Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[yorksrob]

My invite was by text last week (Wed 10th), confirmed within a few minutes, for attendance Wed 17th at a local GP surgery, but not my own. One surgery of four locals has been turned over to vaccination, with their normal patients covered elsewhere in the area.

That's similar to where my parents are.

 

[jfollows]

Then I still got the national invite letter just a few days ago, it arrived after I was already set up with the GP group, but was dated 5 Feb. Presumably letters were made ready to go some days before the decision to send them was made. I suppose there’ll be a disconnect between various booking schemes?

My GP reports (https://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk...9-vaccination-programme-hits-major-milestone/)

"Unfortunately, a decision at a national level means that MVCs ("mass vaccination centres") and pharmacies use a completely different computer system to the tried-and-tested computer systems in GP surgeries.

This has led to much confusion as GP held medical records are not updated in a timely manner by the other computer systems used at MVCs and pharmacies.

Patients sometimes receive multiple invitations to attend Covid vaccination appointments at multiple sites and GP surgery staff, up and down the country, are spending inordinate amounts of time trying to clarify whether or not patients have already been vaccinated."

GP surgeries across East Cheshire have been assured that the new MVC at Alderley Park will concentrate on inviting those people in group 5, whilst GP surgeries will concentrate on those in group 6.

which leads me to believe that the disconnect between booking schemes has caused a lot of wasted time and effort, and that - at least locally - the plan to concentrate on two different groups of people for two vaccination centres (GP versus newly-created large centre) makes sense.

 

[takno]

My GP reports (https://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk...9-vaccination-programme-hits-major-milestone/)

which leads me to believe that the disconnect between booking schemes has caused a lot of wasted time and effort, and that - at least locally - the plan to concentrate on two different groups of people for two vaccination centres (GP versus newly-created large centre) makes sense.

There's a lot to be said for it, although I suspect that the larger centres could easily chew through all the supplies and leave GPs without unless it's well-managed at the supply level

 

[Domh245]

I agree. Although Burnham mentioned that they already had a supply there that was awaiting use.

It would seem at first glance though that the supply at these mega-centres would have been better deployed to GP surgeries and other local centres. Less of an issue now that there seems to be a split focus as per post 1682

 

[arbeia]

Plus, I think as we go down the age groups, for whatever reason, the take up seems to be less, with the apparent effect that it may well speed up vaccine time for the lower groups.

 

[DB]

Plus, I think as we go down the age groups, for whatever reason, the take up seems to be less, with the apparent effect that it may well speed up vaccine time for the lower groups.

Many younger people probably feel that they are at less risk, so why bother? They wouldn't even be offered the flu vaccine in most cases, and for people under 40 this virus is actually less of a risk than flu.

 

[HSTEd]

If the lockdown ends and case numbers begin to climb, you can guarantee that many people who do not take the vaccine now will take it then.

They saw this repeatedly with small pox, with takeup falling off over time as it became a forgotten threat in the UK, followed by rapid upsurges in demand whenever an outbreak occurred.

 

[jfollows]

A report today in the local press (https://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk...re-vaccine-supply-throttled-back-says-leader/) says that 98% of those over 70 in Cheshire have now been vaccinated:

"The latest data, released on Thursday (February 18) by NHS England on the programme’s progress, show that in Cheshire, 117,387 residents aged 70-plus have had their first dose of a vaccine, out of a over-70 population of 119,773."

 

[35B]

Many younger people probably feel that they are at less risk, so why bother? They wouldn't even be offered the flu vaccine in most cases, and for people under 40 this virus is actually less of a risk than flu.

I think the ability to board a plane going outside the UK (well, more precisely, alight at the other end) as countries impose vaccination requirements at their borders may focus a lot of minds. And if we want herd immunity, that is going to need very high levels of compliance, from all groups.

 

[Domh245]

Pfizer have announced today that their vaccine doesn't need to be stored at quite so cold a temperature, bringing it inline with Moderna at -25° prior to thawing for injection

Pfizer and BioNTech Submit COVID-19 Vaccine Stability Data at Standard Freezer Temperature to the U.S. FDA | BioNTech

Proposed U.S. EUA label update would enable the vaccine to be stored at -25°C to -15°C (-13°F to 5°F) for a total of two weeks If approved, new storage option could offer pharmacies and vaccination centers greater flexibility in managing and maintaining vaccine distribution and supply NEW YORK and

biontechse.gcs-web.com

Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced the submission of new data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demonstrating the stability of their COVID-19 vaccine when stored at -25°C to -15°C (-13°F to 5°F), temperatures more commonly found in pharmaceutical freezers and refrigerators. The data have been submitted to the FDA to support a proposed update to the U.S. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Prescribing Information, which would allow for vaccine vials to be stored at these temperatures for a total of two weeks as an alternative or complement to storage in an ultra-low temperature freezer.

I wonder how long it'll be before they come out with a revised dosing interval now that they're optimising rather than rushing for approval

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting that latest data on the Astra-Zeneca vaccine suggests that a 12 week gap between the two doses is actually more effective than a 6 week gap. Also that it is equally effective in reducing transmission across all age groups. I wonder when the French, Germans etc will rescind their restriction on the AZ vaccine for over 65s...

 

[Domh245]

I wonder when the French, Germans etc will rescind their restriction on the AZ vaccine for over 65s...

Once it's no longer politically expedient to point-score over the UK!

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting that latest data on the Astra-Zeneca vaccine suggests that a 12 week gap between the two doses is actually more effective than a 6 week gap. Also that it is equally effective in reducing transmission across all age groups. I wonder when the French, Germans etc will rescind their restriction on the AZ vaccine for over 65s...

This is what I was wondering a few posts ago, as a 65 - 66 year old. Although should be ok as my Pfizer shot was made in Germany...

 

[HSTEd]

I think the ability to board a plane going outside the UK (well, more precisely, alight at the other end) as countries impose vaccination requirements at their borders may focus a lot of minds. And if we want herd immunity, that is going to need very high levels of compliance, from all groups.

A very lage portion of the population never flies though, so that won't help that much.

(I believe it is something like 45-50%)

 

[Bald Rick]

A very lage portion of the population never flies though, so that won't help that much.

(I believe it is something like 45-50%)

Really? Never? I’d like to see some stats on that.

 

[HSTEd]

Really? Never? I’d like to see some stats on that.

Some stats are available on the Gov website.
"Never" might be overstating the case, but for 3 of the 5 income quintiles the median number of flights abroad in 12 months was zero.
For the other two it was 1.

There was also this snippet that 1% of people make 20% of flights abroad, and 10% make more than half.

(Guardian)

Just 1% of English residents are responsible for nearly a fifth of all flights abroad, according to previously unpublished statistics.


The figures, published in a Department for Transport survey, also reveal that the 10% most frequent flyers in England took more than half of all international flights in 2018. However, 48% of the population did not take a single flight abroad in the last year.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Really? Never? I’d like to see some stats on that.

I can absolutely believe that.

My partner has never been abroad and didn't get her first passport until last year age 26 when we were supposed to go to Berlin. It isnt like she's from a poor background either- her parents own their house and they let out a flat so get income from that too.

So while I've been on holidays abroad since I was like 7, I can totally see that a lot of people haven't (and so likely wouldn't have flown).

 

[backontrack]

My Dad's been given the Pfizer vaccine

 

[Crossover]

My invite was by text last week (Wed 10th), confirmed within a few minutes, for attendance Wed 17th at a local GP surgery, but not my own. One surgery of four locals has been turned over to vaccination, with their normal patients covered elsewhere in the area.

Then I still got the national invite letter just a few days ago, it arrived after I was already set up with the GP group, but was dated 5 Feb. Presumably letters were made ready to go some days before the decision to send them was made. I suppose there’ll be a disconnect between various booking schemes?

Sadly it is probably one of the areas of the health system where money gets squandered and doesn’t achieve a good ROI

 

[HSTEd]

I'd rather they spend the money on duplicate letters than start missing people en masse.
The cost of the vaccination programme is macroeconomically irrelevant.

 

[Bald Rick]

Some stats are available on the Gov website.
"Never" might be overstating the case, but for 3 of the 5 income quintiles the median number of flights abroad in 12 months was zero.
For the other two it was 1.

There was also this snippet that 1% of people make 20% of flights abroad, and 10% make more than half.

(Guardian)

Ok, fair enough. I can believe those stats, with the caveat that not flying in one year is rather different to never flying. I’d guess that if you extended it to the proportion of adults who hadn’t flown in the previous 3 years (from last Feb!) it would be around 30%. There will be a pent up demand for foreign trips - when allowed - and I think that will concentrate the minds of a few% of the population when it is their turn to be immunised. And every % really matters.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think the ability to board a plane going outside the UK (well, more precisely, alight at the other end) as countries impose vaccination requirements at their borders may focus a lot of minds. And if we want herd immunity, that is going to need very high levels of compliance, from all groups.

Why does herd immunity need high vaccine compliance?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why does herd immunity need high vaccine compliance?

Because the unconstrained R rate is relatively high, ie this virus is relatively easy to ‘catch’.

Strictly speaking it doesn’t need high vaccine compliance, but the only other option is to let the unvaccinated catch it. If 80% of the adult population take the vaccine, and it is 80% effective, that still leaves over a third of the adult population unprotected, and with all restrictions removed most of them would, quickly. That is enough to cause the NHS issues, I imagine.

As it happens, over 10%* of the population have had the virus, and nearly 30% have had the first shot of the vaccine. Whilst there is some overlap it’s reasonable to sssume that over a quarter of the population now has some protection, including nearly all the most vulnerable.

*officially it’s about 6%, but it’s reasonable to assume many people have had it without realising, or simply didn’t ge5 a test.

 

[Bantamzen]

Because the unconstrained R rate is relatively high, ie this virus is relatively easy to ‘catch’.

Strictly speaking it doesn’t need high vaccine compliance, but the only other option is to let the unvaccinated catch it. If 80% of the adult population take the vaccine, and it is 80% effective, that still leaves over a third of the adult population unprotected, and with all restrictions removed most of them would, quickly. That is enough to cause the NHS issues, I imagine.

As it happens, over 10%* of the population have had the virus, and nearly 30% have had the first shot of the vaccine. Whilst there is some overlap it’s reasonable to sssume that over a quarter of the population now has some protection, including nearly all the most vulnerable.

*officially it’s about 6%, but it’s reasonable to assume many people have had it without realising, or simply didn’t ge5 a test.

The statistics may say that 10% of the population have had it, but is that actually the case? How many people have had the virus and not known it or not sought a test? No amount of randomised testing is going to give you a solid answer to that. It is however very likely that many more than the 10% have had it, and then there as the people who had pre-existing immunity as a result of exposure to other coronaviruses.

The 'R' rate is rapidly becoming irrelevant in terms of decision making. If we have the means to protect and treat people most at risk of becoming seriously ill, then we have achieved what we needed to.

 

[Bald Rick]

The statistics may say that 10% of the population have had it, but is that actually the case? How many people have had the virus and not known it or not sought a test? No amount of randomised testing is going to give you a solid answer to that.

As I said, the official statistics show that 6% of the population have had it, I’m making the assumption that its getting on for twice that in reality.

 

[Bantamzen]

As I said, the official statistics show that 6% of the population have had it, I’m making the assumption that its getting on for twice that in reality.

In truth we will never know the true figure, but I'd bet twice the official number would be a very conservative figure.

 

[Richard Scott]

Because the unconstrained R rate is relatively high, ie this virus is relatively easy to ‘catch’.

Strictly speaking it doesn’t need high vaccine compliance, but the only other option is to let the unvaccinated catch it. If 80% of the adult population take the vaccine, and it is 80% effective, that still leaves over a third of the adult population unprotected, and with all restrictions removed most of them would, quickly. That is enough to cause the NHS issues, I imagine.

As it happens, over 10%* of the population have had the virus, and nearly 30% have had the first shot of the vaccine. Whilst there is some overlap it’s reasonable to sssume that over a quarter of the population now has some protection, including nearly all the most vulnerable.

*officially it’s about 6%, but it’s reasonable to assume many people have had it without realising, or simply didn’t ge5 a test.

No they wouldn't catch it quickly. There would be too many people vaccinated or who'd already had it to allow for quick spread. It really isn't as easy to catch as people think.

 

[Bald Rick]

If we have the means to protect and treat people most at risk of becoming seriously ill, then we have achieved what we needed to.

Agreed, but we’re not there yet. Those most at risk of getting seriously ill are the top 9 categories, and they’ll all need two doses. Once that’s done, with a high rate of take up (90%+), then well be in good shape. It will be June before we are there though. Hence the progressive relaxation of restrictions.

 

[Philip]

In the big urban conurbations like London, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Liverpool and West Yorkshire, it is thought between 20-30% of the population have natural immunity through previous infection; so in these areas there is a fair chance that there is over 50% immunity now, and with rapid vaccination progress this is likely to be over 75% around Easter time. Allow for the 3 weeks after vaccination to develop protection and you can see why late April is being mentioned as when non-essential and hospitality is likely to open up. Smaller conurbations and more rural areas may have less natural immunity, but these aren't the infection hotspots and vaccine progress is also higher in these areas.

 

[Bantamzen]

Agreed, but we’re not there yet. Those most at risk of getting seriously ill are the top 9 categories, and they’ll all need two doses. Once that’s done, with a high rate of take up (90%+), then well be in good shape. It will be June before we are there though. Hence the progressive relaxation of restrictions.

I don't believe that's right, nowhere all the people in the 5-9 categories are at risk, so we don't near anywhere near 90% compliance.