COVID-19 Vaccine Talk, 2nd Dose

[opendoor]

Interesting study on mix and match and the antibody response for 9 different combinations of Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J (which would probably be a pretty good proxy for AZ in Canada). Basic conclusion is, mix and match looks to be every bit as good as using two of the same brand in generating an antibody response. And for viral vector vaccines, boosting with an mRNA vaccine dramatically increases the antibody response and brings it more or less on par with 2 doses of mRNA. And interestingly, the reverse works very well too, where a 1st dose of mRNA with a 2nd dose of J&J produces a somewhat similar antibody response to 2 doses of mRNA.

Here's how the combos rank (first 8 are fairly close together with #9 being significantly lower):

1) Moderna -> Moderna
2) Moderna -> Pfizer
3) Pfizer -> Moderna
4/5) Pfizer -> Pfizer & J&J -> Moderna (basically the same)
6) J&J -> Pfizer
7) Moderna -> J&J
8) Pfizer -> J&J
9) J&J -> J&J (this was significantly lower than the rest)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1448353685965131779

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I know the crowd who have been anti-lockdown and never seen the need for lockdowns won't have their minds changed now, but there's no denying their effectiveness and overall benefit to a country dealing with COVID (absent of high vaccination rates). COVID-zero was the best approach worldwide.

It's far to early to make that assessment for countries like Australia and New Zealand, or any country for that matter. The tourism industry so heavily drives both of these countries that they will be feeling the effects of Covid-19 and the subsequent Covid zero policies, harsh border closures for years, if not decades.

If your metric is simply suppressing cases and deaths, that is one thing, but in terms of overall benefit (which would include caseload/death rates, the economy, mental health of the general population), you're going to have to look at this once the dust completely settles around the world in 4-5 years.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It's far to early to make that assessment for countries like Australia and New Zealand, or any country for that matter. The tourism industry so heavily drives both of these countries that they will be feeling the effects of Covid-19 and the subsequent Covid zero policies, harsh border closures for years, if not decades.

If your metric is simply suppressing cases and deaths, that is one thing, but in terms of overall benefit (which would include caseload/death rates, the economy, mental health of the general population), you're going to have to look at this once the dust completely settles around the world in 4-5 years.

How do you believe a shallower recession and better recovery over the last 2 years will more negatively impact them in five years?

EDIT: And on that point, but more specifically, do you believe the mental health impacts of economic expansion, low death rate, and an unemployment rate that rose by less than 2% will somehow turn out to be worse than extended recession, much higher death rates, and an unemployment rate that rose nearly 10%?

There are certain things we can wait and see about. I don't think it's correct regarding some of what you listed, and I don't believe it's going to take decades to find out. Especially, as I stated, there are phases to this thing we can separate out. We know New Zealand's approach was economically beneficial compared to many, many others. We know it protected the population physically (and mentally, if your choice is between lockdowns and seeing those around you die). We know it this now. What happens over the next year might mean a different situation a year from now, and 4-5 years down the line will account for all of it. But taking 5 years of during and (hopefully) post-pandemic and trying to judge the entire thing is going to be impossible. To actually learn anything from it, we need to look at it from a more micro level than that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Death rate, impact on the healthcare system, economic impact... there are a lot of things one could go by that show NZ in very favourable light. They've done well. They had some tough lockdowns, but they also had extended periods of being absolutely free and clear, living as normal.

Vaccine supply has been an issue, but seems to be resolved now. They've fully vaccinated nearly 40% of the population in the last two months, and are at 80% of eligible with one dose (just 6% behind Canada), 57% with two. In terms of availability, they are roughly 4 months behind Canada, so their numbers are good, given that fact. The percentage of double vaccinated will likely meet ours in a matter of weeks.

As we've seen across the globe, vaccine supply is a difficult thing to manage. Some countries did very well securing it (Canada, the US, the UK, Russia, China) and other countries like Australia and New Zealand struggled. Does it have an effect on their overall handling of the pandemic? Of course. But they are also issues that can be evaluated separately, and outside of the vaccine rollout there is no ground to stand on in saying New Zealand was anything but fantastic in their handling of the pandemic to that point. And honestly, their vaccine rollout, even with the delay, does not change that fact all that much.

I know the crowd who have been anti-lockdown and never seen the need for lockdowns won't have their minds changed now, but there's no denying their effectiveness and overall benefit to a country dealing with COVID (absent of high vaccination rates). COVID-zero was the best approach worldwide.

A question I would like to see studied coming out of this is would it have been possible for a euro zone country or a country like Canada to unilaterally lockdown while their major trading partners did not.

I don’t think any country that actively went for zero cases was unsuccessful and the Atlantic bubble was successful closer to home so that lends credibility to Canada being able to have done it. But could say France or Canada have done it successfully? I don’t think we have seen good research discussing that yet.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It's far to early to make that assessment for countries like Australia and New Zealand, or any country for that matter. The tourism industry so heavily drives both of these countries that they will be feeling the effects of Covid-19 and the subsequent Covid zero policies, harsh border closures for years, if not decades.

If your metric is simply suppressing cases and deaths, that is one thing, but in terms of overall benefit (which would include caseload/death rates, the economy, mental health of the general population), you're going to have to look at this once the dust completely settles around the world in 4-5 years.

Did anyone actually think COVID zero is a practical policy?

As soon as we began seeing how effective the vaccines were, the solution was to get everyone vaccinated, not keep restrictions and lockdowns in place for 300+ days while twiddling around on vaccination supply, nevermind employing highly restriction lockdowns that kept businesses closed that could easily operate with minimal risk.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Azure

Did anyone actually think COVID zero is a practical policy?

As soon as we began seeing how effective the vaccines were, the solution was to get everyone vaccinated, not keep restrictions and lockdowns in place for 300+ days while twiddling around on vaccination supply, nevermind employing highly restriction lockdowns that kept businesses closed that could easily operate with minimal risk.

It was a practical policy, in absence of vaccines.

I don't believe any country has preferred lockdowns over vaccine procurement and rollout. New Zealand's issue was supply. Whether they were lower priority or their contracts weren't as favourable to manufacturers who had other obligations to meet is unclear, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be. It hasn't been that simple for most of the world.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Aw look at poor Australia, we should save them from their overbearing situation!

Also, China! Those poor people with their overbearing government!

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Also, China! Those poor people with their overbearing government!

https://www.news.com.au/world/corona...8f7ed7833a7522

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

https://www.news.com.au/world/corona...8f7ed7833a7522

That’s going to INCREASE vaccinations in Australia.

[You Need a Thneed]

Pfizer has submitted the data to Health Canada for approval for 5-12 year olds.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Pfizer has submitted the data to Health Canada for approval for 5-12 year olds.

Have they done any analysis in terms of the recommended dose (which I understand for Pfizer is 1/3 of a "regular" dose)?

My kid is 11 and turns 12 next year. If this gets approved before the end of the year, presumably they'll offer the 1/3 dose, whereas if we wait until January would they offer the full dose? Seems like a big difference, no?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Have they done any analysis in terms of the recommended dose (which I understand for Pfizer is 1/3 of a "regular" dose)?

My kid is 11 and turns 12 next year. If this gets approved before the end of the year, presumably they'll offer the 1/3 dose, whereas if we wait until January would they offer the full dose? Seems like a big difference, no?

I believe the kids were trialed at 10 (mg?) and the adult dose for Pfizer was 30.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

That’s going to INCREASE vaccinations in Australia.

Yeah I was making a joke about those protests that were happening. Then China came up somehow.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

How do you believe a shallower recession and better recovery over the last 2 years will more negatively impact them in five years?

EDIT: And on that point, but more specifically, do you believe the mental health impacts of economic expansion, low death rate, and an unemployment rate that rose by less than 2% will somehow turn out to be worse than extended recession, much higher death rates, and an unemployment rate that rose nearly 10%?

There are certain things we can wait and see about. I don't think it's correct regarding some of what you listed, and I don't believe it's going to take decades to find out. Especially, as I stated, there are phases to this thing we can separate out. We know New Zealand's approach was economically beneficial compared to many, many others. We know it protected the population physically (and mentally, if your choice is between lockdowns and seeing those around you die). We know it this now. What happens over the next year might mean a different situation a year from now, and 4-5 years down the line will account for all of it. But taking 5 years of during and (hopefully) post-pandemic and trying to judge the entire thing is going to be impossible. To actually learn anything from it, we need to look at it from a more micro level than that.

View it from economics or mental health or however you want, but I can tell you having family in both of these countries, that neither Australia or NZ has weathered this storm in a way that would permit their respective population to be content enough to pat themselves on the back for being what amounts to the best of the worst.

People lost their livelihoods due to lack of foreign investment and tourism etc. and many people still saw loved ones die despite more harsh restrictions in place - neither country was above this despite their handling of the pandemic either. Can much be learned by looking at it now, yes, I'll give you that, but considering the mental health, and physical health fallout that is still so far removed from being known, together with the hesitancy for widespread tourism to get back to pre-pandemic levels in either country, much of this is still not yet quantifiable.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Azure

Did anyone actually think COVID zero is a practical policy?

As soon as we began seeing how effective the vaccines were, the solution was to get everyone vaccinated, not keep restrictions and lockdowns in place for 300+ days while twiddling around on vaccination supply, nevermind employing highly restriction lockdowns that kept businesses closed that could easily operate with minimal risk.

Actually it was most definitely being handled as a practical policy in Aus and NZ. As early as 2-3 months ago they were both still pushing Covid 0 and keeping the borders closed until next June, at the earliest, after the Australian election had concluded.

These Island nations were able to function relatively normally (albeit without foreign tourism and the inability to visit loved ones abroad) from last October to this July and this lead many citizens to feel like they didn't need to worry about rushing to take vaccines despite many doses being available to them. How quickly things change.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I know the crowd who have been anti-lockdown and never seen the need for lockdowns won't have their minds changed now, but there's no denying their effectiveness and overall benefit to a country dealing with COVID (absent of high vaccination rates). COVID-zero was the best approach worldwide.

What works for sparsely populated islands with very warm weather doesn't necessarily work for everyone.

A true Covid zero response in Canada, among other things, would have relied on closing all US land crossings (including commercial ones), which wasn't feasible. You can get things down to zero, but if you're allowing any kind of non-citizen in without isolation, then you've wasted the effort.

You've also ignored economic factors. What about people who require support workers? The homeless?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

View it from economics or mental health or however you want, but I can tell you having family in both of these countries, that neither Australia or NZ has weathered this storm in a way that would permit their respective population to be content enough to pat themselves on the back for being what amounts to the best of the worst.

People lost their livelihoods due to lack of foreign investment and tourism etc. and many people still saw loved ones die despite more harsh restrictions in place - neither country was above this despite their handling of the pandemic either. Can much be learned by looking at it now, yes, I'll give you that, but considering the mental health, and physical health fallout that is still so far removed from being known, together with the hesitancy for widespread tourism to get back to pre-pandemic levels in either country, much of this is still not yet quantifiable.

The argument is not that they were unaffected thanks to COVID-zero. The argument is that they were affected less, and in some respects significantly so.

Did people die in NZ from COVID? Yes. 28 people.
Did people die in Australia from COVID? Yes. About 1,500 people.

How about Canada's 28,000? 720,000 in the US? We're talking 0.0005% and 0.005% vs. 0.07% and 0.2% respectively. Many people still saw loved ones die? Sure, but it absolutely pales in comparison. If the US had the same death rate as New Zealand they would be at 2,000 deaths, not over 700k. Saying "people still died" misses the difference in severity between these things completely.

No, no one was "above" the effects. But when it comes to deaths, mental health, physical health, economic impact, people losing their jobs, etc. there is nothing to support the idea that COVID-zero was anything but the best approach available at the time when it was viable. There just isn't.

If your argument is that the pandemic has been tough on the entire world, you'll find no one to dispute that. But when we're talking about the approach of countries pre-vaccine, we can measure that. We do not need to wait 5 years to do so. And given that the vaccine changes the environment around the world completely, you'll get no more data than you have today on it. What you will get is data pulled from a different environment. Whether New Zealand builds upon their success in an environment of vaccine availability is a new issue and a new variable that will heavily dictate what 5 years from now looks like. But the original point was whether lockdowns worked, and whether COVID-zero was a viable approach. They did, and it was. It was the best approach by any measure. That doesn't mean it is today, but that's not the argument.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

What works for sparsely populated islands with very warm weather doesn't necessarily work for everyone.

A true Covid zero response in Canada, among other things, would have relied on closing all US land crossings (including commercial ones), which wasn't feasible. You can get things down to zero, but if you're allowing any kind of non-citizen in without isolation, then you've wasted the effort.

You've also ignored economic factors. What about people who require support workers? The homeless?

The bolded is not really how it worked in New Zealand. They still imported goods.

Aside from that, my point was not that everyone could have done it exactly the way New Zealand did and failed for not doing so. I'm not even sure why we need to recycle this conversation. COVID-zero was the ideal approach, and lockdowns were beneficial and successful from both an economic and health perspective, compared to similar countries/areas that did not lockdown.

There were no economic factors ignored. These are facts. And my position is not one I pulled from thin air, it's taken from reading the positions of economists who seem to collectively agree that lockdowns (and in many areas, much more aggressive ones) were the best route to limiting the economic impact of the pandemic. Are they all ignoring economic factors? I don't know. I hope not?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The bolded is not really how it worked in New Zealand. They still imported goods.

Aside from that, my point was not that everyone could have done it exactly the way New Zealand did and failed for not doing so. I'm not even sure why we need to recycle this conversation. COVID-zero was the ideal approach, and lockdowns were beneficial and successful from both an economic and health perspective, compared to similar countries/areas that did not lockdown.

There were no economic factors ignored. These are facts. And my position is not one I pulled from thin air, it's taken from reading the positions of economists who seem to collectively agree that lockdowns (and in many areas, much more aggressive ones) were the best route to limiting the economic impact of the pandemic. Are they all ignoring economic factors? I don't know. I hope not?

The virus doesn't survive very well on objects. New Zealand's only regular contact (non-personal) with other nations is unloading shipping containers. That's not so for Canada. We have all sorts of actual people traveling across the border for non-personal reasons every day.

Another factor to consider is that Canada already had far more cases of Covid than than New Zealand did by the time any sort of lockdowns came into effect.

There wasn't a single nation in Canada's climate zone that managed to get things down to zero. The closest was probably......Iceland, also an island state.

When you're pushing for zero, when it simply isn't possible, you're putting unnecessary restrictions into place and causing economic damage that doesn't need to happen. It's easy to think of the "economy" as some abstract place where greedy people make money. But the reality is that it's actually small businesses, family debt, life savings, etc.. that your affecting.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

The virus doesn't survive very well on objects. New Zealand's only regular contact (non-personal) with other nations is unloading shipping containers. That's not so for Canada. We have all sorts of actual people traveling across the border for non-personal reasons every day.

Another factor to consider is that Canada already had far more cases of Covid than than New Zealand did by the time any sort of lockdowns came into effect.

There wasn't a single nation in Canada's climate zone that managed to get things down to zero. The closest was probably......Iceland, also an island state.

When you're pushing for zero, when it simply isn't possible, you're putting unnecessary restrictions into place and causing economic damage that doesn't need to happen. It's easy to think of the "economy" as some abstract place where greedy people make money. But the reality is that it's actually small businesses, family debt, life savings, etc.. that your affecting.

Not true, as we've seen that restrictions that keep cases low (in cases where zero is not possible) and allow for limited spread are more beneficial than nothing. We've seen no evidence that restrictions and lockdowns cause more economic damage than COVID spread. We've seen the exact opposite.

The non-bolded isn't particularly relevant to the point. You're trying to discuss why Canada couldn't have been exactly like New Zealand, but that's not an argument that is being made.

I'm not sure what your line about the economy not being an abstract place of greed comes in. That sounds like a nonsense straw man. Who are you speaking to with that? We are all part of the economy if we're working, and many are who are not. The economy, which includes all of us, is worth saving, no? Lockdowns and restrictions helped to protect it. COVID-zero was the ideal state. You seem somewhat confused in thinking our options were either achieving it, or not trying for it, as attempting COVID-zero in an impossible scenario was damaging, but no evidence whatsoever supports that. We know now that lockdown type measures were economically saving compared to the alternative, not damaging. This is no longer a theoretical debate, so if you're treating it that way, you're behind.