There are reports that the Sputnik vaccine developers have proposed using their vaccine and the “Oxford” vaccine as a one-two vaccination. I wonder how much of this is designed to get around the risks of a Magnitsky Act action against their backers.
https://sputniknews.com/world/202011...oost-efficacy/
Any combination of vaccines will unavoidable boost efficiency of its use while surplus may be not so great sometimes. So Sputnik + Oxford, Sputnik + Moderna, Moderna + Oxford or Pfizer - all these combinations will boost immunity. Even just third shot of the same vaccine will grow immunity (just + 1-2% higher)Originally Posted by StevieWonders
As per Magnitcky act: have you read it ever? There is list of people and companies with whom is not allowed to make business. For to involve Magnitcky act into discussion you should have person or company listed there. Hint: try to find Gamaleya lab there
Bali (Indonesia), Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos: gay guides and companions http://siamroads.com
Extrapolation does not always work. A half size first dose of the Astra Zeneca vaccine achieves better results than a full first dose (in both cases, followed by a second dose).
It is not about extrapolation, it is about immunity what person already has at time of vaccination.
Simplest example Sputnik or Oxford. Both are vector type on base of adeno-viruses. If person at time of vaccination already has immunity to adeno-virus-A then vaccine with vector adeno-virus-A will not develop immunity against COVID from this injection and here will come second injection which is based on adeno-virus-B. There is possibility what about 8-10% of population already has immunity to adeno-A and adeno-B, and at that case another vaccine based on adeno-C and adeno-D will help, because population who has immunity to all 4 viruses is significantly lower than population with immunity to only 2 of them. That why combination of 2 vector vaccines will work better than solo vaccine.
Half dose of Oxford at fist shot was better than full dose because immunity which body got from first shot was too much strong against vector in second shot, and that immunity (from first shot) kills vector from the second shot before it had chance to develop immunity against COVID.
Bali (Indonesia), Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos: gay guides and companions http://siamroads.com
Astra Zeneca is delayed now due to dosage regiments and efficacy. There's some doubts floating around, and new trials are now planned.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...tudy-1.5206091
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGiAXFczXzM
From what I can tell, Pfizer seems like the strongest candidate at the moment, at least for approval here in Canada. That one needs to be stored at -70C though, so not sure if / how that would work for Thailand.
The Astra Zeneca vaccine is NOT delayed.
There is doubt about the optimum dose, but since there is efficacy with both dosing options & no reported concerns, the UK government has formally asked the regulator to approve it. I believe the EU is the same.
Further trials are expected to be in parallel with approval and manufacture, which means it's not a delay.
I think it's a bit more than doubt about the optimum dose. It seems that the half dose/full dose scenario was carried out by accident, ie they hadn't intended to give half doses, and the sample range was therefore much smaller, 3,000 people, and wasn't representative, eg no one over 55yo was included.
Given that this sample group, with it''s higher "success" rate, has been used to skew higher the overall Astra Zeneca vaccine "success" rate, I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for this vaccine to be approved without delay.
Whilst questions might be asked about the dose, I've not yet seen any report stating there will be a delay.
In fact, the first paragraph in the linked article states "....the additional testing is unlikely to affect regulatory approval in Europe"
Consider:
100% of a dose is effective, with minor side effects (big sample)
50% of a dose is more effective with even more minor side effects (smaller sample)
0% of a dose is ineffective with zero side effects
Applying common sense, they should be able to approve either the 50% or the 100% dose option & run trials in parallel.
Where questions should be asked is regarding how they screwed this up ? And since they delivered a half dose, are there safeguards in place to have prevented an accidental 200% dose during the trial ?
Perhaps it's necessary to read between the lines, but the process, and the projections, seem less certain than the two/three other vaccines being discussed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927
The list of names is constantly under review as newly-minted gangsters and kleptocrats are identified.As per Magnitcky act: have you read it ever? There is list of people and companies with whom is not allowed to make business.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote