Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Covid vaccine: Pfizer says it's '94% effective in over-65s'
Published15 minutes ago
IMAGE COPYRIGHTGETTY IMAGES
The coronavirus vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech appears to protect 94% of adults over 65 years old.
More data released from their ongoing phase three trial suggests it works equally well in people of all ages, races and ethnicities.
The companies say they will now apply for authorisation for emergency use of the jab in the US.
The findings are based on two doses given to more than 41,000 people around the world.
Last week, Pfizer and BioNTech published preliminary data showing the vaccine offered 90% protection against Covid-19 and there were no safety concerns.
This was followed by impressive data on another vaccine, made by US company Moderna, suggesting nearly 95% protection.
'Reassuring'
Wednesday's data from Pfizer and BioNTech, which builds on last week's data, suggests the vaccine is 95% effective based on 170 cases Covid-19 developing in volunteers.
Just eight were in the group given the vaccine, suggesting it offers good protection. The rest of the cases were in the placebo group given a dummy jab.
Scientists said the data was further encouraging news, with Prof Trudie Lang from the University of Oxford, saying we are in "a remarkable and very reassuring situation".
"To go from identifying a new virus to having several vaccines at the point of applying for regulatory approval is an incredible milestone for science," she said,
Although the full trial data has yet to be published, the companies say there have been no serious safety concerns. But they did notice headaches and fatigue in about 2% of volunteers given the vaccine.
There is also evidence that the vaccine protects against severe Covid - but this is based on only 10 cases.
However it's still unclear how long protection from the vaccine lasts and if it stops people transmitting the virus.
In the trial, 42% of all participants are from diverse ethnic backgrounds and 41% are aged between 56 and 85 years old.
The trial, which is testing people at 150 sites in the US, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina, will collect data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine for another two years.
The companies behind it expect to produce up to 50 million doses of the vaccine this year and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.
The UK has pre-ordered 40 million doses and should get 10 million by the end of the year.
It has also ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is planning to release data from its phase three trial soon.
Vaccine development
There are hundreds of vaccines in development around the world, and about a dozen in the final stages of testing, known as phase three.
The first two to show any results - made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna - both use an experimental approach, called mRNA, which involves injecting part of the virus's genetic code into the body to train the immune system.
Antibodies and T-cells are then made by the body to fight the coronavirus.
The Sputnik vaccine, developed in Russia, has also released early data from phase three based on a smaller number of volunteers and Covid cases.
There are some logistical challenges with mRNA vaccines, namely the need to store them at cold temperatures.
The Pfizer vaccine must be stored at around minus 80C, although it can be kept in a fridge for five days.
Moderna's vaccine needs to be stored at minus 20C for up to six months and kept in a standard fridge for up to a month.
Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group
Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%
Safety data milestone required by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) has been achieved
Data demonstrate vaccine was well tolerated across all populations with over 43,000 participants enrolled; no serious safety concerns observed; the only Grade 3 adverse event greater than 2% in frequency was fatigue at 3.8% and headache at 2.0%
Companies plan to submit within days to the FDA for EUA and share data with other regulatory agencies around the globe
The companies expect to produce globally up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021
Pfizer is confident in its vast experience, expertise and existing cold-chain infrastructure to distribute the vaccine around the world
elec2020 wrote:"Final trial results showed that only eight people out more than 20,000 who got the vaccine caught coronavirus in the study, compared to 162 who were given a fake jab. A total of 10 people got severe Covid-19, one of whom had been given the real vaccine."
So someone got serious covid after getting the vaccine but it 95 % effective. Ok
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rough.html
elec2020 wrote:^ all your points are noted. But keep in mind none of the vaccines so far have been peer-reviewed.
elec2020 wrote:^ all your points are noted. But keep in mind none of the vaccines so far have been peer-reviewed.
elec2020 wrote:so you fast track something that can have meaningful long-term ramifications for the entire global population for a virus with a crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) of between 3-4% (as reported by WHO). If the fast tracked vaccine has a serious issue for example lets say causing birth defects. Then every person in the world is at risk of having children with possible birth defects. That risk is better than immunizing against a virus with only a 3-4% mortality rate? I say this because we keep losing track that vaccines take about a decade to be deemed fit for public. And still then disasters happen (like with Nigeria meningitis issue). Anyway thats just my two cents.
Dohplaydat wrote:elec2020 wrote:so you fast track something that can have meaningful long-term ramifications for the entire global population for a virus with a crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) of between 3-4% (as reported by WHO). If the fast tracked vaccine has a serious issue for example lets say causing birth defects. Then every person in the world is at risk of having children with possible birth defects. That risk is better than immunizing against a virus with only a 3-4% mortality rate? I say this because we keep losing track that vaccines take about a decade to be deemed fit for public. And still then disasters happen (like with Nigeria meningitis issue). Anyway thats just my two cents.
It was fast tracked to remove bureaucratic delays as well as money was pumped into resources to get things done faster. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
hover11 wrote:So you rushing to take a vaccine that was only months in development hmmm ok go strong bro.....you know what I find so funny, HIV , cancer , diabetes, etc all these viruses and diseases that have been with us for however long where are the vaccines for thoseDohplaydat wrote:This is great news! These vaccines have already been mass-produced and stock piled so once final approval is granted this covid nightmare can be over early next year (hopefully).
Part of the reason previous vaccines have taken years is because new technologies needed to be developed to make them possible.hover11 wrote:What i can't understand is there are many deadly diseases such as HIV and cancer which have been with us since inception, money is pumped into these initiatives yearly where are the vaccines for such .....but you want me to trust a vaccine that was in development for some months. THANKS but no thanksDohplaydat wrote:elec2020 wrote:so you fast track something that can have meaningful long-term ramifications for the entire global population for a virus with a crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) of between 3-4% (as reported by WHO). If the fast tracked vaccine has a serious issue for example lets say causing birth defects. Then every person in the world is at risk of having children with possible birth defects. That risk is better than immunizing against a virus with only a 3-4% mortality rate? I say this because we keep losing track that vaccines take about a decade to be deemed fit for public. And still then disasters happen (like with Nigeria meningitis issue). Anyway thats just my two cents.
It was fast tracked to remove bureaucratic delays as well as money was pumped into resources to get things done faster. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
elec2020 wrote:^ if there was a cancer/HIV pandemic you would have seen the vaccines. But because those diseases don't have high infection rates and outspread panic it more profitable for big pharma to just treat them. Because covid is so highly infectious and has brought economies to a stand still. Big pharma is more inclined to produce a vaccine for it. Thats not to say that Big Pharma has not profited from the pandemic. An article I included below highlights the bahbal that happened in the UK when it comes to PPE. Which politician received how much cutbacks. Which friend get government contracts. Etc. Alot of money passed during this pandemic to big pharma and I am sure many deals were fraught with these same cutbacks to pepper-in favors from governments. As i said before. Time will tell with respect to who stands on the right side of history.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... andal.html
elec2020 wrote:^ I agree on your comment in that cure a patient and you lose him (potentially) forever. But treat a patient and you have them for life. So alot of these illnesses would never get cured. In fact there are several stories out there that big pharma buys out companies that have made progress to better treat cancer or HIV. It is what it is. Your second point. I think its because governments are spending so much on these vaccines that they are lining up themselves to basically force people to have them. They will cite that for the virus to be properly eradicated all must be vaccinated. And get the sheeple on their side by stating that those who don't are socially irresponsible. I have been called that a few times because of my conflicting views on the vaccine.
elec2020 wrote:BLOOMINGTON, Ind., Nov. 18, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- After young cancer researcher Mary Austin discovered a breakthrough drug that could change chemotherapy, the drug industry suppressed the breakthrough and transformed her life and career forever. Inspired by her life, Austin has changed names to protect identities in her new novel “The Last Rose of Summer” (published by Archway Publishing). https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/cance ... 00678.html .... This is based on a real life experience. There is a book by Hodgson Brown called "Forbidden Medicine" it goes into Big Pharma suppressing alternative cancer treatments as well. It is also based on real life experience. I included some excerpts from some other articles on why I think Big Pharma exists and is corrupt.
Cancer drugs are the most profitable for Big Pharma
https://bigthink.com/politics-current-a ... belltitem1
Eli Lillyannounced12 in March 2019 that it would begin selling a generic version of its Humalog insulin at half the price. The medication, known as lispro, will cost $137.35 per vial. To compare pricing, a 2018 study13 estimated that the cost of making a year’s worth of insulin for one patient ranges from $78 to $133.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... americans/
The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/busi ... %20dollars.
elec2020 wrote:^ i had two links in their with individuals in the field reporting that big pharma essentially shut them up when they were pushing research on alternative treatments for cancer with good results. Then i placed several articles that showed that pharma companies bending u over backwards when it comes to prices for treatment. As well as the fact that cancer treatment had been the most profitable area of business for big pharma. U self say it doesn't make sense for big pharma to hide a cure and in the next sentence u can say they exploitative. So they exploutative but not to the extemt to hide a cure or block good research in that area that will undoubtedly significantly impact their profits. Also this is my last response to u on this topic. Insults is not a way to garner rapport for healthy discussions
elec2020 wrote:^ so because it doesn't suit your agenda its a conspiracy? So the real life bibliographies is false then. Also, the evidence of shady pricing means nothing. That extends only to pricing and nothing else. Ok got it. Anyway if what i says bothers u then ignore me. Put me on your block list i do not care. Your opinion is not gospel
elec2020 wrote:^ i thinj thats dependent on what vaccine is adopted as the pfizer one for example has steep storage costs.