Moderna

Wednesday May 12, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 12, 2021

What happens when people get two different COVID-19 vaccines?

As some experts continue to warn of very rare side effects associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, Canadian health officials are now reviewing the research on mixing various COVID-19 shots.

May 6, 2020

A study of a “mismatched” vaccine regimen is underway in the U.K. — but some scientists say there’s reason to believe that administering two doses of different products could boost a person’s immune response beyond what can be achieved by giving the same shot twice.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) caused some confusion earlier this month when it said the viral vector shot from AstraZeneca is not the “preferred” product given its associated risk of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) — a condition that causes blood clots. That warning came out after hundreds of thousands of Canadians had received the AstraZeneca vaccine already.

According to the Ontario Science Table, estimates of the frequency of VITT in individuals who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine now range from 1 case in 26,000 to 1 case in 127,000 doses administered.

The risk of developing this side effect, combined with an uncertain delivery schedule for future supply, has prompted some provinces to consider pausing AstraZeneca vaccinations altogether.

Researchers at Oxford University in the U.K. launched a study in early February to explore the possible benefits of alternating different COVID-19 vaccines. According to the lead scientists, the study is “looking for clues as to how to increase the breadth of protection against new virus strains.”

March 31, 2021

The study — otherwise known as the COVID-19 Heterologous Prime Boost study, or “Com-COV” — is collecting data to determine whether receiving two different types of vaccine generates an immune response at least equal to the response that follows receiving the same product twice. (A “heterologous” vaccination regimen is one that uses more than one product.)

Dr. Helen Fletcher is a professor of immunology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the U.K. She said a “mismatched” vaccine program would deliver some practical benefits — vaccine delivery logistics would be greatly simplified — but there could be another good reason to pursue a mixed-dose regimen.

“I’m excited about the study because I think it’s likely that the immune response will be even better if you mix and match vaccines,” Fletcher said in an interview with CBC News.

Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, said last week the current guidance is for AstraZeneca recipients to get a second dose of the same product, but NACI is now reviewing the Oxford research on mixing AstraZeneca with an mRNA shot.

“There will be further advice forthcoming on that second dose based on the evolving science. We should watch this space,” Tam said. 

Will Canada shorten the time between shots? Possibly. NACI said in early March that, given the limited vaccine supply, provinces and territories may want to wait up to 16 weeks between first and second doses to give more people at least some level of protection.

The provinces have since followed this guidance, with a few exceptions. For example, many long-term care home residents have been fully vaccinated on the timeline recommended by the vaccine makers. Pfizer calls for a second dose 21 days after the first, while Moderna stipulates the second shot should come 28 days later. (CBC) 

 

 

Tuesday March 2, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday March 2, 2021

Partisan chess games in times of the pandemic

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he doesn’t want a pandemic election. Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole has shown signs he wants any election call to be later rather than sooner. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has said he will not help to topple the government until the vast majority of Canadians are immunized against COVID-19.

October 8, 2020

So why are there more signs nearly every day that we are heading for the polls late this spring or at latest next fall? 

The short answer is because we cannot believe any of the main party leaders. They all know Canadians, by and large, are too preoccupied with the pandemic to be distracted by an election campaign. They know, too, that a campaign and national vote during the pandemic is bound to carry more risks than in normal times. None of them wants to wear that, so they are all saying the right thing.

But they are politicians, after all. They have watched while voters went to the polls in New Brunswick on Sept. 14 and rewarded Premier Blaine Higgs for rolling the dice. B.C. Premier John Horgan did the same and it paid off on Oct. 24 when he was soundly re-elected. Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe did it and voters ultimately rewarded his Saskatchewan Party with a fourth majority mandate. So it turns out there may well be partisan benefits for political leaders who gamble on pandemic elections. 

September 1, 2020

Not always, though. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey called an election for Feb. 13, but COVID-19 had other plans. After variants caused several outbreaks, in-person voting was cancelled and the election was delayed for more than half the province. The results are still unknown. 

The Newfoundland and Labrador election mess should serve as a reminder to federal party leaders that if the country goes into a COVID crisis during the campaign, their partisan gamesmanship could turn into a political nightmare. In that respect, only the NDP’s Singh as actually saying the right thing: No election until Canada has achieved herd immunity.

It would be a pleasant change if both Trudeau and O’Toole came out publicly sharing Singh’s position. They could then legitimately say they were putting the interests and welfare of Canadians ahead of partisanship. It would also be nice if COVID-19 mysteriously disappeared around the world. The two things are about equally likely.

January 22, 2021

But if they know that an election is riskier than usual — consider what would happen to the leader who forced an election if a Newfoundland and Labrador scenario unfolded nationally — what are the two leaders and their inner circles thinking?

O’Toole and his brain trust are probably not in a hurry, but they will play an election and play it hard if it happens. Their fundraising has been strong so their war chest will be full. They know Trudeau’s brand has been battered somewhat by the slower than promised acquisition of COVID vaccines. What they also know but would be unwilling to acknowledge is that O’Toole is struggling to establish a leadership brand Canadians find appealing, especially in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and to a lesser extent in B.C. And they are stuck at about 30 per cent support in opinion polls, which is the same as when Andrew Scheer led the party.

December 5, 2020

As for Trudeau, he has seen his popularity slide, but he also sees support for his party remaining strong, especially in central and eastern Canada, which means they would win an election if it was held today. But could they eke out a majority? And if they don’t, why force an election at all? 

History has shown that minority governments can work. Trudeau and O’Toole might want to consider that as they play high-stakes partisan chess. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)