AZ vaccine and previous infection not effective against new strain B.1.351
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/world/south-africa-astrazeneca-vaccine.html
“ South Africa halted use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford coronavirus vaccine on Sunday after evidence emerged that the vaccine did not protect clinical-trial participants from mild or moderate illness caused by the more contagious virus variant that was first seen there.
The findings were a devastating blow to the country’s efforts to combat the pandemic.
Scientists in South Africa said on Sunday that a similar problem held among people who had been infected by earlier versions of the coronavirus: the immunity they acquired naturally did not appear to protect them from mild or moderate cases when reinfected by the variant, known as B.1.351.
...” -
@axtremus said in AZ vaccine and previous infection not effective against new strain B.1.351:
mild or moderate illness
What about severe illness?
Please love yourself.
-
@aqua-letifer said in AZ vaccine and previous infection not effective against new strain B.1.351:
What about severe illness?
D2 does not have "severe" illness. However, four months out, she's still sick. The smell of cooking food is nauseating. Still SOB, still with chest pain and cough.
Severe? Nope.
Annoying? Yeah, really.
-
This will be our next 6 months for many of the vaccines I suspect. But given the platform, they will be able to adapt the vaccine quickly.
And assuming it prevents hospitalization and death we can achieve the main goal of getting back to normal life. This is the main goal for sure.
-
Wow.
-
@loki said in AZ vaccine and previous infection not effective against new strain B.1.351:
This will be our next 6 months for many of the vaccines I suspect. But given the platform, they will be able to adapt the vaccine quickly.
And assuming it prevents hospitalization and death we can achieve the main goal of getting back to normal life. This is the main goal for sure.
Yearly shot.
-
About that study...
It’s worrying, of course, but there are complicating factors. I think there are some reasons to be less worried than the headline suggests.
First: this is an extremely uncertain finding. As the virologist Müge Çevik points out, the study was small: it had 1,700 participants, which sounds reasonable enough, but your study’s statistical power comes from the number of cases, not the number of people in the study. And there were only 42 cases of coronavirus in the control and the treatment arm put together.
Of those 42, 19 had been given the real vaccine, and 23 had the placebo. The study itself isn’t available, but screenshots taken from an online briefing say that it is believed to be 22% effective. But because of the small numbers, the uncertainty around them is huge: the 95% uncertainty interval stretches from 58% to -49% efficacy.
So, while it is very likely that the vaccine is less effective against the South African strain than against the more old-school varieties, it is still likely to give some protection against mild to moderate disease, and it is very possible that it gives much better protection than this study suggests
...My main reason for worrying slightly less than the headlines suggest is because the headlines say that it doesn’t protect very well against mild to moderate disease. The study only looked at younger people — the median age was 31 — so there were no severe cases at all, in either the treatment or the control groups.
-
-
@loki said in AZ vaccine and previous infection not effective against new strain B.1.351:
I predict over time we will see that our slow authorization rate of vaccines is very questionable and a big contributor to excess deaths and harm to our economy.
I predict that too, but we know basically nothing about the South African variant when it comes to vaccine efficacy, and they had already started updating the vaccines back in January.
Vaccinating EVERY DAMN BODY needs to be the plan here. We need to win the race with mutations.
