Single dose of AstraZeneca vaccine could result in 96.7% immunity in 4 weeks

[snoop1130]

At-risk people linked to a Covid-19 coronavirus cluster traced to entertainment venues, wait to be vaccinated with the CoronaVac vaccine, developed by China’s Sinovac firm, at a makeshift clinic at Saeng Thip sports ground in Bangkok on April 7, 2021. (Photo by Mladen ANTONOV / AFP)

 

A study of 61 patients shows that people who received the first dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have achieved 96.7% immunity within a month, compared to those who had recovered from the disease for 1-2 months, who have 92.4% immunity.

 

The study results were published by Dr. Yong Poovorawan, an expert virologist from Chulalongkorn University, on his private Facebook page.

 

According to the study, female patients gain higher immunity than male patients, while those under 60 years old gain higher levels of immunity.

 

Full Story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/single-dose-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-could-result-in-96-7-immunity-in-4-weeks/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2021-05-03

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[DJBenz]

Just now, snoop1130 said:

A study of 61 patients

Hardly a significant sample size.

 

1 minute ago, snoop1130 said:

The study results were published by Dr. Yong Poovorawan, an expert virologist from Chulalongkorn University, on his private Facebook page.

There would be much more benefit in publishing his results in a peer reviewed journal for other scientists to scrutinize.

[SmartyMarty]

Is this a study he has done personally? If so was the AZ from overseas? I’m guessing yes as the study took several months to complete. How does it stack up compared to overseas studies. Seems a very high result at a time when positive PR about AZ is not common. 

[sungod]

4 minutes ago, SmartyMarty said:

Is this a study he has done personally? If so was the AZ from overseas? I’m guessing yes as the study took several months to complete. How does it stack up compared to overseas studies. Seems a very high result at a time when positive PR about AZ is not common. 

 

I dont know Marty, at 100% effective against severe Covid I'd say that was quite positive PR!!!

[scubascuba3]

i have a feeling the duff Chinese vaccine will be sidelined and saved for the falang

[billd766]

29 minutes ago, DJBenz said:

Hardly a significant sample size.

 

There would be much more benefit in publishing his results in a peer reviewed journal for other scientists to scrutinize.

A lot depends on how many people were given the AZ vaccine and in what time period.

[4MyEgo]

52 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

A study of 61 patients shows that people who received the first dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have achieved 96.7% immunity within a month, compared to those who had recovered from the disease for 1-2 months, who have 92.4% immunity.

 

Confusing, first they start talking about the below:

 

"CoronaVac vaccine, developed by China’s Sinovac firm, at a makeshift clinic at Saeng Thip sports ground in Bangkok on April 7, 2021". 

 

Then they start talking about the above.

 

I thought AZ wasn't available till the 7th of June 2021 ?

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by 4MyEgo

[rabas]

A suspicious headline considering Thailand is behind, stuck with AZ, and short on supply.  Published on his personal facebook page? Yong is a world renowned doctor with a huge list of professional publications.

 

There must be more to it, especially as they just announced the purchase of  3.5M more doses of Sinovac.   It looks like infighting between the medical community and Anutin's faction.  In that case I agree with the good doctor, it "could be" that good, or at least much better than Sinovac.

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by rabas

[AnnieSeek]

What about mutations? 

[KhaoNiaw]

Just now, AnnieSeek said:

What about mutations? 

 

Doctors on the ground in India (not part of scientific studies) believe they are seeing patients who have already had 2 doses (vaccine not specified) and are requiring ICU treatment.  

[Banana7]

AZ does not approve this study nor the conclusion.

[wprime]

I would question the validity of this research. For n=61 when you constrain that all people counts have to be whole numbers, the only possible results he could get if he did his study properly (as in used a control group to estimate expected infections in the vaccinated group had they not been vaccinated) are:

 

Vaccinated group=60

Unvaccinated control group=1

Number infected in control group=1

Expected number of infected in vaccinated group=60

Infected number in vaccinated group=2

Immunity=96.7%

 

and

 

Vaccinated group=30

Unvaccinated control group=31

Number infected in control group=31

Expected number of infected in vaccinated group=30

Infected number in vaccinated group=1

Immunity=96.7%

 

Both are trivial cases where everyone in the control group got infected.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

very small sample size / composition and no peer review paper but consistent with final USA FDA AZ trials giving in fact 100% protection from Death & Hospitalization......plus UK Approved ..... that’ll do for me ...... but only if my dose made in western country.... now where is my private hospital notice to attend for AZ ( Europe)  Vax ?

[DJBenz]

35 minutes ago, billd766 said:

A lot depends on how many people were given the AZ vaccine and in what time period.

61. It says right there in the article. 

[kimamey]

59 minutes ago, SmartyMarty said:

Is this a study he has done personally? If so was the AZ from overseas? I’m guessing yes as the study took several months to complete. How does it stack up compared to overseas studies. Seems a very high result at a time when positive PR about AZ is not common. 

It seems to match the results I've seen elsewhere but in a single figure. The efficacy varies depending on age, gender ect. The Astrazeneca site says 100% effective against severe or critical disease or hospitalisation and slightly lower against lesser symptoms. 

[wprime]

4 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

very small sample size / composition and no peer review paper but consistent with final USA FDA AZ trials giving in fact 100% protection from Death & Hospitalization......plus UK Approved ..... that’ll do for me ...... but only if my dose made in western country.... now where is my private hospital notice to attend for AZ ( Europe)  Vax ?

 

Not consistent with existing research. The claim in the article is 96.7% immunity after 1 dose. See here:

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00432-3/fulltext

 

This larger study only found 76% immunity after 1 dose.

[Sheryl]

6 minutes ago, wprime said:

I would question the validity of this research. For n=61 when you constrain that all people counts have to be whole numbers, the only possible results he could get if he did his study properly (as in used a control group to estimate expected infections in the vaccinated group had they not been vaccinated) are:

 

Vaccinated group=60

Unvaccinated control group=1

Number infected in control group=1

Expected number of infected in vaccinated group=60

Infected number in vaccinated group=2

Immunity=96.7%

 

and

 

Vaccinated group=30

Unvaccinated control group=31

Number infected in control group=31

Expected number of infected in vaccinated group=30

Infected number in vaccinated group=1

Immunity=96.7%

 

Both are trivial cases where everyone in the control group got infected.

 

It does nto sound like they were measured infections, would have needed a vastly larger sample to do that (and such has already been done ,with tens of thousands of subjects).

 

It sounds like what they did was measure the presence of circulating antibodies in opeopek with the vaccine and peopelk recovering from COVID.

 

Of course antibody response was already extensively tested and documented in the earlier phase of vaccine development. Why they felt the need to do a small study here, I don't know.

[Sheryl]

2 minutes ago, wprime said:

 

Not consistent with existing research. The claim in the article is 96.7% immunity after 1 dose. See here:

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00432-3/fulltext

 

This larger study only found 76% immunity after 1 dose.

 

Entirely different studies with different outcome measures.  Lancet is reporting on efficacy in preventing "virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) " anytime more than 14 days after recipt of second immunization.

 

This small Chula study just measured antibody titers...and that within one month and after just one injection.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

And nothing new re the antibody response. That was ascertained long before AZ vaccine even progressed to Phase II/III trials.

[tomazbodner]

Is that fake news busting service from DSI active yet?

[Patong2021]

1 hour ago, SmartyMarty said:

Is this a study he has done personally? If so was the AZ from overseas? I’m guessing yes as the study took several months to complete. How does it stack up compared to overseas studies. Seems a very high result at a time when positive PR about AZ is not common. 

 

Evidence from EU  shows that much of the negative social media and discussion of Oxford vaccine originates with Russian and Chinese sources. It is obvious it is attempt to make trouble and to sabotage the Oxford vaccine. The Chinese vaccines have failed and Russia vaccine has questionable result against new variants. Not negative PR, but lengthy campaign of state sponsored sabotage.  China was hoping to win over  Asia with its  vaccine, but  with failure evident, it has doubled down on disinformation which too many fools accept without  questioning.

 

The Oxford based vaccine produced by Astra Zeneca is a victim of its honesty and transparency. The negative PR as you describe it has acted to make this one of the safest vaccines available today. Because the vaccine creators have been open about the potential of a rare form of blood clot, there are now screening  measures in place and a quick intervention protocol which has reduced the potential for injury even further.  This is in contrast to the Russian and Chinese vaccines of which no adverse reactions are reported.  Every vaccine and medication has side effect and potential for adverse reaction. The evidence from millions of  doses given in the past year is that the  Oxford vaccine is very safe.

 

 

 

 

 

[sammieuk1]

A double dose of AZ gets you 14 days ASQ the same as no vaccine Dr google Yong????

[wprime]

44 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

It does nto sound like they were measured infections, would have needed a vastly larger sample to do that (and such has already been done ,with tens of thousands of subjects).

 

It sounds like what they did was measure the presence of circulating antibodies in opeopek with the vaccine and peopelk recovering from COVID.

 

Of course antibody response was already extensively tested and documented in the earlier phase of vaccine development. Why they felt the need to do a small study here, I don't know.

 

You're probably right, I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

[Antonymous]

20 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Evidence from EU  shows that much of the negative social media and discussion of Oxford vaccine originates with Russian and Chinese sources.

 

I'm genuinely interested to see the source of this slur and what evidence (proof) they have on this. Can you provide links please?

 

I wonder if western nations that produce alternative vaccines have said anything negative about Sputnik and Sinovac?

[CLW]

Is Facebook now the place to be for publishing scientific results or have I missed something?

God, all these years I sent my papers to the wrong places....

[Bkk Brian]

22 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

 

I'm genuinely interested to see the source of this slur and what evidence (proof) they have on this. Can you provide links please?

 

I wonder if western nations that produce alternative vaccines have said anything negative about Sputnik and Sinovac?

On your first point:

 

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/russia-china-hyped-safety-concerns-to-sow-distrust-in-western-vaccines-eu-report-says-20210429-p57nb1.html

 

That said I'm not here to debate it with you just supplying you with the link you requested from the poster.

 

On your second point:

 

The western media/nations have mixed views on the Chinese and Russian vaccines, those are really as a result of lack of data on final studies, thats not an unreasonable request as without it then it sows distrust. 

 

The other piece of missing data is with all the 100's of millions of their vaccines already administered in their countries, not one study has been published on side effects, are they really that perfect?

 

As opposed to the numerous transparent reporting of adverse reactions in western studies.

[edwardandtubs]

I think most posters here are being a bit harsh on the doctor. How many Thai people are going to read peer-reviewed articles in the Lancet? What they're going to read is scare stories on social media about blood clots and the AstraZeneca vaccine being less effective than the Pfizer one. So the doctor is doing a public service in presenting research that Thai people can relate to and which also encourages them to have the vaccine. Good on him!

[gearbox]

Only 96.7% after only one jab? I was expecting 100% considering the ownership of the company which is going to produce AZ here ????

[KC 71]

2 hours ago, AnnieSeek said:

What about mutations? 

I read 29 Mutation Vaxes have been made already,and many more are in the pipeline.

[rabas]

Here is the study just posted on his facebook page an hour ago. You can use Google to translate. 

 

Dr. Yong AstraZenica study, facebook  .

 

Here is the primary data. It is based on the seroprevalence of antibodies as someone correctly suggested above.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by rabas

[madmitch]

So, in very simple term, 2 of those vaccinated persons were infected with Covid 19 after four weeks. No serious researcher would use results based on a sample of just 61 people.

 

Were these people all exposed to the virus or are the just random people who have had one vaccination? Despite figures being up, the virus is hardly rampant in Thailand.

 

Whatever, it doesn't seem to tie up with the original efficacy figures.