaccine. Assuming he didn't there isn't a securities issue I'm aware of with his sale.

 

[sdifox]

OP sounds like someone who would wait for the Canadian vegan version.

 

[Aikouka]

Given the likely constrained amount of doses thru the middle-ish of next year both vaccines are going to be widely used, just in different settings.

I've heard plenty of people around me talk about things like "when will we get back to normal?", but I think one aspect that's important to keep in mind is that these vaccine productions are for global consumption. Also, the fact that both of the vaccines that are the furthest along require two doses, which means that production is effectively halved in regard to effective use.

We also have to consider other aspects that will potentially limit distribution. For example, we will likely see distribution hierarchies where people like first responders will receive doses first. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if we see vaccination modeling come into play where there's consideration put into certain areas/cities getting the vaccine first due to those places seeing larger numbers of travelers. (In other words, they serve as sort of a vaccination wall to avoid external agents spreading it inward.)

There's also one thing that I'm curious about. The vaccine allows your body to help target and fight off the virus, but how capable are you of spreading the disease? Is it a non-issue due to a faster immune response stopping or significantly mitigating it from getting to your respiratory system? (In other words, it wouldn't propagate much if at all via respiratory functions.)

 

[K1052]

I've heard plenty of people around me talk about things like "when will we get back to normal?", but I think one aspect that's important to keep in mind is that these vaccine productions are for global consumption. Also, the fact that both of the vaccines that are the furthest along require two doses, which means that production is effectively halved in regard to effective use.

We also have to consider other aspects that will potentially limit distribution. For example, we will likely see distribution hierarchies where people like first responders will receive doses first. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if we see vaccination modeling come into play where there's consideration put into certain areas/cities getting the vaccine first due to those places seeing larger numbers of travelers. (In other words, they serve as sort of a vaccination wall to avoid external agents spreading it inward.)

There's also one thing that I'm curious about. The vaccine allows your body to help target and fight off the virus, but how capable are you of spreading the disease? Is it a non-issue due to a faster immune response stopping or significantly mitigating it from getting to your respiratory system? (In other words, it wouldn't propagate much if at all via respiratory functions.)

Guidance is relatively clear about early priority. Healthcare workers and staff are in the very first tier, that eats about 30M doses IIRC. After that the elderly with conditions in congregate settings (nursing homes) and essential gov workers (firemen, cops, etc) are next. Past that my expectation is that it will become a bit of a free for all with people who will commit to getting dosed receiving them. Distribution is likely to be uneven as well compounding that latter issue.

The question of full sterilizing immunity is still a bit open. Might some vaccinated people shed virus for a period of time? Yeah, it seems possible. Is that a lot of people or do they shed virus for as much time as an unvaccinated person? Probably not. Anyway vaccines that basically eliminate the possibility of severe disease or death are perfectly fine in our current circumstances. I think eventually an inhaled vaccine might produce an even more robust sterilizing immunity down the road but I think we're going to have to wait a year or two for that.

 

[Muse]

Well, I am going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in a couple of areas. It is impossible to say if someone else would have started the lockdown earlier/more effectively. I will also give him credit for pushing a vaccine.

What in my mind is totally unforgivable though, is the way he undermined the prevention efforts from, say mid March till now, most notably undermining mask wearing and subverting governors and local officials in their efforts to contain the spread. Even his attempts to open up the economy were somewhat understandable, but it was unforgivable to not encourage stronger safety measures while doing so.

One of the first things Biden will do on 1/20/21 is mandate the immediate manufacture of PPE, something that Trump fumbled on and never picked up the ball period. Defence Production Act, is I think the legislation he will invoke.

Trump administration's delayed use of 1950s law leads to critical supplies shortages

Nearly four months after invoking a 1950s-era law in order to compel businesses to manufacture equipment for the fight against the coronavirus, the Trump administration has made only sparing use of its authorities, leaving front-line workers in dire need of supplies like masks, gowns and gloves...

www.cnn.com

 

[Zorba]

Is Moderna's vaccine a single dose? As I recall Pfizer requires two doses 21 days apart.

It is a 2 dose, 28-days apart. In phase 1 they looked at doing 1 large dose and although it produced a good immune response, it was abandoned due to more severe reactions and it would've actually required more vaccine than the 2 doses combined.

I doubt greatly us ordinary folks will see any vaccine within six months. I'm thinking near end of 2021 or thereabouts, hopefully I get proven wrong.

They've published schedules. But Fauci himself has said April for when normal, non-at-risk people could likely get it.

I'm at risk, but not with particular co-morbidity factors. I'm hoping by March or April, possibly sooner. I wonder if I'll have a choice between the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines. I'd sooner take the Moderna if for no other reason than the apparent fact that requiring much more intense refrigeration would suggest that getting the Pfizer vaccine would introduce some extra uncertainty.

I have a feeling you'll get whatever your local clinic can get. It might be Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazenica or Johnson & Johnson. Both of which will likely publish results in the next couple of months.

Looks promising for both. Only reservation is that usually we wait for longer term safety information. In this case though, I would definitely take either and live with the possible (very minimal most likely) risks.

I did some "research" of the anti-vaxxer horror stories and it appeared that all of them were pretty rapid onset issues, not things that developed years later (except for of course, the maybe up BS like autism being caused by MMR). I don't know this for sure, but I have a feeling, these vaccines will have been given to more people in trials than any vaccine in history. 30,000+ person trials isn't very common I don't think.

Depends on what country's laws apply. I don't have a problem with his stock sell being on the same day announced as long as he didn't already know about the results for this other vaccine. Assuming he didn't there isn't a securities issue I'm aware of with his sale.

That stock sell was scheduled 3 months ago, and the results were released by the independent safety board, so he had nothing to do with the release of the results that day either. Of course, they had a good indication of when results might be coming out 3 months ago, but there is no way he could've perfectly guessed it.

 

[Jhhnn]

We likely won't see significant availability for either vaccine until April at the earliest, maybe March for front line healthcare workers & the extremely well connected. Expect total disaster in the meanwhile.

 

[Zorba]

We likely won't see significant availability for either vaccine until April at the earliest, maybe March for front line healthcare workers & the extremely well connected. Expect total disaster in the meanwhile.

Based on what? Fauci disagrees.

‘Help is coming — and it’s coming soon’: Dr. Fauci outlines when COVID-19 vaccine will be available to all Americans

Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said: ‘When we get both of those things together — vaccine and public health measures — that would really be a...

www.marketwatch.com

 

[Muse]

We likely won't see significant availability for either vaccine until April at the earliest, maybe March for front line healthcare workers & the extremely well connected. Expect total disaster in the meanwhile.

I think that's too pessimistic.

I saw the most granular breakdown yet tonight no TV network news, NBC. IIRC:

Phase 1A: Medical personnel and emergency responders. Probably by sometime Dec.

Phase 1B: High risk medical conditions. High co-morbidities. Essential workers.

Phase 2: 65+

Phase 3 & 4 ??? Fauci said hopefully by sometime in the 2nd quarter

Here's a Sept. 22, 2020 slide presentation breakdown, but it probably doesn't reflect the current assessments with accuracy:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-09/COVID-07-Dooling.pdf

I'm sure we're going to be seeing a lot of discussion of these issues from now on in the news.

 

[Muse]

I'm thinking if health providers have access to two or more vaccines they may offer them to some extent in accordance with their appropriateness, e.g. if you are elderly, you get a vaccine that's shown to be especially effective for that demographic.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm thinking if health providers have access to two or more vaccines they may offer them to some extent in accordance with their appropriateness, e.g. if you are elderly, you get a vaccine that's shown to be especially effective for that demographic.

meh won’t matter, both appear very effective. Take whichever one you can get and get the other in the future if you are concerned.
I feel bad for Pfizer, appears they made a great product. Moderna appears to have made a slightly better product in every category.

 

[Zorba]

meh won’t matter, both appear very effective. Take whichever one you can get and get the other in the future if you are concerned.
I feel bad for Pfizer, appears they made a great product. Moderna appears to have made a slightly better product in every category.

Pfizer will get plenty of sells over the next year+. They are also the only company that have started trials with teens and will almost definitely be the first with younger kids as well. That means they will likely be the first authorized in the <18 yo group by months. So even if they just became the pediatric vaccine they'll sell as much as they can make for awhile.

 

[UNCjigga]

FYI...front-line healthcare workers are already being told if they are in the first batch of randomly selected people eligible to receive a vaccine before year end. Two people I know of have been told they're on the list if they opt to take it in December. Both of the people I know have said they are likely to opt-in; neither knows which vaccine they will be getting (but one suspects it's either Pfizer or BioNTech based on emergency use filings.)

 

[Zorba]

FYI...front-line healthcare workers are already being told if they are in the first batch of randomly selected people eligible to receive a vaccine before year end. Two people I know of have been told they're on the list if they opt to take it in December. Both of the people I know have said they are likely to opt-in; neither knows which vaccine they will be getting (but one suspects it's either Pfizer or BioNTech based on emergency use filings.)

Seems odd for it to be random. I'd think it'd go covid ICU, covid ward, ER, ambulance, then spread out to others in the hospitals.

Doing it randomly might get you a bunch of people no where near covid patients.

 

[esquared]

Since this has the first two COVID-19 vaccines I'll throw this out here.

Astra Zeneca became the third company with positive results. 70% efficacy
based on two groups with two different dosages.

AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/astrazeneca-manufacturing-error-clouds-vaccine-224815678.html

Now that number is being called into question because of several questions
1) Why did the lower dosage group have higher immungenicty than the higher dosage group? 90% vs 62%
2) The vaccine amount in the lower dosage seems to be in question. (manufacturing error)
3) No one over 55 years of age were in the low dosage study. (Younger people tend to have a higher response than older folks)
4) Seems like a clusterfuck of data

"Another point of confusion comes from a decision to pool results from two groups of participants who received different dosing levels to reach an average 70% effectiveness, said David Salisbury, and associate fellow of the global health program at the Chatham House think tank. "
"“You’ve taken two studies for which different doses were used and come up with a composite that doesn’t represent either of the doses,″ he said of the figure. “I think many people are having trouble with that.″ "

 

[Fenixgoon]

Since this has the first two COVID-19 vaccines I'll throw this out here.

Astra Zeneca became the third company with positive results. 70% efficacy
based on two groups with two different dosages.

AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/astrazeneca-manufacturing-error-clouds-vaccine-224815678.html

Now that number is being called into question because of several questions
1) Why did the lower dosage group have higher immungenicty than the higher dosage group? 90% vs 62%
2) The vaccine amount in the lower dosage seems to be in question. (manufacturing error)
3) No one over 55 years of age were in the low dosage study. (Younger people tend to have a higher response than older folks)
4) Seems like a clusterfuck of data

"Another point of confusion comes from a decision to pool results from two groups of participants who received different dosing levels to reach an average 70% effectiveness, said David Salisbury, and associate fellow of the global health program at the Chatham House think tank. "
"“You’ve taken two studies for which different doses were used and come up with a composite that doesn’t represent either of the doses,″ he said of the figure. “I think many people are having trouble with that.″ "

i would kind of expect they'll just have to repeat the entire study from scratch.

 

[cytg111]

Since this has the first two COVID-19 vaccines I'll throw this out here.

Astra Zeneca became the third company with positive results. 70% efficacy
based on two groups with two different dosages.

AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/astrazeneca-manufacturing-error-clouds-vaccine-224815678.html

Now that number is being called into question because of several questions
1) Why did the lower dosage group have higher immungenicty than the higher dosage group? 90% vs 62%
2) The vaccine amount in the lower dosage seems to be in question. (manufacturing error)
3) No one over 55 years of age were in the low dosage study. (Younger people tend to have a higher response than older folks)
4) Seems like a clusterfuck of data

"Another point of confusion comes from a decision to pool results from two groups of participants who received different dosing levels to reach an average 70% effectiveness, said David Salisbury, and associate fellow of the global health program at the Chatham House think tank. "
"“You’ve taken two studies for which different doses were used and come up with a composite that doesn’t represent either of the doses,″ he said of the figure. “I think many people are having trouble with that.″ "

Ooooooooh imagine being in charge of that clusterfuck..

 

[Muse]

Ooooooooh imagine being in charge of that clusterfuck..

Mind boggling they screwed that up, I mean the whole world was watching. It's WTF. Anyway, I think they said 300,000,000 doses next year... conditioned on approvals, of course.

 

[mindless1]

If both require two shots (and especially with different schedules, 21 days for Pfizer and 28 for Moderna) both you and your doctor better make sure which vaccine you are on. I imagine one shot of one and the second shot from the other manufacturer is useless or nearly so.

We'll have to wait and see, but that is not necessarily true. If they both produce antibodies, it is possible that one dose of one then one of the other could still be effective.

 

[WelshBloke]

FYI...front-line healthcare workers are already being told if they are in the first batch of randomly selected people eligible to receive a vaccine before year end. Two people I know of have been told they're on the list if they opt to take it in December. Both of the people I know have said they are likely to opt-in; neither knows which vaccine they will be getting (but one suspects it's either Pfizer or BioNTech based on emergency use filings.)

We are supposed to be getting it around mid December. They are going to inoculate the entire patient facing staff in no particular order.

 

[Brainonska511]

Mind boggling they screwed that up, I mean the whole world was watching. It's WTF. Anyway, I think they said 300,000,000 doses next year... conditioned on approvals, of course.

I think part of it is due to relying on CROs. The pharma companies are not directly overseeing trials - they hire CROs to open and monitor sites; independent data monitoring groups to look at the data first.

At least, from what they claimed, they informed regulators when the discrepancy was first uncovered and were allowed to continue the trial as-is.

Regardless, I want to see all the data. I hate science by press release.

 

[Muse]

We'll have to wait and see, but that is not necessarily true. If they both produce antibodies, it is possible that one dose of one then one of the other could still be effective.

Could even be an improvement, totally not out of the realm of possibility. Astrozenica/Oxford vaccine was just discovered (quite by accident because of botched testing) to be 90% effective when 1/2 the intended does was given for the first shot and full dose the second shot. Only 70% effective when both are the standard dose. We are really somewhat in the dark with these things. The scientists will try and test logical ways, but reality isn't always logical, at least not logical in the way scientists are.

 

[cytg111]

lots of new science starts with accidental something. The other vaccination producers are surely trying the same right now... imagine 95 going to 99.

 

[Fenixgoon]

lots of new science starts with accidental something. The other vaccination producers are surely trying the same right now... imagine 95 going to 99.

I once read the following quote and believe it to be a much more accurate representation of scientific discovery:

Scientists never say "eureka!". They always say "Wait a minute...."