2nd dose Covid vaccine

[deleted875186]

So more and more reports of people skipping their second dose of Covid vaccine, thought?

I hate it, it’s downright disrespectful to those who want the vaccine but can’t yet get it. Makes no sense, these people aren’t worried about serious adverse effects, otherwise they wouldn’t have gotten the first dose, they’re just worried about a sore arm and feeling crappy for a day.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted162650]

Pfizer data shows about 90% effective 12 days after receiving 1st dose. I think it’s reasonable to skip the second, especially if that means more people can get vaccinated.

Personally I got both (there’s a huge increase in your titer levels after the 2nd), but I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable or an afront to humanity to not get the 2nd if you’re a low risk person in a low risk job.

Not getting it ‘cuz you’re afraid of side effects is a bitch move though.

 

[deleted875186]

Pfizer data shows about 90% effective 12 days after receiving 1st dose. I think it’s reasonable to skip the second, especially if that means more people can get vaccinated.

Personally I got both (there’s a huge increase in your titer levels after the 2nd), but I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable or an afront to humanity to not get the 2nd if you’re a low risk person in a low risk job.

Not getting it ‘cuz your afraid of side effects is a bitch move though.

Interesting, I had heard 50-60% effective, I haven’t looked at the supplemental data or anything for the paper.

 

[deleted162650]

Interesting, I had heard 50-60% effective, I haven’t looked at the supplemental data or anything for the paper.

The 50-60% number includes days 1-12. After day 12 it was 90%.

 

[BLADEMDA]

If you want protection against the new variants you need the second dose. In addition, the antibody levels are much lower with just one dose which could mean shorter duration of immunity.

 

[GassYous]

If you want protection against the new variants you need the second dose. In addition, the antibody levels are much lower with just one dose which could mean shorter duration of immunity.

Also plaquenil

 

[deleted875186]

The 50-60% number includes days 1-12. After day 12 it was 90%.

I just can’t wrap my head around why people would do this. They aren’t giving your second shot to someone else, they’re not expanding who gets the vaccine. Seems like people are just wimps about feeling crappy for a day.

 

[LimpSpatula]

I just can’t wrap my head around why people would do this. They aren’t giving your second shot to someone else, they’re not expanding who gets the vaccine. Seems like people are just wimps about feeling crappy for a day.

Who’s people? Healthcare workers? It’s called being driven by fear.

 

[deleted875186]

Who’s people? Healthcare workers? It’s called being driven by fear.

Fear of feeling crappy for a day, versus fear of dying from Covid. Literally 1 in 1000 Americans has died so far from Covid.

 

[LimpSpatula]

Fear of feeling crappy for a day, versus fear of dying from Covid. Literally 1 in 1000 Americans has died so far from Covid.

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? Once the vaccine is available to everyone we need to tell patients, families their deaths are/were preventable.

 

[nimbus]

I’m no longer surprised by unbelievable stupidity.

Dodger Stadium's COVID-19 vaccination site temporarily shut down after protesters gather at entrance

The demonstrators included members of anti-vaccine and far-right groups.

www.latimes.com

 

[nimbus]

Fear of feeling crappy for a day, versus fear of dying from Covid. Literally 1 in 1000 Americans has died so far from Covid.

Updated number is closer to 1/730.

 

[abolt18]

Finally got my second dose yesterday afternoon. Other than an exceptionally sore arm, I feel okay. This one hurt a lot more including the actual injection, though I suspect this is related to the person giving me the vaccine being inexperienced (pretty sure the one she administered to me was her first ever). I maybe, questionably, felt a little off today, but that may have just been me paying extra close attention.

 

[ItBurnsInMyHand]

I got sick around 12am when I had stopped taking ibuprofen and Tylenol. Glad I didn’t have to worry about going into work the next day. At least I know my immune system is working.

 

[deleted697535]

I had feelings of mental dullness, extreme thirst for alcohol, abhorrence for some of my colleagues after my shot...

So no real change

 

[GassYous]

Finally got my second dose yesterday afternoon. Other than an exceptionally sore arm, I feel okay. This one hurt a lot more including the actual injection, though I suspect this is related to the person giving me the vaccine being inexperienced (pretty sure the one she administered to me was her first ever). I maybe, questionably, felt a little off today, but that may have just been me paying extra close attention.

I remember my first time

 

[WheezyBaby]

The 50-60% number includes days 1-12. After day 12 it was 90%.

Do we actually have meaningful trial data past day 12 for patients receiving just one dose? It was my understanding that was not the case, and my annoyance with the NHS decision to push a single dose schedule in the absence of good data. 2nd dose kind of sucked for me but I'd much rather go through that repeatedly than get COVID

 

[coffeebythelake]

Thoughts on thr new J&J clinical trail shoeing 70% effectiveness with single dose? Seems like this will be great for rural population

 

[LimpSpatula]

LA COVID-19 Vaccinations Delayed By Protesters

Dozens of protesters gathered at the entrance to one of the nation's largest mass-vaccination sites, leading officials to shut down the entrance for an hour.

www.npr.org

 

[LimpSpatula]

Thoughts on thr new J&J clinical trail shoeing 70% effectiveness with single dose? Seems like this will be great for rural population

It seems at this point, anything to get the most people, some protection will help.

 

[deleted697127]

Thoughts on thr new J&J clinical trail shoeing 70% effectiveness with single dose? Seems like this will be great for rural population

Are you kidding me.

 

[coffeebythelake]

Are you kidding me.

Why? If it is difficult for them to come into town twice to get 2 shots, this might be reasonable. And it requires half the resources to accomplish

 

[deleted875186]

Why? If it is difficult for them to come into town twice to get 2 shots, this might be reasonable. And it requires half the resources to accomplish

100%, we need a traditional vaccine without all the logistical difficulty that comes with the RNA vaccines.

 

[deleted697127]

100%, we need a traditional vaccine without all the logistical difficulty that comes with the RNA vaccines.

You city folk...My family will make the drive. Thanks. Put your money where your mouth is and sign up your parents for an inferior vaccine.

 

[coffeebythelake]

You city folk...My family will make the drive. Thanks. Put your money where your mouth is and sign up your parents for an inferior vaccine.

I am commenting on a population based vaccination strategy. Logistically it is extremely challenging to have the refrigerating and manpower to do r3source intensive vaccine administration in rural areas that we are trying (and sometimes failing) in the cities. Sorry you took it so personally. 🤷

 

[deleted875186]

You city folk...My family will make the drive. Thanks. Put your money where your mouth is and sign up your parents for an inferior vaccine.

Seeing as my initial post commented on the sheer volume of people in major cities skipping their second dose ....

also, don’t know yet if it is inferior or superior, we don’t have long term data on either, who knows which will provide longer lasting immunity.

 

[deleted697127]

Seeing as my initial post commented on the sheer volume of people in major cities skipping their second dose ....

also, don’t know yet if it is inferior or superior, we don’t have long term data on either, who knows which will provide longer lasting immunity.

So maybe cities should be the ones getting the single dose Johnson and Johnson vaccine? And yea. Data out so far suggests its inferior. Unless you have data to suggest otherwise, i stand by my comments.

 

[deleted875186]

So maybe cities should be the ones getting the single dose Johnson and Johnson vaccine? And yea. Data out so far suggests its inferior. Unless you have data to suggest otherwise, i stand by my comments.

Not sure why we are hung up on cities versus rural, im mostly arguing a single dose regimen with less administrative challges of storing a vaccine will allow faster rollout and more compliance for everyone. The two shot regimen has an issue with patient compliance not returning for the second shot.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You city folk...My family will make the drive. Thanks. Put your money where your mouth is and sign up your parents for an inferior vaccine.

Offer the J and J Vaccine to low risk people. Healthy teenagers, young adults, etc. mRNA vaccines should be utilized for high risk groups and healthcare workers. I also believe in letting people decide for themselves. As for rural populations they too can decide for themselves.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Questions surround AstraZeneca vaccine use for elderly

The subject of a sometimes acrimonious row between the EU and Britain, the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine has also fuelled debate over its effectiveness among the elderly.

news.yahoo.com

Like the AstraZeneca Vaccine the J and J single shot vaccine would NOT be my first choice for the elderly or healthcare workers.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Johnson & Johnson said Friday that its single-dose Covid-19 vaccine reduced rates of moderate and severe disease, but the shot appeared less effective in South Africa, where a new coronavirus variant has become common.

Overall, the vaccine was 66% effective at preventing moderate to severe disease 28 days after vaccination. But efficacy differed depending on geography. The shot was 72% effective among clinical trial volunteers in the U.S, but 66% among those in Latin America, and just 57% among those in South Africa. Though markedly below the levels seen with the first two authorized Covid-19 vaccines, those rates are above the thresholds originally set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for a vaccine to be considered useful.

The vaccine reduced severe disease alone by 85%, and prevented Covid-related hospitalization or death, Johnson & Johnson said.

J&J one-dose Covid vaccine is 66% effective, a weapon but not a knockout punch

Johnson & Johnson said that its single-dose Covid-19 vaccine reduced rates of moderate and severe disease, but the shot appeared less effective against a new coronavirus variant.

www.statnews.com

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Do we actually have meaningful trial data past day 12 for patients receiving just one dose? It was my understanding that was not the case, and my annoyance with the NHS decision to push a single dose schedule in the absence of good data. 2nd dose kind of sucked for me but I'd much rather go through that repeatedly than get COVID

We don’t. Pfizer and moderna have both said that their data do not address single doses, as the n there was very small and not really tracked. I would love to see where the 90% comes from. There is a huge drop off in cases after about 2 weeks after the first dose, which I think has led people to believe it is likely that high.

Reports from Israel seem to indicate that it is likely not even close to that and may actually be less than the 52% seen in the trial (but of note, the Israel data only includes people over 60).

 

[deleted697127]

We don’t. Pfizer and moderna have both said that their data do not address single doses, as the n there was very small and not really tracked. I would love to see where the 90% comes from. There is a huge drop off in cases after about 2 weeks after the first dose, which I think has led people to believe it is likely that high.

Reports from Israel seem to indicate that it is likely not even close to that and may actually be less than the 52% seen in the trial (but of note, the Israel data only includes people over 60).

Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% (p<0.0001) in participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (first primary objective) and also in participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (second primary objective), in each case measured from 7 days after the second dose. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group.

———-
Placebo group n = 21,000 cumulative covid cases = 162
Vaccine group n= 21,000 cumulative covid cases = 8

8/162 = 5%

In other words, you would expect the number of cumulative cases to be equal if the vaccine were ineffective yet there are only 8 cases. 95% of cases represents the number of cases that didn’t happen.

It’s not hard math but that’s the gist of the calculation.

 

[deleted875186]

Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% (p<0.0001) in participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (first primary objective) and also in participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (second primary objective), in each case measured from 7 days after the second dose. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group.

———-
Placebo group n = 21,000 cumulative covid cases = 162
Vaccine group n= 21,000 cumulative covid cases = 8

8/162 = 5%

In other words, you would expect the number of cumulative cases to be equal if the vaccine were ineffective yet there are only 8 cases. 95% of cases represents the number of cases that didn’t happen.

It’s not hard math but that’s the gist of the calculation.

“Nevertheless, in the interval between the first and second doses, the observed vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 52%, and in the first 7 days after dose 2, it was 91%, reaching full efficacy against disease with onset at least 7 days after dose 2.”

taken from the paper. We have no idea what the actually efficacy of one dose will be, and if it will be lasting immunity because it wasn’t specifically tested, you post hoc analyzing numbers and assuming. Likely the one shot efficacy is between 52% and 95%, but who knows.

 

[deleted697127]

“Nevertheless, in the interval between the first and second doses, the observed vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 52%, and in the first 7 days after dose 2, it was 91%, reaching full efficacy against disease with onset at least 7 days after dose 2.”

taken from the paper. We have no idea what the actually efficacy of one dose will be, and if it will be lasting immunity because it wasn’t specifically tested, you post hoc analyzing numbers and assuming. Likely the one shot efficacy is between 52% and 95%, but who knows.

I think I am agreeing with both of you. I assumed he was asking where the number was coming from in general for effectiveness with the understanding that the primary endpoint was never to measure effectiveness of a single dose. I think 90% was the number thrown around pre publication.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% (p<0.0001) in participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (first primary objective) and also in participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (second primary objective), in each case measured from 7 days after the second dose. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group.

———-
Placebo group n = 21,000 cumulative covid cases = 162
Vaccine group n= 21,000 cumulative covid cases = 8

8/162 = 5%

In other words, you would expect the number of cumulative cases to be equal if the vaccine were ineffective yet there are only 8 cases. 95% of cases represents the number of cases that didn’t happen.

It’s not hard math but that’s the gist of the calculation.

That was after two doses. He was saying it was 90% after one. I want to see where that came from, because as you posted, their analysis was for both shots.

 

[deleted875186]

That was after two doses. He was saying it was 90% after one. I want to see where that came from, because as you posted, their analysis was for both shots.

They took the number or infections from day 15 after the first injection (seems like the placebo group and vaccine group started to diverge at day 14) up until the second dose and used that to calculate 90% efficacy.

 

[Ronin786]

Thoughts on thr new J&J clinical trail shoeing 70% effectiveness with single dose? Seems like this will be great for rural population

Funny how people will comment on it being a bad vaccine when 70% efficacy would have been celebrated if not for Pfizer/Moderna knocking it out of the park. I think it's a perfect vaccine for areas that don't have cold storage capabilities. I'm no epidemiologist, but shouldn't be hard to crunch the numbers to figure out the benefit gained by vaccinating more folks even at reduced effectiveness. There's almost certainly a cutoff point.

 

[deleted697127]

Funny how people will comment on it being a bad vaccine when 70% efficacy would have been celebrated if not for Pfizer/Moderna knocking it out of the park. I think it's a perfect vaccine for areas that don't have cold storage capabilities. I'm no epidemiologist, but shouldn't be hard to crunch the numbers to figure out the benefit gained by vaccinating more folks even at reduced effectiveness. There's almost certainly a cutoff point.

Well, fortunately modernas vaccine exists as do, believe it or not, standard refrigerators and freezers outside of major cities.

I would personally wait a few months depending on my risk factors if i weren’t in health care. A few extra months of waiting is also a few extra months of side effect surveillance. Data on johnson and Johnson’s less effective vaccines side effect profile is also a few behind in data.

—————

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 16, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced new data showing that mRNA-1273, its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, remains stable at 2° to 8°C (36° to 46°F), the temperature of a standard home or medical refrigerator, for 30 days. Stability testing supports this extension from an earlier estimate of 7 days. mRNA-1273 remains stable at -20° C (-4°F) for up to six months, at refrigerated conditions for up to 30 days and at room temperature for up to 12 hours

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Funny how people will comment on it being a bad vaccine when 70% efficacy would have been celebrated if not for Pfizer/Moderna knocking it out of the park. I think it's a perfect vaccine for areas that don't have cold storage capabilities. I'm no epidemiologist, but shouldn't be hard to crunch the numbers to figure out the benefit gained by vaccinating more folks even at reduced effectiveness. There's almost certainly a cutoff point.

Moderna can last for like 30 days in a regular refrigerator.

 

[abolt18]

Someone didn't do their second dose, but I've seen a few cases where, for whatever reason, some people took their third dose as well. Corny, right? Don't you know what the most exciting time is? When they found that the man had received the third dose, he was monitored by a psychiatrist for two days. Why? We're still vaccinating the anti-covid vaccine, or we'll mentally try if she still resists. And I ask myself, why are children not affected by covid because they are affected by adults? I want to understand how long the Mondia authorities want to experiment?

This was mostly incomprehensible to me.

 

[MirrorTodd]

This was mostly incomprehensible to me.

Lol agreed.