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

L'prof

lurker2000 wrote: »

Hi - The boss has agreed to pay for it .... but I'm pretty bummed out as I have abided by all the restrictions and thankfully had not passed it to any of my contacts due to safe practices. He's in bind I guess with a few of them getting together on this. I can understand people are worried but I've done my isolation as required.

Don’t take it personally. It’s more than likely a waste of time and money but if it puts your coworkers at ease when they may have vulnerable family to worry about then what’s the harm. Especially if your boss is paying for it. If I was asked to do it at my own expense I’d point blank refuse however as you’ve already followed the HSE guidelines

lurker2000

Thanks al; - tbh I just feel bummed that its so last minute and that any of them could have it now without knowing, yet I'm the leper.

Anyway, any ideas where I could get it done - will ring the GP in the morning for suggestions also ...

Jinglejangle69

lurker2000 wrote: »

Thanks al; - tbh I just feel bummed that its so last minute and that any of them could have it now without knowing, yet I'm the leper.

Anyway, any ideas where I could get it done - will ring the GP in the morning for suggestions also ...

Roc doc.

astrofool

funnydoggy wrote: »

That's the mRNA vaccine isn't it?

Wow. Reading about how that type of delivery could potentially be used for cancer treatments and the like. Amazing.

It's amazing, but a pandemic like this could end up having a positive effect for a range of diseases, as well as enable us to fight future pandemics much more effectively.

Kerry25x

stargazer 68 wrote: »

Unless you have been at home for 12 weeks another test wont show negative! When the HSE test the staff at nursing homes etc if you have had a positive test you cant be tested for another 12 weeks as you will still show remains of the virus.

Now my time could be inaccurate but that's from what I remember from drawing up the staff lists to submit to the HSE

This is completely right, you will like get a positive result again as you're shedding dead virus for weeks after. Working with covid patients I have seen this happen plenty of times.

mean gene

is_that_so wrote: »

Q3-Q4 for most people in that scenario.

any link to that

marno21

astrofool wrote: »

It's amazing, but a pandemic like this could end up having a positive effect for a range of diseases, as well as enable us to fight future pandemics much more effectively.

We got away lightly here. A virus that causes disease with an IFR ten times that of Covid-19 would still only be around 5%. Depending on other factors, possibly higher. A virus with pre-symptomatic transmission with a R0 similar to SARS-CoV-2, with a far higher rate is not inconceivable. Hopefully this pandemic wakes us up to the threat of rapidly spreading infectious disease the same was SARS was the reason Taiwan/HK/South Korea were so well able to contain this one.

Russman

marno21 wrote: »

We got away lightly here. A virus that causes disease with an IFR ten times that of Covid-19 would still only be around 5%. Depending on other factors, possibly higher. A virus with pre-symptomatic transmission with a R0 similar to SARS-CoV-2, with a far higher rate is not inconceivable. Hopefully this pandemic wakes us up to the threat of rapidly spreading infectious disease the same was SARS was the reason Taiwan/HK/South Korea were so well able to contain this one.

True enough.
But this one really is right in the sweet spot for what it’s doing imo. Not the most virulent but virulent enough, and not the most deadly, but deadly enough, to cause worldwide mayhem. Any deadlier or more virulent and people would be far more accepting of things and/or it could burn itself out.

Beasty

Threads merged

drunkmonkey

It's reported in the news this morning that the antibodies don't last long. Does that mean any vaccine will suffer the same faith and not offer protection without constant boosters?

It would also imply the the longer we drag this out the greater chance of reinfection for those who already had it.

Dressoutlet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's reported in the news this morning that the antibodies don't last long. Does that mean any vaccine will suffer the same faith and not offer protection without constant boosters?

It would also imply the the longer we drag this out the greater chance of reinfection for those who already had it.

Antibodies from vaccines tend to be stronger than antibodies created by natural exposure, also there's more to it than just antibodies, we have a whole host of armour in our immune systems.

is_that_so

mean gene wrote: »

any link to that

Not a specific one but it's been mentioned quite a lot as an estimate. It's a logical timeframe if, as expected, those most at risk are targeted first.

drunkmonkey

We can't test for T-cells at the moment from my understanding of the technology I don't think there even sure if they provide protection, considering the amount of asymptomatic people there must be some underlying immunity we already have from catching other coronaviruses.
It's probably something they need to figure out quickly at the moment all modelling assumes no underlying protection.

Hmmzis

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's reported in the news this morning that the antibodies don't last long. Does that mean any vaccine will suffer the same faith and not offer protection without constant boosters?

It would also imply the the longer we drag this out the greater chance of reinfection for those who already had it.

Let me guess, they're referencing the 3 month follow-up study in Nature, right?


Here is one out to 6 months, peer reviewed and all:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eji.202048970

The two main conflicting factors in all of these longitudal studies are detection assays used and selected time frames for follow-ups.

Irish Stones

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's reported in the news this morning that the antibodies don't last long.

My personal opinion is that once a person gets infected and recovers from it, they are immune, or we would see several thousands of cases of people getting reinfected, which is not happening.
There are hundreds of thousands of new cases daily, but a very little number of reinfections.

drunkmonkey

Hmmzis wrote: »

Let me guess, they're referencing the 3 month follow-up study in Nature, right?

No the imperial college london. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54696873

average_runner

Irish Stones wrote: »

My personal opinion is that once a person gets infected and recovers from it, they are immune, or we would see several thousands of cases of people getting reinfected, which is not happening.
There are undreds of thousands of new cases daily, but a very little number of reinfections.

In fairness, considering the amount of people infected in Ireland is low, it will be hard to see re-infected cases. But Sweden and the US have reported some already.


Don't think there is any immunity to any respiratory disease out there, so why is this different?

Irish Stones

average_runner wrote: »

In fairness, considering the amount of people infected in Ireland is low, it will be hard to see re-infected cases. But Sweden and the US have reported some already.


Don't think there is any immunity to any respiratory disease out there, so why is this different?

Please, bear with me.
Say that an infection takes a month on average to clear (30 days).
Say that the antibodies vanish after three months (90 days).
Now, Joe gets the coronavirus, and is clear from it on day 30, while his antibodies vanish on day 120.
Now, Joe would be at risk again, say from day 150?

Over here we had 100,000 cases of infections in March.
Then we had 100,000 further cases in April, and about 30,000 new cases in May.
They're 230+k in just three months.

Now, all these people, unless they unfortunately died (33k died in three months), are again subject to the infection, because for each of them the 120+ days have elapsed.

Say that about 1% of them gets the infection again (which is a very conservative number given the current environmental situation with 20,000+ cases everyday), so I'd expect that 2,000 persons would be reinfected.
Not all of them get on the news, say that only 1% of them get on the news (and I'm being conservative again here), we should have heard that in the last two months 20 persons, in this country only, have been reinfected.
And I haven't heard anything of the kind.

Just imagine if it isn't the 1% of the 1%, numbers should be incredibly high, and yet I haven't heard any news of the kind.

So I could say that people who get the coronavirus and recover from it are immune.

A few reported cases in the world is not surprise, after all we have 41+ millions cases worldwide, I would be surprised of the opposite.

I'm open to any explanation.

average_runner

Irish Stones wrote: »

Please, bear with me.
Say that an infection takes a month on average to clear (30 days).
Say that the antibodies vanish after three months (90 days).
Now, Joe gets the coronavirus, and is clear from it on day 30, while his antibodies vanish on day 120.
Now, Joe would be at risk again, say from day 150?

Over here we had 100,000 cases of infections in March.
Then we had 100,000 further cases in April, and about 30,000 new cases in May.
They're 230+k in just three months.

Now, all these people, unless they unfortunately died (33k died in three months), are again subject to the infection, because for each of them the 120+ days have elapsed.

Say that about 1% of them gets the infection again (which is a very conservative number given the current environmental situation with 20,000+ cases everyday), so I'd expect that 2,000 persons would be reinfected.
Not all of them get on the news, say that only 1% of them get on the news (and I'm being conservative again here), we should have heard that in the last two months 20 persons, in this country only, have been reinfected.
And I haven't heard anything of the kind.

Just imagine if it isn't the 1% of the 1%, numbers should be incredibly high, and yet I haven't heard any news of the kind.

So I could say that people who get the coronavirus and recover from it are immune.

A few reported cases in the world is not surprise, after all we have 41+ millions cases worldwide, I would be surprised of the opposite.

I'm open to any explanation.

How many people do you hear getting the flu more than once in a year ? Yet there is no immunity for it ? Even when a vaccine comes it will be only 70% effective per person, same as the flu vaccine

Marhay70

I could be completely wrong but logically i fail to see why antibodies would persist after recovery. Surely antibodies are there while your body is fighting the disease and once it has cleared there is no longer any need to produce them, the body uses other means to protect you.

Hmmzis

average_runner wrote: »

How many people do you hear getting the flu more than once in a year ? Yet there is no immunity for it ? Even when a vaccine comes it will be only 70% effective per person, same as the flu vaccine

The problem with flu is the antigenic drift, the damn thing keeps mutating away all the time. That really screws with vaccine efficacy for it and immune responses.

Would you have a source for the 70% efficacy claim for SARS-cov-2 vaccines? Which of them is that for? I haven't seen any phase 3 efficacy data yet, if you could provide a link to that it would be greatly appreciated. If it's true that sounds actually rather good.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Marhay70 wrote: »

I could be completely wrong but logically i fail to see why antibodies would persist after recovery. Surely antibodies are there while your body is fighting the disease and once it has cleared there is no longer any need to produce them, the body uses other means to protect you.

People tend to hold antibodies for years for many flu viruses.

I believe they are left over rather than constant production.

Micky 32

https://www.thejournal.ie/vaccine-covid-oxford-5245646-Oct2020/

Irish Stones

average_runner wrote: »

How many people do you hear getting the flu more than once in a year ? Yet there is no immunity for it ? Even when a vaccine comes it will be only 70% effective per person, same as the flu vaccine

Alright, the common seasonal flu can be caught twice (we don't know if we get the same virus twice though, there might be more than flu virus around), and it isn't something that gets on the news.

This coronavirus is strictly and closely monitored, a case of reinfection is a news for sure, as it has proved so far with the few cases reported.

Irish Stones

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

People tend to hold antibodies for years for many flu viruses.

I believe they are left over rather than constant production.

As far as I know, people do not hold antibodies, the immune system holds memory of the infection and can produce the right antibodies faster and more effectively than in the first event.
The memory of the immunity could reside in the T cells.

Hmmzis

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No the imperial college london. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54696873

Ah, thanks, there was a paper published in Nature yesterday that references UK data:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00813-8

Hence me thinking it could have been the same.

Marhay70

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

People tend to hold antibodies for years for many flu viruses.

I believe they are left over rather than constant production.

Yes, I can understand they would be left over but as with other agents in the body, presumably they would diminish over time. I just don't see that the presence or not of antibodies, is necessarily a reliable indicator of resistance to the disease.

average_runner

Hmmzis wrote: »

The problem with flu is the antigenic drift, the damn thing keeps mutating away all the time. That really screws with vaccine efficacy for it and immune responses.

Would you have a source for the 70% efficacy claim for SARS-cov-2 vaccines? Which of them is that for? I haven't seen any phase 3 efficacy data yet, if you could provide a link to that it would be greatly appreciated. If it's true that sounds actually rather good.

From the NPR:

As we get closer to a COVID-19 vaccine, it's exciting to imagine a day when the virus is gone. But a vaccine will not be a magic bullet. In fact, it may be only about 50% effective.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Health and Infectious Disease, has tried to set realistic expectations when discussing the importance of a vaccine. "We don't know yet what the efficacy might be. We don't know if it will be 50% or 60%," Fauci said during a Brown University event in August.
"I'd like it to be 75% or more," Fauci said, but he acknowledged that may not be realistic.
The Food and Drug Administration has said that once a vaccine is shown to be safe and at least 50% effective, it could be approved for use in the U.S.

Russman

Isn't the efficacy number to do with the amount of people protected rather than the level of protection ?
As I understand it, and I could be completely wrong, 70% efficacy would mean that 70% of people who take it are protected, as opposed to the people who take it are 70% protected - am I right in thinking this ?

Hmmzis

Irish Stones wrote: »

As far as I know, people do not hold antibodies, the immune system holds memory of the infection and can produce the right antibodies faster and more effectively than in the first event.
The memory of the immunity could reside in the T cells.

Antibodies are produced by B cells. T (helper) cells are needed to induce them.
The main types for this discussion would be:

Plasmablasts - short lived B cells that secrete all isotypes of Ig, they die off in a couple of weeks after an infection.

LLPC (Long lived plasma cells) - they are the ones that migrate to the bone marrow after an infection and can stay there for extended periods of time (years - life long). They secrete IgG constantly giving a stable background level of antibodies.

Memory B cells - also long lived, but they don't stay in the bone marrow. They don't produce a constant flow of antibodies, but instead can be activated by a T helper cell causing it to proliferate and initiate antibody production (anamnestic response).

(just skip the first paragraph unless you're into cell receptors):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012397933900014X