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

ShineOn7

Hmmzis wrote: »

The latter, he's 69 now.

How was he during the both times he caught it? Did he have it rough or mild?

plodder

3xh wrote: »

Yep, thanks for that.

But whilst it backs up the other report seen here today about immunity from naturally acquired Covid, I’m trying to find out what were the reports about earlier in the year where the authors of those reports suggested any immunity from Covid was only weeks long, at best. That contracting Covid gave the person no real benefit.

What has changed that authors of other commissioned reports can now say they’re seeing longer immunity from Covid persons.

It seems a complete about turn and it can’t be based on not enough original data points in the earlier studies.

I guess there are much larger amounts of data now than even a few months ago. I remember the default position back then was "there is no evidence of long lasting immunity" which some people took to mean - there is no long lasting immunity. Also, only a few days ago there was a report in the UK media about antibodies not lasting very long but it turned out to be quite misleading and was referring to antibodies that are not that important for Covid 19. There is a market for bad news and the media will happily supply it.

Thierry12

3xh wrote: »

Yep, thanks for that.

But whilst it backs up the other report seen here today about immunity from naturally acquired Covid, I’m trying to find out what were the reports about earlier in the year where the authors of those reports suggested any immunity from Covid was only weeks long, at best. That contracting Covid gave the person no real benefit.

What has changed that authors of other commissioned reports can now say they’re seeing longer immunity from Covid persons.

It seems a complete about turn and it can’t be based on not enough original data points in the earlier studies.

After a year, crying wolf doesnt work anymore

speckle

3xh wrote: »

Yep, thanks for that.

But whilst it backs up the other report seen here today about immunity from naturally acquired Covid, I’m trying to find out what were the reports about earlier in the year where the authors of those reports suggested any immunity from Covid was only weeks long, at best. That contracting Covid gave the person no real benefit.

What has changed that authors of other commissioned reports can now say they’re seeing longer immunity from Covid persons.

It seems a complete about turn and it can’t be based on not enough original data points in the earlier studies.

maybe a few things that I can think of
we hadnt anyone that had covid more than a few months at that stage, people too buzy trying to keep people alive, trying to work on treatments and medications, time was being used developing pcr etc tests then antibody tests and only then once they knew the inner workings of covid t cell etc response test came later, wanting to see if there were long term sequlae etc. Also not wanting to depend on the presumed country of origins scienticfic research and that was then hampered more by their leaders. Also,it takes money and time and personel and access to data,then peer reviewing to get a research paper with that knowledge out?
I would probably also go back and relook at the original for any of the above,see where their funding comes from and how they came up with their original research premise/theory and how much time they had to get the paper together. I wouldnt blame them people where trying to get any potential information out at that time. Easy to look back now.
Sure other here could come up with other reasons I have missed and even dispute some of my above list.. Anyhow,hope it gives some pointers to think about.

Gael23

Thierry12 wrote: »

Why would you need sterilising immunity?

If the worst your gonna get is a bad cold won't that be enough?

Will it be enough for NPHET though?

The Guard

Gael23 wrote: »

Will it be enough for NPHET though?

It’s the government that’ll decide this in my opinion. We can’t keep going with rolling lockdowns. What we need is to slowly ease ourselves back to normal by the summer early autumn 2021. All of Europe and the western world can’t keep going on like we are now.. you’ll have professional sports teams go bust millions of jobs lost and businesses closed to never open again.
Once the US election is over we’ll see a lot more movement and good news from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and moderna. They had no intention of letting trump have a vaccine to play to the masses of idiots who follow him. Plus the safety of the vaccine is paramount and we’ll all that good news before December

CIARAN_BOYLE

Gael23 wrote: »

Will it be enough for NPHET though?

NPHET have referred to the hospitalisation rate in previous recommendations.

If a vaccine reduces the hospitalisation rate we can sustain a higher level of cases without restrictions.

If a vaccine halves the hospitalisation rate NPHET might suggest we can push on at 1.5k cases a day without further restrictions.

If a vaccine quarters the hospitalisation rate we might be able to look at a level around 3k cases a day before we need to look at restrictions.

They will make massive differences.

Once a "bad" vaccine comes we may be able to do very low level restrictions until herd immunity or a better vaccine.

Irish Stones

Thierry12 wrote: »

People that got Covid already wont need vaccine immediately

Immunity is long lasting, 1-2 years minimum, not 6 months scaremongering stuff.

When I said the same things a few days ago I was badly attacked over here. Why should this be a good news now?

is_that_so

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

NPHET have referred to the hospitalisation rate in previous recommendations.

If a vaccine reduces the hospitalisation rate we can sustain a higher level of cases without restrictions.

If a vaccine halves the hospitalisation rate NPHET might suggest we can push on at 1.5k cases a day without further restrictions.

If a vaccine quarters the hospitalisation rate we might be able to look at a level around 3k cases a day before we need to look at restrictions.

They will make massive differences.

Once a "bad" vaccine comes we may be able to do very low level restrictions until herd immunity or a better vaccine.

I admire your optimism about NPHET. They'll always look to reduce cases and err on the side of higher restrictions.

is_that_so

Irish Stones wrote: »

When I said the same things a few days ago I was badly attacked over here. Why should this be a good news now?

TBH, it's an evolving question. Some research says it's short, some has said it's long as do epidemiologists. We've found ourselves slaves to studies during all of this and linking to research that says what we think. In time we'll get a better view of it.

Gael23

is_that_so wrote: »

I admire your optimism about NPHET. They'll always look to reduce cases and err on the side of higher restrictions.

This is my concern. A vaccine won’t reduce the R0 number which they are so fixated on

CIARAN_BOYLE

is_that_so wrote: »

I admire your optimism about NPHET. They'll always look to reduce cases and err on the side of higher restrictions.

Well they have to justify their decision.

When they wrote to the government recommending level 5 they were clear on

The current rate of growth in cases was x
By Y date the number of cases would be z if this continued unabated
The hospitalisation rate was a
The average hospital stay was b
By Y date if the cases continued to rise unabated the amounts hospitalised would be c and c was too much.

You can argue that their modeling was weak because it didn't take into account any changed under level 3 but there wasn't time for that to take effect.

If you decrease the hospitalisation it changes the formula.

They will error on higher restrictions but they need to justify it. If the hospitalisation rate is low they can't.

is_that_so

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Well they have to justify their decision.

When they wrote to the government recommending level 5 they were clear on

The current rate of growth in cases was x
By Y date the number of cases would be z if this continued unabated
The hospitalisation rate was a
The average hospital stay was b
By Y date if the cases continued to rise unabated the amounts hospitalised would be c and c was too much.

You can argue that their modeling was weak because it didn't take into account any changed under level 3 but there wasn't time for that to take effect.

If you decrease the hospitalisation it changes the formula.

They will error on higher restrictions but they need to justify it. If the hospitalisation rate is low they can't.

I agree they should and yet they did justify that call by extrapolating hospital rates and cases which were way off. Modelling and predictions are not perfect but they can't continue to look like they were just plucked out of the sky. One criticism levelled at such models is that they do not take personal choices into account.
I find that somewhat ironic since they are always praising us for being ahead of them!

smurfjed

DUBAI: UAE Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum received the trial coronavirus vaccine on Tuesday.
The vice president of the United Arab Emirates posted an image on twitter with a caption saying “while receiving the COVID-19 vaccine today. We wish everyone safety and great health, and we are proud of our teams who have worked relentlessly to make the vaccine available in the UAE. The future will always be better in the UAE.”

He obviously has faith in the Sinopac vaccine, will now be interesting to watch if the UAE numbers start to reduce.

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

This is my concern. A vaccine won’t reduce the R0 number which they are so fixated on

???????

Thierry12

ACitizenErased wrote: »

???????

Its still not clear if the vaccines will stop you being contagious

They dont give sterilising immunity so you still get infected, in theory you can be contagious.

Can a vaccinated person pass on that infection to a non vaccinated person and will they get the disease?

They think its very unlikely but who knows

They'll probably ask vaccinated people to isolate for a few days imo

ACitizenErased

Thierry12 wrote: »

Its still not clear if the vaccines will stop you being contagious

They dont give sterilising immunity so you still get infected, in theory you can be contagious.

Can a vaccinated person pass on that infection to a non vaccinated person and will they get the disease?

They think its very unlikely but who knows

They'll probably ask vaccinated people to isolate for a few days imo

So nobody should make conclusions until we have data.

Micky 32

Thierry12 wrote: »

They dont give sterilising immunity so you still get infected, in theory you can be contagious.

Have i missed something? Was there data released to confirm this? I’d appreciate the links from the pharma companies that are claiming this, thanks.

Hmmzis

smurfjed wrote: »

He obviously has faith in the Sinopac vaccine, will now be interesting to watch if the UAE numbers start to reduce.

Do they publish HCW cases somewhere? It would indeed be intersting to monitor their HCW cases and outcomes over the next month or so. Have they stated how many of the frontline workers have got the vaccine?

If they started in mid September immediately after the EUA was granted then the ones from the last 2 weeks in September (1st week of October as well I think) should have finished their dosing regimen and seroconverted by now.

Gael23

ACitizenErased wrote: »

???????

A vaccine won’t stop you getting the virus, you just won’t get seriously sick

Micky 32

Gael23 wrote: »

A vaccine won’t stop you getting the virus, you just won’t get seriously sick

Whether that's true or not ( who knows maybe it is ) but you need to stop listening to the " experts" on here and wait for the official results in a month or so. Even if it's the latter that's a win right there.

holdyerhorses

smurfjed wrote: »

He obviously has faith in the Sinopac vaccine, will now be interesting to watch if the UAE numbers start to reduce.

Dunno, a China/UAE publicity stunt is something I'd be dubious about trusting.

holdyerhorses

Micky 32 wrote: »

Have i missed something? Was there data released to confirm this? I’d appreciate the links from the pharma companies that are claiming this, thanks.

You don't need links to data, or to a pharma company's press release. This is bordering on facile.

You just need to look at the history of vaccines and at the intent of these vaccines and their trials. Sterilising immunity is not a goal, it might be a side-effect of disease prevention by creating an immune response and reducing the amount of time an individual is contagious or shedding the virus. But a virus doesn't disappear the moment it touches a vaccinated human. It will still be in the community. The severity of disease should be reduced, hopefully enough to reduce the strain on the hospitals, but that is essentially 'it'.

Irish Stones

A genuine question.


The past pandemics, those happened in the last 100 years, have left the virus circulating, haven't they?
I mean the 1918 Pandemic, the 1957 Pandemic, the 1969 Pandemic, and other more localized epidemics, have left their viruses among us.
We're not vaccinated against them (at least, I'm not), so how comes that we're not getting one of those virus again? Why don't those pandemics spread again?
Have we developed and immunity through our ancestors? Or else?
Thanks.

Micky 32

holdyerhorses wrote: »

You don't need links to data, or to a pharma company's press release. This is bordering on facile.

.

More rubbish from the ‘experts’ on here. Unless you have actual data regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines against this novel virus you’re talking through your hoop. I’m quite confident from my own interest and research you’re going to be quite disappointed in the months ahead.

holdyerhorses

Micky 32 wrote: »

More rubbish from the ‘experts’ on here. Unless you have actual data regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines against this novel virus you’re talking through your hoop. I’m quite confident from my own interest and research you’re going to be quite disappointed in the months ahead.

Haha. I am assuming you're missing they irony in yer post.

Hmmzis

Irish Stones wrote: »

A genuine question.


The past pandemics, those happened in the last 100 years, have left the virus circulating, haven't they?
I mean the 1918 Pandemic, the 1957 Pandemic, and other more localized epidemics, have left their viruses among us.
We're not vaccinated against them (at least, I'm not), so how comes that we're not getting one of those virus again? Why don't those pandemics spread again?
Have we developed and immunity through our ancestors? Or else?
Thanks.

1918 was caused by a strain of H1N1 influenza (type A), still around, most would have been vaccinated at some point or would have had it the old fashioned way.

SARS from 2002-2004 was wiped out with contact tracing and isolating victims.

1957, 2009 is H1N1 again, antigen drift keeps it around.

1968 H3N2 (type A influenza)

MERS form 2012 - endemic in dromedary camels. Camel workers are getting infected by it still every year. Since it's not spreading easily between humans, it's being contained. The latest paper on MERS in The Lancet is well worth a read if you're interested.

We have yearly pandemics of influenza A and B with a bit of H1N1 here and there (the standard TIV would have those three included), same with the four hCoVs (e229, NL63, HKU1, OC43), rhinoviruses (around 100 serotypes), adenoviruses, noroviruses, RSV etc. We've just gotten used to them and are referring to them as seasonal colds and flus.

Micky 32

Irish Stones wrote: »

A genuine question.


The past pandemics, those happened in the last 100 years, have left the virus circulating, haven't they?
I mean the 1918 Pandemic, the 1957 Pandemic, the 1969 Pandemic, and other more localized epidemics, have left their viruses among us.
We're not vaccinated against them (at least, I'm not), so how comes that we're not getting one of those virus again? Why don't those pandemics spread again?
Have we developed and immunity through our ancestors? Or else?
Thanks.

Viruses that normally cause pandemics usually weaken over time but i’m sure the experts on here will tell you Covid 19 will never weaken. The virus that caused the 1918 pandemic is still around but you’ll only get a sniffle or a bit of a flu.

Irish Stones

Hmmzis wrote: »

We've just gotten used to them and are referring to them as seasonal colds and flus.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Viruses that normally cause pandemics usually weaken over time but i’m sure the experts on here will tell you Covid 19 will never weaken. The virus that caused the 1918 pandemic is still around but you’ll only get a sniffle or a bit of a flu.

So, if I have understood it right, those viruses have weakened along the years and we have got used to them through acquired immunity?

And why should SARS-CoV-2 never weaken?

Micky 32

holdyerhorses wrote: »

Haha. I am assuming you're missing they irony in yer post.

There’s no irony in my post. Point it out?