NACI not recommending the use of AstraZeneca for seniors over 65 on Canada.

[CITIZEN_2015]

While Health Canada still promotes the "Get what is available to you" approach,  Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) is not currently recommending the newly approved covid-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca be used on people aged 65 or older.

According to their website his is “due to limited information on the efficacy of this vaccine in this age group at this time.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/7670304/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-seniors-over-65-canada-naci/

Edited March 2, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[Aristides]

They are finding it has good efficacy now that it is actually in mass usage but it will take awhile for real world evidence to modify more narrow trial data. 

[Argus]

The headline is misleading. All they are saying is that they don't have enough information yet because it wasn't tested on enough seniors. However, it is being given to millions of seniors in the UK now and it is proving to be quite effective and safe.

[CITIZEN_2015]

The headline says NACI is not recommending AstraZeneca for people aged 65 and over and that is exactly what it is at present time.

I am fed up with Health Canada and public health officials of bad or late decisions causing harm and death to population, I gave a few examples in other threads.

1 - They took action on border closure and quarantines too late after the virus was established here.

2 - They did not advise on wearing masks for several months after pandemic after virus spread well to every corner.

3- They negotiated for vaccine contract not smart enough as they should have put a commitment for early delivery or substantial fines.

4 - It took Health Canada too long to approve vaccines already approved and used in all other western democracies including the US causing unnecessary delays and deaths and that is for all 3 eventually approved vaccines and they are doing the same with Johnson and Johnson. Every week means more unnecessary deaths.

I can list more but i think i got my point across.

[Aristides]

It isn't approved for people over 65 simply because few people over 65 were included in the trials. Some countries are using it and some are not.  Experience with it in Scotland and France are showing very high immunity rates in people over 65. UK vaccination rates are so high because they are producing and using  a lot of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The US government has decided not to allow any export of vaccines to anyone until all Americans have been vaccinated. It doesn't matter what kind of contracts we negotiated. We are just damn lucky the EU didn't do the same.

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

41 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 Experience with it in Scotland and France are showing very high immunity rates in people over 65. UK vaccination rates are so high because they are producing and using  a lot of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

 

Please don't misinform. France had banned the use of AstraZeneca for those aged 65 and over till yesterday. The ban was lifted just yesterday so how could France have shown very high immunity for AstraZeneca as of the date of your post 24 hours after lifting the ban!!!!!!!

It may indeed proven to work but those incompetent health professionals cannot tell me i don't have a choice in what to put in my body. This is not a dictatorship like Russia or Iran.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Please don't misinform. France had banned the use of AstraZeneca for those aged 65 and over till yesterday. The ban was lifted just yesterday so how could France have shown very high immunity for AstraZeneca as of the date of your post 24 hours after lifting the ban!!!!!!!

It may indeed proven to work but those incompetent health professionals cannot tell me i don't have a choice in what to put in my body. This is not a dictatorship like Russia or Iran.

So why did they approve it?

[myata]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

It isn't approved for people over 65 simply because few people over 65 were included in the trials. Some countries are using it and some are not.  Experience with it in Scotland and France are showing very high immunity rates in people over 65. UK vaccination rates are so high because they are producing and using  a lot of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

By the way that (the trials) was last year and now there are new strains that are spreading fast and expected to become dominant very soon. So how effective is it NOW, rather than last year?

Turn on the "oh so new" muzak?

[Aristides]

52 minutes ago, myata said:

By the way that (the trials) was last year and now there are new strains that are spreading fast and expected to become dominant very soon. So how effective is it NOW, rather than last year?

Turn on the "oh so new" muzak?

That goes for all of them. It's the world we live in.

[OftenWrong]

First it was disapproved buy a few countries. Health experts advised on that. Then the politicians stepped in. They've got a whole lot of beans tied up in this soup pot. Smells like rat to me.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

That goes for all of them. It's the world we live in.

This isn't entirely correct, as there's data on the efficacy of Phizer and Moderna vaccines against new variants. But again, looks like it's nobody's responsibility to figure that out, unlike preaching on the importance of vaccination. Plus collect the pay and pension plan from the public. Sounds familiar?

[Aristides]

32 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

First it was disapproved buy a few countries. Health experts advised on that. Then the politicians stepped in. They've got a whole lot of beans tied up in this soup pot. Smells like rat to me.

It's the most inexpensive vaccine out there and it is open source. Not much money is being made from it. It has crushed hospitalizations in the UK. They are a quarter of what they were a month and a half ago.

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, myata said:

This isn't entirely correct, as there's data on the efficacy of Phizer and Moderna vaccines against new variants. But again, looks like it's nobody's responsibility to figure that out, unlike preaching on the importance of vaccination. Plus collect the pay and pension plan from the public. Sounds familiar?

There is on the AstraZeneca as well. It is similar to the others on the British variant but not good against the South African. Of course its SA efficacy is academic if one of the other strains gets you first

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

It's the most inexpensive vaccine out there and it is open source. Not much money is being made from it. It has crushed hospitalizations in the UK. They are a quarter of what they were a month and a half ago.

Nobody else wants it. Superpowers are using the fancier sauce. It's like the excuses we are hearing for having the shots 4 months apart, or 6 shots per vial, or just one dose out of two.

Yes it's better than nothing at all, but what I see coming for Canadians is that our vaccination program will be seen as sub-standard.

Thank you Justin...

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Nobody else wants it. Superpowers are using the fancier sauce. It's like the excuses we are hearing for having the shots 4 months apart, or 6 shots per vial, or just one dose out of two.

Yes it's better than nothing at all, but what I see coming for Canadians is that our vaccination program will be seen as sub-standard.

Thank you Justin...

The UK's high vaccination rate is because of the AstraZeneca vaccine because they are manufacturing it themselves. Daily hospitalizations have gone from over 4000 to about 1000 since the middle of January. Total hospitalizations have been cut in half.

[OftenWrong]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The UK's high vaccination rate is because of the AstraZeneca vaccine because they are manufacturing it themselves. Daily hospitalizations have gone from over 4000 to about 1000 since the middle of January. Total hospitalizations have been cut in half.

When did they begin giving the vaccine, and at what rate were people vaccinated? It could be too soon to say the decline in numbers is because of the vaccine.

The numbers worldwide already showed a steady decline beginning in January to now. Canada's daily infection numbers went from about 10,000 in January to 3,000/day now, and hardly any vaccine has been given out.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

When did they begin giving the vaccine, and at what rate were people vaccinated? It could be too soon to say the decline in numbers is because of the vaccine.

The numbers worldwide already showed a steady decline beginning in January to now. Canada's daily infection numbers went from about 10,000 in January to 3,000/day now, and hardly any vaccine has been given out.

They started on the 4th of January. By the end of February over 20 million had one dose and 796,000 had both doses.

Total doses don't tell the story because the first to be vaccinated were the elderly and most vulnerable. That's why hospitalizations and deaths would be way down.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Aristides

[CITIZEN_2015]

So it appears Ontario is now may be following NACI.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-won-t-administer-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-to-seniors-final-plan-still-in-the-works-1.5330467

Ontario will limit the AstraZeneca vaccine to people under the age of 65 on the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee for Immunization (NACI), Ontario’s Health Minister confirmed, but the province is still finalizing the plan for who will be prioritized for that shot.

[myata]

10 hours ago, Aristides said:

The UK's high vaccination rate is because of the AstraZeneca vaccine because they are manufacturing it themselves. Daily hospitalizations have gone from over 4000 to about 1000 since the middle of January. Total hospitalizations have been cut in half.

This is such a clear example of the false cause fallacy I wonder if you work anywhere near that industry, certainly would explain much about what happened with the Covid response in this country so far. Let's recall that last summer cases dropped to almost nothing and there wasn't even a vaccine only VERY SMART POLICY.

[cannuck]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

It's the most inexpensive vaccine out there and it is open source. Not much money is being made from it. It has crushed hospitalizations in the UK. They are a quarter of what they were a month and a half ago.

Yes, that is what I hear from my closest friend in UK.   A month ago, 6 of his 8 wards (ped surg) were tied up with adult COVID cases, A-Z helping reduce that significantly.

To the naysayers: NO vaccine or any other pharmaceutical is 100% effective or safe.  There are risks and the consequences CAN be serious - but overall in the Western world, we do a decent job of measuring and communicating those risks.  BUT: don't ever doubt that the dollars involved can significantly distort what you see and hear.  I was told months ago that the NHS (obviously in UK) would be paying $15-16 US per dose for Pfizer but more like 2 for Astrazenica.  Considering the UK came from zero to hero with this product all internally, pretty impressive accomplishment.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, myata said:

This is such a clear example of the false cause fallacy I wonder if you work anywhere near that industry, certainly would explain much about what happened with the Covid response in this country so far. Let's recall that last summer cases dropped to almost nothing and there wasn't even a vaccine only VERY SMART POLICY.

We know cases go down when the days get warmer and longer, they do with other viruses as well. The upsurge in late fall was predicted and happened. The introduction of vaccines and the resulting huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths happened in January and February, not the summer. False cause fallacy my ass.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

Yes, that is what I hear from my closest friend in UK.   A month ago, 6 of his 8 wards (ped surg) were tied up with adult COVID cases, A-Z helping reduce that significantly.

I'm no immunologist but it seems implausible. The vaccine has not been out long enough, and was not given out widely enough to reliably claim these assertions.

- As stated, case numbers dropped linearly from January until now.

- There is no "vaccine bump" in the curve yet, which would make sense if the vaccine caused a sudden dramatic decline in numbers when it came out.

- When the vaccine came out, it was not given all at once but gradually over a period of weeks. The first few weeks had far less people inoculated. The number inoculated to present levels is cumulative and only recent.

- On top of this it takes a week or two for the vaccine to work in the immune system. There would be a bit of a delay in the data for people to go out and NOT get infected, before it shows itself.

So while I understand the need for cheers and big hurrahs, sorry but it don't add up. Sounds unscientific to me.

Edited March 3, 2021 by OftenWrong

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

False cause fallacy my ass.

So there are only two possible causes, seasonal and vaccine. So smart (but we already knew that, didn't we).

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

I'm no immunologist but it seems implausible. The vaccine has not been out long enough, and was not given out widely enough to reliably claim these assertions.

- As stated, case numbers dropped linearly from January until now.

- There is no "vaccine bump" in the curve yet, which would make sense if the vaccine caused a sudden dramatic decline in numbers when it came out.

- When the vaccine came out, it was not given all at once but gradually over a period of weeks. The first few weeks had far less people inoculated. The number inoculated to present levels is cumulative and only recent.

- On top of this it takes a week or two for the vaccine to work in the immune system. There would be a bit of a delay in the data for people to go out and NOT get infected, before it shows itself.

So while I understand the need for cheers and big hurrahs, sorry but it don't add up. Sounds unscientific to me.

Except the first people vaccinated were the elderly and vulnerable, the people who make up most of the hospitalizations and deaths by far, so if the vaccines are effective you should see a marked decrease starting two or three weeks after vaccinations started.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Aristides

[OftenWrong]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Except the first people vaccinated were the elderly and vulnerable, the people who make up most of the hospitalizations and deaths by far, so if the vaccines are effective you should see a marked decrease starting two or three weeks after vaccinations started.

Without analyzing all the data all I can say is it's possible. Let's hope it is a light at the end of the tunnel.

But if that is the case, begs the question why we didn't do as some experts said, and as some other countries actually did, as protesters called for to focus on protecting the elderly first and foremost. Exactly what we should have done and proves we would have seen improvement without the vaccine, had we followed a more well-informed approach.