When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

 

[zahidf]

A new antibody drug “reduces hospital admission or death from Covid-19 by 85%”, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has announced.

PA reports:

The drug, called VIR-7831, is a new treatment for people with mild to moderate illness, and the study has been so successful that it has been stopped early.

GSK and its partner, Vir Biotechnology, plan to immediately seek an emergency use authorisation in the United States and approval in other countries, including potentially in the UK.

Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-produced molecules that mimic human antibodies.

The global phase 3 clinical trial based its initial analysis on data from 583 patients at risk of hospital admission.

GSK said VIR-7831 works in two ways - by blocking the virus’s entry into healthy cells and also clearing infected cells.

A separate laboratory study has found that VIR-7831 is effective against the main current Covid-19 variants, including the Kent, South African and Brazilian variants, the firm said.

VIR-7831 is designed to be given as a single intravenous (IV) infusion.

Dr Hal Barron, chief scientific officer at GSK, said: “We are pleased that this unique monoclonal antibody was able to bring such a profound benefit to patients.

“We look forward to the possibility of making VIR-7831 available to patients as soon as possible and to further exploring its potential in other settings.”

[zahidf]

"despite the acrimony over vaccine exports, there is little evidence of shortages in most of Europe. On the contrary, many countries are struggling to administer what they have to their citizens.

According to the latest EU figures, Germany and France have each used less than three-quarters of their vaccine stocks, while Belgium has used less than a third."

Telegraph

[Hannibal Schmitt]

21 minutes ago, zahidf said:

"despite the acrimony over vaccine exports, there is little evidence of shortages in most of Europe. On the contrary, many countries are struggling to administer what they have to their citizens.

According to the latest EU figures, Germany and France have each used less than three-quarters of their vaccine stocks, while Belgium has used less than a third."

Telegraph

Don`t know who said it, I think it was Dr. Weiss, Head of Med Uni Innsbruck, who said the real problem is there are too many official bodies involved. Here the federation is waiting for vaccine from the EU and delegating it to each province. The provinces can use the vaccines how they want, so some use house doctors, some use exhibition centers, some use vaccination streets, some a mixture etc. but there is no uniformly instruction given from the government which would count for all, its more a stained carpet, nevertheless we are reaching 1 Million vaccinated (mainly older and high risk and health personal) people this weekend which is at the population from 8 Million not too bad as it should get a three-time faster boost from April onwards.

[stuie]

My brother in law, 37, no underlying health conditions, received an SMS inviting him to call his doctors surgery to book his jab.  He called and queried why he’d been called at this point and they said that’s where they are at on the lists at his particular surgery! 

[Zoo Music Girl]

51 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But Cancer Research UK said the small study had not yet been reviewed by other scientists and people undergoing cancer treatment should continue to follow the advice of their doctors.

 

Yes I know. You can appreciate it's not a great outcome though.

[st dan]

1 hour ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I think it's some personal downvote politics between the two posters, not the actual content of the post.

In other news, this is a shitter (both generally and for me personally as was hoping to see two loved ones with cancer soon. Both have had Pfizer and on the 12-week wait):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56351084

That’s not great news on first study. Surely the next course of action is for all cancer patients to be bumped up to receive their second dose after only 3 weeks rather than 12? Those particular vaccines could not be used for a better purpose that helping those already going through such a difficult time. It’s just one less thing for them to have to worry about. 

Wouldn’t have thought it would have been too hard to manage logistically either, hopefully some action is taken on this sooner rather than later. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

That’s not great news on first study. Surely the next course of action is for all cancer patients to be bumped up to receive their second dose after only 3 weeks rather than 12? Those particular vaccines could not be used for a better purpose that helping those already going through such a difficult time. It’s just one less thing for them to have to worry about. 

Wouldn’t have thought it would have been too hard to manage logistically either, hopefully some action is taken on this sooner rather than later. 

That seems like the logical thing to do to me. I think it's too late for my partner's dad but my friend could still benefit from getting it earlier perhaps. Seems to be that erring on the side of caution here would make sense, especially as they'll be getting it at some point anyway so why not just speed it up to be on the safe side?

Bit of a kick in the teeth for us. Now wondering if we should wait to be vaccinated before seeing them just in case that helps keep transmission risk down.

[zahidf]

11 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Yes I know. You can appreciate it's not a great outcome though.

oh for sure. was meant more as a reassurance that its not for sure yet. 

[zahidf]

Why zero covid is a bad slogan

 

[Pipine]

26 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I have re-read that article and it is 100% only talking about anti-body protection.  There is no reason to think T-Cell immunity isn't being built.  I hope this puts you mind a little more at ease.

I hate this type of reporting.  Its really important they go into more detail as anti-body protection is only one part of what the vaccine gives us.  They are doing the same with the variant reporting.  

My parents (who are both recovering from recent cancers) have both had the AZ vaccine nearly 4 weeks ago now and had a Biobank sponsored antibody test this week and both got a negative result.  I think from what I’ve read it’s too early to test antibodies and the test doesn’t measure T cell count which could well be there but those results and today’s news story don’t help reassure us all 😢

Edited March 11, 2021 by Pipine

[Zoo Music Girl]

29 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I have re-read that article and it is 100% only talking about anti-body protection.  There is no reason to think T-Cell immunity isn't being built.  I hope this puts you mind a little more at ease.

I hate this type of reporting.  Its really important they go into more detail as anti-body protection is only one part of what the vaccine gives us.  They are doing the same with the variant reporting.  

 

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

oh for sure. was meant more as a reassurance that its not for sure yet. 

Yeah true. Would appreciate @Toilet Duck's thoughts on this one as I know nothing about T cells and how they work in people with compromised immune systems.

The people we love with cancer have always been our biggest worry throughout so anything like this is a cause for concern for me, especially now my friend has her kids back in school.

Even if T cell response is good, surely shortening the gap to boost antibodies as well would still be well worth it?

Edited March 11, 2021 by Zoo Music Girl

[Toilet Duck]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I have re-read that article and it is 100% only talking about anti-body protection.  There is no reason to think T-Cell immunity isn't being built.  I hope this puts you mind a little more at ease.

I hate this type of reporting.  Its really important they go into more detail as anti-body protection is only one part of what the vaccine gives us.  They are doing the same with the variant reporting.  

It would really depend on what type of treatment they were receiving. Standard cytotoxic chemotherapy would severely hamper t-cell responses unfortunately. Basically, cytotoxic chemotherapy targets one thing in cancer cells, the fact that they replicate quickly. Unfortunately, this is a property shared with cells in our immune system (as they proliferate rapidly to generate a cellular immune response). The drugs don't differentiate between cancer cells and non-cancer cells that grow quickly. So, many of the side effects we see from cytotoxic chemotherapy reflect the non-specific nature of the drugs (immunosuppression due to depletion of immune cells, myelosuppression due to depletion of bone marrow cells, nausea due to killing of the cells that line our gastrointestinal tract, alopecia due to targeting of the cells in our hair follicles....all of these cell types only have one thing in common with cancer cells and that's rapid growth). Targeted therapies that exploit a specific vulnerability in the cancer cell that isn't present in normal cells avoid a lot of this and many cancer patients are treated with newer, more specific drugs, though many also have these combined with standard cytotoxic chemotherapy. Patients with certain blood cancers also receive targeted therapy that depletes the very cells that make the antibodies (and the difference between solid tumours and blood cancers in this study is pretty stark). So, certainly, a one size fits all vaccination strategy might not be optimal, it may not even be optimal in different cancer patients who are at different stages of their treatment, or their recovery, or on different regimens. It's really important that we find these things out though and it may be that cancer patients need more frequent boosts to maintain their immunity while they are on treatment, but we are still only at the start of the use of these vaccines so we will get a better picture over time. If a shorter gap improves protection across the board (there's no breakdown of the 95% in those with a 3 week gap, whether there's a difference depending on treatment or cancer type isn't elaborated upon, so those that got the 3 week gap could all have solid tumours and not be on standard cytotoxic chemotherapy), then it's certainly something that should be reviewed for cancer patients. If it's only patients with specific cancers or on specific therapy, then this needs to be built into the guidance of how the vaccine is used. At this stage, the study is small, but it needs to be examined (any observations we make in real world  use should be reported and investigated to determine if the vaccination strategy needs to be altered). 

[Zoo Music Girl]

3 minutes ago, Pipine said:

My parents (who are both recovering from recent cancers) have both had the AZ vaccine nearly 4 weeks ago now and had a Biobank sponsored antibody test this week and both got a negative result.  I think from what I’ve read it’s too early to test antibodies and the test doesn’t measure T cell count which could well be there but those results and today’s news story don’t help reassure us all 😢

Ah sorry to hear this. Hopefully too early to tell still, as you say.

[Toilet Duck]

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

 

Yeah true. Would appreciate @Toilet Duck's thoughts on this one as I know nothing about T cells and how they work in people with compromised immune systems.

The people we love with cancer have always been our biggest worry throughout so anything like this is a cause for concern for me, especially now my friend has her kids back in school.

Even if T cell response is good, surely shortening the gap to boost antibodies as well would still be well with it?

Hi, sorry, I was in the middle of posting when you posted this. Unfortunately, I can't tell you that there's nothing to worry about yet. It's an important observation and requires urgent further investigation. The observation that 95% of those that had the 3 week gap had better antibody responses is important, but the devil is in the detail and the type of cancer they had and the type of treatment they were receiving is really important to interpreting that finding (it's also a small study, so we need to be really careful about jumping to conclusions). I'll see if I can find the actual scientific report of the study and find out. If the groups were matched (ie the same range of patients, with the same cancer types receiving similar treatments), then it would seem that a shorter gap would be better. Whether this is the same for all the vaccines is something else we don't know, but fully vaccinating the most vulnerable as quickly as possible would be my own personal preference. I'd like to say try not to worry, but with cancer patients in our lives, worry is all we do really. Treatment remains crucial, so following their oncologists advice always remains the most important thing. Vaccination is safe, though less effective in those that are undergoing certain treatments and I think we still need to interact with extremely vulnerable people very carefully. So get your own vaccination and when we can mix again, take further precautions while there is still lots of virus circulating. 

[DeanoL]

12 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

Got to say any talk of masks in crowded places surely puts limits on mass events like gigs? I can't see how it'd be serious enough to need any measures at all and somehow still allow those

If I were booking an arena tour this winter I'd make it fully seated. I think those will go ahead - they're easier to contact trace and fewer contacts. At worst I think it would be "wear a mask when leaving your seat" - if these shows weren't happening then football would be off too and that won't happen.

 

[Zoo Music Girl]

52 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

It would really depend on what type of treatment they were receiving. Standard cytotoxic chemotherapy would severely hamper t-cell responses unfortunately. Basically, cytotoxic chemotherapy targets one thing in cancer cells, the fact that they replicate quickly. Unfortunately, this is a property shared with cells in our immune system (as they proliferate rapidly to generate a cellular immune response). The drugs don't differentiate between cancer cells and non-cancer cells that grow quickly. So, many of the side effects we see from cytotoxic chemotherapy reflect the non-specific nature of the drugs (immunosuppression due to depletion of immune cells, myelosuppression due to depletion of bone marrow cells, nausea due to killing of the cells that line our gastrointestinal tract, alopecia due to targeting of the cells in our hair follicles....all of these cell types only have one thing in common with cancer cells and that's rapid growth). Targeted therapies that exploit a specific vulnerability in the cancer cell that isn't present in normal cells avoid a lot of this and many cancer patients are treated with newer, more specific drugs, though many also have these combined with standard cytotoxic chemotherapy. Patients with certain blood cancers also receive targeted therapy that depletes the very cells that make the antibodies (and the difference between solid tumours and blood cancers in this study is pretty stark). So, certainly, a one size fits all vaccination strategy might not be optimal, it may not even be optimal in different cancer patients who are at different stages of their treatment, or their recovery, or on different regimens. It's really important that we find these things out though and it may be that cancer patients need more frequent boosts to maintain their immunity while they are on treatment, but we are still only at the start of the use of these vaccines so we will get a better picture over time. If a shorter gap improves protection across the board (there's no breakdown of the 95% in those with a 3 week gap, whether there's a difference depending on treatment or cancer type isn't elaborated upon, so those that got the 3 week gap could all have solid tumours and not be on standard cytotoxic chemotherapy), then it's certainly something that should be reviewed for cancer patients. If it's only patients with specific cancers or on specific therapy, then this needs to be built into the guidance of how the vaccine is used. At this stage, the study is small, but it needs to be examined (any observations we make in real world  use should be reported and investigated to determine if the vaccination strategy needs to be altered). 

Thank you for this. Very helpful as ever. My friend is on chemo so doesn't fill me with confidence 😞

[Zoo Music Girl]

43 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Hi, sorry, I was in the middle of posting when you posted this. Unfortunately, I can't tell you that there's nothing to worry about yet. It's an important observation and requires urgent further investigation. The observation that 95% of those that had the 3 week gap had better antibody responses is important, but the devil is in the detail and the type of cancer they had and the type of treatment they were receiving is really important to interpreting that finding (it's also a small study, so we need to be really careful about jumping to conclusions). I'll see if I can find the actual scientific report of the study and find out. If the groups were matched (ie the same range of patients, with the same cancer types receiving similar treatments), then it would seem that a shorter gap would be better. Whether this is the same for all the vaccines is something else we don't know, but fully vaccinating the most vulnerable as quickly as possible would be my own personal preference. I'd like to say try not to worry, but with cancer patients in our lives, worry is all we do really. Treatment remains crucial, so following their oncologists advice always remains the most important thing. Vaccination is safe, though less effective in those that are undergoing certain treatments and I think we still need to interact with extremely vulnerable people very carefully. So get your own vaccination and when we can mix again, take further precautions while there is still lots of virus circulating. 

Thank you for this too. 

[steviewevie]

Looking really bad in Brazil, over 2000 deaths yesterday...

[steviewevie]

Denmark has temporary stopped usage of the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine after several cases of blood clots among vaccinated people.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

EU at it again...  questioning how many does the UK has exported...

Its bonkers - Neither the EU or UK are exporting vaccines.  Private companies are!  All the UK and EU can do is block exports and only one side has done that so far.

This is politics of the lowest form!

yeah, it's not helping anyone. Just concentrate on fixing it.

[st dan]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Denmark has temporary stopped usage of the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine after several cases of blood clots among vaccinated people.

Well we’ve used tens of millions of them so far and don’t think I’ve seen that raised as a concern at all - so sure there is nothing to see here. 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, st dan said:

Well we’ve used tens of millions of them so far and don’t think I’ve seen that raised as a concern at all - so sure there is nothing to see here. 

no link established, they are just temporarily stopping until they know more....

[steviewevie]

from guardian live feed...

Denmark’s national health agency has said it is temporarily suspending inoculations with the AstraZeneca vaccine after blood clots formed in several people who had the jab, one of whom has reportedly died.

The agency said on Thursday that it had not conclusively established a link between the clots and the vaccine, but said it had asked the regional authorities in charge of the vaccination rollout to stop using the AstraZeneca shot for the time being.

The agency said it would reassess the situation in consultation with the Danish medicines agency in two weeks but stressed there was “good evidence that the vaccine is both safe and effective”.

“We are in the middle of the largest and most important vaccination rollout in Danish history,” Søren Brostrøm, the agency’s director, said. “Right now we need all the vaccines we can get. It is therefore not an easy decision to put one on pause.”

But he added: “Precisely because we are vaccinating so many people, we also need to respond promptly and carefully when we have knowledge of possible serious side effects. We need to clarify this before we can continue using the AstraZeneca vacine.”

Danish media said the suspension meant people who have had an initial shot of the Anglo-Swedish vaccine would not receive a second jab for the time being and all AstraZeneca vaccination slots had been cancelled.

Denmark has been ahead of most of the rest of the EU27 with its vaccination rollout and has already

[steviewevie]

From BBC feed...

 

AstraZeneca says Covid vaccine is safe after woman dies of blood clot

We've had a statement from AstraZeneca after Denmark suspended use of one batch of its coronavirus vaccine.

The move came after a woman died from blood clots after having received a dose.

A spokesman says: “Patient safety is the highest priority for AstraZeneca.

"Regulators have clear and stringent efficacy and safety standards for the approval of any new medicine, and that includes [the so-called] Covid-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.

"The safety of the vaccine has been extensively studied in Phase III clinical trials and peer-reviewed data confirms the vaccine has been generally well-tolerated.”

The EU regulator EMA has said there is no indication the vaccine causes blood clots.

Edited March 11, 2021 by steviewevie