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

FintanMcluskey

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Most of the trials so far have shown massive reduction in viral load in the upper airway, one of the biggest methods of transmission. Chances are that it will be the outcome.

Is this the trial for the Pfizer vaccine?

ACitizenErased

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Is this the trial for the Pfizer vaccine?

In trials the Pfizer vaccine cleared the nose of viral RNA.

The BNT162b2 vaccination also cleared the nose of detectable viral RNA in 100% of the SARS-CoV-2 challenged rhesus macaques within 3 days after the infection

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-data-preclinical-studies-mrna

Cordell

mohawk wrote: »

To expand on this point. The acceptable side-effects depends on risk v reward. What I mean is it acceptable to have more severe side-effects for stage 4 cancer then we do for an itchy rash. Vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore side effects for the vast, vast majority of people should be mild and not long lasting otherwise it’s not justifiable to approve the vaccines for use. There will be side effects there always are.

Any medicine, including vaccines, have a risk of serious side effects, including death. Let's take for example paracetamol and nurofen, they don't really treat anything, they just alleviate symptoms, basically just providing comfort. Yet, there are side effects like stroke, hearth attack and kidney failure associated with them, but they were still approved because the risk is low enough.

Gael23

A year of restrictions until vaccine is rolled out? https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-54371559

yosemitesam1

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Most of the trials so far have shown massive reduction in viral load in the upper airway, one of the biggest methods of transmission. Chances are that it will be the outcome.

A trial on 6 monkeys in controlled conditions is vastly different to hundreds of thousands of people in real world conditions. Without any hard data from the latter, I would be very sceptical of what will actually be achieved as there is no comparison between the two

smurfjed

Are we allowed to trust the Russians

First results of Russian coronavirus vaccine trial to include data from 5,000-10,000 people

Interim results from the late-stage human trial of Russia's main
coronavirus vaccine candidate could include data from 5,000 -10,000
participants, Denis Logunov, director at the Gamaleya Institute that
developed the vaccine, said on Monday.

Russia's plan to publish preliminary data about the Sputnik V jab as
early as November is likely to make it one of the first vaccine
developers to share any data from a final stage trial, known as Phase
III, but also puts it at odds with competitors.

The Sputnik V trial, involving 40,000 volunteers, has been underway in Moscow since the beginning of September.

Interim results, when published, will be based on the first 42 days
of monitoring participants, Gamaleya developers told Reuters last month.

Micky 32

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

A trial on 6 monkeys in controlled conditions is vastly different to hundreds of thousands of people in real world conditions. Without any hard data from the latter, I would be very sceptical of what will actually be achieved as there is no comparison between the two

You should have forwarded your CV to some of these vaccine researchers. They certainly need experts like yourself.

marno21

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

A trial on 6 monkeys in controlled conditions is vastly different to hundreds of thousands of people in real world conditions. Without any hard data from the latter, I would be very sceptical of what will actually be achieved as there is no comparison between the two

The negativity about the level of immunity provided by the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine seems to also frequently use points about the level of virus found in the noses of the monkeys used in their initial trials.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

marno21

Gael23 wrote: »

A year of restrictions until vaccine is rolled out? https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-54371559

Getting sick of this ****e in the media now. Literally every talking point in this article is the worst case scenario approach.

Yes all the vaccines may not work, but we have several in Phase III now and the data so far is promising.

Yes the entire population won’t be vaccinated the day the vaccine is approved - but the world is on hold waiting for this to end, vaccination of people will be made the utmost priority and will be done on a scale not seen before

Yes there may be logistical challenges involved but we can manage those - the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not doing so

Yes the vaccine won’t be 100% efficacious and may not provide total sterilising immunity - but if it can reduce severe covid-19 down to the level of a seasonal cold - we can return to normal

Beyond sick of articles laden with quotes from academics either outlining the worst case scenario as being the default outcome or else saying we can’t do this or that because it hasn’t been done before. It hasn’t been done before because we’ve never had reason to. There is no precedent here. There was no manual or playbook for this. All this is doing is creating even more anxiety in an already exhausted population

D.Q

marno21 wrote: »

Getting sick of this ****e in the media now. Literally every talking point in this article is the worst case scenario approach.

Yes all the vaccines may not work, but we have several in Phase III now and the data so far is promising.

Yes the entire population won’t be vaccinated the day the vaccine is approved - but the world is on hold waiting for this to end, vaccination of people will be made the utmost priority and will be done on a scale not seen before

Yes there may be logistical challenges involved but we can manage those - the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not doing so

Yes the vaccine won’t be 100% efficacious and may not provide total sterilising immunity - but if it can reduce severe covid-19 down to the level of a seasonal cold - we can return to normal

Beyond sick of articles laden with quotes from academics either outlining the worst case scenario as being the default outcome or else saying we can’t do this or that because it hasn’t been done before. It hasn’t been done before because we’ve never had reason to. There is no precedent here. There was no manual or playbook for this. All this is doing is creating even more anxiety in an already exhausted population

Click media is a disgrace.

This is an absolutely money train for them, of course they want it to keep rolling on.

smurfjed

UNICEF planning ahead...

NEW YORK — As the world awaits a COVID-19 vaccine, UNICEF has begun laying the groundwork for the rapid, safe and efficient delivery of the eventual vaccine by purchasing and pre-positioning syringes and other necessary equipment.
As soon as COVID-19 vaccines successfully emerge from trials and are licensed and recommended for use, the world will need as many syringes as doses of vaccine. To begin preparations, this year, UNICEF will stockpile 520 million syringes in its warehouses, part of a larger plan of 1 billion syringes by 2021, to guarantee initial supply and help ensure that syringes arrive in countries before the COVID-19 vaccines.

Le Bruise

Gael23 wrote: »

A year of restrictions until vaccine is rolled out? https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-54371559

That report is from 1st October. There seems to be far more confidence in the UK now.

Also, you're picking up the worse case scenario from the article with your 'a year of restrictions' statement.

polesheep

marno21 wrote: »

Getting sick of this ****e in the media now. Literally every talking point in this article is the worst case scenario approach.

Yes all the vaccines may not work, but we have several in Phase III now and the data so far is promising.

Yes the entire population won’t be vaccinated the day the vaccine is approved - but the world is on hold waiting for this to end, vaccination of people will be made the utmost priority and will be done on a scale not seen before

Yes there may be logistical challenges involved but we can manage those - the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not doing so

Yes the vaccine won’t be 100% efficacious and may not provide total sterilising immunity - but if it can reduce severe covid-19 down to the level of a seasonal cold - we can return to normal

Beyond sick of articles laden with quotes from academics either outlining the worst case scenario as being the default outcome or else saying we can’t do this or that because it hasn’t been done before. It hasn’t been done before because we’ve never had reason to. There is no precedent here. There was no manual or playbook for this. All this is doing is creating even more anxiety in an already exhausted population

The problem is that there has been a huge build up of expectations regarding possible vaccines. Over-promising by pharmaceuticals and politicians has fuelled this. In the public eye, science could come out of this either a hero or a villain. Hopefully there will be a vaccine that lives up to expectations but never trust a politician.

marno21

polesheep wrote: »

The problem is that there has been a huge build up of expectations regarding possible vaccines. Over-promising by pharmaceuticals and politicians has fuelled this. In the public eye, science could come out of this either a hero or a villain. Hopefully there will be a vaccine that lives up to expectations but never trust a politician.

The other side of that coin is that in a relatively similar modern time we have never seen such effort worldwide to progress a vaccine. Aside from the front runners there are over 200 vaccines in various stages of the development process. We have no precedent for this either.

FintanMcluskey

polesheep wrote: »

The problem is that there has been a huge build up of expectations regarding possible vaccines. Over-promising by pharmaceuticals and politicians has fuelled this. In the public eye, science could come out of this either a hero or a villain. Hopefully there will be a vaccine that lives up to expectations but never trust a politician.

Early on I stupidly thought that all pharmaceutical companies would pool together to create a vaccine, which would make sense from the point of view of unlimited resources.

It’s essentially a competition though, which is going to cause some to be sceptical until such a point that it is actually approved.

timsey tiger

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Early on I stupidly thought that all pharmaceutical companies would pool together to create a vaccine, which would make sense from the point of view of unlimited resources.

It’s essentially a competition though, which is going to cause some to be sceptical until such a point that it is actually approved.

If they all pooled together, we'd only have one vaccine (the favourite), how many times has the favourite won the grand national?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket and all that.

Breaking my thread ban just to say my heart goes out for ye. Had a few fairly distressing phone calls with my parents in Ireland this week and have been following it more closely. Awful stuff.

Won't post again.

polesheep

marno21 wrote: »

The other side of that coin is that in a relatively similar modern time we have never seen such effort worldwide to progress a vaccine. Aside from the front runners there are over 200 vaccines in various stages of the development process. We have no precedent for this either.

Very true. And a vaccine is just one aspect of the huge volume of work being done on Covid by scientists. When the pandemic is finally over it would be great to see that level of investment in science continue.

hynesie08

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Early on I stupidly thought that all pharmaceutical companies would pool together to create a vaccine, which would make sense from the point of view of unlimited resources.

It’s essentially a competition though, which is going to cause some to be sceptical until such a point that it is actually approved.

And if that one vaccine fails phase 3? Back to the drawing board.

I'd much rather 2 from 50 make it over the finish line.....

iguana

Irish Stones wrote: »

I just wouldn't want further side effects than I already received from this virus.
To me, the optimum would be zero side effects, because I have mine already, don't need more.

I'm still experiencing issues after a March infection. I have recurring costochondritis which I never had before. I still have waves of subactute thyroiditis as those issue works their way out. I have recurring oesophageal candida. The latter being caused by both some of the medication I still sporadically have to take. (PPIs to help mitigate the effects of the strong anti-inflammatories I occasionally need. I'm like the old lady who swallowed a fly.) And also because my immune system is weaker after dealing with (and over-reacting to) a novel virus.

So I'll be first in the damn queue for a vaccine because people can be reinfected with Covid, possibly very rarely, but the reality is, my immune system isn't at it's best. The very, very last thing I fancy doing is taking a stupid risk for no reason. So I've actually educated myself about the vaccine. I'm more than satisfied that it's safe. I understand exactly how it was possibly to test for efficacy and safety in an unusually short time frame. And I'm happy to do my part, my tiny, tiny part, to protect myself and others.

Marhay70

Apart from vaccines there are c. 3500 therapeutic treatments under development. The odds against all of these failing are remote so we'll have armies on two fronts in the fight.

tobefrank321

Covid 19 is a massively complex problem. The idea that a vaccine would solve it overnight is pie in the sky. The solution is going to be complex and time consuming, taking months and maybe even years. Many superspreaders at the moment are asymptomatic, eg the guy who infected 56 people. He believed because he had no symptoms he could go out and mix with people.
Prior to full vaccination superspreader events will be commonplace. Even with vaccination, they will still be common, if you are infectious for 3 days. That means infectious without a persistent cough etc. There's no reason to believe that even when vaccinated, you can't be infectious, if the virus survives in nasal cavities for 3 days.
After that you need a vaccine that protects the elderly and vulnerable, ie those with weakened immune systems. Problem is existing vaccines don't work so well for that category, so what hope a new one?
Its not negativity, its realism. Some people including some "experts" believe once we have a vaccine this thing will be over soon enough. It won't.

Maxpfizer

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Who cares about the risk to you? The risk is you pass it onto someone vulnerable. The world doesn't revolve around your health.

Surely we would want to vaccinate the vulnerable long before we get to anybody else though?

Even if people are to make their own choice on whether to rush to get the vaccine on Day One or not wouldn't we want to inform people well enough to make that decision.

If we've got a population of 4.9 million then it's going to take a significant amount of time to vaccinate everyone.

So with that in mind wouldn't you want people who have a 0.0002% risk to take a backseat while others get vaccinated first?

What would a reasonable amount of "vaccines per day" even be?
What will availability even be like?

Then there obviously is a weighing up of potential side effect risks.
Giving 4.9 million people a vaccine that was developed in 12 months or so is an extremely risky business.

Who wants to be sitting here in 10 years saying "that covid vaccine had bad consequences for a few thousand people"? How do we know how it will interact with other conditions and medications etc?

It's not going to be a simple as shaming people to the front of the line with "the world doesn't revolve around you".

zuutroy

Maxpfizer wrote: »

How do we know how it will interact with other conditions and medications etc?

A few thousand years of medical experience and literature maybe? It's not a case of George's Marvellous Medicine where they're mixing stuff from the garage in a bucket and injecting it into us.

Gael23

Le Bruise wrote: »

That report is from 1st October. There seems to be far more confidence in the UK now.

Also, you're picking up the worse case scenario from the article with your 'a year of restrictions' statement.

I’m not an anti vaxxer at all but I will only take a vaccine if life quickly returns to normal

Maxpfizer

zuutroy wrote: »

A few thousand years of medical experience and literature maybe? It's not a case of George's Marvellous Medicine where they're mixing stuff from the garage in a bucket and injecting it into us.

Fair enough but I thought the reason most treatments, medications etc go through such extremely rigorous testing is to discover these things before going to the public?

Just saying that the turnaround time is so short that it's difficult to trust that they haven't missed something.

Mistakes have been made before and while we have learned from those mistakes it doesn't mean we won't make more in the future.

So while they're not exactly mixing stuff in the garage in a bucket they are also not exactly spending 5 years finding the answer to "is it safe".

Le Bruise

Gael23 wrote: »

I’m not an anti vaxxer at all but I will only take a vaccine if life quickly returns to normal

If everyone said that, life would be very slow returning to normal! The more who take it, the quicker our lives get back on track.

Sconsey

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Fair enough but I thought the reason most treatments, medications etc go through such extremely rigorous testing is to discover these things before going to the public?

Just saying that the turnaround time is so short that it's difficult to trust that they haven't missed something.

Mistakes have been made before and while we have learned from those mistakes it doesn't mean we won't make more in the future.

So while they're not exactly mixing stuff in the garage in a bucket they are also not exactly spending 5 years finding the answer to "is it safe".

The two single biggest reasons these vaccines are being turned around so quickly are:
- we are not starting from scratch here, there has already been a lot of work done on similar viruses as a base to begin with
- Almost all aspects of development normally happen in sequence, in this case they are mostly happening in parallel. So manufacturing is happeing in parallel with phase 3 which is happening in parallel with phase 2, etc.

There is no wiating aound, that does not imply that anything is being skipped. If you look at the 5 year lifecycly you mention you would see that a lot of that time is waiting....they wait for early tests results before beginning to plan the first trials, they wait for one tiral to complete before begining to plan the second, they wait for phase three results before beginning to talk to manufactures, etc. Most of that waiting has been eliminated.

LuckyLloyd

marno21 wrote: »

Getting sick of this ****e in the media now. Literally every talking point in this article is the worst case scenario approach.

Yes all the vaccines may not work, but we have several in Phase III now and the data so far is promising.

Yes the entire population won’t be vaccinated the day the vaccine is approved - but the world is on hold waiting for this to end, vaccination of people will be made the utmost priority and will be done on a scale not seen before

Yes there may be logistical challenges involved but we can manage those - the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not doing so

Yes the vaccine won’t be 100% efficacious and may not provide total sterilising immunity - but if it can reduce severe covid-19 down to the level of a seasonal cold - we can return to normal

Beyond sick of articles laden with quotes from academics either outlining the worst case scenario as being the default outcome or else saying we can’t do this or that because it hasn’t been done before. It hasn’t been done before because we’ve never had reason to. There is no precedent here. There was no manual or playbook for this. All this is doing is creating even more anxiety in an already exhausted population

Love this post. Fair play!!

eigrod

marno21 wrote: »

Getting sick of this ****e in the media now. Literally every talking point in this article is the worst case scenario approach.

Yes all the vaccines may not work, but we have several in Phase III now and the data so far is promising.

Yes the entire population won’t be vaccinated the day the vaccine is approved - but the world is on hold waiting for this to end, vaccination of people will be made the utmost priority and will be done on a scale not seen before

Yes there may be logistical challenges involved but we can manage those - the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not doing so

Yes the vaccine won’t be 100% efficacious and may not provide total sterilising immunity - but if it can reduce severe covid-19 down to the level of a seasonal cold - we can return to normal

Beyond sick of articles laden with quotes from academics either outlining the worst case scenario as being the default outcome or else saying we can’t do this or that because it hasn’t been done before. It hasn’t been done before because we’ve never had reason to. There is no precedent here. There was no manual or playbook for this. All this is doing is creating even more anxiety in an already exhausted population

And you can be sure that the same outlets will move on to the next potential pandemic as soon as there’s nothing negative left to say about this one.