9 ms·

This is a horrible decision. All the data we have suggests AZ is probably 100% effective at preventing death from the South African strain. (Mostly) everyone

This is a horrible decision. All the data we have suggests AZ is probably 100% effective at preventing death from the South African strain. (Mostly) everyone agrees we want to have a vaccine that is: -safer than not vaccinating -effective against death -actually available to use AZ is all 3 of these in South Africa (and everywhere). It also provides some additional benefits, like: -cheap -no cold storage -easier to administer By banning AZ you aren't trading it for Pfizer, you are trading it for no vaccine.

hobbes78 6y ago
a) Let's say you vaccinate all south-africans with AZ+Moderna+JJ+PB, then 1/4 of the population will be barely protected. b) Let's say you vaccinate all south-africans with Moderna+JJ+PB, then all the population will be protected. If you pay the same in both scenarios, why on earth would you choose a)?
- bluGill 6y ago
  Because vaccines are in short supply. The choice isn't AZ+Moderna+JJ+PB vs Moderna+JJ+PB. the real choice today is AZ+Moderna+JJ+PB+NOTHING vs Moderna+JJ+PB+NOTHING, with the size of nothing being larger in the second case. So really it is c: you vaccinate everyone with whatever you can get your hands on. Once everyone has had some vaccine you look at data of what is working and give everyone with a less effective vaccine an additional dose of whatever works - which will probably be a new vaccine that doesn't exist yet! Don't forget that mutations are continuous. We might be looking at another mutation in 3 months as supply catches up that evades vaccines in a completely new way.
  - zeku 6y ago
    To be fair the article claims they will have other vaccines available in a couple of weeks.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      That works both ways: the sooner the alternatives are available in adequate quantities, the less the harm (if there is anything to be concerned about) of continuing to use the AZ vaccine at least until then.
      - bluGill 6y ago
        Fair point, but the others won't be available in adequate quantities anytime soon. I'm not sure where SA stacks up, but nobody is getting adequate quantities before this summer at best.
  - curryst 6y ago
    > give everyone with a less effective vaccine an additional dose of whatever works - which will probably be a new vaccine that doesn't exist yet! I would be careful about assuming that's an option. The vaccines have been tested individually, but have not been tested together. It's not out of the realm of possibility that getting some combination triggers some kind of immune reaction or something else. > Don't forget that mutations are continuous. We might be looking at another mutation in 3 months as supply catches up that evades vaccines in a completely new way. This is, sadly, a reason for poorer countries to delay vaccination. If there's going to be a mutation that evades this vaccine, and you can only afford one round of vaccines for everyone, you'd be better off waiting for the vaccine that prevents both. Based on the last article about this, SA doesn't have the money to do 2 rounds of vaccines. A lot of the money was spent suspiciously, but now funding is limited. It seems that anyone who gets a subpar vaccine is just going to be stuck with subpar coverage.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  As a) is likely to reduce the serious cases faster, that seems like a point in its favor. One complication might be if people getting mild cases end up spreading the variant faster, because they are not incapacitated by it - but it is not as if it is having much difficulty spreading now, despite the serious cases it creates, as it seems to spread before it incapacitates. I don't think this possibility demands that we stop using this vaccine until this issue is unequivocally settled.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
roseway4 6y ago
Healthcare professionals are first in line in the South African vaccine rollout. It's possible that not protecting against moderate to severe illness is an inadequate outcome for this group. Skipping this group in order to vaccinate others may not be politically palatable.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Skipping this group is not an inevitable consequence of continuing to uze the AZ vaccine. The rate at which this group can be vaccinated with other vaccines is an orthogonal issue. people in other groups may be unwilling to take the AZ vaccine, but so long as they are not being coerced to do so, this is not an issue.
jhawk28 6y ago
There have been serious side effects documented for these vaccines. Bruising, soreness, "covid mouth", miscarriages, deaths, anaphylactic shock, etc. The vaccine has also not been out long enough to know of any long term health issues. The data is not in whether they are effective against death. They didn't test the super vulnerable in the studies. If you look at the places that have high vaccination numbers, you don't actually see any significant drop in covid cases or deaths. If anything, those places are staying high while the rest of the world is dropping. They were released under emergency authorization which means that they haven't fully testing and verified them to the level that would normally be done. If they are as effective as the hype, we should be seeing significant positive results by now.
- roseway4 6y ago
  > miscarriages, deaths, anaphylactic shock I've seen coverage of anaphylaxis, but not death and miscarriages. Anaphylaxis is also extremely rare and causality is unproven. Would you please provide references for the other severe side effects you listed?
  - jhawk28 6y ago
    https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/974345-1 https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/974345-1
    - roseway4 6y ago
      Is OpenVAERs a legitimate source of information for vaccine injury? The site claims the data is sourced from the HHS. Has this been validated? If so, is this raw data or has it been reviewed and vetted by HHS. Self-reported data from non-medical professionals likely needs significant vetting, analysis and interpretation.
- jc_811 6y ago
  Do you have a valid source for any of the information you just claimed?
tibbydudeza 6y ago
One of our local drug manufacturers will make up to 300 m doses of the J&J vaccine annually , so no need to depend on handouts from other countries.

hobbes78 6y ago

a) Let's say you vaccinate all south-africans with AZ+Moderna+JJ+PB, then 1/4 of the population will be barely protected. b) Let's say you vaccinate all south-africans with Moderna+JJ+PB, then all the population will be protected. If you pay the same in both scenarios, why on earth would you choose a)?

bluGill 6y ago
Because vaccines are in short supply. The choice isn't AZ+Moderna+JJ+PB vs Moderna+JJ+PB. the real choice today is AZ+Moderna+JJ+PB+NOTHING vs Moderna+JJ+PB+NOTHING, with the size of nothing being larger in the second case. So really it is c: you vaccinate everyone with whatever you can get your hands on. Once everyone has had some vaccine you look at data of what is working and give everyone with a less effective vaccine an additional dose of whatever works - which will probably be a new vaccine that doesn't exist yet! Don't forget that mutations are continuous. We might be looking at another mutation in 3 months as supply catches up that evades vaccines in a completely new way.
- zeku 6y ago
  To be fair the article claims they will have other vaccines available in a couple of weeks.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    That works both ways: the sooner the alternatives are available in adequate quantities, the less the harm (if there is anything to be concerned about) of continuing to use the AZ vaccine at least until then.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Fair point, but the others won't be available in adequate quantities anytime soon. I'm not sure where SA stacks up, but nobody is getting adequate quantities before this summer at best.
- curryst 6y ago
  > give everyone with a less effective vaccine an additional dose of whatever works - which will probably be a new vaccine that doesn't exist yet! I would be careful about assuming that's an option. The vaccines have been tested individually, but have not been tested together. It's not out of the realm of possibility that getting some combination triggers some kind of immune reaction or something else. > Don't forget that mutations are continuous. We might be looking at another mutation in 3 months as supply catches up that evades vaccines in a completely new way. This is, sadly, a reason for poorer countries to delay vaccination. If there's going to be a mutation that evades this vaccine, and you can only afford one round of vaccines for everyone, you'd be better off waiting for the vaccine that prevents both. Based on the last article about this, SA doesn't have the money to do 2 rounds of vaccines. A lot of the money was spent suspiciously, but now funding is limited. It seems that anyone who gets a subpar vaccine is just going to be stuck with subpar coverage.
mannykannot 6y ago
As a) is likely to reduce the serious cases faster, that seems like a point in its favor. One complication might be if people getting mild cases end up spreading the variant faster, because they are not incapacitated by it - but it is not as if it is having much difficulty spreading now, despite the serious cases it creates, as it seems to spread before it incapacitates. I don't think this possibility demands that we stop using this vaccine until this issue is unequivocally settled.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

roseway4 6y ago

Healthcare professionals are first in line in the South African vaccine rollout. It's possible that not protecting against moderate to severe illness is an inadequate outcome for this group. Skipping this group in order to vaccinate others may not be politically palatable.

mannykannot 6y ago
Skipping this group is not an inevitable consequence of continuing to uze the AZ vaccine. The rate at which this group can be vaccinated with other vaccines is an orthogonal issue. people in other groups may be unwilling to take the AZ vaccine, but so long as they are not being coerced to do so, this is not an issue.

jhawk28 6y ago

There have been serious side effects documented for these vaccines. Bruising, soreness, "covid mouth", miscarriages, deaths, anaphylactic shock, etc. The vaccine has also not been out long enough to know of any long term health issues. The data is not in whether they are effective against death. They didn't test the super vulnerable in the studies. If you look at the places that have high vaccination numbers, you don't actually see any significant drop in covid cases or deaths. If anything, those places are staying high while the rest of the world is dropping. They were released under emergency authorization which means that they haven't fully testing and verified them to the level that would normally be done. If they are as effective as the hype, we should be seeing significant positive results by now.

roseway4 6y ago
> miscarriages, deaths, anaphylactic shock I've seen coverage of anaphylaxis, but not death and miscarriages. Anaphylaxis is also extremely rare and causality is unproven. Would you please provide references for the other severe side effects you listed?
- jhawk28 6y ago
  https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/974345-1 https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/974345-1
  - roseway4 6y ago
    Is OpenVAERs a legitimate source of information for vaccine injury? The site claims the data is sourced from the HHS. Has this been validated? If so, is this raw data or has it been reviewed and vetted by HHS. Self-reported data from non-medical professionals likely needs significant vetting, analysis and interpretation.
jc_811 6y ago
Do you have a valid source for any of the information you just claimed?

tibbydudeza 6y ago

One of our local drug manufacturers will make up to 300 m doses of the J&J vaccine annually , so no need to depend on handouts from other countries.