Moderna COVID Vaccine reported to have 94.5% efficacy today!

[TeeRick]

The Moderna COVID vaccine is reported to have almost 95% efficacy.  It is a similar technology to the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine which reported 90% earlier this month.  They are mRNA vaccines.  Great news!  Hopefully we will be back to cruising before we know it!

 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54902908

[Miaminice]

Hi TeeRick!

 

The reason why this vaccine might also not be the wonder drug people expect is the same we discussed a while back. I does not prevent infection but helps fighting the illness. So even vaccinated people can spread the virus.

 

This time it´s also addressed by Moderna:
The vaccine being tested in this study is called mRNA-1273. The study team is testing if the vaccine can help the immune system produce effective antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus so that, in case of infection, the virus does not cause illness. 

 

Don´t get me wrong: It´s great news! But people generally have a different expectation and think once the vaccines are available, all protection measures can be stopped (e.g. masks)

[Arizona Wildcat]

49 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

The Moderna COVID vaccine is reported to have almost 95% efficacy.  It is a similar technology to the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine which reported 90% earlier this month.  They are mRNA vaccines.  Great news!  Hopefully we will be back to cruising before we know it!

 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54902908

Exactly.  A plus is no requirement for super low temps.  Supply for the vaccines seem to be suggesting good supply in a few months.

In my local community the issues sadly are large number people who are adamant against taking a vaccine and those who refuse to accept COVID is real and to wear a mask.

Obviously vaccination can be required for International travel - which could thus vaccination required for cruising - but can governments - not only in the USA - require vaccinations?

[BP99]

45 minutes ago, Miaminice said:

Hi TeeRick!

 

The reason why this vaccine might also not be the wonder drug people expect is the same we discussed a while back. I does not prevent infection but helps fighting the illness. So even vaccinated people can spread the virus.

 

This time it´s also addressed by Moderna:
The vaccine being tested in this study is called mRNA-1273. The study team is testing if the vaccine can help the immune system produce effective antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus so that, in case of infection, the virus does not cause illness. 

 

Don´t get me wrong: It´s great news! But people generally have a different expectation and think once the vaccines are available, all protection measures can be stopped (e.g. masks)

Hi.

Most viral vaccines that prevent the disease do DECREASE the viral

load in newly infected individuals that have been previously immunized.

To prevent the the airborne virus from first infection you need to have

a vaccine work at the mucosal surface (mucosa immunity IgA type)

that many vaccines don't induce perfectly. But most effective viral

 vaccines lower amount of virus (called load) and  the transmission

(spread) is greatly decreased. Thus herd immunity with vaccines

does work. This was also shown experimentally (recently) with chickens.

Yes, it's not perfect BUT decreasing symptoms (some severe and

long lasting) and  preventing DEATH is a HUGE advantage of a potential

covid vaccine. As I mentioned before,  the reduction of DEATH and

severe long lasting symptoms would IMO be GREAT,

 

 

[TeeRick]

1 hour ago, Miaminice said:

Hi TeeRick!

 

The reason why this vaccine might also not be the wonder drug people expect is the same we discussed a while back. I does not prevent infection but helps fighting the illness. So even vaccinated people can spread the virus.

 

This time it´s also addressed by Moderna:
The vaccine being tested in this study is called mRNA-1273. The study team is testing if the vaccine can help the immune system produce effective antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus so that, in case of infection, the virus does not cause illness. 

 

Don´t get me wrong: It´s great news! But people generally have a different expectation and think once the vaccines are available, all protection measures can be stopped (e.g. masks)

Agree with BP99 who is pointing out that viral vaccines work substantially differently. But they still work in stopping transmission.   How do we know the Moderna vaccine does not prevent infection? Just because that could not be directly measured in the trial?  We also do not know anything about vaccinated people spreading the virus.  Let's perhaps instead think that they would have robust immune responses, and likely be PCR negative- so that would indicate no viral shedding.  

[Miaminice]

44 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

How do we know the Moderna vaccine does not prevent infection? Just because that could not be directly measured in the trial?  

Because both vaccines - BioNtech and Moderna - are mRNA based.
In a very superficial explanation both try to enhance the immune reaction to the virus by reprogramming memory cells - giving them a memory of how to fight the illness and thereby preventing an outbreak or hard case of Covid.

 

Since the now active virus is nose and throat replicating, it can still replicate on the mucosal surfaces. Let’s say the nose. So while a vaccinated person might not become ill or seriously ill with Covid, he or she will still be breathing - exhaling replicated and replicated virus which can infect others. And as long as those others are not vaccinated, they can not only become infected but also become seriously ill with Covid.

 

So while those vaccines are a huge step forward in reducing the consequences and effects of Corona, scientists agree that it doesn’t mean we can throw away our masks and go back to normal - at least not until vaccines are distributed to the majority of populations and not just risk groups.

 

I can only repeat that of course I think this is good news and a great success, but I also want to repeat that I fear people will throw caution overboard too early - thinking once there‘s a vaccine, everything will be fine right away.

[TeeRick]

12 minutes ago, Miaminice said:

Because both vaccines - BioNtech and Moderna - are mRNA based.
In a very superficial explanation both try to enhance the immune reaction to the virus by reprogramming memory cells - giving them a memory of how to fight the illness and thereby preventing an outbreak or hard case of Covid.

 

Since the now active virus is nose and throat replicating, it can still replicate on the mucosal surfaces. Let’s say the nose. So while a vaccinated person might not become ill or seriously ill with Covid, he or she will still be breathing - exhaling replicated and replicated virus which can infect others. And as long as those others are not vaccinated, they can not only become infected but also become seriously ill with Covid.

 

So while those vaccines are a huge step forward in reducing the consequences and effects of Corona, scientists agree that it doesn’t mean we can throw away our masks and go back to normal - at least not until vaccines are distributed to the majority of populations and not just risk groups.

 

I can only repeat that of course I think this is good news and a great success, but I also want to repeat that I fear people will throw caution overboard too early - thinking once there‘s a vaccine, everything will be fine right away.

Miaminice, I really do not think the groups running these trials with the first interim look of the data know anything (yet) about the probability of vaccinated individuals becoming infected - and if by doing so would they produce enough shedding virus to be infectious to others?  Nobody is advocating throwing away masks until the vaccine approaches produce the required level of herd immunity to significantly and permanently reduce transmission.

[Miaminice]

35 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Miaminice, I really do not think the groups running these trials with the first interim look of the data know anything (yet) about the probability of vaccinated individuals becoming infected - and if by doing so would they produce enough shedding virus to be infectious to others?  Nobody is advocating throwing away masks until the vaccine approaches produce the required level of herd immunity to significantly and permanently reduce transmission.

You and I might not be advocating it. I am convinced many many others are...

 

[Crazy planning mom]

Thank you to the scientists here for their explanations.  My big question is when do you think it will be safe to cruise with masks?  I am not asking when normal cruising will resume but when cruising of any kind will resume?  April or May? Or do you think the cruiselines will wait it out until masks are no longer necessary?

Edited November 16, 2020 by Crazy planning mom

[TeeRick]

Here is what Dr. Fauci said today on wearing masks after getting the vaccine.  You might get the vaccine but still be in the 5-10% of the population where it is not effective going by the current efficacy rates of 90-95%.  Also it might take a month to become fully protected after vaccination.  In my estimation,  if a lot of vaccine supply becomes available to the general public by April-May, then we might not be realistically protected until mid to late summer 2021. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/fauci-why-still-need-masks-social-distancing-after-covid-19-vaccine.html

[Crazy planning mom]

19 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Here is what Dr. Fauci said today on wearing masks after getting the vaccine.  You might get the vaccine but still be in the 5-10% of the population where it is not effective going by the current efficacy rates of 90-95%.  Also it might take a month to become fully protected after vaccination.  In my estimation,  if a lot of vaccine supply becomes available to the general public by April-May, then we might not be realistically protected until mid to late summer 2021. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/fauci-why-still-need-masks-social-distancing-after-covid-19-vaccine.html

Well,  I have a non-refundable cruise in June so I will just have to hope we wont get sick.

[Arizona Wildcat]

17 minutes ago, Crazy planning mom said:

Well,  I have a non-refundable cruise in June so I will just have to hope we wont get sick.

Agree.  By the time you have final payment you will know a lot more about progress against the virus and where we are with cruising opening.  Cruising has many parts including ports being open, restrictions if ports are open, policies like masks on board.

You said you have a non refundable cruise.  Do you mean you have a non refundable deposit where you would lose part of your deposit depending on Celebrity's rules then in place.

[UnorigionalName]

3 hours ago, Miaminice said:

Because both vaccines - BioNtech and Moderna - are mRNA based.
In a very superficial explanation both try to enhance the immune reaction to the virus by reprogramming memory cells - giving them a memory of how to fight the illness and thereby preventing an outbreak or hard case of Covid.

 

Since the now active virus is nose and throat replicating, it can still replicate on the mucosal surfaces. Let’s say the nose. So while a vaccinated person might not become ill or seriously ill with Covid, he or she will still be breathing - exhaling replicated and replicated virus which can infect others. And as long as those others are not vaccinated, they can not only become infected but also become seriously ill with Covid.

 

So while those vaccines are a huge step forward in reducing the consequences and effects of Corona, scientists agree that it doesn’t mean we can throw away our masks and go back to normal - at least not until vaccines are distributed to the majority of populations and not just risk groups.

 

I can only repeat that of course I think this is good news and a great success, but I also want to repeat that I fear people will throw caution overboard too early - thinking once there‘s a vaccine, everything will be fine right away.

 

that's not how mRNA vaccines work at all.

 

They deposit mRNA into cells, and hopefully some of them make it into the dendritic/antigen presenting cells, where they will get assembled and put onto MHC and presented, and recognized by T-cells to start the immunity process.

 

It's very similar pathway from traditional vaccines, just instead of blasting virus or parts of proteins attached to conjugates to get dendritic cells to eat them and present them, you try to directly inject the mRNA into the dendritic cells, where they assemble the antigen and present it.

 

Theoretically the immune reaction at the end should be fairly simiar.

 

And other vaccines are super effective in preventing transmission, even of viruses much much more infective (measles, chickenpox).  Yes, it'll be some while till we know for sure, but don't see any reason to be pessmistic about that aspect.

 

[Crazy planning mom]

1 hour ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Agree.  By the time you have final payment you will know a lot more about progress against the virus and where we are with cruising opening.  Cruising has many parts including ports being open, restrictions if ports are open, policies like masks on board.

You said you have a non refundable cruise.  Do you mean you have a non refundable deposit where you would lose part of your deposit depending on Celebrity's rules then in place.

My original cruise was booked in Fall 2018 and was supposed to be this month.    Last spring when our cruise was mostly paid off, I decided to switch our cruise from November 2020 to Alaska in June 2021. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Crazy planning mom

[Threedrones]

2 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Here is what Dr. Fauci said today on wearing masks after getting the vaccine.  You might get the vaccine but still be in the 5-10% of the population where it is not effective going by the current efficacy rates of 90-95%.  Also it might take a month to become fully protected after vaccination.  In my estimation,  if a lot of vaccine supply becomes available to the general public by April-May, then we might not be realistically protected until mid to late summer 2021. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/fauci-why-still-need-masks-social-distancing-after-covid-19-vaccine.html

Dr. Fauci also said Americans do not need to wear masks on April 3rd. I’m not saying he was wrong then and I’m not saying he is wrong now. What I am saying is that what we know now might not be what we know once the vaccine(s) are available.

[TeeRick]

18 minutes ago, Threedrones said:

Dr. Fauci also said Americans do not need to wear masks on April 3rd. I’m not saying he was wrong then and I’m not saying he is wrong now. What I am saying is that what we know now might not be what we know once the vaccine(s) are available.

There has been such tremendous progress on all medical fronts and just discussing two efficacious vaccines by November is an amazing scientific and medical feat.  The world will continue to learn daily about the virus and the COVID disease.   And much more about these the vaccines and others based upon their introduction into the population.    So I agree with you there.

 

So back to April 3rd since you mentioned masks.  The US had a great shortage of N95 medical masks back then and a shortage on all other masks too. In my state we were locked down and could not go out without a mask since mid-March.  I could not find any type of mask on Amazon or anywhere else. We had to make personal masks out of old tee shirts or whatever was on hand.  Dr. Fauci was trying to preserve masks for the front line medical workers.  Remember?  It seems like ages ago.    So I know some want to say he was wrong but I don't see it that way based on the situation we faced and the number of nurses and doctors coping with a brutal situation with many becoming sick and worse.

[nocl]

12 hours ago, Miaminice said:

Hi TeeRick!

 

The reason why this vaccine might also not be the wonder drug people expect is the same we discussed a while back. I does not prevent infection but helps fighting the illness. So even vaccinated people can spread the virus.

 

This time it´s also addressed by Moderna:
The vaccine being tested in this study is called mRNA-1273. The study team is testing if the vaccine can help the immune system produce effective antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus so that, in case of infection, the virus does not cause illness. 

 

Don´t get me wrong: It´s great news! But people generally have a different expectation and think once the vaccines are available, all protection measures can be stopped (e.g. masks)

One disagreement.

 

They do not know if it will prevent infection.  If may, it may not.  The trial was not set up to test that.  Probably because there is not an easy reliable method to tell if someone is infected that could be done as part of the trial.  They could test someone that developed symptoms (a small set of the 30,000 trial participants) to confirm that the symptoms were caused by Covid.

 

To try and detect infection they would need to test everyone every week with PCR and even then it might not be considered to be reliable enough for clinical trial purposes. That would not be practical for a number of reasons logistics, costs ,ad drop out (how many in the trial would like a swab test each week).

 

Moderna is collecting antigen information (basically testing for  nucleocapsid phosphoprotein) to see how many show that marker at the end of the trial and compare the number in each arm as a secondary point.

If they can prove that the antigen is an effective biomarker for infection then it will be easy to test for infection in future trials.  However for this one antigens were considered to not be a proven method for testing for infection as far as the clinical trials are concerned.  That means that confirmation requires multiple PCR tests over multiple days for that that have symptoms. 

s 

Edited November 17, 2020 by nocl

[nocl]

4 hours ago, Threedrones said:

Dr. Fauci also said Americans do not need to wear masks on April 3rd. I’m not saying he was wrong then and I’m not saying he is wrong now. What I am saying is that what we know now might not be what we know once the vaccine(s) are available.

At the time on April 3rd little was known about the virus and hoe it was transmitted.  As a result at that time they were using the closest illnesses that they had experience with which is influenza and SARS.  In both of those illnesses generally a person develops symptoms before they are infectious.  So at that time the focus to prevent spread was on symptom detection and isolation.

 

After that time frame it became known and confirmed that there are a large number of asymptomatic cases, and that those cases are infectious.  Even for those that develop symptoms data now indicates that someone may be the most infectious the day before symptoms develop.  Thus the need for masks. No way to effectively identify and isolate cases that may be infectious.

 

If one locks at the time frame of when various items were learned about COVID, the change in recommendations actually makes sense.

 

One thing is clear there is a lot more known about COVID today then last Feb, Mar, Apr.  And the current recommendations are based upon that increased knowledge.

[UnorigionalName]

41 minutes ago, nocl said:

One disagreement.

 

They do not know if it will prevent infection.  If may, it may not.  The trial was not set up to test that.  Probably because there is not an easy reliable method to tell if someone is infected that could be done as part of the trial.  They could test someone that developed symptoms (a small set of the 30,000 trial participants) to confirm that the symptoms were caused by Covid.

 

To try and detect infection they would need to test everyone every week with PCR and even then it might not be considered to be reliable enough for clinical trial purposes. That would not be practical for a number of reasons logistics, costs ,ad drop out (how many in the trial would like a swab test each week).

 

Moderna is collecting antigen information (basically testing for  nucleocapsid phosphoprotein) to see how many show that marker at the end of the trial and compare the number in each arm as a secondary point.

If they can prove that the antigen is an effective biomarker for infection then it will be easy to test for infection in future trials.  However for this one antigens were considered to not be a proven method for testing for infection as far as the clinical trials are concerned.  That means that confirmation requires multiple PCR tests over multiple days for that that have symptoms. 

s 

 

end point was symptomatic infection.  Seems like a pretty good endpoint to me.

 

 morbidity/mortality is all that really matters.

Edited November 17, 2020 by UnorigionalName

[nocl]

5 minutes ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

end point was symptomatic infection.  Seems like a pretty good endpoint to me.

 

 morbidity/mortality is all that really matters.

The Vaccine Advisory Board did indicate the use of symptoms as a weakness and certainly is not the norm.  While clearly there is medical benefit to preventing symptoms.  There is far more benefit in preventing infection, especially in a disease with asymptomatic spread.  Unfortunately too little is known and that means a lack of reliable validated biomarkers.

 

Would have to disagree that mortality is the only thing that matters.  Especially in a disease that also causes a number of what appears to be long term impacts (neurological, cardiac, etc) even in patients that do not show symptoms.

Edited November 17, 2020 by nocl

[markeb]

3 minutes ago, nocl said:

The Vaccine Advisory Board did indicate the use of symptoms as a weakness and certainly is not the norm.  While clearly there is medical benefit to preventing symptoms.  There is far more benefit in preventing infection, especially in a disease with asymptomatic spread.  Unfortunately too little is known and that means a lack of reliable validated biomarkers.

 

I've spent most of my life in public health, although a health care provider of sorts (how many vertebrate species exist in the world...). The public health guy wants a vaccine that prevents infection and transmission; the provider wants to stop deaths and serious illness, regardless of transmission!

 

I'm stuck with you on this one; there's just no good way of judging transmission. With enough of the population vaccinated, you can do some pretty good epi studies and if the vaccine stops transmission, you should see significant reduction in PCR positives or antigen positives in the general population as you approach the 1-1/R0 levels.

 

I haven't looked at the history of measles vaccination. Probably should. How did the medical and public health communities come to consensus that it blocked transmission?

[nocl]

Just now, markeb said:

 

I've spent most of my life in public health, although a health care provider of sorts (how many vertebrate species exist in the world...). The public health guy wants a vaccine that prevents infection and transmission; the provider wants to stop deaths and serious illness, regardless of transmission!

 

I'm stuck with you on this one; there's just no good way of judging transmission. With enough of the population vaccinated, you can do some pretty good epi studies and if the vaccine stops transmission, you should see significant reduction in PCR positives or antigen positives in the general population as you approach the 1-1/R0 levels.

 

I haven't looked at the history of measles vaccination. Probably should. How did the medical and public health communities come to consensus that it blocked transmission?

Is measles infectious before symptoms?  Are there any cases of asymptomatic measles?

 

The real problem with COVID is the asymptomatic cases.  If it wasn't for those then symptoms would = infection.

[markeb]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

Is measles infectious before symptoms?  Are there any cases of asymptomatic measles?

 

The real problem with COVID is the asymptomatic cases.  If it wasn't for those then symptoms would = infection.

 

Technically no, same as smallpox. Some of the craziest cases with smallpox, though, that led to pretty significant localized outbreaks, were "atypical' symptoms. One I remember involved pox lesions in the oronasopharynx that were latent to observers and in exactly the wrong place. One of the best case studies I've ever read. They could track spread to open windows (it was in Germany, I believe).

 

What I really am curious about with measles (much higher R0, but the preliminary vaccine efficacy is in the measles range) is I'm betting the endpoints equated to disease reduction, but they were equal or approximately equal to infection rates. The lack of asymptomatic transmission helps, but you still had to have data or make a leap of faith. With an R0 in the teens, you had an answer on transmission pretty early!

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

Technically no, same as smallpox. Some of the craziest cases with smallpox, though, that led to pretty significant localized outbreaks, were "atypical' symptoms. One I remember involved pox lesions in the oronasopharynx that were latent to observers and in exactly the wrong place. One of the best case studies I've ever read. They could track spread to open windows (it was in Germany, I believe).

 

What I really am curious about with measles (much higher R0, but the preliminary vaccine efficacy is in the measles range) is I'm betting the endpoints equated to disease reduction, but they were equal or approximately equal to infection rates. The lack of asymptomatic transmission helps, but you still had to have data or make a leap of faith. With an R0 in the teens, you had an answer on transmission pretty early!

I am sure that a lot of new procedures and approaches will be developed as a result of COVID-19.  It makes a number of manuals obsolete.

[markeb]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

I am sure that a lot of new procedures and approaches will be developed as a result of COVID-19.  It makes a number of manuals obsolete.

 

Yep. We're now in the crazy range that only a handful at best of people around here follow or care about!

 

Makes me miss the game... 😧