Quote from Fm1

British Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said the new COVID-19 variant identified in South Africa is a bigger risk than the highly infectious UK variant.

Certainly the main reason is that the Pfitzer vaccine no longer fully covers it....

Quote from Fm1

Had the pandemic not happened, I would have spent much of 2020 abroad, setting up studies of influenza, Zika and dengue.

All these virus can be treated by Ivermectin. In fact Zikka has been brought down with it. See also Manaus CoV-19 studies among Zikka treated patients!

Quote from Fm1

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said on Monday that he was considering declaring a state of emergency in the greater Tokyo area over a “very severe” third wave of COVID-19 infections,

The governor of Tokyo and the mayors of the surrounding suburban districts put pressure Suga and the federal government to do this. They went ahead and did what they could on their own authority.

The state of emergency the government can declare is not really an emergency by European standards. It is more of a polite request, with no teeth. There are no penalties as far as I know. Many people ignore it. The same thing happens when they tell people to go to shelters to avoid a hurricane. Many people ignore them.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Certainly the main reason is that the Pfitzer vaccine no longer fully covers it....

Did you find any links, reports or publications for that? You sound so sure... or just an idea?

Quote from zorud

Did you find any links, reports or publications for that?

I linked a German reference from FAZ that did show that the "fast" UK virus is known since November and not really fast at all.

The South Africa virus change is very similar and changes the ACE-2 lock region - so the key region of the antibody target. The assumption so far was that this region would not change at all.

So as there is no other reason for tighter control and from the fact that we see some panic actions like single dose vaccination (against the rules!) to get rid of the vaccine stock, we can strongly deduce why this is the basic reason.

For hard facts we have to wait some weeks (months) until enough Germans/British folks got the vaccine (and CoV-19) as there the virus is broadly spreading.

But I do not expect a large drop in efficiency. But even 10-15% will shut the market if moderna is better! I personally would opt for the Astra Zeneca vaccine!

I posted the following on another forum .... (formatting is funny here ... it tried to make it CODE ]

Viral targets for vaccines against COVID-19 [ 12/20/20]

<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00480-0>

[ My summary :

There are 4 proteins S,M,E,N which are good candidates

Plus 25 other proteins which are probably not

S is used by Pfizer and Moderna .. and has subfragments S1,S2

Pfizer and Moderna use the whole S protein.

The annotation in Table 1 indicates that they do use the same variant:

"Full-length S with two proline substitutions (K986P and V987P)

BUT they are both listed under a fragment labelled "S-2P"

The three main classes of trials under way use "Whole virus", S-2P or RBD

]

[ My comments : (on the other site ... relating to Pfizer then Moderna 2nd dose etc

Increases the probability that Pfizer then Moderna might work

But taking Pfizer and then something else is confusing --

Might give less protection (because no-booster lets it decay)

or more protection (because two proteins are being attacked

]

On the ZA variant -- since Pfizer and Moderna seem to use the exact same target, I'd expect them to perform equally on new variants. Whole-virus vaccines probably have other targets, so they might have a better chance.

It is ridiculous and clearly off label use to decide for such a new drug to use one vaccination only or give the second shot months later, since the successfully completed study for approval prescribes two vaccinations within 2...3 weeks. Nothing else has been proven and is simply playing dangerous games with patients...what a time...

Quote from zorud

It is ridiculous and clearly off label use to decide for such a new drug to use one vaccination only or give the second shot months later, since the successfully completed study for approval prescribes two vaccinations within 2...3 weeks.

That does seem like a bad idea to me. But the issue is confused because different plans have been mixed up in mass media, and possibly by the experts themselves. They are:

1. This plan, to give the booster months later.
2. The opposite, to hold back half the supplies of the vaccine now in hand so that in 3 weeks there will be a second dose. I prefer plan 3:
3. Use all current stocks and assume that production and distribution will increase so that in 3 weeks enough for a second dose will be available. In the worst case, it will not be available, and new patients will have to wait.
4. Give a partial dose at first, and a full dose in 3 weeks. This may actually work better with one of the vaccines. I cannot judge if it is a good idea.
5. Give one vaccine type now, and another type in 3 weeks, if that is the only thing available. The UK government wants to do this, but experts there say it is a bad idea.

See:

As the vaccine rollout falters, scientists debate new tactics.

"As governments around the world rush to vaccinate their citizens, scientists and policymakers are locked in a heated debate over a surprising question: Is it wisest to hold back the second doses everyone will need, or to give as many people as possible an inoculation now — and push back the second doses?

Since even the first shot appears to provide some protection, some experts believe that the shortest route to containing the virus is to disseminate the initial injections as widely as possible now. . . ."

Anyway...requires a new or extended approval by the authorities, in cooperation with the manufactures. Anything else is off-label and in conflict with the currently approved vaccines. I would vote for a fast-track re-approval of such plans. All studies so far had clear conditions and endpoints for the 95% success rate....

See:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/0…ers-covid-protection.html

einen vollen Schutz zu erreichen.

Quote from zorud

Anything else is off-label and in conflict with the currently approved vaccines.

However, doctors in the US are free to use drugs in off-label ways without approval. The FDA frowns on it, but they can. I don't know about other countries.

I think it would be better to do a study as quickly as possible before implementing plans 1, 4 or 5. Plans 2 and 3 are logistics, not medicine. They would follow the present recommended protocols.

Plan 3 -- assume there will be an expanded supply in 3 weeks -- is similar to what is done in wars or emergencies such as hurricane relief.

Signs of desperation in the UK with the decision to drop the second injection after 3 weeks.

However, perhaps it makes sense to give double the number of people one shot rather than two shots to half the number.

But discussions about giving the first shot with one vaccine (e.g. Pfizer) and the second shot with another (e.g. Oxford/AstraZeneca) seem wildly removed from the initial trials.

Perhaps we are all just in one big trial.

Meanwhile the vaccine rollout in the UK is starting to look like the expensive track and trace fiasco.

Where I live an APB was put out to surrounding health service providers on Thursday, with a couple of hours notice, to turn up for a vaccination. The queue stretched out across the car park and it was a bit chaotic. The rumour was that the local Pfizer vaccine supply had to be used before the New Year break or not used at all, hence the last minute APB. So a bit chaotic.

Also the NHS are supposed to be recruiting an army of volunteers such as clinical trainees, dentists etc to speed up vaccinations but I have heard several stories that there is a large amount of red tape including many forms and courses on protecting vulnerable individuals and anti-terrorism. Now everyone associated with the NHS has to do such courses to one level or another, but it seems unnecessary just for jabbing hundreds of people that you only meet for one minute each. The secretary of state has now said that such red tape will be cut, but should they not have been thinking of this weeks ago??? Boris and his people REALLY NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT.

And just this minute Boris has announced the first national lockdown of 2021.

Remember that a 30% efficacy was defined as a success. 95% was mind-boggling.
I don't even know if a reduced-dose trial is even ethical now.
An insider* told me that the race is usually over when the first candidate comes in.
Moderna really only got a shot at second because of the ultra-cold requirement of Pfizer.

*on the team for one of the proposed vaccines ... but he's not allowed to say which.

Quote from RobertBryant

The Corruption of Science

Bruce A. Chabner

A view from a small fish in the pond...something rotten in the water

"To counteract this corruption of science, it is vital that the scientific community speak with one voice to protest. The directors of government agencies such as the CDC and FDA must not succumb to the inappropriate pressure and political motivations of the administration and, if necessary, should resign rather than collaborate in misguided policies and messaging. Furthermore, our academies and national organizations must speak out to defend the sanctity of science and protect the health of our nation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7648364/

Yes, yes, the CDC and FDA represent places where the "sanctity of science" is upheld. Why, if it weren't for the vile White House and it's corrupting influence on the purity and effectiveness of their science, there wouldn't be a problem!

Thank goodness for the coincidental timing of that messaging, shortly before the presidential election.

Hunter who?

sorry to hear that alan, I wouldn't be surprised if the US joins you just after the 20th.

Early intervention is needed immediately, the death rate among ages 13- 20 are climbing as the second wave, just as in 1918, seems to be doing. The vaccine is not going to save the already infected, we know at least 2% are going to die without early treatment but all the money goes to vaccine and now distribution. We deserve better !!!

Quote from Fm1

but all the money goes to vaccine and now distribution.

No, it isn't. Most of the money is going to treatment. That is, hospital care. A great deal of money is going to frantic searches for treatment for people already sick, and for "long-haul" patients.

It is far cheaper to vaccinate against a disease than it is to deal with an infection. Many orders of magnitude cheaper. Even if the patient does not go to the doctor, the infection still costs a lot from lost work hours. So, it makes sense to make vaccination the focus, and to invest as much as needed to expedite vaccinations. It costs practically nothing to vaccinate someone. A nurse can vaccinate hundreds of people a day, whereas a nurse can only take care of a few sick people.

Vast amounts of money are going to sustain people who have lost their jobs. With enough vaccinations the economy will recover and we will not need this emergency spending.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Remember that a 30% efficacy was defined as a success. 95% was mind-boggling.
I don't even know if a reduced-dose trial is even ethical now.

The only reason to stop after one dose of vaccination is the intentional spoil of the statistics. After such a random 1 or 2 shot vaccination it is no longer possible to say whether the vaccine did fail or just only did protect you for 70%. This is a highly criminal act to make long term high profits from vaccine selling possible, without any risk from new variations of the CoV-19 virus.

Quote from Alan Smith

On December 29 "more than 80,000 people tested positive for Covid across the UK", the number of deaths is up by 20% over the last week "and will sadly rise further," the PM warned.

You can ask Boris and his mafia friends why the administration is going on with killing British people by not even distributing high dose V-D3 + Zinc! (What also would stop the simple flu!)

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it isn't. Most of the money is going to treatment. That is, hospital care.

No JED. The money is wasted for useless treatments 20$ would be enough to save & treat most people with the Ivermectin combo. Instead most hospitals are going to pillage the US population and even kill the own personal just for feeding some fat assholes that own/control most of big pharma.

Quote from Fm1

the death rate among ages 13- 20 are climbing as the second wave, just as in 1918, seems to be doing. ....going to save the already infected, we know at least 2% are going to die without early treatment

Are you really sure? Do you have any source for this info?

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is a highly criminal act

I'd pay more attention to your posts if you stopped using words like "mafia" and "criminal" when most of us say "capitalist" and "ethical".

It's certainly political and a trade-off --- is N*0.95 greater or smaller than 2*N*0.80 ?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

is N*0.95 greater or smaller than 2*N*0.80 ?

For Moderna after a single dose (95% CI)
All cases : 80.2% (55.2%, 92.5%)
Severe : 42.6% (-300.8, 94.8) <== TWO severe cases in vax arm