COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

mohawk

Gael23 wrote: »

Yes nurses can give vaccines but I don’t see a GP surgery being able to cope. I think the HSE will have to set up clinics.

Regarding my comment about it being mandatory, there could be something like if you don’t have it then you are not allowed work in an office, you must work from home and kids must have it in order to go to school.
Something along those lines

I don’t think there will be much support for making it mandatory. We don’t make other vaccines mandatory. How practical is it to make it mandatory if it’s a vaccine that needs boosters etc. It’s a tough line to cross.

Vaccine is only part of solution. Treatments will get better and more will be approved.

Sconsey

Eli Lilly have paused their antibody treatment trial over a safety concern, doesn't seem to be much detail available on what the suspected problem is but Gates seems reasonably confident that it will still make it into production and distribution later next year....

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/10/14/bill-gates-on-eli-lilly-pausing-antibody-trial-due-to-safety-concerns.html

faceman

Very interesting, thanks for the replies folks!

Beasty

Threads merged

Le Bruise

Strumms wrote: »

I don’t know how long it will take to vaccinate the country but if at a guess on average we can vaccinate about 24,000 people per day. I base this on there being about 2,500 active gps in active practice and obviously the vaccine being in continuous supply and available to them. Each gp would be vaccinating 9 people per day so it’s a conservative number. People making an appointment to get a sore foot looked at receive the vaccine if they haven’t received it already.

Also an IMPORTANT point : Nurses who are qualified can give the flu jab, it doesn’t need to be a doctor I’m reading. If a qualified nurse can give you a flu vaccine as they can in my gp surgery it would be logical to presume that they can too give you the covid vaccine.

Maths isn’t my strong point but the vaccine could be administered countrywide in about 180-200 days ‘roughly’.....

I assume they'll set up drive through vaccination centres, not unlike the testing centres now. That should significantly reduce the time to get through the willing population.

Hmmzis

Rolling review for Moderna's vaccine candidate starting also in the EU:

https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-receives-confirmation-eligibility-submission-marketing

That's three of the candidates now in the same rolling review process in both the EU and Canada.

JDD

Tell me this - do we have a constitutional right to healthcare?

Can we not say to people that don't take the vaccine that they can't be treated in the public system, and will have to pay for health treatment privately if they get sick from covid?

This isn't like not treating a smoker if they get heart disease or cancer, because you could have gotten heart disease or cancer from a million other things (including genetics). If you get sick from covid, it's because you didn't get the vaccine. There's a fairly straight correlation.

So that leaves it open to people who don't want to risk taking the vaccine, but they can pay for private health insurance to cover any eventual costs if they do get infected?

On a side note, and I know this sounds selfish, but I understand that the vaccine won't be able to be distributed across the whole world in a couple of months. That doesn't mean we can't return to close to normal within a month or two of the vaccine being distributed here. The way the world is, western first world countries will get the vaccine first because they have paid for it. Covid outbreaks in Ireland will still happen for another couple of years - probably stemming from travel from a 2nd or 3rd world country, or localised outbreaks amongst anti-vaxxers, but they won't be widespread enough to overwhelm the hospital system. And once the hospital system can cope, we can go back to not wearing masks and going to concerts and pilates and matches. That's the way I see it anyway.

CIARAN_BOYLE

JDD wrote: »

On a side note, and I know this sounds selfish, but I understand that the vaccine won't be able to be distributed across the whole world in a couple of months. That doesn't mean we can't return to close to normal within a month or two of the vaccine being distributed here. The way the world is, western first world countries will get the vaccine first because they have paid for it. Covid outbreaks in Ireland will still happen for another couple of years - probably stemming from travel from a 2nd or 3rd world country, or localised outbreaks amongst anti-vaxxers, but they won't be widespread enough to overwhelm the hospital system. And once the hospital system can cope, we can go back to not wearing masks and going to concerts and pilates and matches. That's the way I see it anyway.

There's an argument that once the vulnerable are vaccinated we would be able to significantly reduce restrictions.

I'll leave defining vulnerable for this purpose down to public health.

Sweet.Science

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

There's an argument that once the vulnerable are vaccinated we would be able to significantly reduce restrictions.

I'll leave defining vulnerable for this purpose down to public health.

Can't see that . The vulnerable aren't even making it to hospital . Need a lot more taking it

speckle

JDD wrote: »

Tell me this - do we have a constitutional right to healthcare?

Can we not say to people that don't take the vaccine that they can't be treated in the public system, and will have to pay for health treatment privately if they get sick from covid?

This isn't like not treating a smoker if they get heart disease or cancer, because you could have gotten heart disease or cancer from a million other things (including genetics). If you get sick from covid, it's because you didn't get the vaccine. There's a fairly straight correlation.

So that leaves it open to people who don't want to risk taking the vaccine, but they can pay for private health insurance to cover any eventual costs if they do get infected?

On a side note, and I know this sounds selfish, but I understand that the vaccine won't be able to be distributed across the whole world in a couple of months. That doesn't mean we can't return to close to normal within a month or two of the vaccine being distributed here. The way the world is, western first world countries will get the vaccine first because they have paid for it. Covid outbreaks in Ireland will still happen for another couple of years - probably stemming from travel from a 2nd or 3rd world country, or localised outbreaks amongst anti-vaxxers, but they won't be widespread enough to overwhelm the hospital system. And once the hospital system can cope, we can go back to not wearing masks and going to concerts and pilates and matches. That's the way I see it anyway.

You might not understand that there are people who have had documented adverse reactions to some vaccines, there are also vaccine non responders. For people with some autoimmune diseases there are potential issues aswell. Take RA they have to avoid the yellow fever vaccine. There is also the issue of ADE and what of people that already have transverse myelitus or ms.

Vaccination or not can be a complex issue for some people who are already high risk and a decision should be made with their specialist. Should they be refused healthcare?

JDD

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Can't see that . The vulnerable aren't even making it to hospital . Need a lot more taking it

Those going to hospital are not necessarily the vulnerable. And the restrictions are to stop hospitalisations, not deaths.

I think you could have 60% of the country vaccinated in two months if you set up drive through clinics and allowed pharmacists and district nurses to administer the vaccine. Pharmacists already do the flu vaccine right?

There'd be a sharp drop off after that as while another 10/15% might want to take the vaccine, they'll probably wait six months to make sure there isn't any side effects. Some of those probably won't bother at the six month mark if the restrictions are largely lifted.

JDD

speckle wrote: »

You might not understand that there are people who have had documented adverse reactions to some vaccines, there are also vaccine non responders. For people with some autoimmune diseases there are potential issues aswell. Take RA they have to avoid the yellow fever vaccine. There is also the issue of ADE and what of people that already have transverse myelitus or ms.

Vaccination or not can be a complex issue for some people who are already high risk and a decision should be made with their specialist. Should they be refused healthcare?

No. But I imagine if they get certified by their doctor that they are at high risk for an adverse reaction, then they can be included in the public system. That seems to be a fairly straightforward certification.

Those are a very small number of the population though. The vast majority of the people who won't take this vaccine are those who don't like needles, read rubbish on facebook, and won't see the need to take it once restrictions are lifted and they can rely on herd immunity. If there are too many of those people then the herd immunity won't work, so we need some form of incentive to ensure that those people do get the vaccine.

Gael23

JDD wrote: »

Those going to hospital are not necessarily the vulnerable. And the restrictions are to stop hospitalisations, not deaths.

I think you could have 60% of the country vaccinated in two months if you set up drive through clinics and allowed pharmacists and district nurses to administer the vaccine. Pharmacists already do the flu vaccine right?

There'd be a sharp drop off after that as while another 10/15% might want to take the vaccine, they'll probably wait six months to make sure there isn't any side effects. Some of those probably won't bother at the six month mark if the restrictions are largely lifted.

Are 60% willing to have it though

CIARAN_BOYLE

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Can't see that . The vulnerable aren't even making it to hospital . Need a lot more taking it

Depends on your definition of vulnerable.

If you vaccinate those over 70 anyone with diabetes anyone who is on a regular treatment for any lung issue and anyone who has ever had a heart attack I would guess you could half hospitalisations for a given number of cases.

I've no idea what % of the population that is and how much effort it would take to vaccinate.

Deeper Blue

I honestly feel that if the chance of a return to normal is on the table the majority of people will take a vaccine.

Cordell

JDD wrote: »

Can we not say to people that don't take the vaccine that they can't be treated in the public system, and will have to pay for health treatment privately if they get sick from covid?

There is no need for that, if 80+% are taking it then it's gone, it won't spread anymore, or if it does it will be so limited that's not going to be a problem anymore. And there is an obligation to treat people even from self inflicted injuries.

JDD

Gael23 wrote: »

Are 60% willing to have it though

I honestly don't know. I expect that those who are elderly or vulnerable will. However I can't see lots of people bringing their young children to be vaccinated because of the newness of the vaccine. Which means the virus will still circulate for six months.

Your target market will be 30-55 year olds. They are the ones who could end up putting strain on the hospital system if there isn't a large uptake in vaccinations.

is_that_so

More Russian vaccines

In Russia scientists have registered their second coronavirus vaccine and, they reckon, they are on their way to a third.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/oct/14/coronavirus-live-news-restrictions-tighten-across-europe-global-cases-near-38m?page=with:block-5f871b6e8f081eee1eee365c#block-5f871b6e8f081eee1eee365c

speckle

JDD wrote: »

No. But I imagine if they get certified by their doctor that they are at high risk for an adverse reaction, then they can be included in the public system. That seems to be a fairly straightforward certification.

Great, thankyou, because most stuff I read here is very polarized into one camp or the other. I believe part of the problem in making it mandatory pushes some people further away, there has really been a neglection of public health information in this country probably due to underfunding and into that vaccuum extremists grow on both sides. One side wanting everybody vaccinated for everything all of the time and the others the opposite.I believe in public health education, I don't think ranting at the opposition helps, get down on their level address properly peoples fears and where they are coming from. And the pro vaccination side needs to be upfront on failures, as pushing them aside contributes to the negativity/fear.
And take into account depending on the disease/age profile for example, you dont necessarily need a 100% uptake.Maybe vaccinations should not be in private business hands, that might help. Think of the negative issues we had here regarding vaccines in the late 60s and early 70s, those people are still alive. Making certain things mandatory in health may be a slippery slope.



I could go on, but more importantly I will ask again here, of the people who post reguarily on this topic any news of the later trials and the vaccines being tested on people with autoimmune disorders or neuroligical disorders like MS? Some of us are in the high risk catorgory and really need information if we are to potentially be on the first group offered. Thanks

JDD

Cordell wrote: »

There is no need for that, if 80+% are taking it then it's gone, it won't spread anymore, or if it does it will be so limited that's not going to be a problem anymore. And there is an obligation to treat people even from self inflicted injuries.

You're quite right, if there is an 80% uptake there is no need for it.

But if there's only a 50% uptake there might be a need for it.

And you are not refusing them treatment. You're just telling them they have to pay for treatment.

Perhaps it could be means tested. Medical card holders get into the public system, vaccination or not. People earning more should not.

I don't see why my tax money should pay for treatment of someone who has refused to take the vaccine for no valid medical reason, and can afford to pay for the treatment themselves.

hmmm

speckle wrote: »

I could go on, but more importantly I will ask again here, of the people who post reguarily on this topic any news of the later trials and the vaccines being tested on people with autoimmune disorders or neuroligical disorders like MS? Some of us are in the high risk catorgory and really need information if we are to potentially be on the first group offered. Thanks

I don't believe so at the moment. All the trials publish their eligibility criteria (e.g. Oxford in Brazil - see down the end: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04444674 )

The impression I get is that most of these vaccines will be initially tested on relatively healthy adults, and assuming those trials go well the Regulators are likely to ask them to be expanded to other groups.

If enough healthy people take the vaccine, we won't even need to give the vaccine to people with less healthy immune systems. That's why combatting the misinformation and lies from the anti-vax group is so important, and why those on the fence need to be told to get down off the fence and do their bit for society.

is_that_so

UK study examining the genetic element of responses to COVID-19 and the potential use of existing drugs.

A U.K. group studying more than 2200 COVID-19 patients has pinned down common gene variants that are linked to the most severe cases of the disease, and that point to existing drugs that could be repurposed to help. “

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/found-genes-sway-course-coronavirus

Hmmzis

is_that_so wrote: »

More Russian vaccines




https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/oct/14/coronavirus-live-news-restrictions-tighten-across-europe-global-cases-near-38m?page=with:block-5f871b6e8f081eee1eee365c#block-5f871b6e8f081eee1eee365c

Interesting, it's a peptide based vaccine. I wonder what constructs and epitopes they ended up going for?

More on peptide vaccines:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7094793/

Theoretically, if you've done your homework on the epitopes and adjuvants, these sort of vaccines should be exceedingly safe.

Call me Al

JDD wrote: »

I honestly don't know. I expect that those who are elderly or vulnerable will. However I can't see lots of people bringing their young children to be vaccinated because of the newness of the vaccine. Which means the virus will still circulate for six months.

Your target market will be 30-55 year olds. They are the ones who could end up putting strain on the hospital system if there isn't a large uptake in vaccinations.

The vaccine will have been well tested by the time it's the turn of otherwise healthy children.
First it will be HSE staff, the very vulnerable and those in nursing homes and those who are medically compromised in some way. This is where the real risks to the health service lie. This phase of the rollout will take months. I expect it will be the second half of 2021 before my children even get a sniff of a vaccine for this.

ACitizenErased

Faucis confident
https://twitter.com/norahodonnell/status/1316464903125954560?s=21

hmmm

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Faucis confident
https://twitter.com/norahodonnell/status/1316464903125954560?s=21

This confidence is new. I've never heard him use dates like that before.

He might not know how the phase 3 trials will go, but he definitely knows the manufacturing capability.

ACitizenErased

hmmm wrote: »

This confidence is new. I've never heard him use dates like that before.

He might not know how the phase 3 trials will go, but he definitely knows the manufacturing capability.

I wouldn’t even say he’s being conservative, that’s quite close

charlie14

hmmm wrote: »

I don't believe so at the moment. All the trials publish their eligibility criteria (e.g. Oxford in Brazil - see down the end: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04444674 )

The impression I get is that most of these vaccines will be initially tested on relatively healthy adults, and assuming those trials go well the Regulators are likely to ask them to be expanded to other groups.

If enough healthy people take the vaccine, we won't even need to give the vaccine to people with less healthy immune systems. That's why combatting the misinformation and lies from the anti-vax group is so important, and why those on the fence need to be told to get down off the fence and do their bit for society.

I am by no means any form of an authority on vaccines. Not that it would make any difference if I was.
From attempting to engage with anti-vaxers on these threads it would be much less frustrating, and probably more successful, trying to teach drunk monkeys to play chess.

hmmm

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/10/14/immunity-and-re-infection

"we’re not seeing a trend for viral evolution in directions that could increase re-infection or evade the antibodies that are raised by the existing vaccine candidates. "

Really good article (again from Derek Lowe) about reinfections.

tobefrank321

hmmm wrote: »

I don't believe so at the moment. All the trials publish their eligibility criteria (e.g. Oxford in Brazil - see down the end: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04444674 )

The impression I get is that most of these vaccines will be initially tested on relatively healthy adults, and assuming those trials go well the Regulators are likely to ask them to be expanded to other groups.

If enough healthy people take the vaccine, we won't even need to give the vaccine to people with less healthy immune systems. That's why combatting the misinformation and lies from the anti-vax group is so important, and why those on the fence need to be told to get down off the fence and do their bit for society.

You'd need a very high uptake among the healthy or at the very least those in regular contact with the old or vulnerable. There will have to be zero tolerance for those working in health services who don't get the vaccine. This mess and the lockdowns that go with it won't end until deaths and hospitalisations of those most at risk also end.

Regards anti vaxxers, sadly they don't have to prove a vaccine causes serious side effects, all they have to do is cast doubt in enough people. If people are unsure they will avoid the vaccine.