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

jackboy

Sconsey wrote: »

It would be great if you could provide a single example.

Primetime last night.

Sconsey

jackboy wrote: »

Primetime last night.

Go on....

Micky 32

Sconsey wrote: »

It would be great if you could provide a single example.

I think he/she is going by the spin of all ‘boards’ experts on here.

I think Jackboy will be deeply disappointed when he sees the difference the vaccines/treatments are going to make to life.

stephenjmcd

Gael23 wrote: »

Anything to be read into this?
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-first-covid-vaccines-likely-to-be-imperfect-and-might-not-prevent-infection-says-taskforce-boss-12116593

Its literally a round about way of saying they won't make you immune. Think that's common knowledge, well it should be.

Irish Stones

astrofool wrote: »

In the meantime, I sell the apples, and try and ensure the masks I have go where is needed to avoid a panic
When masks have been manufactured, I start selling them as well

And tell everybody the masks save lives, that is the opposite to what they said earlier.
So when they say something else, who is going to believe them?

Like I said, wouldn't it have been wiser to produce everything, rather than just food and fashion, or anything else? After all, a pandemic was expected, it wasn't a matter of if, but of when.

jackboy

Micky 32 wrote: »

I think he/she is going by the spin of all ‘boards’ experts on here.

I think Jackboy will be deeply disappointed when he sees the difference the vaccines/treatments are going to make to life.

Personal attacks.

The majority opinions of experts now is that the first generation of vaccines are unlikely to end restrictions and social distancing.

virginmediapls

TomSweeney wrote: »

sure !!


:rolleyes:

Why are you rolling your eyes at a reasonable dissenting opinion?

Thanks for your input in this conversation, Tom.

jackboy

jackboy wrote: »

Personal attacks.

The majority opinions of experts now is that the first generation of vaccines are unlikely to end restrictions and social distancing.

It was highlighted on this thread a few days ago that the head of the Jenner Institute is hopeful the UK will have the pandemic under control by late spring 2021 through use of vaccinations. That's a reasonable aim.

People really need to just be patient and wait for the efficacy and safety data, once that's published we'll all have a better idea of where this is going. Everything until that point is speculation.

FintanMcluskey

Micky 32 wrote: »

I think he/she is going by the spin of all ‘boards’ experts on here.

I think Jackboy will be deeply disappointed when he sees the difference the vaccines/treatments are going to make to life.

It’s literally what was discussed on national television last night by people more educated and knowledgeable on the topic than the “boards experts”.

Micky 32

jackboy wrote: »

Personal attacks.

The majority opinions of experts now is that the first generation of vaccines are unlikely to end restrictions and social distancing.

Opinions are not the same as facts. The results of the trials aren’t even out yet. There are leaks that are saying some of the vaccines are producing a strong immune response in the ederly. If you have to use that trash primetime as an example of an opinion says a lot really.

Micky 32

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

It’s literally what was discussed on national television last night by people more educated and knowledgeable on the topic than the “boards experts”.

So you’re saying they have all the data released from the
Pharma companies and based their “ opinion” on that?

FintanMcluskey

Micky 32 wrote: »

So you’re saying they have all the data released from the
Pharma companies and based their “ opinion” on that?

It sounds like you have?

Micky 32

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

It sounds like you have?

A typical answer to avoid the question.

FintanMcluskey

Micky 32 wrote: »

A typical answer to avoid the question.

I don’t know what data they are using to form the opinion they have formed

dominatinMC

dominatinMC wrote: »

I agree. The end game is when the virus is sufficiently suppressed, so that the health service can function as normal whilst also having the capacity to deal with any covid patients. I think this is what the experts mean when they say "living with the virus". It's fairly obvious that the disease cannot be eradicated now, and a zero covid policy probably isn't a feasible option for us given the NI border.

However, the question remains - at what point do we settle for an adequate approach, rather than seeking a perfect solution? Some are still stating that we will be living with social distancing for a long time, even with a vaccine. That's fine, when looking at the problem from a purely medical perspective. However, social distancing is destroying economies (not to mention the wellbeing of the general public) and at what point do we (or more precisely, the government) decide to abandon it. For instance, if the vaccine has an efficacy of 75% and an uptake is 75%, then that is 56% protection - will that be considered enough? I guess we will have to wait and see how that translates to hospital admissions. Because, as cold and callous as it sounds, at some point the risk to the economy will exceed the risk to public health, and a decision will have to be made to move on. I can only see these voices growing louder as we move into 2021.

Correct me if I'm being thick here but surely 56% would be more than enough to relax restrictions? At our level of growth in the last 2 months didn't the R0 number peak at 1.4? If half the population are vaccinated surely the R0 is virtually guaranteed to be below 1 most of the time so the virus can't really run rampant?

I'm hoping expectations aren't too high for this, we shouldn't have a locked down country at that point..

Hmmzis

Pfizer not going to have a readout this week:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/27/no-news-on-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-is-good-news-and-bad-news/

Reason being, not enough cases in the study participants to do so.

Gael23

Hmmzis wrote: »

Pfizer not going to have a readout this week:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/27/no-news-on-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-is-good-news-and-bad-news/

Reason being, not enough cases in the study participants to do so.

On reading the article this can potentially be very good news if it turns out the participants have been protected from infection

stephenjmcd

Hmmzis wrote: »

Pfizer not going to have a readout this week:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/27/no-news-on-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-is-good-news-and-bad-news/

Reason being, not enough cases in the study participants to do so.

Could look at it either way really, its either a) doing what it's supposed to do or (B) There's less infection circulating which slows things down, Oxford flagged similar in the UK at the tail end of the first wave and moved trials to Brazil.

Pfizer still seem confident of submitted for EUA in late November. Personally I'd have AstraZeneca/Oxford slightly ahead of them.

A wait and see really, I think only the orange idiot in the white house might have expected full results by now seeing as he built the claim of a vaccine before the election which the CEOs basically dismissed straight away

CIARAN_BOYLE

AdamD wrote: »

Correct me if I'm being thick here but surely 56% would be more than enough to relax restrictions? At our level of growth in the last 2 months didn't the R0 number peak at 1.4? If half the population are vaccinated surely the R0 is virtually guaranteed to be below 1 most of the time so the virus can't really run rampant?

I'm hoping expectations aren't too high for this, we shouldn't have a locked down country at that point..

It depends.

R number 1.6 only happened with level 2 restrictions.

1.4 was dublin 1.2 rest of country around 1.6 when dublin was level 3.

What is the vaccine going to do? Will it reduce symptoms or produce immunity. If it produces immunity 75% uptake and 75% efficacy will be enough for us to have parties in the street.

If it provides a reduction of symptoms it is likely to increase asymptomatic transmission. 75% uptake and 75% efficacy might mean we can do 2000 cases a day without straining the health service which is an improvement but restrictions will be a part of our lives.

75% efficacy whatever the effect would still be a great number. I'd rather 20% efficacy and proper immunity though that wouldn't get passed the trails boards afaik.

plodder

Gael23 wrote: »

On reading the article this can potentially be very good news if it turns out the participants have been protected from infection

But, the control participants are not reporting infection either, which is frustrating. I wonder will this raise the possibility of human challenge trials again. That would definitely be the quickest way to get results, but they are reluctant to go down that road. I believe one such trial is planned in the UK in the new year.

You'd have to wonder if the kind of person willing to take part in a trial like this, is also taking other precautions like vitamins which could be reducing the incidence among the group.

astrofool

Irish Stones wrote: »

And tell everybody the masks save lives, that is the opposite to what they said earlier.
So when they say something else, who is going to believe them?

Like I said, wouldn't it have been wiser to produce everything, rather than just food and fashion, or anything else? After all, a pandemic was expected, it wasn't a matter of if, but of when.

At the beginning all that could be said was it was unknown what the effectiveness is, now we know they are highly effective at reducing transmission.

You're saying that before a pandemic occurred, that we should have been manufacturing excess masks? Before even knowing what type of virus, how it spreads, or if and when it would or even could occur? So basically stop manufacturing everything in the world today and concentrate on what might be needed for a future pandemic?

You do realise how stupid that sounds?

Hmmzis

A lengthy but worthwhile read on what defines a vaccines efficacy:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30773-8/fulltext

It explains all the various endpoints the clinical trials are aiming to reach and the proxies that can and can't be established from the current trial sizes. Knowing what a vaccine does for each of the endpoints is crucial to guide deployment strategies, especially in a supply constrained situation.

tobefrank321

I don't think anyone would mind if the R0 was 10 or more among college age students and youngish people.

But when it gets to the vulnerable groups the problems starts. If they are all or mostly protected, we are in a good place. If there is still a large number of them not protected even after a vaccine for one reason or another, we could still be facing restrictions.

Problem is a large number of people in the vulnerable group may never be fully immune via vaccine. Even if the vaccine is 90% effective for this group, 10% would be close to 100,000 people. Hopefully second generation vaccines will close off any gaps.

I won't be the only one seriously p*ssed off if NPHET are still advising the government next summer on restrictions and levels to get the spread under control.

timsey tiger

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Could look at it either way really, its either a) doing what it's supposed to do or (B) There's less infection circulating which slows things down, Oxford flagged similar in the UK at the tail end of the first wave and moved trials to Brazil.

Pfizer still seem confident of submitted for EUA in late November. Personally I'd have AstraZeneca/Oxford slightly ahead of them.

A wait and see really, I think only the orange idiot in the white house might have expected full results by now seeing as he built the claim of a vaccine before the election which the CEOs basically dismissed straight away

There is only one way to read this, not enough infections in the control group. What is being looked at is the relative difference in infections between the two groups. You need a certain amount of infections before you can declare this statistically significant.

Gael23

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I

I won't be the only one seriously p*ssed off if NPHET are still advising the government next summer on restrictions and levels to get the spread under control.

I have no doubt they will but public support will no longer be with them

timsey tiger

plodder wrote: »

But, the control participants are not reporting infection either, which is frustrating. I wonder will this raise the possibility of human challenge trials again. That would definitely be the quickest way to get results, but they are reluctant to go down that road. I believe one such trial is planned in the UK in the new year.

You'd have to wonder if the kind of person willing to take part in a trial like this, is also taking other precautions like vitamins which could be reducing the incidence among the group.

It will be fine, Winter is coming

stephenjmcd

timsey tiger wrote: »

There is only one way to read this, not enough infections in the control group. What is being looked at is the relative difference in infections between the two groups. You need a certain amount of infections before you can declare this statistically significant.

I'm well aware of that and not enough infections is down to a set of circumstances which I mentioned 2 possible ones.

dominatinMC

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I don't think anyone would mind if the R0 was 10 or more among college age students and youngish people.

But when it gets to the vulnerable groups the problems starts. If they are all or mostly protected, we are in a good place. If there is still a large number of them not protected even after a vaccine for one reason or another, we could still be facing restrictions.

Problem is a large number of people in the vulnerable group may never be fully immune via vaccine. Even if the vaccine is 90% effective for this group, 10% would be close to 100,000 people. Hopefully second generation vaccines will close off any gaps.

I won't be the only one seriously p*ssed off if NPHET are still advising the government next summer on restrictions and levels to get the spread under control.

As cruel as it sounds, if that is the case - so be it. Society at large will have to move on. Countries cannot afford to wait another 2/3 years for a 2nd generation vaccine. If the risk is mitigated to some degree by the first vaccine, there will be a push for normality to resume. In the end, the government will have the unenviable task of deciding if the risk (which is hopefully reduced as a result of the vaccine) posed to the vulnerable groups is large enough to justify closing the economy. At the moment, the risk is large enough, and public goodwill supports this, but if a vaccine arrives and reduces this risk, I think things will change.

Gael23

I don’t see Holohan allowing that. His approach is zero risk

FintanMcluskey

dominatinMC wrote: »

As cruel as it sounds, if that is the case - so be it. Society at large will have to move on. Countries cannot afford to wait another 2/3 years for a 2nd generation vaccine. If the risk is mitigated to some degree by the first vaccine, there will be a push for normality to resume. In the end, the government will have the unenviable task of deciding if the risk (which is hopefully reduced as a result of the vaccine) posed to the vulnerable groups is large enough to justify closing the economy. At the moment, the risk is large enough, and public goodwill supports this, but if a vaccine arrives and reduces this risk, I think things will change.

That’s going to take a moral readjustment of acceptable deaths which is currently set at 0.