Canada - Coronavirus COVID-19 #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #161
  • #162
The latest vaccine to be approved, AstraZeneca, is estimated to be 62% efficient with the original variant after two shots. I'm wondering why this is approved when other vaccines have been said to be 90% efficient. It's not surprising that some people are refusing the vaccine.

"Health Canada has approved use of the COVID-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca, clearing the way for millions of more inoculations in Canada.

Canada's regulatory experts had been assessing the submission from AstraZeneca and Oxford University for safety and efficacy since October, and announced their approval Friday morning.

"AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine is indicated for active immunization of individuals 18 years of age and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019," reads their website.

"The efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 62.1 per cent. Overall, there are no important safety concerns and the vaccine was well tolerated by participants."

Canada has secured access to 20 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Some jurisdictions, notably France, have restricted the vaccine to people under the age of 65 despite the World Health Organization's insistence that the product is safe and effective for all age groups. Health Canada said it has no immediate safety concerns for those 65 and older."​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/astrazeneca-approved-1.5929050

62.1% as a grade

=D
 
  • #163
Everyone in Summerside, P.E.I., aged 14 to 29 urged to get tested for COVID-19

Everyone from age 14 to 29 in the city of Summerside, P.E.I., is being urged to get tested immediately for COVID-19, whether or not they have any symptoms.

The news came as Islanders got an update on a worrisome new cluster of three COVID-19 cases in the Summerside area from P.E.I. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Heather Morrison.

"We certainly have concerns about possible community spread in P.E.I., this is why we are focused on increased testing," Morrison said Friday, during a rare second briefing for the day.

"I am worried."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prin...6gEg8ZZxSi_lmbQZA1DEpkmcGNbwnQ27hSGrX7eV5O0_M
 
  • #164
  • #165
Everyone in Summerside, P.E.I., aged 14 to 29 urged to get tested for COVID-19

Everyone from age 14 to 29 in the city of Summerside, P.E.I., is being urged to get tested immediately for COVID-19, whether or not they have any symptoms.

The news came as Islanders got an update on a worrisome new cluster of three COVID-19 cases in the Summerside area from P.E.I. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Heather Morrison.

"We certainly have concerns about possible community spread in P.E.I., this is why we are focused on increased testing," Morrison said Friday, during a rare second briefing for the day.

"I am worried."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prin...6gEg8ZZxSi_lmbQZA1DEpkmcGNbwnQ27hSGrX7eV5O0_M

Hope they can contain the outbreak with these measures, given the size of their population, contact tracing and containment should be possible. My relatives on my father's side of the family are from Summerside, I spent many summers there when growing up. Still have lots of family there, with a reunion that was planned for last year but put on hold and we were hoping to have the reunion this year.
 
  • #166
Ontario reports 1,185 new coronavirus cases, 16 more deaths

Shorter, more frequent lockdowns could lead to fewer COVID-19 cases, study finds


Fact check: How much does Ontario's COVID-19 vaccine rollout lag other provinces? | National Post

Ontario:

" Phase 1 of three phases reserves inoculations for those in long-term care, high-risk retirement-home residents, certain classes of health-care workers, and people who live in congregate care settings.

Currently, the start dates for vaccinations in Ontario are as follows:

  • 80 and older, and adults receiving chronic home care: starting March 15
  • 75 and older: April 15
  • 70 and older: May 1
  • 65 and older: June 1
  • 60 and older: July 1
  • anyone who wants to be immunized: Aug. 1.
To date, 643,765 doses have been administered of 903,285 received (71 per cent)"
 
Last edited:
  • #167
The latest vaccine to be approved, AstraZeneca, is estimated to be 62% efficient with the original variant after two shots. I'm wondering why this is approved when other vaccines have been said to be 90% efficient. It's not surprising that some people are refusing the vaccine.

"Health Canada has approved use of the COVID-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca, clearing the way for millions of more inoculations in Canada.

Canada's regulatory experts had been assessing the submission from AstraZeneca and Oxford University for safety and efficacy since October, and announced their approval Friday morning.

"AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine is indicated for active immunization of individuals 18 years of age and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019," reads their website.

"The efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 62.1 per cent. Overall, there are no important safety concerns and the vaccine was well tolerated by participants."

Canada has secured access to 20 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Some jurisdictions, notably France, have restricted the vaccine to people under the age of 65 despite the World Health Organization's insistence that the product is safe and effective for all age groups. Health Canada said it has no immediate safety concerns for those 65 and older."​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/astrazeneca-approved-1.5929050
Interesting article, thank you.

"And while the AstraZeneca product was found to be less effective than the Pfizer and Moderna shots already approved, Sharma [Health Canada's chief medical adviser] said there's no doubt that a dose of this vaccine is better than no dose at all." Well that is reassuring! Kinda same as a kick in the butt is better than a pin in the eye?

I didn't know this about the annual flu shots: "She also noted that the AstraZeneca vaccine's efficacy rate is actually higher than that of other common vaccine products — including the flu shot.


Flu vaccines, which differ each year depending on the flu strain in circulation, are typically 54 to 64 effective against seasonal influenza, Sharma said, and yet they are still widely used to offer some level of protection to more people."
 
  • #168
The argument that a weak vaccine is better than no vaccine, when a strong vaccine is available albeit in short supply, doesn't work for me. Rather than do a half-baked job for a good percentage of the population, why not get it right even if it takes longer?

It's almost as though there's a panic to get everyone vaccinated, so the decision is to be sloppy with vaccine options. Panic should be eliminated from the equation, and a slower, more methodical and quality solution should be implemented.
 
  • #169
On the news this morning on TV, it was saying how the J&J vaccine (single-dose) had been approved in the USA, but it mentioned that it also was effective at lessening the severity of a Covid infection, lessening the hospital stays, and lessening the deaths.. so it sounds like the J&J is similar in that regard to the AstraZenica vac.

I found this article:

Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 single-shot vaccine was shown to be 66% effective in preventing moderate and severe disease in a global Phase 3 trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, the company announced Friday.

The vaccine was 72% effective against moderate and severe disease in the US, the company said.
It's a striking difference from vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, and it may give pause to people uncertain about which vaccine to get or when they can get one. The vaccines already on the market in the US are about 95% effective overall against symptomatic Covid-19, with perhaps even higher efficacy against severe cases.

But experts say the Johnson & Johnson vaccine will still be useful against the pandemic in the United States and around the world.
---
...under normal circumstances, there might not be much of a market for a vaccine that is significantly less effective than two others already on the market. But he added that these are not normal times, with a pandemic raging and shortage of vaccines.
---
"...If this were out there and we didn't have the Moderna 94-95% .... We would have said wow, a 72% effective vaccine that's even more effective against severe disease is really terrific," [Fauci] said in a telephone interview.

"But now we're always judging it against 94 to 95%. Having said that, this is a vaccine that could have use particularly in developing countries to keep people out of the hospital. It has a very good efficacy against severe disease," Fauci added.


Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is 66% effective in global trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, company says - CNN
 
  • #170
The argument that a weak vaccine is better than no vaccine, when a strong vaccine is available albeit in short supply, doesn't work for me. Rather than do a half-baked job for a good percentage of the population, why not get it right even if it takes longer?

It's almost as though there's a panic to get everyone vaccinated, so the decision is to be sloppy with vaccine options. Panic should be eliminated from the equation, and a slower, more methodical and quality solution should be implemented.
On the other hand though, if the governments didn't have to worry so much about the hospitals and medical staff being overwhelmed, significant numbers of deaths, etc., the economy could at least get moving again and possibly so many more businesses may be able to survive, and hence so many more peoples' livelihoods. It would mean people might still become sick, but perhaps not to a worrisome degree.

Also, wasn't it said awhile back that they didn't actually know yet, how long the vaccines would even be good for? ie will we end up having to get one every 3 or 6 months? In any case, one could still get the more effective vaccines perhaps a few months further down the road, when they're more readily available? For myself, I think I'd rather have a less effective vaccine, than none.. and then get the more effective one a bit later. It does sound like a bit of a sham, but if it prevents mass deaths, at least it's something?
 
  • #171
On the other hand though, if the governments didn't have to worry so much about the hospitals and medical staff being overwhelmed, significant numbers of deaths, etc., the economy could at least get moving again and possibly so many more businesses may be able to survive, and hence so many more peoples' livelihoods. It would mean people might still become sick, but perhaps not to a worrisome degree.

Also, wasn't it said awhile back that they didn't actually know yet, how long the vaccines would even be good for? ie will we end up having to get one every 3 or 6 months? In any case, one could still get the more effective vaccines perhaps a few months further down the road, when they're more readily available? For myself, I think I'd rather have a less effective vaccine, than none.. and then get the more effective one a bit later. It does sound like a bit of a sham, but if it prevents mass deaths, at least it's something?

That's true, but if a less effective vaccine is used, such that people are still getting sick and potentially suffering the long term side effects of the virus, is it really a good long term solution? As long as the virus is circulating, new variants will emerge.

If the goal of the vaccine is to merely reduce symptoms rather than prevent illness, it seems like a temporary patch rather than a solution.
 
  • #172
  • #173
The argument that a weak vaccine is better than no vaccine, when a strong vaccine is available albeit in short supply, doesn't work for me. Rather than do a half-baked job for a good percentage of the population, why not get it right even if it takes longer?

It's almost as though there's a panic to get everyone vaccinated, so the decision is to be sloppy with vaccine options. Panic should be eliminated from the equation, and a slower, more methodical and quality solution should be implemented.

From what I understand after listening to epidemiologists and other public health officials this last few weeks, part of the rush to get as many people vaccinated is to mitigate against COVID-19 mutations, because in the end, the mutations could render all the vaccines either less effective or not effective at all. So if we rush to lower the infection rate, we have less infections and therefore fewer mutations. Safer for everyone in the long run.
 
  • #174
That's true, but if a less effective vaccine is used, such that people are still getting sick and potentially suffering the long term side effects of the virus, is it really a good long term solution? As long as the virus is circulating, new variants will emerge.

If the goal of the vaccine is to merely reduce symptoms rather than prevent illness, it seems like a temporary patch rather than a solution.
Yes, I guess so.. but the only reason they created the vaccine was *because* it was causing severe sickness, overwhelming hospitals, and causing massive death, etc. If this illness was mild in the first place, perhaps they wouldn't have even bothered to create a vaccine at all? ie I remember when we went through the Sars thing and the H1N1 thing, they were doing testing, and then eventually they said, 'don't even bother getting a test because there's nothing we can do for it anyway' (because they seemed to be milder than this Covid thing).
 
  • #175
  • #176
I suppose that's where the use of "vaccine" may be inappropriate. Small pox vaccine means we do not get the disease. Covid "vaccine" means reducing the symptoms.

I think most people expected that a vaccine meant immunity, but since then we've been led to believe that vaccine means something different.

Definition: Vaccine

"a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease."​
 
  • #177
^ isn't it gene therapy?
 
Last edited:
  • #178
  • #179
  • #180
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
2,166
Total visitors
2,288

Forum statistics

Threads
632,211
Messages
18,623,553
Members
243,057
Latest member
persimmonpi3
Back
Top