The biology of coronavirus COVID-19 - including research and treatments

Title : Excess deaths from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic Doctors during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Link : http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2020/11/covid-19-vitamin-d-deaths-of-doctors.html

I would like to display some information that I have collected during the course of the pandemic this year, and unfortunately finish on a low note.

Most weeks in the British Medical Journal we can read six obituaries to UK doctors who have died. They will not make up a full list of doctors who have died but they are interesting to read. I have recorded for a few years the ages and causes of death, but 2020 is particularly interesting as we can see the personal effects of Covid-19. In recent years the causes of death have been clearly displayed in the BMJ. During 2020 up to November 7th there have been 245 obituaries displayed with cause of death not stated in only 5.

The obituaries are accompanied by names (obviously) but also photographs. It has therefore been possible to assess the ethnicity of those who have died. I have divided them into two groups, White and BAME (Black African and Asian minority Ethnic groups).

They are displayed in Figure 1, a bar chart in which each column represents each of the 25 doctors who have been reported to have died from Covid-19, and the height of the columns represents the ages at death.The youngest death was at the age of 46 years and the oldest at the age of 107 years.

***Graph is displayed at this point in the link***

What is most dramatic and disturbing is the complete lack of overlap between the ages at death of the white and BAME groups.

Age range White: 84 to 107

Age range BAME: 46 to 79

Average mean age White: 91

Average mean age BAME: 62
Click to expand...
 
Talking of which, did anyone catch the "Is Covid Racist?" programme on Channel 4 tonight? I totally forgot about it. I hope it looked at the whole spectrum and didn't just concentrate on socioeconomic/cultural aspects.
 
Snow Leopard said:
The media is complicit in spin.

The meta analysis of the AstraZeneca vaccine efficacy is 70%, inferior to the mRNA vaccines. But the media wants to spin this as "highly effective" and cherry pick one of the smaller subgroups that had better results.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635
Click to expand...

I thought that in previous discussions we'd thought that around 70% efficacy was a perfectly reasonable percentage to achieve, compared with other vaccines? I've been looking at those reports of 90-95% and wondering just how they could possibly be that high. Interesting that much higher efficacy can apparently be achieved by giving a half-dose first rather than a whole one, and the suggested reasons for it. But I can't help wondering whether all these statistics - and especially the "anything you can do I can do better" ones - are being trotted out more with an eye to the company's share price than anything else.
 
Snow Leopard said:
The media is complicit in spin.

The meta analysis of the AstraZeneca vaccine efficacy is 70%, inferior to the mRNA vaccines. But the media wants to spin this as "highly effective" and cherry pick one of the smaller subgroups that had better results.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of this? So they were making mistakes in the vaccine doses given to trial participants. Jeesh! Good thing it was a smaller dose and not a bigger dose, someone could have been harmed.

(from Reuters)

While skill and hard work drove development, AstraZeneca said it was a minor mistake that made the team realise how they could significantly boost the shot’s success rate, to as much as 90% from around 60%: by administering a half dose, followed by a full dose a month later.

“The reason we had the half dose is serendipity,” Mene Pangalos, head of AstraZeneca’s non-oncology research and development, told Reuters.

The plan was for trial participants in Britain to receive two full doses, but researchers were perplexed when they noticed that side effects, such as fatigue, headaches or arm aches were milder than expected, Pangalos said.

“So we went back and checked ... and we found out that they had underpredicted the dose of the vaccine by half.”

He said the team nonetheless decided to press ahead with that half dose group, and to administer the second, full dose booster shot at the scheduled time.

The results showed the vaccine was 90% effective among this group, while a larger group who had received two full doses produced an efficacy read-out of 62%, leading to an overall efficacy of 70% across both dosing patterns, Pangalos said.

“That, in essence, is how we stumbled upon doing half dose-full dose (group),” he told Reuters. “Yes, it was a mistake.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-oxford-idUSKBN2832NG
 
Wits_End said:
I thought that in previous discussions we'd thought that around 70% efficacy was a perfectly reasonable percentage to achieve, compared with other vaccines? I've been looking at those reports of 90-95% and wondering just how they could possibly be that high. Interesting that much higher efficacy can apparently be achieved by giving a half-dose first rather than a whole one, and the suggested reasons for it. But I can't help wondering whether all these statistics - and especially the "anything you can do I can do better" ones - are being trotted out more with an eye to the company's share price than anything else.
Click to expand...
Different processes may have something to do with it . I read that Astra zeneca swab tested every week and picked up asymptomatic, the others swab tested symptomatic only
 
Wits_End said:
I thought that in previous discussions we'd thought that around 70% efficacy was a perfectly reasonable percentage to achieve, compared with other vaccines? I've been looking at those reports of 90-95% and wondering just how they could possibly be that high. Interesting that much higher efficacy can apparently be achieved by giving a half-dose first rather than a whole one, and the suggested reasons for it. But I can't help wondering whether all these statistics - and especially the "anything you can do I can do better" ones - are being trotted out more with an eye to the company's share price than anything else.
Click to expand...

I agree with your latter point. If we look at the actual numbers of people infected in each group, the numbers are quite fragile - if just two more people in the vaccinated group in the AstraZeneca "accidental" dosage group got infected, then the calculated efficacy would drop from 90% to 80%. This could simply be due to random chance of exposure. I strongly urge people not to read too strongly into claims that the vaccine will have 90% efficacy with this different dosage protocol.

But I also suggest the mRNA vaccine trials so far are similarly vulnerable due to low numbers being infected.

However, not all of the trial data has been released - the trials in places where there were far more virus exposures could have very different results - and a-priori, I'd expect regression to the mean, rather than 90%+ estimates.

As for "70% is good", it is better than nothing, but it is not good. 90% would lead to huge societal benefits, that greatly outweighs the extra refrigeration required for the Moderna vaccine for example. The fact that people are saying, oh, but the AstraZeneca vaccine is cheaper and easier to distribute, therefore is the best choice for the third world just pisses me off! Such a statement is saying that third world lives aren't worth as much...

TrixieStix said:
Are you aware of this? So they were making mistakes in the vaccine doses given to trial participants. Jeesh! Good thing it was a smaller dose and not a bigger dose, someone could have been harmed.
Click to expand...

Yes, lucky it wasn't too high. But I don't buy this accident BS. Are they really that incompetent? Or perhaps they had a last minute change of heart and wanted to deviate from their established protocol for a reason.

There is a few other conclusions that many people don't seem to realise - once you have been vaccinated with an adenovirus vector vaccine, you can't have subsequent booster (past the initial 2 doses) shots of it because the immune response to the adenovirus vector will prevent efficacy. Similarly, it means ChAdOx cannot be used as a vector for any other novel virus in the future, in recipients.
 
Amw66 said:
Different processes may have something to do with it . I read that Astra zeneca swab tested every week and picked up asymptomatic, the others swab tested symptomatic only
Click to expand...

The two AstraZeneca trials had different methodology - the UK trial had weekly swabbing, the Brazil trial had less regular sampling. The Brazil trial had poorer efficacy which is the opposite to what we'd expect - (we'd expect there to be more vaccinated individuals who are asymptomatic, thus skewing the results in favour of increased vaccine efficacy).

Also, just FYI, my back of the envelope estimates of the lower 95% confidence interval for the "1.5 dose" subgroup is in the 70% range, which is to say the confidence intervals of both arms likely overlap...

I wish they would just release the data properly as a preprint, rather than all this cherrypicking...
 
Last edited:
Ilaria Rubino, a recent PhD graduate from the department of chemical and materials engineering at the University of Alberta, said a mostly salt and water solution that coats the first or middle layer of the mask would dissolve droplets before they can penetrate the face covering.

As the liquid from the droplets evaporates, the salt crystals grow back as spiky weapons, damaging the bacteria or virus within five minutes, Rubino said
Click to expand...

Alberta(Canada) researcher wins salt-coated mask innovation.
 
I am not sure what more shocking - that they could make the wrong strength vaccine, that they could administer the wrong strength vaccine or that they think they can average two different groups to give a combined 70% efficacy when the original protocol specified vaccine only achieved ~60%.

Helen Fletcher, professor of immunology at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said: “.... It’s not surprising if some manufacturing issues were still being ironed out when they started clinical trials but early stage trials are all about safety and the safety data we have seen has been very robust.”

"some manufacturing issues" - if making the wrong dose is a manufacturing issue the plant should be shut down.
It would be almost impossible for a manufacturer to make the wrong strength vaccine, due to the number of quality controls in place. So either there was no quality control at all, or they made the right strength, then the strength was changed but the wrong lots got administered.

Either way, it's a very serious issue and definitely not to be dismissed as "some manufacturing issues"
 
Mij said:
https://www.hematology.org/covid-19/ash-astct-covid-19-and-vaccines#:~:text=Despite several vaccine candidates being,the different immunocompromised patient populations.

Have any of the vaccines been tested on immunocompromised patients?
Click to expand...

I presume you mean non-covid vaccinations. The answer is yes, for example several types vaccines in people who are taking Rituximab.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4462293/ (review article)

Live vaccines are generally contraindicated in the immunocompromised (this would include the AstraZeneca, J&J, Sputnik vaccines).
 
Snow Leopard said:
I presume you mean non-covid vaccinations. The answer is yes, for example several types vaccines in people who are taking Rituximab.
Click to expand...

I was referring to immunocompromised candidates taking part in the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca Covid vaccination trials.
In my post above it says no, but that was in October.

Mij said:
https://www.hematology.org/covid-19/ash-astct-covid-19-and-vaccines#:~:text=Despite several vaccine candidates being,the different immunocompromised patient populations.

Have any of the vaccines been tested on immunocompromised patients?
Click to expand...
 
Snow Leopard said:
science-publishing-by-press release... Press-releases should only be published alongside high quality preprints that show the data as transparently as possible.
Click to expand...
Right on cue:

A year after Wuhan alarm, China seeks to change Covid origin story
Reports in state media signal an intensifying propaganda effort to place the birth of the virus in other countries
...
Chinese scientists have even submitted a paper for publication to the Lancet – although it has not yet been peer-reviewed – that claims “Wuhan is not the place where human-to-human Sars-CoV-2 transmission first happened”, suggesting instead that the first case may have been in the “Indian subcontinent”.
...
[full story]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...larm-china-seeks-to-change-covid-origin-story​
 
Mike Dean said:
Right on cue:

A year after Wuhan alarm, China seeks to change Covid origin story
Reports in state media signal an intensifying propaganda effort to place the birth of the virus in other countries
...
Chinese scientists have even submitted a paper for publication to the Lancet – although it has not yet been peer-reviewed – that claims “Wuhan is not the place where human-to-human Sars-CoV-2 transmission first happened”, suggesting instead that the first case may have been in the “Indian subcontinent”.
...
[full story]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...larm-china-seeks-to-change-covid-origin-story​
Click to expand...

They've got to be joking. Epidemiological evidence suggests this is impossible given how fast the virus spreads...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom