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

hmmm

Hmmzis wrote: »

To me it reads more like a backup option, in case they don't get a robust enough signal by end of Summer.

I think you're right - they're talking about doing this at the end of the year.

mandrake04

darjeeling wrote: »

You read a headline that a podcast host used to describe a paper, not anything in the paper itself.
And if you listen to the interview or read the paper, what you're suggesting is a 'wrong' result where a PCR test would differ from a rapid test is most likely to happen when someone has very low levels of residual viral RNA and is not infectious. So not really a wrong result if you 're interested in whether someone is infectious.

The whole point of the argument is that rapid tests can give good enough accuracy for detection of people who are infectious.
That allows for mass, regular repeated screening that is not possible with the limited testing capacity of centralised labs.
There is no other way to do weekly screening, say, of every pupil in every school, or every college student, or everyone in a workplace.

Anyone testing positive could then be referred for a more accurate clinical test that would be used for their treatment.

Rapid tests are often used for screening purposes, such as roadside drug test in Australia which can sometimes yield a positive but when the blood, urine or mouth swab sample is taken for Lab analysis it proves negative. This is a false positive, there are also plenty of false negatives which means people under the influence can slip through the net. In this case the unreliability is accepted because the main aim is to deter people from driving under the influence of drugs by having RDT rather than actually catch people.

Having a cheap rapid test that has high rate of failure screening for a new disease like covid is extremely risky, if for instance you miss one infected person then you open a false security that person is fine at the time of testing but maybe not as next day they are infectious this is a major concern....really its unacceptable.

PCR is very accurate, its almost fool proof but it still has limitations as the problem is not with the test itself but the patient. Not all patients carry the same viral load in the test site at the time of testing, quality of sample is paramount if you have mis-sample on a low viral load you might not catch enough of the RNA/Virus to give a positive result.

Even when testing for simple stuff like bacterial STIs the urine sample should be the first stream (usually in the morning) as that way you have a better chance to pickup some of the bacteria rather than p!ss it down the toilet.

PCR takes about 90 mins for the Separation and about 90 mins for amplification, but its still possible to run batch 94 samples plus a +ve and -ve control on the one plate. If you run a pooler 5:1 you can run about 500 samples per batch in the same 3 hr timeframe.

ACitizenErased

hmmm wrote: »

Wow, Oxford and others are going for challenge trials.

"Coronavirus vaccine: Oxford team aim to start lab-controlled human trials"

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jul/16/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-team-volunteers-lab-controlled-human-challenge-trial

I think they should 100% do it tbh, if people volunteer and the scientists believe the vaccine works then go for it

Gael23

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I think they should 100% do it tbh, if people volunteer and the scientists believe the vaccine works then go for it

How much money would you want to volunteer?

D.Q

Wherever this virus came from, lab, or animal generated or however, it's basically humanity's fault, but watching the work that goes on in battling it and putting together a cure is absolutely awe inspiring and really fascinating. Some people are just beyond smart. We'll all be hugely indebted to these people if they manage to get a vaccine developed so quickly.

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

How much money would you want to volunteer?

Volunteer = free no? Theres an organisation called 1DaySooner collecting names of people who’d do it for free

Gael23

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Volunteer = free no? Theres an organisation called 1DaySooner collecting names of people who’d do it for free

Yes you voluntarily offer yourself but I think you get paid

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

Yes you voluntarily offer yourself but I think you get paid

I’ve no doubt there’s a lot of people who’d do it for free. If I wasn’t asthmatic I’d do it tbh.

ACitizenErased

Feel like this is becoming repetitive now.. more good vaccine news This time an intranasal vaccine.

A single intranasal dose of chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine confers sterilizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection

Abstract

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic has made deployment of an effective vaccine a global health priority. We evaluated the protective activity of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine encoding a pre-fusion stabilized spike protein (ChAd-SARS-CoV-2-S) in challenge studies with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and mice expressing the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor. Intramuscular dosing of ChAd-SARS-CoV-2-S induces robust systemic humoral and cell-mediated immune responses and protects against lung infection, inflammation, and pathology but does not confer sterilizing immunity, as evidenced by detection of viral RNA and induction of anti-nucleoprotein antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 challenge. In contrast, a single intranasal dose of ChAd-SARS-CoV-2-S induces high levels of systemic and mucosal IgA and T cell responses, completely prevents SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper and lower respiratory tracts, and likely confers sterilizing immunity in most animals. Intranasal administration of ChAd-SARS-CoV-2-S is a candidate for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission, and curtailing pandemic spread.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205088v1.full.pdf+html

Hmmzis

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205088v1

Been looking forward to see the results of one of these types. They seem to have come a long way since the first intra-nasal flu shots.

It confirms what some have been speculating, that the IgA response in the mucousal membranes is very important for a pathogen attacking the airways (and grass is green).

While the intra-muscular route works just fine and if you look at the lung images they're perfectly ok for the i.m. shots and there was no replication competent virus found in either of the administration regimes, the total viral loads were notably higher in the i.m. group than in the i.n. route. This to me is suggesting that the better mucousal response is actively clearing the challenge virus preventing any cells from being infected. While the i.m. group is protected from developing a disease the challenge virus is not cleared as effectively and some cells do get infected by it causing an additional immune response (evidenced by the inflammatory markers and NP ABs).

Basically, this lines up to exactly what the Oxford results have shown so far. The vaccine recipient is protected, but it might not stop the vaccinated person from shedding the virus back out via the nose.

ACitizenErased

Hmmzis wrote: »

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205088v1

Been looking forward to see the results of one of these types. They seem to have come a long way since the first intra-nasal flu shots.

It confirms what some have been speculating, that the IgA response in the mucousal membranes is very important for a pathogen attacking the airways (and grass is green).

While the intra-muscular route works just fine and if you look at the lung images they're perfectly ok for the i.m. shots and there was no replication competent virus found in either of the administration regimes, the total viral loads were notably higher in the i.m. group than in the i.n. route. This to me is suggesting that the better mucousal response is actively clearing the challenge virus preventing any cells from being infected. While the i.m. group is protected from developing a disease the challenge virus is not cleared as effectively and some cells do get infected by it causing an additional immune response (evidenced by the inflammatory markers and NP ABs).

Basically, this lines up to exactly what the Oxford results have shown so far. The vaccine recipient is protected, but it might not stop the vaccinated person from shedding the virus back out via the nose.

Is it normal for vaccinated persons to shed virus when infected? Eg people who get the flu vaccine

Hmmzis

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Is it normal for vaccinated persons to shed virus when infected? Eg people who get the flu vaccine

Yup, very much so, flu vaccines in comparison are terrible.

D.Q

this thread is a small chink of light on this forum haha can't hack the other ones any more.

Gael23

Once a vaccine has been proven to work, how long will it take to get regulatory approval for mass administration?

is_that_so

Finally the UK seem to have a rapid antibody test that works. Over 98% accuracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/18/uk-plans-millions-of-coronavirus-antibody-tests-after-trial-success-report

Thierry12

is_that_so wrote: »

Finally the UK seem to have a rapid antibody test that works. Over 98% accuracy]

Aren't those cheap tests a waste of time?

T cells immunity not tested with them?

is_that_so

Thierry12 wrote: »

Aren't those cheap tests a waste of time?

T cells immunity not tested with them?

According to the report it is over 98% accurate. It's to determine how far the disease spread. From what I've read T-cell effects are a lot more difficult to work out.

Thierry12

is_that_so wrote: »

According to the report it is over 98% accurate. It's to determine how far the disease spread. From what I've read T-cell effects are a lot more difficult to work out.

Believe they are 98% accurate to detect a certain level of antibodies

T cells and antibodies are the only way to work out who was really infected

Antibody tests alone will many many cases, especially people infected a long time eg Dec, Jan etc

is_that_so

Thierry12 wrote: »

Believe they are 98% accurate to detect a certain level of antibodies

T cells and antibodies are the only way to work out who was really infected

Antibody tests alone will many many cases, especially people infected a long time eg Dec, Jan etc

It's not a check on nor prediction of immunity, it's for measuring disease prevalence. For epidemiological mapping it may be good enough.

blackwave

is_that_so wrote: »

Finally the UK seem to have a rapid antibody test that works. Over 98% accuracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/18/uk-plans-millions-of-coronavirus-antibody-tests-after-trial-success-report

That's great news, particularly for the likes of travel.

Thierry12

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not a check on nor prediction of immunity, it's for measuring disease prevalence. For epidemiological mapping it may be good enough.

Still don't see the benefit

For mapping its only good for a short window in time

It wont tell us the prevalence in late/early 19/20

Many people have taken those cheap antibody tests and tested negative even though they were infected with covid months before

I'd compare them to a drug test athletes take, you'll catch the ones on the sauce recently, but not the ones on the sauce in the past

You've missed alot of dirty athletes

is_that_so

Thierry12 wrote: »

Still don't see the benefit

For mapping its only good for a short window in time

It wont tell us the prevalence in late/early 19/20

Many people have taken those cheap antibody tests and tested negative even though they were infected with covid months before

I'd compare them to a drug test athletes take, you'll catch the ones on the sauce recently, but not the ones on the sauce in the past

You've missed alot of dirty athletes

There is no single solution that will find every single case of COVID-19 but a test that is 98% accurate, is easy to use, can be quickly distributed to a large numbers of people and gives results in 20m is a very good data tool. Your dirty athletes analogy only works if there is no other tests look for them in the first place. There are.

Thierry12

is_that_so wrote: »

There is no single solution that will find every single case of COVID-19 but a test that is 98% accurate, is easy to use, can be quickly distributed to a large numbers of people and gives results in 20m is a very good data tool. Your dirty athletes analogy only works if there is no other tests look for them in the first place. There are.

Agree with alot of that

They should be doing t cell test in addition to antibody test, no good without both, that's what I am trying to say

They need to develop those tests

Like in dirty athletes example, they caught lots of them by storing blood samples and testing years later when testing caught up with new tests

We need that now

Gael23

Vaccine by September if this is to be believed https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/good-news/coronavirus-vaccine-by-september-oxford-university-trial-on-track-astrazeneca-634907

Santy2015

Gael23 wrote: »

Vaccine by September if this is to be believed https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/good-news/coronavirus-vaccine-by-september-oxford-university-trial-on-track-astrazeneca-634907

Great.. all we need is some luck to get that over the line.
Still probably over optimistic but I’ll take all good news we’ll.
If it’s true and happens, The party will be immense

Hmmzis

Santy2015 wrote: »

Great.. all we need is some luck to get that over the line.
Still probably over optimistic but I’ll take all good news we’ll.
If it’s true and happens, The party will be immense

Very welcome news, taken together with the latest Mt Sinai study on the approximate levels of serum nAB titers needed for protection from infection, there is indeed a reason to be cautiously optimistic.

If it all works out, it won't be one big party, it willbe lots of little tiny ones, gradually as the population gets dosed and the hospitalisations start to vanish, healthcare workers being able to hug their families again, then the at risk people being able to do the same, then the rest of us not having to wonder about every single tickle in the throat or funny feeling in the nose, then the anxiety in people will slowly start to vanish. Some will throw a party, some will just sleep (a proper sleep, not troubled by bightmares and panic attacks), but I think most will simply breathe a sigh of relief as the fear and anxiety fades away and they can be with their loved ones and meet friends with everyones minds at ease.

ShineOn7

Doesn't say which vaccine

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/coronavirus-pandemic/coronavirus-uae-reports-211-new-covid-19-cases-352-recoveries-1-death

The UAE has stolen a march over other countries in the quest for a vaccine against Covid-19 with the launch of the final phase 3 human trials.


Coordination is underway to open registration for nationals and residents across the UAE who wish to volunteer for Phase III clinical trials of inactivated vaccine. The clinical trial will last for about three to six months.

The trails will rope in 15,000 volunteers to further test the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

They could've used a better phrase than "rope in" lol

Santy2015

Hmmzis wrote: »

Very welcome news, taken together with the latest Mt Sinai study on the approximate levels of serum nAB titers needed for protection from infection, there is indeed a reason to be cautiously optimistic.

If it all works out, it won't be one big party, it willbe lots of little tiny ones, gradually as the population gets dosed and the hospitalisations start to vanish, healthcare workers being able to hug their families again, then the at risk people being able to do the same, then the rest of us not having to wonder about every single tickle in the throat or funny feeling in the nose, then the anxiety in people will slowly start to vanish. Some will throw a party, some will just sleep (a proper sleep, not troubled by bightmares and panic attacks), but I think most will simply breathe a sigh of relief as the fear and anxiety fades away and they can be with their loved ones and meet friends with everyones minds at ease.

With some results from the oxford trial released tomorrow what are your thoughts on it? It’s looking good, but obviously that article yesterday was overall optimistic you reckon?

Hmmzis

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Doesn't say which vaccine

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/coronavirus-pandemic/coronavirus-uae-reports-211-new-covid-19-cases-352-recoveries-1-death



They could've used a better phrase than "rope in" lol

Could be Sinovac, they have a good inactivated candidate and I seem to remember that one of the Chinese companies were in talks with the Emirates.

Hmmzis

Santy2015 wrote: »

With some results from the oxford trial released tomorrow what are your thoughts on it? It’s looking good, but obviously that article yesterday was overall optimistic you reckon?

Very, very much would like to see the results of this vaccine in humans. We have to keep in mind that this is intended to be a single dose shot (it can be boosted, but we want as many doses available as possible), so the numbers most likely will not rival the prime-boost candidates. If you're looking for numbers, all we need from it are nAB titers in the 1:30 region and overall titers to go to 1:320 or above (in line with Mt Sinai convalescent plasma research). If that is paired with a good T cell response, then it should offer solid protection for the average individual. If we don't see that, it's still not a big loss as even 1:8 nAB titers have shown reasonable results, add some decent T cell responses and we might see something that prevents people from needing hospital treatment and dying.