Brazil CoV Vaxx Experiment

[Riobard]

I find this to be a very interesting and innovative idea, finally Brazil ahead of its time on something, in addition to its advances in what we visit for [wink]. Too bad the the vaccine selected did poorly in its clinical trial in the country, but this seems to be another way to evaluate it. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Riobard

[caeron]

Am I misremembering? I thought the chinese vaccine was of dubious efficiency?

[Riobard]

35 minutes ago, caeron said:

Am I misremembering? I thought the chinese vaccine was of dubious efficiency?

Yes, you are obviously paying attention, but it is being politically pushed. One in 3 symptomatic CoV cases in the Brazilian study cohort (about 6,500 subjects each of the two randomized group assignment) occurred in the vaccine recipients. Even then, the incidence rate for vaccinated subjects was similar to that of the general population over the approximate same time period.

The variants also introduce a wild card.

In a way, the Serrana study is good even if misguided, assuming more honest than the Butantan original selective manipulation of efficacy data. If CoronaVac is going to ‘crap out’ the evidence may come out in the wash in this small municipality in the centre of São Paulo state. 

I am keen for incontrovertible evidence of regional community immunity that accompanies the reassurance of personal inoculation prior to venturing back to Brazil. 

Thousands of volunteers also seem to be missing from the analysis. On a rigorous intent-to-analyze all subjects’ outcomes the efficacy results may be worse.

Here is the main slide (below) on which ANVISA made their emergency use authorization. 

There are attempts ongoing to import alternative vaccine candidates. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Riobard

[Riobard]

Deleted, because I added a paragraph but had inadvertently first clicked quote by mistake. See the quote in the next post for the intended content. 

[Riobard]

19 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Butantan has presented (preprint) data suggesting CoronaVac efficacy improves a bit with a longer period than two weeks between the 2 doses.

The Serrana experiment full analysis should be available in a few months, with much of the targeted small city now inoculated in cluster stages.

However, the data on mortality rate and change in that rate past two weeks, as well as admission and intubation patterns, when compared to neighbouring Ribeirão Preto, already suggest protection against CoV severity.

Counterintuitively, the rolling new case incidence is 8% higher compared to RP. But it is stable whereas RP’s is increasing. More importantly, the Serrana case lethality the past two weeks is less than one half that of RP. 

These data metrics are important because this unique research will be able to report, somewhat systematically and with scientific rigour, on post-vaccination CoV transmission potential. 

It is too early to tell, but if you were to take a guess based on the data patterns, the vaccine is better at reducing degree of illness than contagion. The researchers, however, will have a rich cache of data to assess this.

 

[caeron]

 

Well, good to hear that it isn't a complete failure. I worried upon hearing this that with the weakness in the chinese vaccine that this might just lead to yet another spike in cases and deaths.

I will likely travel again this year, and I'd like to go back, but with the current state of the healthcare system in Brazil, it seems unwise to me. I am old enough to not think I'm immortal and want to be able to avail myself of a functioning healthcare system if needed.

[floridarob]

Riobard.....what do you think about this article....?

https://yucalandia.com/2021/04/01/how-covid-19-vaccines-work-how-the-vaccines-differ-so-widely-from-each-other/

[Lonnie]

On 2/18/2021 at 1:43 PM, Riobard said:

If CoronaVac is going to ‘crap out’

https://apnews.com/article/technology-world-news-brazil-rio-de-janeiro-south-america-c979506337e838680bdaa87f382082ae

Hi Riobard, Do you think the Sputnik vaccine will improve the situation for Brazil?

What about Sputnik vacciine efficacy? I see very little reported.

[Riobard]

14 hours ago, floridarob said:

Riobard.....what do you think about this article....?

https://yucalandia.com/2021/04/01/how-covid-19-vaccines-work-how-the-vaccines-differ-so-widely-from-each-other/

I’ll have a look, but it’s labour-intensive. The way it shows up I cannot figure out who wrote it. Is S. Fry the author?

[Riobard]

7 hours ago, Lonnie said:

https://apnews.com/article/technology-world-news-brazil-rio-de-janeiro-south-america-c979506337e838680bdaa87f382082ae

Hi Riobard, Do you think the Sputnik vaccine will improve the situation for Brazil?

What about Sputnik vacciine efficacy? I see very little reported.

I am currently less pessemistic about CoronaVac in Brazil. Will elaborate today or soon. 

I struggle to assess efficacy meaning and accuracy unless the study results are formulated using the detailed report model framework that researchers are using to apply for USA FDA EUA. So I would have to drill down, and consume mucho vodka, to try to figure out Gamalaya Institute’s vaccine product Sputnik (Sputnik 2 may be its name if I recall). 

Note that various Brazilian states and municipalities are going rogue while Anvisa (their FDA equivalent) is holding firm on its standards. Since their last approval of 4-5(?) candidates for Phase 3 trials provided up until last summer, not one candidate has been authorized for study. The only one approved for efficacy research since last August was just greenlit: Quebec and Durham NC’s Medicago protein subunit type with GlaxoSmithKline’s adjuvant. There are also many other wheeling and dealings among politicians, science institutes, and third-party national and/or foreign companies behind the scenes in Brazil.

I am not about to try to call an outdoor steeplechase race, in an electrical storm, with a few Zola Budds but no Usain Bolt among the competitors. (Sorry Zola, if it weren’t for that pesky South Africa variant ...)

 

[Riobard]

1 minute ago, Riobard said:

Delete

[Lonnie]

35 minutes ago, Riobard said:

(Sorry Zola, if it weren’t for that pesky South Africa variant ...)

Poor Zola has never been the same since Pinkie came along.

[Riobard]

16 hours ago, floridarob said:

Delete ... the system seems to be spontaneously re-entering posts I had already made. ?! ~Riobard (not Fla Rob)

[Riobard]

2 hours ago, Riobard said:

I’ll have a look, but it’s labour-intensive. The way it shows up I cannot figure out who wrote it. Is S. Fry the author?

OK I read the Yucalandia piece. It is poorly structured and written, confusing and unclear at times, apart from evaluating its scientific accuracy and merit. And I am neither a virologist/immunologist nor reading the vast written material related to the theme of this article. I have the capacity to grasp some of this, but I don’t understand where he is getting some of his figures. He is also tossing in the cons of various products that we already know about, while skirting over the pros of the ones to which he is negatively predisposed. 

I think the message he(?) wants to get across is that vaccines built upon the entire virus, as opposed to exclusively the spike protein or subsections of the spike protein, are superior in terms of protection against inevitable mutations. The question itself is relevant and I had wondered myself a few months ago what would be the implications of mutations for the spike protein subunit model, containing no actual viral genetic material, for the vaccine I received experimentally. 

However, where the argument loses me is that the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein is key for this disease. With genetic drift (ie, spike-specific variants), that key element is going to be a moving target whether for products that zero in on the spike protein and its components or for products based on whole virus.

Mine is a simplistic critique based on second-guessing the author’s intent and somewhat all-over-the-map message.

With case-control effectiveness trials now emerging, comparing retrospectively those newly infected in terms of having been vaccinated in the real world or not, in contrast to the reverse (efficacy: vaccination followed prospectively by infection incidence tracking), it is progressively more and more difficult to keep up with all the data. 

[Riobard]

Correction on earlier wording ... it is Gamaleya Institute’s Sputnik V. 

[Riobard]

45 minutes ago, Riobard said:

OK I read the Yucalandia piece. It is poorly structured and written, confusing and unclear at times, apart from evaluating its scientific accuracy and merit. And I am neither a virologist/immunologist nor reading the vast written material related to the theme of this article. I have the capacity to grasp some of this, but I don’t understand where he is getting some of his figures. He is also tossing in the cons of various products that we already know about, while skirting over the pros of the ones to which he is negatively predisposed. 

I think the message he(?) wants to get across is that vaccines built upon the entire virus, as opposed to exclusively the spike protein or subsections of the spike protein, are superior in terms of protection against inevitable mutations. The question itself is relevant and I had wondered myself a few months ago what would be the implications of mutations for the spike protein subunit model, containing no actual viral genetic material, for the vaccine I received experimentally. 

However, where the argument loses me is that the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein is key for this disease. With genetic drift (ie, spike-specific variants), that key element is going to be a moving target whether for products that zero in on the spike protein and its components or for products based on whole virus.

Mine is a simplistic critique based on second-guessing the author’s intent and somewhat all-over-the-map message.

With case-control effectiveness trials now emerging, comparing retrospectively those newly infected matched to uninfected controls, in terms of having been vaccinated in the real world or not, in contrast to the reverse (efficacy: vaccination followed prospectively by infection incidence tracking), it is progressively more and more difficult to keep up with all the data. 

 

[Riobard]

Delete

[Riobard]

15 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Delete ... sorry I must be back my old terrible habit of hitting Quote when I meant to click Edit ... edit used to be at the bottom of the field. AFAIK, the impulsive false step is irreversible once clicked. That is why some of my posts look like full quotes, I guess. 

Let’s consider it rehearsal for driving you all insane to the point where there will be no getting around reducing the two Latin American sections to one. ;<)

[floridarob]

9 hours ago, Riobard said:

It is poorly structured and written, confusing and unclear at times

Now you know how we feel  

[Riobard]

10 hours ago, floridarob said:

Now you know how we feel  

We are all in it together. ;>)

BTW, how do you add emoticons in post text? I always get a warning it is not permissible. 

[floridarob]

12 hours ago, Riobard said:

 I always get a warning it is not permissible

Only for you.....

 

Btw, when are you planning on going back to Brasil?

[Riobard]

10 hours ago, floridarob said:

Only for you.....

 

Btw, when are you planning on going back to Brasil?

See, I cannot submit ... guess the system sees me as exclusively ativo and will allow other ‘characters’ of questionable repute. ;>D

[Riobard]

Dunno. Whenever Brazil 2.0’s many off-limits  aspects, too many to list right now, are cleared, I guess, and flights are greenlit.

Apparently as a Canadian I cannot transit through USA returning from Brazil, Panama connections are currently wonky and likely also subject to restrictions, and the EU is recommending all its member countries join the ones banning flights to and from Brazil. 

[Riobard]

On 4/13/2021 at 2:52 PM, Riobard said:

Correction on earlier wording ... it is Gamaleya Institute’s Sputnik V. 

Anvisa just gave it a resounding thumbs-down, did a very thorough, scholarly review that may ripple through global locations using it out of desperation. It won’t be entering Brazil’s orbit.