Page 635 of 1110 FirstFirst ... 135535585625633634635636637645685735 ... LastLast
Results 12,681 to 12,700 of 22195
  1. #12681
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    The thing I'm going to curious about it what if JNJ's vaccine is shown to have something 70% efficacy. Are people going to not want to get it? Or will they get it temporarily and then get Pfizer/Moderna later? What will doctors recommend? Certainly, 70% is far greater than 0%. And the more people we can get vaccinated quickly, the faster we can contain this thing and go back to some sense of normalcy. Hopefully, numbers come back and are great. And yes, the mRNA vaccine efficacy numbers are truly great.

    The other piece I'm curious about is timing of vaccine trials for children. Are those already in progress for Pfizer/Moderna and what is the expected timing?
    As a relatively healthy mid-50's guy, 70% is great for me. Save the 95% for those in higher risk categories.

    If everyone got 70%, we would likely be able to lick this thing.

  2. #12682
    Quote Originally Posted by aimo View Post
    70% is still amazing, and 70% now is better than 95% potentially months down the road. So, hopefully people will not try to hold out for the mRNA over any other vaccine. Remember, the flu is usually only around 40%.
    I know this is more serious than the flu but, considering that the flu vaccine efficacy is 50% or less, I think 70% sounds good. Would rather have Pfizer/Moderna but would take JnJ in heart beat. (I am not a doctor and didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Also, someone that has never had the flu. (knocks wood))

  3. #12683
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    The thing I'm going to curious about it what if JNJ's vaccine is shown to have something 70% efficacy. Are people going to not want to get it? Or will they get it temporarily and then get Pfizer/Moderna later? What will doctors recommend? Certainly, 70% is far greater than 0%. And the more people we can get vaccinated quickly, the faster we can contain this thing and go back to some sense of normalcy. Hopefully, numbers come back and are great. And yes, the mRNA vaccine efficacy numbers are truly great.

    The other piece I'm curious about is timing of vaccine trials for children. Are those already in progress for Pfizer/Moderna and what is the expected timing?
    Children's Mercy Hospital in KCMO is actively seeking children (parents) to participate in a study - saw a notice yesterday.

  4. #12684
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Should I gain 30 pounds?

    Here in DC, they've been vaccinating healthcare workers and people who are 65 years older or older. They've announced that the next tranche of people to be vaccinated will be people who are overweight, defined as people who have a BMI greater than 25.

    I'm 63, so I don't quite qualify on age. Also, I lost about 20 pounds last year, so my BMI is around 22. I think I would have to gain 30 pounds to qualify for vaccination. My son suggested going to the bank and getting some rolls of quarters and taping them around my ankles. I suppose I could also wrap towels around my midsection so that my weight was not suspicious.

    Seriously, I fully understand why DC wants to vaccinate overweight people first, because of their greater risk of getting a severe COVID case, but it does strike me as kind of counterintuitive, as with New Jersey vaccinating smokers. I don't want to set off any sort of debate about the appropriateness of the various tranches to receive the vaccine, but I did think it was an interesting decision by the Health Commissioner and Mayor.

  5. #12685
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    Here in DC, they've been vaccinating healthcare workers and people who are 65 years older or older. They've announced that the next tranche of people to be vaccinated will be people who are overweight, defined as people who have a BMI greater than 25.

    I'm 63, so I don't quite qualify on age. Also, I lost about 20 pounds last year, so my BMI is around 22. I think I would have to gain 30 pounds to qualify for vaccination. My son suggested going to the bank and getting some rolls of quarters and taping them around my ankles. I suppose I could also wrap towels around my midsection so that my weight was not suspicious.

    Seriously, I fully understand why DC wants to vaccinate overweight people first, because of their greater risk of getting a severe COVID case, but it does strike me as kind of counterintuitive, as with New Jersey vaccinating smokers. I don't want to set off any sort of debate about the appropriateness of the various tranches to receive the vaccine, but I did think it was an interesting decision by the Health Commissioner and Mayor.
    A BMI cutoff of 25 will likely include most of the population. According to the CDC, almost 75% of the US population has a BMI greater than 25. If you are going to set a BMI cutoff which includes 75% of the population, you might as well just offer the vaccine to everybody.

    Either way, you are probably better off gaining a 30 pounds than gaining 2 years!

  6. #12686
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    Here in DC, they've been vaccinating healthcare workers and people who are 65 years older or older. They've announced that the next tranche of people to be vaccinated will be people who are overweight, defined as people who have a BMI greater than 25.

    I'm 63, so I don't quite qualify on age. Also, I lost about 20 pounds last year, so my BMI is around 22. I think I would have to gain 30 pounds to qualify for vaccination. My son suggested going to the bank and getting some rolls of quarters and taping them around my ankles. I suppose I could also wrap towels around my midsection so that my weight was not suspicious.

    Seriously, I fully understand why DC wants to vaccinate overweight people first, because of their greater risk of getting a severe COVID case, but it does strike me as kind of counterintuitive, as with New Jersey vaccinating smokers. I don't want to set off any sort of debate about the appropriateness of the various tranches to receive the vaccine, but I did think it was an interesting decision by the Health Commissioner and Mayor.
    Yeah, my state is prioritizing smokers...How long do you have to smoke for to qualify? I think this just shows that the "rules" are subject to some level of abuse, but it's the best we can do...

  7. #12687
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    Here in DC, they've been vaccinating healthcare workers and people who are 65 years older or older. They've announced that the next tranche of people to be vaccinated will be people who are overweight, defined as people who have a BMI greater than 25.

    I'm 63, so I don't quite qualify on age. Also, I lost about 20 pounds last year, so my BMI is around 22. I think I would have to gain 30 pounds to qualify for vaccination. My son suggested going to the bank and getting some rolls of quarters and taping them around my ankles. I suppose I could also wrap towels around my midsection so that my weight was not suspicious.

    Seriously, I fully understand why DC wants to vaccinate overweight people first, because of their greater risk of getting a severe COVID case, but it does strike me as kind of counterintuitive, as with New Jersey vaccinating smokers. I don't want to set off any sort of debate about the appropriateness of the various tranches to receive the vaccine, but I did think it was an interesting decision by the Health Commissioner and Mayor.
    BMI is weight over height, so you can reduce the amount of weight you would need to gain by slouching when they measure you...

    I am not endorsing the obesity and smoker preference, but the logic behind it apparently is that since they are higher risk, they are more apt to get covid and overwhelm the hospitals. I think the governor of New Jersey came out and made an additional statement to clarify the goal of including smokers as he was getting a lot of questions and push back. I agree that the optics of it are not great, particularly for smoking, where I don't think there is clarity about how frequently you have to smoke to qualify, and that is something that one participates in (at least initially) completely on a voluntary basis.

  8. #12688
    Or are the rules being set to try to keep people from needing hospitalization?

    Does seem like an odd "reward" for the smokers but if it benefits the health care workers, is it a good choice? I have no idea and am glad I'm not responsible for setting any priorities in this.

    eta - CrazyNotCrazie beat me to it.
    Last edited by DukieInKansas; 01-22-2021 at 11:53 AM.

  9. #12689
    It seems that locally, the state mandated roll-out tiers are best suggestions to be followed by vaccinators, but not mandatory. There are some providers that seem to be taking the mindset of just vaccinating anybody and everybody as quickly as they can, regardless of age, comorbidity, or other attenuating circumstance. They don't even seem to be requiring people to "fudge" their criteria.
    My Quick Smells Like French Toast.

  10. #12690
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Can you remind me what the claimed efficacy percentage is for the JnJ, and whether it has been FDA approved yet (or if not when expected)? I've sorta gotten lost on all of these.

    Certainly, great news!
    To my knowledge they have released no final efficacy numbers...though they DID report some interim results a while back, which were an encouraging 90%. We should know more soon, as FDA approval is expected by the end of the month.

    Let's hope for the best...

  11. #12691
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Can you remind me what the claimed efficacy percentage is for the JnJ, and whether it has been FDA approved yet (or if not when expected)? I've sorta gotten lost on all of these.

    Certainly, great news!
    Not approved and efficacy hasn’t yet been reported. Probably a couple of weeks to get efficacy and a week or two more for approval.

  12. #12692
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Not approved and efficacy hasn’t yet been reported. Probably a couple of weeks to get efficacy and a week or two more for approval.
    Thanks!

  13. #12693
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    To my knowledge they have released no final efficacy numbers...though they DID report some interim results a while back, which were an encouraging 90%. We should know more soon, as FDA approval is expected by the end of the month.

    Let's hope for the best...
    As far as I can tell, J&J has only released the results of their earlier phase studies (and not interim results of the Phase 3 study). The 90% referred to the percentage of study participants who had evidence of neutralizing antibodies at Day 29. Not sure how that will translate to phase 3 results in terms of preventing symptomatic disease.

    The phase 2 results also reported the 100% of participants aged 18-55 had neutralizing antibodies at Day 57. As someone who falls into this age group, I would definitely consider getting the J&J vaccine as soon as possible, even if the phase 3 results show less overall effectiveness than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.

  14. #12694
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Dur'm
    I wonder if there's a chance that later-developed vaccines could show less efficacy simply because the vaccines were developed explicitly for the first one or two major strains, and as time passes, the number of variants increases. Experience with flu vaccines, some of which immunize against other coronaviruses, would suggest that this is fairly likely, doesn't it? I would love to hear an expert weigh in on that.

  15. #12695
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    The thing I'm going to curious about it what if JNJ's vaccine is shown to have something 70% efficacy. Are people going to not want to get it? Or will they get it temporarily and then get Pfizer/Moderna later? What will doctors recommend? Certainly, 70% is far greater than 0%. And the more people we can get vaccinated quickly, the faster we can contain this thing and go back to some sense of normalcy. Hopefully, numbers come back and are great. And yes, the mRNA vaccine efficacy numbers are truly great.

    The other piece I'm curious about is timing of vaccine trials for children. Are those already in progress for Pfizer/Moderna and what is the expected timing?
    Isn't it possible that a vaccine that's 70% efficacy still prevents near 100% of severe cases?

  16. #12696
    Quote Originally Posted by Kdogg View Post
    Isn't it possible that a vaccine that's 70% efficacy still prevents near 100% of severe cases?
    IANAD but it depends on how JJ got that 70% efficacy. The various trials haven't standardized the outcomes they are using for their main reported "efficacy" figure. IIRC Pfizer, for example, reported 95% efficacy but had 0% severe cases in the vaccine group. Moderna used its own outcome criteria for defining efficacy and I imagine J&J will use one that slightly different than those.

    In an ideal world there would be several efficacy #'s reported. To what extent does the vaccination:
    a) prevent getting covid infection
    b) prevent getting covid infection with mild symptoms (even minor ones like a brief lost of smell)
    c) prevent getting covid infection with moderate symptoms (like a cold - sniffles, fever, requiring bed rest)
    d) prevent getting covid infection with severe symptoms (needing professional intervention like supplemental oxygen or hospitalization)
    e) prevent getting covid infection leading to death

  17. #12697
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kdogg View Post
    Isn't it possible that a vaccine that's 70% efficacy still prevents near 100% of severe cases?
    Yes, this would be possible. It depends on how the term “efficacy” is defined in the study protocol. If all symptomatic infection is called a vaccine failure, but nobody gets sick enough to be admitted to the ICU, and 30% vaccinees get symptomatic disease but nobody gets admitted to the ICU, then it would have a 70% efficacy, but would be 100% protective against “severe disease,” where severe disease is defined as ICU admission.
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  18. #12698
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    IANAD but it depends on how JJ got that 70% efficacy. The various trials haven't standardized the outcomes they are using for their main reported "efficacy" figure. IIRC Pfizer, for example, reported 95% efficacy but had 0% severe cases in the vaccine group. Moderna used its own outcome criteria for defining efficacy and I imagine J&J will use one that slightly different than those.

    In an ideal world there would be several efficacy #'s reported. To what extent does the vaccination:
    a) prevent getting covid infection
    b) prevent getting covid infection with mild symptoms (even minor ones like a brief lost of smell)
    c) prevent getting covid infection with moderate symptoms (like a cold - sniffles, fever, requiring bed rest)
    d) prevent getting covid infection with severe symptoms (needing professional intervention like supplemental oxygen or hospitalization)
    e) prevent getting covid infection leading to death
    My understanding is that the interim results of the AstraZenaca* study reported the following:

    Control Group (5829 participants): 101 symptomatic infections, 10 hospitalizations, 2 "severe cases", and 1 deaths
    Vaccine Group (5807 participants): 30 symptomatic infections, 0 hospitalizations, 0 "severe cases", and 0 deaths

    On the surface, this looks like a 70% reduction in symptomatic infection and a 100% reduction in hospitalizations. That being said, while I am not a biostatistician, I suspect that the relatively small sample makes it difficult to conclude that the reduction in hospitalizations was statistically different from the reduction in infections.


    *To my knowledge, J&J hasn't released any results, interim or otherwise, from their phase 3 study.

  19. #12699
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Biggest jump in doses per CDC tracker yet: we went from 17.5 million yesterday to 19.1 million today, or a 1.6 million increase. That is promising. Hopefully it continues.

    We are up about 2.5 million is doses “distributed”, at 39.9 million total.

    As of 12/30/2020, we were at 12.4 million “distributed” and 2.8 administered. So over the past 23 days we have “distributed” 27.5 million doses and administered 14.7 million (roughly a 20 million per month pace). The pace of administration has been backloaded though; the last week or so has been at a notably higher pace (more like 25 million per month).

    Progress. Obviously still a VERY long way to go though.

  20. #12700
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Two bits of news.

    1. My friend Maria just got her first COVID shot this morning as a walk-up at the Greenville, SC K-Mart Plaza facility set up by Prisma Health.

    2. They just announced on the local news that starting tomorrow, Prisma will no longer be accepting walk-ins at the K-Mart. They are running low in vaccine and are trying to reserve enough for those that need second doses.

    Note: The K-Mart closed several months ago and they are using the entire K-Mart building for for COVID vaccinations.

Similar Threads

  1. Masters 2020
    By OldPhiKap in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 11-20-2020, 09:24 PM
  2. 2020 NBA Playoffs
    By cato in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1349
    Last Post: 10-17-2020, 11:29 PM
  3. Coronavirus - those we've lost
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-08-2020, 09:42 PM
  4. FB: 2020 Schedule is out
    By nocilla in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-22-2020, 07:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •