D
Departed
Guest
China, for the foreseeable future, will have them by the cojones. Brexit will look like a good move when this plays out. As it always was.
Covid, Phase II. Commonsense is the order of the day.
- Thread starter Spursex
- Start date
China, for the foreseeable future, will have them by the cojones. Brexit will look like a good move when this plays out. As it always was.
Spursex
Alert Team
One-shot Oxford vaccine strategy is vindicated by new study
Jab also halves transmission rates
new
Rhys Blakely, Science Correspondent | Tom Whipple, Science Editor
Tuesday February 02 2021, 7.00pm, The Times
The study found that leaving a longer interval between doses of the Oxford vaccine appeared to improve long-term protection
JOE GIDDENS/REUTERS
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...strategy-is-vindicated-by-new-study-w6zbqcmtg
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...strategy-is-vindicated-by-new-study-w6zbqcmtg
Save
A single dose of the Oxford vaccine provides about 75 per cent protection against Covid-19 and also has a substantial effect in stopping transmission, analysis of the ongoing trial has found.
The findings are a vindication of the government’s “one dose” strategy, indicating that a single injection offers a high level of efficacy that persists for at least 12 weeks, after which people should receive their second dose.
The figures also confirm that leaving a longer interval between the doses appears to improve rather than diminish long-term protection.
The study, which is under peer review and is expected to be published in The Lancet, concludes that leaving a 12-week gap between shots “may be the optimal for rollout of a pandemic vaccine when supplies are limited in the short term”.
Professor Andrew Pollard of Oxford University, who led the vaccine trial, said that the new data “supports the policy recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) for a 12-week prime-boost interval”.
The findings were a reassurance that people “are protected from 22 days after a single dose of the vaccine”, he added.
However, other scientists cautioned that there were shortcomings in how the trials were run. The figures for the effectiveness of one dose relied on a subgroup of Brazilian volunteers who were relatively young, more likely to be female and more likely to be white than those who received two doses, noted Professor Azra Ghani of Imperial College London, who was not involved in the study.
In your inbox
Coronavirus update
For a concise rundown of the developments that matter, combined with expert analysis, sign up to receive our dedicated daily coronavirus newsletter
Sign up now
The overall findings were based on trials that involved about 17,000 people in the UK, Brazil and South Africa, half of whom received the real vaccine while the rest got a placebo. Twenty-one days after they received their first injection there were no hospitalisations in the vaccine group while there were 15 in the control group.
All the volunteers were over 18. About 10 per cent were between 56 and 69 and 5 per cent were 70 or over.
The results were not broken down by age but the Oxford team previously said that they had observed good immune responses across all age groups in a separate study. The vaccine was 76 per cent effective from three weeks after the first injection and this level of protection lasted until 90 days after the first jab.
After a second dose, vaccine efficacy was 82 per cent with the three-month interval between shots that is being used in the UK.
The report also suggests that the vaccine could have a “substantial” effect on transmission of the virus, with a reduction of positive PCR tests among those vaccinated of more than 50 per cent. This suggests a pronounced reduction in the number of people who carry the disease but show no symptoms.
The new study includes more data than previous studies published by the Oxford team. Their results are now being based on 332 cases of Covid, where people developed symptoms and had a positive test, up from 131 reported in a previous analysis.
The results mirror figures that had already been released by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the medical regulator, when it set out its reasons for approving the vaccine in December.
The latest data confirm that the interval between the two doses has a significant effect on the level of protection after the second dose. Efficacy rose from 55 per cent with an interval of less than six weeks to about 82 per cent when the shots were spaced out by 12 weeks or longer.
Oxford said that its team hoped to report data on how effective the vaccine was at tackling new variants of the virus in the coming days. They expect those results to be “broadly similar” to findings from other vaccine developers, who have reported lower levels of protection with the South African variant.
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was not involved in the trial, said that the new figures “certainly do not suggest that the JCVI advice on dose-spacing was in any way incorrect for this vaccine.
“It does not directly address the same questions for other vaccines but there are no good reasons or data to suggest that they would have markedly dissimilar results.”
Jab also halves transmission rates
new
Rhys Blakely, Science Correspondent | Tom Whipple, Science Editor
Tuesday February 02 2021, 7.00pm, The Times
The study found that leaving a longer interval between doses of the Oxford vaccine appeared to improve long-term protection
JOE GIDDENS/REUTERS
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...strategy-is-vindicated-by-new-study-w6zbqcmtg
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...strategy-is-vindicated-by-new-study-w6zbqcmtg
Save
A single dose of the Oxford vaccine provides about 75 per cent protection against Covid-19 and also has a substantial effect in stopping transmission, analysis of the ongoing trial has found.
The findings are a vindication of the government’s “one dose” strategy, indicating that a single injection offers a high level of efficacy that persists for at least 12 weeks, after which people should receive their second dose.
The figures also confirm that leaving a longer interval between the doses appears to improve rather than diminish long-term protection.
The study, which is under peer review and is expected to be published in The Lancet, concludes that leaving a 12-week gap between shots “may be the optimal for rollout of a pandemic vaccine when supplies are limited in the short term”.
Professor Andrew Pollard of Oxford University, who led the vaccine trial, said that the new data “supports the policy recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) for a 12-week prime-boost interval”.
The findings were a reassurance that people “are protected from 22 days after a single dose of the vaccine”, he added.
However, other scientists cautioned that there were shortcomings in how the trials were run. The figures for the effectiveness of one dose relied on a subgroup of Brazilian volunteers who were relatively young, more likely to be female and more likely to be white than those who received two doses, noted Professor Azra Ghani of Imperial College London, who was not involved in the study.
In your inbox
Coronavirus update
For a concise rundown of the developments that matter, combined with expert analysis, sign up to receive our dedicated daily coronavirus newsletter
Sign up now
The overall findings were based on trials that involved about 17,000 people in the UK, Brazil and South Africa, half of whom received the real vaccine while the rest got a placebo. Twenty-one days after they received their first injection there were no hospitalisations in the vaccine group while there were 15 in the control group.
All the volunteers were over 18. About 10 per cent were between 56 and 69 and 5 per cent were 70 or over.
The results were not broken down by age but the Oxford team previously said that they had observed good immune responses across all age groups in a separate study. The vaccine was 76 per cent effective from three weeks after the first injection and this level of protection lasted until 90 days after the first jab.
After a second dose, vaccine efficacy was 82 per cent with the three-month interval between shots that is being used in the UK.
The report also suggests that the vaccine could have a “substantial” effect on transmission of the virus, with a reduction of positive PCR tests among those vaccinated of more than 50 per cent. This suggests a pronounced reduction in the number of people who carry the disease but show no symptoms.
The new study includes more data than previous studies published by the Oxford team. Their results are now being based on 332 cases of Covid, where people developed symptoms and had a positive test, up from 131 reported in a previous analysis.
The results mirror figures that had already been released by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the medical regulator, when it set out its reasons for approving the vaccine in December.
The latest data confirm that the interval between the two doses has a significant effect on the level of protection after the second dose. Efficacy rose from 55 per cent with an interval of less than six weeks to about 82 per cent when the shots were spaced out by 12 weeks or longer.
Oxford said that its team hoped to report data on how effective the vaccine was at tackling new variants of the virus in the coming days. They expect those results to be “broadly similar” to findings from other vaccine developers, who have reported lower levels of protection with the South African variant.
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was not involved in the trial, said that the new figures “certainly do not suggest that the JCVI advice on dose-spacing was in any way incorrect for this vaccine.
“It does not directly address the same questions for other vaccines but there are no good reasons or data to suggest that they would have markedly dissimilar results.”
Spursex
Alert Team
Russia offers to boost rival vaccines as Sputnik V jab shows 90% efficacy in trial
updated
Tom Whipple, Science Editor
Tuesday February 02 2021, 5.00pm, The Times
Europe
Health
Russia
Russia said that the findings were an affirmation for the Sputnik V vaccine after a “very active campaign” to discredit it with “fake news”
GASTON BRITO/GETTY IMAGES
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ik-v-jab-shows-90-efficacy-in-trial-zc93wmr69
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...ik-v-jab-shows-90-efficacy-in-trial-zc93wmr69
Save
Russia’s vaccine is more than 90 per cent effective at stopping illness and will soon be tested in combination with the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine, its scientists have said.
Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s direct investment fund which backed the vaccine, said that the publication of the results in The Lancet showed that they had a “vaccine for humanity”.
The trial involved 20,000 volunteers and found 62 infections in those who had received the placebo compared with only 16 in those who had the vaccine.
Like all the other vaccines that have reached this stage, it appeared to stop all serious illness and death.
At least on the basis of its headline figures it is slightly more effective than the Oxford vaccine, which uses very similar technology and today reported stopping more than 80 per cent of all illness in those who waited 12 weeks for their second dose.
A small trial of 100 people is due to begin next month to test whether a combination of the Oxford and Sputnik vaccines could produce even better results by mixing and matching the two with different first and second doses.
Dmitriev said that publication of the Lancet findings was an affirmation for the vaccine after a “very active campaign” to discredit it with “fake news”.
There have been persistent tensions between Russia and the West over the vaccine programme. In the autumn there were accusations that Russia had been preparing a social media campaign against the Oxford vaccine, which Dmitriev referred to as the “Monkey Vaccine” owing to its use of a chimpanzee virus.
Today he said that the trial showed that despite the criticism Russia had one of the best vaccines in the world. “We very clearly see that in coming months vaccines will be split into those offering efficacy of higher than 90 per cent, as Sputnik V belongs to, and those having an efficacy of less than 90 per cent,” he said, adding in what appeared to be a reference to the upcoming trial with the Oxford vaccine: “We are ready to work as partners with vaccines of less than 90 per cent to help boost their efficacy.”
Scientists yesterday cautioned that direct comparisons of vaccine efficacy were almost impossible since criteria for what constitutes sickness differ, as do the populations tested and the prevalence of coronavirus during tests.
The efficacy is also an estimate at a single time point, with no indication as to how immunity develops.
Sputnik V works on a similar principle to the Oxford vaccine, using a deactivated “adenovirus” to transport genetic instructions into cells which then make coronavirus spikes. As with the Oxford vaccine, the logistics for this technology are a lot simpler than those of other candidates such as Pfizer’s, as it can be stored in an ordinary refrigerator. Currently 16 countries including Argentina, Paraguay, Hungary and the United Arab Emirates have registered it for use.
The Russians had already approved it for use in the population before these phase three results, a move that was criticised at the time. Dr Peter English, former chairman of the BMA public health medicine committee, said that it was “hugely risky, and is definitely not to be recommended” but that it had clearly paid off. He added: “This is a good study and very good news. Another highly effective vaccine in our armoury!”
Professor Ian Jones, from the University of Reading, said that he had seen the paper before publication and there was no reason to be suspicious of the results. “What they’re doing is standard stuff, it’s a tried and tested technology that’s been used for many experimental vaccines and the safety record is good.”
He said that it was unfortunate that politics had got in the way. “There has been finger-pointing both ways and both sides need a slap on the wrist,” he said. “A previous reticence to accept them as a bona fide player stems from mutual suspicion in the political systems, but if you stay with the science it all looks good.”
updated
Tom Whipple, Science Editor
Tuesday February 02 2021, 5.00pm, The Times
Europe
Health
Russia
Russia said that the findings were an affirmation for the Sputnik V vaccine after a “very active campaign” to discredit it with “fake news”
GASTON BRITO/GETTY IMAGES
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ik-v-jab-shows-90-efficacy-in-trial-zc93wmr69
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...ik-v-jab-shows-90-efficacy-in-trial-zc93wmr69
Save
Russia’s vaccine is more than 90 per cent effective at stopping illness and will soon be tested in combination with the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine, its scientists have said.
Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s direct investment fund which backed the vaccine, said that the publication of the results in The Lancet showed that they had a “vaccine for humanity”.
The trial involved 20,000 volunteers and found 62 infections in those who had received the placebo compared with only 16 in those who had the vaccine.
Like all the other vaccines that have reached this stage, it appeared to stop all serious illness and death.
At least on the basis of its headline figures it is slightly more effective than the Oxford vaccine, which uses very similar technology and today reported stopping more than 80 per cent of all illness in those who waited 12 weeks for their second dose.
A small trial of 100 people is due to begin next month to test whether a combination of the Oxford and Sputnik vaccines could produce even better results by mixing and matching the two with different first and second doses.
Dmitriev said that publication of the Lancet findings was an affirmation for the vaccine after a “very active campaign” to discredit it with “fake news”.
There have been persistent tensions between Russia and the West over the vaccine programme. In the autumn there were accusations that Russia had been preparing a social media campaign against the Oxford vaccine, which Dmitriev referred to as the “Monkey Vaccine” owing to its use of a chimpanzee virus.
Today he said that the trial showed that despite the criticism Russia had one of the best vaccines in the world. “We very clearly see that in coming months vaccines will be split into those offering efficacy of higher than 90 per cent, as Sputnik V belongs to, and those having an efficacy of less than 90 per cent,” he said, adding in what appeared to be a reference to the upcoming trial with the Oxford vaccine: “We are ready to work as partners with vaccines of less than 90 per cent to help boost their efficacy.”
Scientists yesterday cautioned that direct comparisons of vaccine efficacy were almost impossible since criteria for what constitutes sickness differ, as do the populations tested and the prevalence of coronavirus during tests.
The efficacy is also an estimate at a single time point, with no indication as to how immunity develops.
Sputnik V works on a similar principle to the Oxford vaccine, using a deactivated “adenovirus” to transport genetic instructions into cells which then make coronavirus spikes. As with the Oxford vaccine, the logistics for this technology are a lot simpler than those of other candidates such as Pfizer’s, as it can be stored in an ordinary refrigerator. Currently 16 countries including Argentina, Paraguay, Hungary and the United Arab Emirates have registered it for use.
The Russians had already approved it for use in the population before these phase three results, a move that was criticised at the time. Dr Peter English, former chairman of the BMA public health medicine committee, said that it was “hugely risky, and is definitely not to be recommended” but that it had clearly paid off. He added: “This is a good study and very good news. Another highly effective vaccine in our armoury!”
Professor Ian Jones, from the University of Reading, said that he had seen the paper before publication and there was no reason to be suspicious of the results. “What they’re doing is standard stuff, it’s a tried and tested technology that’s been used for many experimental vaccines and the safety record is good.”
He said that it was unfortunate that politics had got in the way. “There has been finger-pointing both ways and both sides need a slap on the wrist,” he said. “A previous reticence to accept them as a bona fide player stems from mutual suspicion in the political systems, but if you stay with the science it all looks good.”
Spursex
Alert Team
Tweaked vaccines ready by autumn to deal with mutations..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55917793
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55917793
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
I am surprised the mutation issue was not mentioned in today's conference. How the virus mutates is unpredictable but inevitable as that's what viruses do.
How clever is this virus ? Can it render vaccines ineffective over time? Like the Flu vaccine it seems constant modifications may be required over years. Can the scientists keep up and can the new vaccines be rolled out in time ?
Prof Whitty warned us this virus will be with us for a long time, Flu it seems is with us until it can be eradicated by science, maybe not in our lifetimes.
How clever is this virus ? Can it render vaccines ineffective over time? Like the Flu vaccine it seems constant modifications may be required over years. Can the scientists keep up and can the new vaccines be rolled out in time ?
Prof Whitty warned us this virus will be with us for a long time, Flu it seems is with us until it can be eradicated by science, maybe not in our lifetimes.
Spursex
Alert Team
A virus is dumb, it's not even considered to be a living organism by 99% of all scientists, it's driven by its dna/mna; that simply encodes it to replicate, for no other end purpose than to replicate.
Scientists still have no idea what the purpose of a virus is, sadly some religions see them as 'Gods work'.
Virus's drift as they pass through hosts, the evolution is all about its ability to replicate more easily and to fool host immune systems - what is a bonus is that disparate populations are seeing the same evolutions, where no connection can be found i.e. the virus is independently doing it itself. To the scientists, that a huge relief as it means it's predictable.
So as we will see a new varied vaccine come the autumn or even a more comprehensive mixing of shots that can attack it on differing fronts, we can at least fight back. The speed of response to mutations is now incredible (compared to a couple of years ago) and will get even faster as our Porton Down methodologies are being shared across the World.
Interestingly Flu has almost been eradicated as a reportable disease this season, which is good news for seasonal flu deaths, but bad news in as much the scientists know it will rebound, but now they don't know what the mutations/strains are likely to be, it's a catch 22. So we could find that we pretty much conquer Covid by next winter, only to find a flu strain that hits us a lot harder than usual - unless of course we all 'embed' the viral protections we've adopted and thus cut off the transmissions for flu and colds.
The problem with global viruses and the way we live our lives now is that as we might all but conquer it in one place, it will still be carried to us from another, probably less sophisticated area of the World and so the cycle will carry on.
But the BIG positive is the scientists who've been scrabbling around for funding, won't have to ever see their research cut short or forced to slow down as they once did. And that in my view is a huge leap forward in our defence capability.
Spursex
Alert Team
Dramatic recovery from Covid may be two weeks off
Tom Whipple
Thursday February 04 2021, 12.01am, The Times
The darkest hour, according to the adage, comes just before dawn. The strange thing about the pandemic, though, is that in a sense the darkest hour comes after the dawn.
On January 10 the average number of daily deaths reported passed 1,000. It has not been below 1,000 since. Things are dark.
Yet, as we all know deaths reflect what happened weeks ago — and actually there is a lot of good news. Cases, which many feared could not fall with the appearance of the new variants, seem to have been dropping steadily for a month.
At the same time vaccine distribution has been going in the other direction.
So when will we see a beneficial effect? And if cases are falling anyway, how will we know how much the vaccine is helping?
In the middle of last month the Covid-19 Actuaries Response Group considered just this question. Assume, they said, that vaccination hit the government’s targets. Assume also that it is 100 per cent effective at preventing severe illness and 70 per cent effective at preventing infection.
These were felt at the time to be pretty bold assumptions. With the release of more data from the Oxford trial yesterday, however, it seems that their assumptions are pretty good, which makes their conclusions all the more interesting. It takes about 14 days for vaccines to be protective and about three weeks after infection that death occurs. This means that only a tiny cohort of those who have been vaccinated will have been saved from death.
At present, they calculate, there are about 10 per cent fewer deaths than we would be seeing otherwise.
But they predict that in the next fortnight something dramatic should happen, itself a reflection of something that happened over the past fortnight: protection kicking in in more than five million of the most vulnerable people. Deaths should plunge and keep plunging until — by the middle of next month — they are 80 per cent below where they would otherwise have been.
It is not all good news, however. Counterintuitively, in two weeks’ time hospitals may still be under severe strain. People being treated in intensive care units are slightly younger, drawn from those who either will not have received a vaccine in the first phase, or for whom the protection will, by March, have come too late.
They forecast that intensive care admissions will be down by a third, on top of any drop seen due to lockdown.
This implies that there may still be pressure to stay at home — not so much to save lives as to protect the NHS.
Even so, at last everything is moving in the right direction. When the light of dawn comes it might even be a little bit dazzling.
Tom Whipple
Thursday February 04 2021, 12.01am, The Times
The darkest hour, according to the adage, comes just before dawn. The strange thing about the pandemic, though, is that in a sense the darkest hour comes after the dawn.
On January 10 the average number of daily deaths reported passed 1,000. It has not been below 1,000 since. Things are dark.
Yet, as we all know deaths reflect what happened weeks ago — and actually there is a lot of good news. Cases, which many feared could not fall with the appearance of the new variants, seem to have been dropping steadily for a month.
At the same time vaccine distribution has been going in the other direction.
So when will we see a beneficial effect? And if cases are falling anyway, how will we know how much the vaccine is helping?
In the middle of last month the Covid-19 Actuaries Response Group considered just this question. Assume, they said, that vaccination hit the government’s targets. Assume also that it is 100 per cent effective at preventing severe illness and 70 per cent effective at preventing infection.
These were felt at the time to be pretty bold assumptions. With the release of more data from the Oxford trial yesterday, however, it seems that their assumptions are pretty good, which makes their conclusions all the more interesting. It takes about 14 days for vaccines to be protective and about three weeks after infection that death occurs. This means that only a tiny cohort of those who have been vaccinated will have been saved from death.
At present, they calculate, there are about 10 per cent fewer deaths than we would be seeing otherwise.
But they predict that in the next fortnight something dramatic should happen, itself a reflection of something that happened over the past fortnight: protection kicking in in more than five million of the most vulnerable people. Deaths should plunge and keep plunging until — by the middle of next month — they are 80 per cent below where they would otherwise have been.
It is not all good news, however. Counterintuitively, in two weeks’ time hospitals may still be under severe strain. People being treated in intensive care units are slightly younger, drawn from those who either will not have received a vaccine in the first phase, or for whom the protection will, by March, have come too late.
They forecast that intensive care admissions will be down by a third, on top of any drop seen due to lockdown.
This implies that there may still be pressure to stay at home — not so much to save lives as to protect the NHS.
Even so, at last everything is moving in the right direction. When the light of dawn comes it might even be a little bit dazzling.
Spursex
Alert Team
UK orders 50m doses of vaccine against new Covid strains in deal with Germans
More than 10.5m people have been vaccinated already Credit: AFP
The Government has bought 50m doses of a variant Covid vaccine, as part of a new strategy towards an annual programme like the existing flu jabs.
The partnership with German manufacturer CureVac will allow new varieties of vaccines based on messenger RNA technology to be developed quickly against new strains of Covid-19 if they are needed, in a method similar to the one used to update flu vaccines each year.
An initial 50m order has been placed for new vaccines to be manufactured in the UK, and delivered later this year “if they are required”, on top of the existing 407m doses secured to date. An expert advisory group to identify the variants that the UK could need vaccines against is also being set up.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said: “We must be prepared for all eventualities and bolster onshore UK manufacturing capacity to develop vaccines to combat new variants of the disease, taking advantage of our world-leading genomics expertise.
“This will help ensure we can continue to provide everyone with a high level of protection against the virus and save lives.”
Interim Chair of the Vaccines Taskforce Clive Dix said: “Today’s agreement will mean the UK is better prepared for the emergence of any significant new virus variant.
"Because these mRNA vaccines can be rapidly adapted we will be ready to respond swiftly to new strains and update vaccines in the same way the flu vaccine is updated each year – a vital part of ending the pandemic once and for all."
- Catherine Neilan, Politics Live Editor
The Government has bought 50m doses of a variant Covid vaccine, as part of a new strategy towards an annual programme like the existing flu jabs.
The partnership with German manufacturer CureVac will allow new varieties of vaccines based on messenger RNA technology to be developed quickly against new strains of Covid-19 if they are needed, in a method similar to the one used to update flu vaccines each year.
An initial 50m order has been placed for new vaccines to be manufactured in the UK, and delivered later this year “if they are required”, on top of the existing 407m doses secured to date. An expert advisory group to identify the variants that the UK could need vaccines against is also being set up.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said: “We must be prepared for all eventualities and bolster onshore UK manufacturing capacity to develop vaccines to combat new variants of the disease, taking advantage of our world-leading genomics expertise.
“This will help ensure we can continue to provide everyone with a high level of protection against the virus and save lives.”
Interim Chair of the Vaccines Taskforce Clive Dix said: “Today’s agreement will mean the UK is better prepared for the emergence of any significant new virus variant.
"Because these mRNA vaccines can be rapidly adapted we will be ready to respond swiftly to new strains and update vaccines in the same way the flu vaccine is updated each year – a vital part of ending the pandemic once and for all."
Spursex
Alert Team
Just 3 in 1,000 Britons reporting side-effects of Covid vaccine
First safety analysis shows most people suffer a mild reaction, such as 'flu-like symptoms'
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor 5 February 2021 • 12:10pm
Just three in 1,000 Britons are reporting side-effects from the coronavirus vaccines, with most people suffering mild ‘flu-like’ symptoms or sore arms, the first safety analysis has shown today.
Since the vaccine rollout began, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been monitoring side-effects through its Yellow Card scheme.
First data released on Friday show that out of 6.9million doses given between Dec 9 and Jan 24, just 22,820 incidents were reported.
The Oxford jab accounted for more reports of side-effects, with 6,014 reports from 1.5million vaccinations (0.4 per cent) compared with 16,756 reports from the 5.4million Pfizer jabs (0.3 per cent)
It is the first time the population scale impact of an Mrna vaccine like the Pfizer jab has been known.
“Most of the reactions we are seeing are mild, mostly lasting for a short time, said Sir Munir Pirmohamed, the chair of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Covid-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group.
“We haven’t identified any unexpected serious adverse reactions. The benefits of the Covid-19 vaccines outweigh the risks.”
A detailed report showed that a minority of people had experienced more serious conditions.
The MHRA received 69 reports of facial paralysis or paresis with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Six reports of facial paralysis were also received for the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine.
There were also 107 UK reports of deaths related to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 34 reports for the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine and two where the brand of vaccine was unspecified.
However the MHRA pointed out that Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows that for every 100,000 over-80s vaccination, 200 of those will die with natural causes within a week.
“Things will happen to people naturally and what we have to figure out is whether that is causal or whether that’s a coincidence,” said Dr Philip Bryan, vaccines safety lead at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
“20,000 sounds like a big number but it’s three reports per thousand, and this is telling us that the safety is pretty much what it was in the trials.”
More than 10million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccines have now been given to people across the UK, including 90 per cent of the over-80s.
The results show that most side-effects are in-line with most types of vaccines and more side effects are happening in the younger population.
Dr June Raine, the MHRA chief executive, said: “Vaccines are the most effective way to protect against Covid-19 and save lives and prevent serious complications from this terrible virus.
“The data we have collected provides further reassurance that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and continue to meet the rigorous regulatory standards required for all vaccines. We remain confident that the benefits of these vaccines outweigh any risks.
“Our priority is to ensure the public have safe and effective vaccines and we will continue to analyse, monitor and review all the safety data for these vaccines.”
First safety analysis shows most people suffer a mild reaction, such as 'flu-like symptoms'
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor 5 February 2021 • 12:10pm
Just three in 1,000 Britons are reporting side-effects from the coronavirus vaccines, with most people suffering mild ‘flu-like’ symptoms or sore arms, the first safety analysis has shown today.
Since the vaccine rollout began, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been monitoring side-effects through its Yellow Card scheme.
First data released on Friday show that out of 6.9million doses given between Dec 9 and Jan 24, just 22,820 incidents were reported.
The Oxford jab accounted for more reports of side-effects, with 6,014 reports from 1.5million vaccinations (0.4 per cent) compared with 16,756 reports from the 5.4million Pfizer jabs (0.3 per cent)
It is the first time the population scale impact of an Mrna vaccine like the Pfizer jab has been known.
“Most of the reactions we are seeing are mild, mostly lasting for a short time, said Sir Munir Pirmohamed, the chair of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Covid-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group.
“We haven’t identified any unexpected serious adverse reactions. The benefits of the Covid-19 vaccines outweigh the risks.”
A detailed report showed that a minority of people had experienced more serious conditions.
The MHRA received 69 reports of facial paralysis or paresis with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Six reports of facial paralysis were also received for the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine.
There were also 107 UK reports of deaths related to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 34 reports for the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine and two where the brand of vaccine was unspecified.
However the MHRA pointed out that Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows that for every 100,000 over-80s vaccination, 200 of those will die with natural causes within a week.
“Things will happen to people naturally and what we have to figure out is whether that is causal or whether that’s a coincidence,” said Dr Philip Bryan, vaccines safety lead at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
“20,000 sounds like a big number but it’s three reports per thousand, and this is telling us that the safety is pretty much what it was in the trials.”
More than 10million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccines have now been given to people across the UK, including 90 per cent of the over-80s.
The results show that most side-effects are in-line with most types of vaccines and more side effects are happening in the younger population.
Dr June Raine, the MHRA chief executive, said: “Vaccines are the most effective way to protect against Covid-19 and save lives and prevent serious complications from this terrible virus.
“The data we have collected provides further reassurance that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and continue to meet the rigorous regulatory standards required for all vaccines. We remain confident that the benefits of these vaccines outweigh any risks.
“Our priority is to ensure the public have safe and effective vaccines and we will continue to analyse, monitor and review all the safety data for these vaccines.”
Spursex
Alert Team
COVID-19: 'Extremely unlikely' coronavirus came from Wuhan lab as evidence points to 'intermediary species'
The Huanan wet market in Wuhan is still being focused on as a potential source of one of the first clusters of cases.
Tuesday 9 February 2021 12:41, UK
Image: Workers disinfect Huanan seafood market in March 2020
It is "extremely unlikely" the novel coronavirus came from a laboratory incident in China, according to a joint mission investigating the origins of the pandemic.
Investigators believe the most likely cause of the initial outbreak was the virus jumping from an "intermediary host species" to humans.
It means future investigations will not focus on a laboratory incident as a potential cause of the outbreak.
Live COVID updates from the UK and around the world
Image: Investigators believe the most likely explanation is the virus jumped from an intermediary host
An international team of World Health Organisation (WHO) scientists, working with experts in China, has been researching how the COVID-19 pandemic began.
The team has visited key locations in Wuhan, where the first cases were reported, and spoken to patients, first responders and Chinese scientists.
Evidence so far suggests the novel coronavirus may have jumped from animals to humans, but the team told a news conference it is not yet sure exactly which animals it came from or where this occurred.
More from Covid-19
Investigators should now look at studying bats outside of China to see if they carry genetically similar viruses, the WHO's Dr Peter Ben Embarek said.
China's National Health Commission spokesperson Professor Liang Wannian also suggested more research is needed into whether felines could have hosted the virus.
"The susceptibility of mink and cats to SARS-CoV-2 suggests there may be additional animals, such as those belonging to the feline family, who may act as reservoirs for the virus. But there is not yet enough research to know for sure," he said.
Image: The first outbreak of the novel coronavirus was thought to be in Wuhan, China
It is also thought likely the virus could have been transmitted from frozen food, according to Dr Embarek.
He added the virus could have emerged this way through "convoluted pathways that may have taken a long time and moved it across borders".
Investigations have continued to focus on the Huanan wet market in Wuhan, which was linked to a cluster of initial cases.
The market had been selling frozen animal products but there were also vendors selling products from domesticated wildlife.
It is still thought to be one of the first clusters of cases, but Professor Liang said transmission was also happening in other areas of Wuhan at the time.
Scientists also revealed the novel coronavirus could have been circulating in regions outside Wuhan before the first reported cases of the outbreak.
Unpublished data suggests samples of SARS-CoV-2 were found several weeks before the first reported cases in Wuhan, Professor Liang said.
However, he added there was no evidence that COVID was spreading in Wuhan before December 2019, when the first cases were reported, after officials looked at research samples, pharmaceutical sales and hospital records.
There was also no evidence of "large outbreaks" before December 2019 in Wuhan or elsewhere, Dr Embarek said.
Coronavirus and the animal markets risk
Analysis: We're not that much closer to understanding where the pandemic came from
By Tom Cheshire, Asia correspondent
The WHO came to Wuhan with four theories about the origins of COVID-19. They will leave China with three.
The four ideas were: that it jumped directly from animals to humans, that it spread via an intermediate host, that it was imported in from somewhere else, or that it came from a lab.
Out of those, only the lab leak has now been discounted as "extremely unlikely". Further research into it will not be pursued - at least not by the WHO.
COVID Crisis: The pandemic year
It has always been a contentious idea - one put forward by the administration of Donald Trump without much evidence and dismissed by others as a conspiracy theory.
But there was scientific merit in examining it. As one of the WHO investigators, Peter Ben Embarek, told me: accidents do happen and there are a number of virus laboratories in Wuhan. The WHO team had said they were not ruling it out.
After four weeks in China, though, the WHO has dismissed it - all 17 experts voted unanimously, according to another team member. That's after visiting the Wuhan Institute of Virology and speaking with scientists there.
Sceptics will pour over the full WHO report explaining their reasoning.
As for the other three theories, we are not much closer to understanding where COVID came from.
Peter Ben Embarek said its transmission and circulation could have followed a long, convoluted path. And so too will the research.
The Huanan wet market in Wuhan is still being focused on as a potential source of one of the first clusters of cases.
Tuesday 9 February 2021 12:41, UK
Image: Workers disinfect Huanan seafood market in March 2020
It is "extremely unlikely" the novel coronavirus came from a laboratory incident in China, according to a joint mission investigating the origins of the pandemic.
Investigators believe the most likely cause of the initial outbreak was the virus jumping from an "intermediary host species" to humans.
It means future investigations will not focus on a laboratory incident as a potential cause of the outbreak.
Live COVID updates from the UK and around the world
Image: Investigators believe the most likely explanation is the virus jumped from an intermediary host
An international team of World Health Organisation (WHO) scientists, working with experts in China, has been researching how the COVID-19 pandemic began.
The team has visited key locations in Wuhan, where the first cases were reported, and spoken to patients, first responders and Chinese scientists.
Evidence so far suggests the novel coronavirus may have jumped from animals to humans, but the team told a news conference it is not yet sure exactly which animals it came from or where this occurred.
More from Covid-19
- COVID-19: Cats and dogs to get free coronavirus tests in South Korea's capital
- COVID-19: England and Wales record second highest weekly coronavirus deaths since pandemic began
- COVID-19: Animals face slaughter if zoo funding is not addressed by government, charity warns
- COVID-19: NHS Test and Trace app has prevented 600,000 cases, study suggests
- COVID-19: 'Too early to say' whether Britons can make summer holiday plans
- COVID-19: All travellers arriving in UK to have to pay for £100 COVID tests while in quarantine
Investigators should now look at studying bats outside of China to see if they carry genetically similar viruses, the WHO's Dr Peter Ben Embarek said.
China's National Health Commission spokesperson Professor Liang Wannian also suggested more research is needed into whether felines could have hosted the virus.
"The susceptibility of mink and cats to SARS-CoV-2 suggests there may be additional animals, such as those belonging to the feline family, who may act as reservoirs for the virus. But there is not yet enough research to know for sure," he said.
Image: The first outbreak of the novel coronavirus was thought to be in Wuhan, China
It is also thought likely the virus could have been transmitted from frozen food, according to Dr Embarek.
He added the virus could have emerged this way through "convoluted pathways that may have taken a long time and moved it across borders".
Investigations have continued to focus on the Huanan wet market in Wuhan, which was linked to a cluster of initial cases.
The market had been selling frozen animal products but there were also vendors selling products from domesticated wildlife.
It is still thought to be one of the first clusters of cases, but Professor Liang said transmission was also happening in other areas of Wuhan at the time.
Scientists also revealed the novel coronavirus could have been circulating in regions outside Wuhan before the first reported cases of the outbreak.
Unpublished data suggests samples of SARS-CoV-2 were found several weeks before the first reported cases in Wuhan, Professor Liang said.
However, he added there was no evidence that COVID was spreading in Wuhan before December 2019, when the first cases were reported, after officials looked at research samples, pharmaceutical sales and hospital records.
There was also no evidence of "large outbreaks" before December 2019 in Wuhan or elsewhere, Dr Embarek said.
Coronavirus and the animal markets risk
Analysis: We're not that much closer to understanding where the pandemic came from
By Tom Cheshire, Asia correspondent
The WHO came to Wuhan with four theories about the origins of COVID-19. They will leave China with three.
The four ideas were: that it jumped directly from animals to humans, that it spread via an intermediate host, that it was imported in from somewhere else, or that it came from a lab.
Out of those, only the lab leak has now been discounted as "extremely unlikely". Further research into it will not be pursued - at least not by the WHO.
COVID Crisis: The pandemic year
It has always been a contentious idea - one put forward by the administration of Donald Trump without much evidence and dismissed by others as a conspiracy theory.
But there was scientific merit in examining it. As one of the WHO investigators, Peter Ben Embarek, told me: accidents do happen and there are a number of virus laboratories in Wuhan. The WHO team had said they were not ruling it out.
After four weeks in China, though, the WHO has dismissed it - all 17 experts voted unanimously, according to another team member. That's after visiting the Wuhan Institute of Virology and speaking with scientists there.
Sceptics will pour over the full WHO report explaining their reasoning.
As for the other three theories, we are not much closer to understanding where COVID came from.
Peter Ben Embarek said its transmission and circulation could have followed a long, convoluted path. And so too will the research.
Spursex
Alert Team
Oxford Covid vaccine study shows UK following right approach and jab CAN halt transmission
The AstraZeneca vaccine requires two doses for the highest efficacy against coronavirus infection, but new research has shown the first dose provides 76 percent protection. A new study shows the jab has 76 percent efficacy after a single dose, with efficacy improving further after a second shot was given. Oxford University also found the jab also has "substantial effect" on reducing transmission of coronavirus.
Oxford University said the findings of the pre-print paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, supported Britain's decision to extend the interval between initial and booster doses of the shot to 12 weeks.
The UK has decided to give as many people as possible some protection from the deadly virus by lengthening the amount of time given between the first and second doses of the vaccines.
AstraZeneca, the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical firm, has welcomed the findings and said flexibility to extend the time between doses is the best strategy for the vaccine.
Oxford academics said: "Vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination was 76 percent, and modelled analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3 month period."
The results were gathered from trials in Britain, Brazil and South Africa, and showed some protection was given after one dose and that immune responses were boosted after the second shot, among participants aged 18-55 years old.
The university also found the vaccine can stop transmission of COVID-19.
They added: "Analyses of PCR positive swabs in UK population suggests vaccine may have substantial effect on transmission of the virus with 67 percent reduction in positive swabs among those vaccinated."
The report states the vaccine "may have a substantial impact on transmission by reducing the number of infected individuals in the population".
Before these results, little was known about how effective the COVID-19 vaccines were at preventing transmission of the disease.
The findings of the pre-prints indicate that those who have been vaccinated are not only protected from the disease, but that they are not likely to pass on the virus to anyone.
Professor Andrew Pollard, chief investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial, and study co-author, said: "These new data provide an important verification of the interim data that was used by more than 25 regulators including the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) and EMA (European Medicines Agency) to grant the vaccine emergency use authorisation.
"It also supports the policy recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) for a 12-week prime-boost interval, as they look for the optimal approach to roll out, and reassures us that people are protected from 22 days after a single dose of the vaccine."
In December the Government announced the second dose would be given towards the end of 12 weeks rather than in the previously recommended 3-4 weeks.
They said they want to give a single dose of the jab to as many members of priority groups as possible.
The UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said: "Given data indicating high efficacy from the first dose of both Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines, the committee advises that delivery of the first dose to as many eligible individuals as possible should be initially prioritised over delivery of a second vaccine dose.
"This should maximise the short-term impact of the programme. The second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may be given between three to 12 weeks following the first dose.
"The second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine may be given between four to 12 weeks following the first dose."
The four UK chief medical officers agreed to follow the JCVI advice, as they believe the benefit of vaccinating more people outweighs the risk of individuals not having as strong protection against infection as they might have with two doses.
The AstraZeneca vaccine requires two doses for the highest efficacy against coronavirus infection, but new research has shown the first dose provides 76 percent protection. A new study shows the jab has 76 percent efficacy after a single dose, with efficacy improving further after a second shot was given. Oxford University also found the jab also has "substantial effect" on reducing transmission of coronavirus.
Oxford University said the findings of the pre-print paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, supported Britain's decision to extend the interval between initial and booster doses of the shot to 12 weeks.
The UK has decided to give as many people as possible some protection from the deadly virus by lengthening the amount of time given between the first and second doses of the vaccines.
AstraZeneca, the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical firm, has welcomed the findings and said flexibility to extend the time between doses is the best strategy for the vaccine.
Oxford academics said: "Vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination was 76 percent, and modelled analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3 month period."
The results were gathered from trials in Britain, Brazil and South Africa, and showed some protection was given after one dose and that immune responses were boosted after the second shot, among participants aged 18-55 years old.
The university also found the vaccine can stop transmission of COVID-19.
They added: "Analyses of PCR positive swabs in UK population suggests vaccine may have substantial effect on transmission of the virus with 67 percent reduction in positive swabs among those vaccinated."
The report states the vaccine "may have a substantial impact on transmission by reducing the number of infected individuals in the population".
Before these results, little was known about how effective the COVID-19 vaccines were at preventing transmission of the disease.
The findings of the pre-prints indicate that those who have been vaccinated are not only protected from the disease, but that they are not likely to pass on the virus to anyone.
Professor Andrew Pollard, chief investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial, and study co-author, said: "These new data provide an important verification of the interim data that was used by more than 25 regulators including the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) and EMA (European Medicines Agency) to grant the vaccine emergency use authorisation.
"It also supports the policy recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) for a 12-week prime-boost interval, as they look for the optimal approach to roll out, and reassures us that people are protected from 22 days after a single dose of the vaccine."
In December the Government announced the second dose would be given towards the end of 12 weeks rather than in the previously recommended 3-4 weeks.
They said they want to give a single dose of the jab to as many members of priority groups as possible.
The UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said: "Given data indicating high efficacy from the first dose of both Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines, the committee advises that delivery of the first dose to as many eligible individuals as possible should be initially prioritised over delivery of a second vaccine dose.
"This should maximise the short-term impact of the programme. The second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may be given between three to 12 weeks following the first dose.
"The second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine may be given between four to 12 weeks following the first dose."
The four UK chief medical officers agreed to follow the JCVI advice, as they believe the benefit of vaccinating more people outweighs the risk of individuals not having as strong protection against infection as they might have with two doses.
D
Departed
Guest
The N.F.L. Had Over 700 Coronavirus Positives. The Seahawks Had None.
The only team to play the entire season without any confirmed positive cases did so with innovative thinking, vigilance to protocols and some Pete Carroll-style competition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/...coronavirus-nfl.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
The only team to play the entire season without any confirmed positive cases did so with innovative thinking, vigilance to protocols and some Pete Carroll-style competition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/...coronavirus-nfl.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Spursex
Alert Team
Covid-19 vaccines will turn virus into ‘the sniffles’, says Oxford professor
new
Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Tuesday February 09 2021, 5.00pm, The Times
A vaccination centre in St Albans is offering a drive-through service
DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-the-sniffles-says-oxford-professor-60db3ll8w
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...-the-sniffles-says-oxford-professor-60db3ll8w
Save
Inoculation could turn coronavirus into “the sniffles” even if it cannot stop variants causing illness, according to the head of the Oxford vaccine group.
Professor Andrew Pollard told MPs that he believed that vaccines would have a “huge impact on transmission” of the variants that have been identified in the UK.
While accepting that the spread of new variants resistant to vaccines was “going to be the future”, Pollard said that this might not matter if the jabs still stopped people needing to go to hospital.
Ministers are trying to boost confidence in the Oxford-Astrazeneca jab after a study in South Africa found that it appears to have little effect in preventing mild illness caused by the variant that is now dominant in the country and has been picked up at least 147 times in Britain.
Jonathan Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer for England, has said that the variant is unlikely to take over in Britain in the coming months, while insisting that the vaccine is still likely to prevent hospital admission and death.
Speaking to the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, Pollard acknowledged that such variants could start to spread faster as vaccination progressed.
“As we move to a point where more people are immunised around the world, or have natural infection, the virus will only survive if it is able to make new versions of itself that can still spread … despite that immunity,” he said.
“I think we have to come to terms with the fact that that is going to be the future.”
Ministers are preparing for autumn booster jabs targeted against such variants, but Pollard said that “the jury is still out” on whether revaccination would be needed to keep people out of hospital.
“In the trials in those regions where new variants are emerging, we are not seeing a sudden shift where lots of people who are vaccinated are ending up in hospital. They are still being protected from hospitalisation,” he said.
If further data confirmed this, he said that “we might need boosters, we might need tweaks every year, but actually we might not. We might be generating enough immunity with the current generation of vaccines to stop severe disease.”
With Britain in lockdown to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, Pollard said that preventing hospital admissions was more important than preventing mild illness.
“If people have just got the sniffles, then I think our job is done,” he said.
With data suggesting so far that existing vaccines will have a “big impact on severe disease”, Pollard said: “There’s a high chance, I think, that we could be in a position later in the year where there’s a new wave of spread but as long as we’ve got lots of people vaccinated in the population we won’t see so many severe cases at all.”
However, he conceded that “we may have a much bigger problem in stopping transmission”, with other experts concerned that even if vaccines dramatically reduce the risk of hospital admissions that would still mean large numbers getting seriously ill if the virus spreads freely.
Professor Graham Medley, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, told The Times this week: “Even if vaccines are just as effective at preventing severe disease it still matters if they are less good at preventing mild illness and transmission.
“Although vaccination weakens the link between cases and deaths considerably, it doesn’t break it. Vaccines aren’t perfect and some people will refuse them or be overlooked; so you might reduce deaths by 80 or 90 per cent for a given number of cases — but that still leaves an appreciable number of deaths that cannot be prevented by vaccination. And the more cases there are, the more deaths there will be.”
new
Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Tuesday February 09 2021, 5.00pm, The Times
A vaccination centre in St Albans is offering a drive-through service
DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-the-sniffles-says-oxford-professor-60db3ll8w
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...-the-sniffles-says-oxford-professor-60db3ll8w
Save
Inoculation could turn coronavirus into “the sniffles” even if it cannot stop variants causing illness, according to the head of the Oxford vaccine group.
Professor Andrew Pollard told MPs that he believed that vaccines would have a “huge impact on transmission” of the variants that have been identified in the UK.
While accepting that the spread of new variants resistant to vaccines was “going to be the future”, Pollard said that this might not matter if the jabs still stopped people needing to go to hospital.
Ministers are trying to boost confidence in the Oxford-Astrazeneca jab after a study in South Africa found that it appears to have little effect in preventing mild illness caused by the variant that is now dominant in the country and has been picked up at least 147 times in Britain.
Jonathan Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer for England, has said that the variant is unlikely to take over in Britain in the coming months, while insisting that the vaccine is still likely to prevent hospital admission and death.
Speaking to the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, Pollard acknowledged that such variants could start to spread faster as vaccination progressed.
“As we move to a point where more people are immunised around the world, or have natural infection, the virus will only survive if it is able to make new versions of itself that can still spread … despite that immunity,” he said.
“I think we have to come to terms with the fact that that is going to be the future.”
Ministers are preparing for autumn booster jabs targeted against such variants, but Pollard said that “the jury is still out” on whether revaccination would be needed to keep people out of hospital.
“In the trials in those regions where new variants are emerging, we are not seeing a sudden shift where lots of people who are vaccinated are ending up in hospital. They are still being protected from hospitalisation,” he said.
If further data confirmed this, he said that “we might need boosters, we might need tweaks every year, but actually we might not. We might be generating enough immunity with the current generation of vaccines to stop severe disease.”
With Britain in lockdown to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, Pollard said that preventing hospital admissions was more important than preventing mild illness.
“If people have just got the sniffles, then I think our job is done,” he said.
With data suggesting so far that existing vaccines will have a “big impact on severe disease”, Pollard said: “There’s a high chance, I think, that we could be in a position later in the year where there’s a new wave of spread but as long as we’ve got lots of people vaccinated in the population we won’t see so many severe cases at all.”
However, he conceded that “we may have a much bigger problem in stopping transmission”, with other experts concerned that even if vaccines dramatically reduce the risk of hospital admissions that would still mean large numbers getting seriously ill if the virus spreads freely.
Professor Graham Medley, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, told The Times this week: “Even if vaccines are just as effective at preventing severe disease it still matters if they are less good at preventing mild illness and transmission.
“Although vaccination weakens the link between cases and deaths considerably, it doesn’t break it. Vaccines aren’t perfect and some people will refuse them or be overlooked; so you might reduce deaths by 80 or 90 per cent for a given number of cases — but that still leaves an appreciable number of deaths that cannot be prevented by vaccination. And the more cases there are, the more deaths there will be.”
Spursex
Alert Team
That's outstanding, maybe the PL should take a leave out of their book?!
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
These mutations are becoming a worry. One has now changed the shape of the virus, making vaccines potentially less likely to identify it.
Spursex
Alert Team
I wouldn't panic just yet, firstly their spread is relatively small, and may well be contained before they 'drift in their mutation' again.
Secondly we do have answers, the antibodies that mimic coronavirus “spike” proteins are themselves proteins, which are large, complex molecules folded in a certain way in three dimensions and therefore difficult to synthesise. But if we are using mRNA vaccines we can rapidly get around this problem.
Making proteins is complex – they tend to come in a variety of shapes and it’s hard to get them exactly right, but if you use the molecule that tells the body how to make the protein you want, you completely avoid that problem. And that molecule, called mRNA, is easier for a drugs company to make than a protein, it's cheaper and small quantities can vaccinate vast numbers of people/
Essentially you get the human body to be the protein manufacturing site, as in existing mRNA vaccines.
This is not the only advantage of mRNA vaccines over traditional ones: they can also be adapted more quickly to respond to new coronavirus variants.
Dr Clive Dix, the interim head of Britain’s Vaccines Task Force, said last week, when a collaboration between the Government and CureVac to target new coronavirus variants was announced: “mRNA vaccines can be rapidly adapted to be effective against new virus variants more easily than traditional vaccine technologies.”
CureVac is already on a joint venture with GlaxoSmithKline to develop the new mutation-resistant generation of Covid-19 vaccines and manufacture its first-generation vaccine.
So the government saw this coming and has prepared the way, but for now, the priority must be to use the traditional vaccines to get as many as possible vaccinated - if you cut off the transmission of the existing virus, it becomes much easier to spot/head off and deal with mutations.
My guess now is that there will be no 'big bang' day when we announce we're through this and we could be covid mutation hunting for at least the next 18-24 months, the big issue won't be in the labs to generate a new vaccine, it will be in production - of course, the government has funded two new pharma vaccine production sites and that may well have a bigger effect as they come on stream then I'm currently expecting.
So keep calm and carry on! lol!
WTF else can we do!?
Spursex
Alert Team
At the No 10 press conference on Monday Prof Jonathan Van-Tam, England’s deputy chief medical officer, said the South African variant of coronavirus was unlikely to become dominant in the UK. In his Q&A on BBC News this morning, he deployed one of the vivid analogies for which he has become famous to explain why. He said:
"If you are running a bath and you have got the hot water tap on and you add in a very small amount of cold water, so the cold tap is running as well but at really a very low volume, your bath water is basically going to remain hot.
It’s only if that cold tap was gushing much more than the hot tap, the cold water would take over.
That’s probably the best analogy I can give you at the moment. There are no signs that South African variant is running at that speed at the moment and therefore I don’t frame it as something that is going to be a dominant issue in the next few months."
Van-Tam also said that the Kent variant now accounted for more than 90% of cases in the UK, and that fewer than 200 cases of the South African variant had been found.
"If you are running a bath and you have got the hot water tap on and you add in a very small amount of cold water, so the cold tap is running as well but at really a very low volume, your bath water is basically going to remain hot.
It’s only if that cold tap was gushing much more than the hot tap, the cold water would take over.
That’s probably the best analogy I can give you at the moment. There are no signs that South African variant is running at that speed at the moment and therefore I don’t frame it as something that is going to be a dominant issue in the next few months."
Van-Tam also said that the Kent variant now accounted for more than 90% of cases in the UK, and that fewer than 200 cases of the South African variant had been found.
Spursex
Alert Team
Common asthma treatment reduces need for hospitalisation in COVID-19 patients, study suggests
ResearchCoronavirusHealth
Early treatment with a medication commonly used to treat asthma appears to significantly reduce the need for urgent care and hospitalisation in people with COVID-19, researchers at the University of Oxford have found.
The STOIC study found that inhaled budesonide given to patients with COVID-19 within seven days of the onset of symptoms also reduced recovery time. Budesonide is a corticosteroid used in the long-term management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Findings from the phase 2 randomised study, which was supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), were published on the medRxiv pre-print server.
The findings from 146 people – of whom half took 800 micrograms of the medication twice a day and half were on usual care – suggests that inhaled budesonide reduced the relative risk of requiring urgent care or hospitalisation by 90% in the 28-day study period. Participants allocated the budesonide inhaler also had a quicker resolution of fever, symptoms and fewer persistent symptoms after 28 days.
Professor Mona Bafadhel of the University’s Nuffield Department of Medicine, who led the trial, said: 'There have been important breakthroughs in hospitalised COVID-19 patients, but equally important is treating early disease to prevent clinical deterioration and the need for urgent care and hospitalisation, especially to the billions of people worldwide who have limited access to hospital care.
'The vaccine programmes are really exciting, but we know that these will take some time to reach everyone across the world. I am heartened that a relatively safe, widely available and well studied medicine such as an inhaled steroid could have an impact on the pressures we are experiencing during the pandemic.'
The study also demonstrated that there was a reduction in persistent symptoms in those who received budesonide. Prof Bafadhel, a Respiratory Consultant also working at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'Although not the primary outcome of study, this is an important finding. I am encouraged to see the reduction in persistent symptoms at 14 and 28 days after treatment with budesonide. Persistent symptoms after the initial COVID-19 illness have emerged as a long-term problem. Any intervention which could address this would be a major step forward.'
The trial was inspired by the fact that, in the early days of the pandemic, patients with chronic respiratory disease, who are often prescribed inhaled steroids, were significantly under-represented among those admitted to hospital with COVID-19.
As well as the Oxford BRC, the STOIC trial was supported by AstraZeneca.
ResearchCoronavirusHealth
Early treatment with a medication commonly used to treat asthma appears to significantly reduce the need for urgent care and hospitalisation in people with COVID-19, researchers at the University of Oxford have found.
The STOIC study found that inhaled budesonide given to patients with COVID-19 within seven days of the onset of symptoms also reduced recovery time. Budesonide is a corticosteroid used in the long-term management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Findings from the phase 2 randomised study, which was supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), were published on the medRxiv pre-print server.
The findings from 146 people – of whom half took 800 micrograms of the medication twice a day and half were on usual care – suggests that inhaled budesonide reduced the relative risk of requiring urgent care or hospitalisation by 90% in the 28-day study period. Participants allocated the budesonide inhaler also had a quicker resolution of fever, symptoms and fewer persistent symptoms after 28 days.
Professor Mona Bafadhel of the University’s Nuffield Department of Medicine, who led the trial, said: 'There have been important breakthroughs in hospitalised COVID-19 patients, but equally important is treating early disease to prevent clinical deterioration and the need for urgent care and hospitalisation, especially to the billions of people worldwide who have limited access to hospital care.
'The vaccine programmes are really exciting, but we know that these will take some time to reach everyone across the world. I am heartened that a relatively safe, widely available and well studied medicine such as an inhaled steroid could have an impact on the pressures we are experiencing during the pandemic.'
The study also demonstrated that there was a reduction in persistent symptoms in those who received budesonide. Prof Bafadhel, a Respiratory Consultant also working at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'Although not the primary outcome of study, this is an important finding. I am encouraged to see the reduction in persistent symptoms at 14 and 28 days after treatment with budesonide. Persistent symptoms after the initial COVID-19 illness have emerged as a long-term problem. Any intervention which could address this would be a major step forward.'
The trial was inspired by the fact that, in the early days of the pandemic, patients with chronic respiratory disease, who are often prescribed inhaled steroids, were significantly under-represented among those admitted to hospital with COVID-19.
As well as the Oxford BRC, the STOIC trial was supported by AstraZeneca.
Spursex
Alert Team
Covid-19: Kent virus variant 'on course to sweep world'
Published
1 hour ago
comments
Comments
Related Topics
image copyrightGetty Images
The coronavirus variant first found in Kent could become the world's dominant strain, the head of the UK's genetic surveillance programme has predicted.
Prof Sharon Peacock told the BBC's Newscast podcast the new variant has "swept the country" and "it's going to sweep the world, in all probability".
She said her work sequencing variants of the virus could be required for at least 10 years.
The Kent variant has already been detected in more than 50 countries.
It was first detected in September 2020 in south-east England and its rapid spread over the following months was cited as the reason for the introduction of new lockdown rules across the UK in January.
Prof Peacock, director of the Covid-19 Genomics UK consortium, said: "What's really affected us at the moment is transmissibility."
She added: "Once we get on top of [the virus] or it mutates itself out of being virulent - causing disease - then we can stop worrying about it. But I think, looking in the future, we're going to be doing this for years. We're still going to be doing this 10 years down the line, in my view."
Current vaccines were designed around earlier versions of coronavirus, but scientists believe they should still work against the new ones, although perhaps not quite as well.
Prof Peacock said the vaccines approved for use in the UK appeared to work well against the existing variants of the virus in the country.
image copyrightCOG-UK
image captionSharon Peacock is also Professor of Public Health and Microbiology at Cambridge University
The Covid-19 Genomics UK Consortium is a network of public health bodies and labs and currently analyses nearly 30,000 positive tests a day.
In recent weeks, it has been explained that about 5-10% of positive tests are selected randomly to be sent on for further genome analysis but the consortium says that it has an aim to genetically screen every positive coronavirus test.
Prof Peacock told Newscast that while it is normal to see variants only a very small number have "special features". These can make them more transmissible, avoid the immune response and affect vaccination, or have the potential to cause more severe disease.
"These are the things we are looking out for. I'd say it happens vanishingly rarely but we have to be on the look out for it," the expert, who was previously director of the government's National Infection Service, said.
It comes as the World Health Organization is recommending using the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine even in countries tackling new variants of coronavirus.
The Oxford jab has attracted controversy about its effectiveness against new variants, whether it should be used in the elderly and how far apart the doses should be given, due to a lack of data.
Early data from trials in South Africa - where a variant has acquired mutations that seem to help it evade immunity from vaccines and from previous infections - showed the vaccine was offering "minimal protection" against mild and moderate disease in young people.
But the WHO's director of immunisation, Dr Katherine O'Brien, said the South African study was "inconclusive" and it was "plausible" the vaccine would still prevent severe disease.
Oxford scientists still expect their vaccine to prevent people from becoming seriously ill with Covid-19 and needing hospital treatment.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has urged the two million people yet to take up their offer of a Covid jab to "come forward" this week.
The government is aiming to offer a first dose of a vaccine to 15 million people - those aged 70 and over, healthcare workers and people required to shield - by 15 February.
As of Tuesday 13,058,298 had received a first vaccine dose, a daily rise of 411,812.
Published
1 hour ago
comments
Comments
Related Topics
The coronavirus variant first found in Kent could become the world's dominant strain, the head of the UK's genetic surveillance programme has predicted.
Prof Sharon Peacock told the BBC's Newscast podcast the new variant has "swept the country" and "it's going to sweep the world, in all probability".
She said her work sequencing variants of the virus could be required for at least 10 years.
The Kent variant has already been detected in more than 50 countries.
It was first detected in September 2020 in south-east England and its rapid spread over the following months was cited as the reason for the introduction of new lockdown rules across the UK in January.
Prof Peacock, director of the Covid-19 Genomics UK consortium, said: "What's really affected us at the moment is transmissibility."
She added: "Once we get on top of [the virus] or it mutates itself out of being virulent - causing disease - then we can stop worrying about it. But I think, looking in the future, we're going to be doing this for years. We're still going to be doing this 10 years down the line, in my view."
Current vaccines were designed around earlier versions of coronavirus, but scientists believe they should still work against the new ones, although perhaps not quite as well.
Prof Peacock said the vaccines approved for use in the UK appeared to work well against the existing variants of the virus in the country.
image captionSharon Peacock is also Professor of Public Health and Microbiology at Cambridge University
The Covid-19 Genomics UK Consortium is a network of public health bodies and labs and currently analyses nearly 30,000 positive tests a day.
In recent weeks, it has been explained that about 5-10% of positive tests are selected randomly to be sent on for further genome analysis but the consortium says that it has an aim to genetically screen every positive coronavirus test.
Prof Peacock told Newscast that while it is normal to see variants only a very small number have "special features". These can make them more transmissible, avoid the immune response and affect vaccination, or have the potential to cause more severe disease.
"These are the things we are looking out for. I'd say it happens vanishingly rarely but we have to be on the look out for it," the expert, who was previously director of the government's National Infection Service, said.
- SYMPTOMS: What are they and how to guard against them?
- GLOBAL SPREAD: How many worldwide cases are there?
- THE R NUMBER: What it means and why it matters
- TREATMENTS: What progress are we making to help people?
- VACCINE: When will I get the jab?
It comes as the World Health Organization is recommending using the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine even in countries tackling new variants of coronavirus.
The Oxford jab has attracted controversy about its effectiveness against new variants, whether it should be used in the elderly and how far apart the doses should be given, due to a lack of data.
Early data from trials in South Africa - where a variant has acquired mutations that seem to help it evade immunity from vaccines and from previous infections - showed the vaccine was offering "minimal protection" against mild and moderate disease in young people.
But the WHO's director of immunisation, Dr Katherine O'Brien, said the South African study was "inconclusive" and it was "plausible" the vaccine would still prevent severe disease.
Oxford scientists still expect their vaccine to prevent people from becoming seriously ill with Covid-19 and needing hospital treatment.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has urged the two million people yet to take up their offer of a Covid jab to "come forward" this week.
The government is aiming to offer a first dose of a vaccine to 15 million people - those aged 70 and over, healthcare workers and people required to shield - by 15 February.
As of Tuesday 13,058,298 had received a first vaccine dose, a daily rise of 411,812.
