Astrazeneca less effective against mild illness in SA variant

[bathsh3ba]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55967767

NB this was a sample of 2000, not yet peer reviewed.

I'm beginning to wish they wouldn't report incomplete findings so publicly. All the commentary suggests it's too early to say if this is a big problem or not - so why tell us?!

www.ft.com/content/e9bbd4fe-e6bf-4383-bfd3-be64140a3f36

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9233329/Minister-AstraZeneca-confident-jab-protects-against-SA-variant.html

OK, so I

That’s an RCT to test something works statistically better than doing nothing (placebo)
I know

No need to do that here, plus it would be unethical, so I assume they just used the vaccine
Every need to do that and your assumption is wrong.

@StarCat2020

That’s an RCT to test something works statistically better than doing nothing (placebo) I know

No need to do that here, plus it would be unethical, so I assume they just used the vaccine
Every need to do that and your assumption is wrong.

Ok!

So was it placebo controlled then?

@Ilikewinter

I agree, it says it doesnt (or not effective at) covering against the mild symptoms....so you might get a cold or flu like symptoms which the majority of people will recover from but it will prevent hospitalizations and death. Sounds good to me!

I agree! Just a few months ago, even having a partially efficacious vaccine would have been reasons to whoop with joy. Now we are getting sulky about the fact that people might still get cold/flu-like symptoms because it doesn’t provide 100% protection from disease! I am still in absolute awe at what science has achieved in the past 12 months - as well as how brilliantly we are doing at rolling this vaccine out!

Some people are just never happy.

@StarCat2020

Did anybody else see the interview on Andrew Marr where Sarah Gilbert said that the immunity from the first AZ vaccine was not "expected to fall off a cliff after 12 weeks"?

Yes it was a very clear explanation, also using the same principles to justify the expectation that the same will apply to Pfyzer. I thought she was excellent.

yes, we must stop running away with the headline, or rather the journalists should

but surely that is the role of all the recent vaccines, to stop hospitalisations, they are not guaranteed to ;provide full immunity.

Yes it was a very clear explanation, also using the same principles to justify the expectation that the same will apply to Pfyzer. I thought she was excellent
I thought she was amazing and she refused to answer things that she has no say in, for example on social distancing. No waffle, no nonsense just a simple that isn't up to me.

Just makes me wonder how much better things would be if all interviewees were as direct.

Out of the 2000 no one got severe illness or ended up in hospital that is good enough

All the people in the research were 3 under 30 so you wouldn’t expect them to end up in hospital.

We need data from older people who’ve had true vaccine to know whats happening re the South African variant.

Sorry don’t know where that random 3 came from.

The program is that they deliberately infected them in this trial. As a result they only had relatively young people (median age 31) so none of them were going to get very ill anyway. So we don't know the important question which is if it helps stop severe illness.

@LizzieSiddal

Out of the 2000 no one got severe illness or ended up in hospital that is good enough

All the people in the research were 3 under 30 so you wouldn’t expect them to end up in hospital.

We need data from older people who’ve had true vaccine to know whats happening re the South African variant.

Not quite true but I think the median age was 31 so the point still stands.

The headline is scaremongering but three points. 1. The sample size of 2000 is far to small to draw any meaningful conclusions. 2. There was no difference in the immune response between those vaccinated and the placebo group. That is not good news. 3. With the age of the participants you wouldn’t expect any of them to end up hospitalised or dead.

The Pfizer vaccine starts from a much more effective starting point than AZ, so a reduction in the effectiveness of Pfizer can mean it is still effective. The AZ report is worrying, but too early to say.

Sarah Gilbert indeed spoke superbly.

What should be highlighted is that it is effective in reducing deaths and hospitalisation from the SA strain which is good news.

The Guardian has managed to spin it into bad news...I am so sick of the press pushing their own agenda rather than sticking to the bloody facts.

It is almost like they are enjoying spreading doom and gloom. Absolute scum as far as I am concerned...

What should be highlighted is that it is effective in reducing deaths and hospitalisation from the SA strain which is good news

You absolutely cannot conclude that from the sample of 2000 who had a median age of 31. It didn’t include anyone in a higher risk age group.

@Iremembertheelderlykoreanlady

Or you could flip that on its head and say that this shows the vaccine IS affective in preventing hospitalization and death from the SA strain.

It doesn't show that though. There is not enough data to show that as the sample size is too small, the median age is 31 and serious illness leading to hospitalization and death is a much less common event than mild to moderate illness, even more so given the low average age of the sample.

Oops, cross posted with @JaneNorman

University of Oxford press release:

Full statement from the University of Oxford:
www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-07-chadox1-ncov-19-provides-minimal-protection-against-mild-moderate-covid-19-infection#

Includes comments from Sarah Gilbert and others:

Shabir Madhi, Professor of Vaccinology and Director of the Vaccines & Infectious Diseases Analytics (VIDA) Research Unit at University of the Witwatersrand, and Chief Investigator on the trial in South Africa said:

‘Recent data from a study in South Africa sponsored by Janssen which assessed moderate to severe disease, rather than mild disease, using a similar viral vector, indicated that protection against these important disease endpoints was preserved.

‘These findings recalibrate thinking about how to approach the pandemic virus and shift the focus from the goal of herd immunity against transmission to the protection of all at risk individuals in population against severe disease.’

Andrew Pollard, Professor of Paediatric Infection and Immunity, and Chief Investigator on the Oxford vaccine trial, said:

‘This study confirms that the pandemic coronavirus will find ways to continue to spread in vaccinated populations, as expected, but, taken with the promising results from other studies in South Africa using a similar viral vector, vaccines may continue to ease the toll on health care systems by preventing severe disease.’

Sarah Gilbert, Professor of Vaccinology at the University of Oxford said:

‘Efforts are underway to develop a new generation of vaccines that will allow protection to be redirected to emerging variants as booster jabs, if it turns out that it is necessary to do so.’

‘We are working with AstraZeneca to optimise the pipeline required for a strain change should one become necessary. This is the same issue that is faced by all of the vaccine developers, and we will continue to monitor the emergence of new variants that arise in readiness for a future strain change.’

Thanks @CoffeeandCroissant.

That doesn’t say much at all!

Shit Guardian headline saying it's 'not effective'. As pp have said, prevention from severe illness is the priority. And if there's not enough data to show it does that, then there's not enough data to show it now doesn't, either.

Prevention from severe illness is the main thing but as severe illness is usually seen in the middle aged or elderly and the study subjects were neither, I think it's too early to conclude that the vaccine offers this protection. Worrying.

Interestingly, I read reports that cases in South Africa are plummeting 🤷🏻‍♀️

Some more details/ data here:
mobile.twitter.com/whippletom/status/1358467319824080896