I was active as many others in the social networks at the beginning, in February 2020, accessing, comparing and interpreting first data about hospitalisations and victims.
I had to fly to Brussels for the annual ESCAPE General Assembly meeting. During my trip in February masks and hydrolacolic gel were almost totally sold out or not available yet in the airports; likely I had a few of them with me (bought anyway in advance at the pharmacy…). Italy was locked down, body temperature of travellers was systematically monitored in the italian airports meanwhile
Then following the news I started producing, comparing and twitting about curves of growing cases of Covid-19 in Italy as well as in France, demonstrating that the identical slopes of the two curves demanded France to take actions to anticipate the disaster that was already happening in Lombardia. You all know how that ended!
What happened next?
Finally some weeks later the lock down was adopted in France and we (at LAPP), because of the short-stock of masks in the country, during the March-May 2020 first lock-down period, we offered our help:
- on 24 March 2020 we decided to give our stock of masks and protective equipment to the doctors who will be able to manage it according to the needs of the nursing staff in our territory.
- We manufactured and offered a thousand of protective visors for the benefit of caregivers.
[…]
MUST to contribute in the battle against the COVID-19.
Dans les Alpes, la communauté scientifique se mobilise.
[…]
More in general over the past year research infrastructures, laboratories, scientific facilities have demonstrated their ability to deploy their knowledge and expertise rapidly for the benefit of society. However, one has not to forgive that fundamental research is always a source of scientific breakthroughs, driving innovation for society and one should prevent to put science on stage on times of crisis exclusively.
« The world after COVID-19 will need to be driven by a shared, long-term commitment to knowledge, inclusiveness, cooperation and solidarity. Fundamental research will be one of the cornerstones of such a world and, as such, requires strong support » (from EIROforum)
Let’s jump to the today issue: « Vaccine« .
Vaccination
We should leverage the open access to data and being in position to build our own opinion on facts. In the following I am collecting links and data about the Vaccines.
1. PFIZER
- FDA committee report
- A PowerPoint presentation
- The Pfizer clinical study
- Allergy recommendations from the CDC (centre for disease control and prevention)
- An article on PEG (polyethylen glycol)
- An article recently published in Science
- Last recommandations of the CDC (center of disease control and prevention) – USA
2. MODERNA
Some prompt comments from my side: The difference is that Pfizer did the over 16 study instead of the Moderna over 18. In any case, the two vaccines should not be used on kids. Another difference is the logistics: Pfizer should be stored at -70C Modern at -20C. It seems to me that Moderna’s data show known side effects for an above-normal vaccine, and Pfizer’s more important. Difference in mRNA amounts: Pfizer: 30ug of mRNa Modern: 100ug For the two vaccines, two injections are required to have an efficiency of 95% Pfizer day 1 and day 21 (after 3 weeks) Moderna day 1 and day 29 (after 4 weeks). In conclusion, I would say that the two vaccines are very similar.
3. AstraZeneca
This vaccine uses another, more classic vaccination strategy. It uses a non-replicative chimpanzee adenovirus. This means that it injects viral material into the body that has to penetrate the nucleus of the cell in order to be transformed into mRNA. Today, this type of vaccine already exists, such as the one against tuberculosis or seasonal flu. The strategy is the same as pfizer’s by targeting the spike protein and RBD. The study showed that efficacy is between 50% and 90% depending on the type of injection (1 or 2) at 4 or 12 weeks intervals. But it would seem that the efficacy is closer to 70%.
The efficacy study was carried out on a population aged between 18 and 55. The data for the over 55s should come in a few weeks with the phase III results.
This vaccine should not be used for the over 55s.
19 March 2021: « Nouvel épisode dans les aventures françaises du vaccin anti-Covid d’AstraZeneca : il sera désormais recommandé… aux plus de 55 ans uniquement, et «dans l’attente de données complémentaires, la HAS recommande d’utiliser les vaccins à ARNm chez les personnes éligibles à la vaccination âgées de moins de 55 ans», indique l’autorité sanitaire »(source: Le Figaro)
4. Johnson & johnson
This one uses the same strategy as AstraZeneca with an adenovirus. Efficacy would be around 66%. But it would seem that the efficacy on the South African variant is lower.
CovidTracker est un outil permettant de suivre l’évolution de l’épidémie à Coronavirus en France et dans le monde.
12/02/2021 Un résumé de cinq vaccins contre la Covid-19
Conclusion
Not yet ….