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

ixoy

stephenjmcd wrote: »

It really was an excellent briefing. Very clear and concise information given to the public. Would be fantastic if we had something similar

Interesting. I really think they'll need a good information campaign. One of the most cited reasons I've seen for example is:

"There's never been a vaccine developed so quickly. Ergo, we can't really trust it".

It makes people feel it must be rushed because science, so far, never accomplished such a timeframe and saying, "Money thrown at it" won't fully work.
I think the answer was running phases in parallel and working off of previous trials but it would be great to get this sort of information out there and have answers to common claims.

Thierry12

Hmmzis wrote: »

The Russians also claiming >90% efficacy for their Ad5/Ad26 vaccine (Sputnik V):

https://sputnikvaccine.com/newsroom/pressreleases/the-first-interim-data-analysis-of-the-sputnik-v-vaccine-against-covid-19-phase-iii-clinical-trials-/

Just 20 events plus an undisclosed set of events outside the trial. Not much more info there.

Why the doubts with that 92%?

China says its Sinovac vaccine is 97% based on 50,000 trialists

Say what you want about Chinese or Russians, but they have bloody smart scientists.

Oxford hinting at 90% efficacy as well

tobefrank321

If the experience so far is anything to go by, the HSE will not even contact nursing homes to arrange vaccine schedules. It will be left to nursing homes to source vaccines themselves.

There is no reason to believe the HSE will suddenly turn into a highly competent or efficient organisation when it comes to the vaccine rollout.

stephenjmcd

ixoy wrote: »

Interesting. I really think they'll need a good information campaign. One of the most cited reasons I've seen for example is:

"There's never been a vaccine developed so quickly. Ergo, we can't really trust it".

It makes people feel it must be rushed because science, so far, never accomplished such a timeframe and saying, "Money thrown at it" won't fully work.
I think the answer was running phases in parallel and working off of previous trials but it would be great to get this sort of information out there and have answers to common claims.

A briefing like the UK one this morning would address alot of that. Produced some good graphs outlining the usual process v this process and then expanded on how running in parallel speeds things up which focusing on the safety element not being compromised

ceegee

440Hertz wrote: »

This article might answer the question about our efficient delivery system: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/hse-wont-release-any-new-flu-vaccine-jabs-as-600000-go-missing-39732344.html

Seems the HSE system lost 600,000 doses of the flu vaccine, or at least isn’t able to account for how they have been distributed.

They would want to really put serious effort into ensuring they’ve the right systems in place for this m.

Ireland has the advantage of being relatively small, so the cold chain would be relatively short, but you can’t have any messing around with bureaucracy going wrong like that!

They didn't lose vaccines - there's always going to be a delay between vaccines being sent out and GPs/pharmacy claiming for payment - can't expect them to have everyone getting the vaccine as soon as its delivered

ixoy

stephenjmcd wrote: »

A briefing like the UK one this morning would address alot of that. Produced some good graphs outlining the usual process v this process and then expanded on how running in parallel speeds things up which focusing on the safety element not being compromised

Although I recall posting about parallel phases several months ago on here and even then, some poster immediately started looking up the scientists saying it and trying to connect it as a Big Pharma conspiracy and how their word couldn't be trusted...

tobefrank321

Thierry12 wrote: »

Why the doubts with that 92%?

China says its Sinovac vaccine is 97% based on 50,000 trialists

Say what you want about Chinese or Russians, but they have bloody smart scientists.

Oxford hinting at 90% efficacy as well

Claiming virtually the same efficacy "5 minutes" after the Pfizer release does look a bit questionable. You can understand why people have some doubts.

Hmmzis

Thierry12 wrote: »

Why the doubts with that 92%?

China says its Sinovac vaccine is 97% based on 50,000 trialists

Say what you want about Chinese or Russians, but they have bloody smart scientists.

Oxford hinting at 90% efficacy as well

While I'm not in particular doubts that the vaccine can and is doing what it's supposed to do, doing a readout at 20 events is quite weak. Unless they have no events in the vaccine group it's a bit early to make a call on the exact efficacy numbers.

stephenjmcd

ixoy wrote: »

Although I recall posting about parallel phases several months ago on here and even then, some poster immediately started looking up the scientists saying it and trying to connect it as a Big Pharma conspiracy and how their word couldn't be trusted...

Yup, many people posted about it, the Prof Hill at Oxford also mentioned the reasons why the process could be expedited in terms of stages, production etc.

But like you say it was all part of some sort of conspiracy according to a few posters. Profits and shareholders was all the mattered....

Russman

tobefrank321 wrote: »

If the experience so far is anything to go by, the HSE will not even contact nursing homes to arrange vaccine schedules. It will be left to nursing homes to source vaccines themselves.

There is no reason to believe the HSE will suddenly turn into a highly competent or efficient organisation when it comes to the vaccine rollout.

That's the fear isn't it ? You just "feel" they'll find a way to balls it up somehow.

"....you want what ? vaccines ?....eh no, that's Sile's job, now she only works Tuesdays and Thursdays because she job shares with Sean, so if you call back next week she might have some information for you, but there's a big pile of work on their desk so it might be a while before she gets to it...."

Joking aside though, so far we seem to have been ahead of the game in a lot of respects, going into the current lockdown before most, being more cautious in opening up, maybe, just maybe, they're on top of their brief and there's some good planning going on. Fingers crossed anyway.

AssetBacked2

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Claiming virtually the same efficacy "5 minutes" after the Pfizer release does look a bit questionable. You can understand why people have some doubts.

Pfizer releasing their results just after the election is also questionable. Dems encouraged postal voting, Republicans in person voting. Pumping the covid doom narrative benefits Dems more the Republicans. You would agree it is questionable that Pfizer would release their results right after the election?

AssetBacked2

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

Pfizer releasing their results just after the election is also questionable. Dems encouraged postal voting, Republicans in person voting. Pumping the covid doom narrative benefits Dems more the Republicans. You would agree it is questionable that Pfizer would release their results right after the election?

Pfizer can't win. If they release the results before the election they'd be accused of influencing the result in favour of Trump.

Duke of Url

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

Pfizer releasing their results just after the election is also questionable. Dems encouraged postal voting, Republicans in person voting. Pumping the covid doom narrative benefits Dems more the Republicans. You would agree it is questionable that Pfizer would release their results right after the election?

No

Russman

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

Pfizer releasing their results just after the election is also questionable. Dems encouraged postal voting, Republicans in person voting. Pumping the covid doom narrative benefits Dems more the Republicans. You would agree it is questionable that Pfizer would release their results right after the election?

Wasn't it the independent monitoring people that looked at the data and informed the company, who then released their press statement ? AFAIK Pfizer didn't get to choose when the data was looked at, but open to correction.

AssetBacked2

Duke of Url wrote: »

No

But you would somehow agree the Russian and Chinese release of efficacy is questionable?

AssetBacked2

Russman wrote: »

Wasn't it the independent monitoring people that looked at the data and informed the company, who then released their press statement ? AFAIK Pfizer didn't get to choose when the data was looked at, but open to correction.

It just smacks of "U.S. good / Russia & China bad" thinking.

Russman

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

It just smacks of "U.S. good / Russia & China bad" thinking.

Its does a little, but is that a bad thing, given they have form ?
The US are no angels, but Pfizer weren't even part of Warp Speed.

Duke of Url

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

But you would somehow agree the Russian and Chinese release of efficacy is questionable?

I dont think anything about it.

Ive switched myself off from conspiracy theories at this stage.

The Chinese, Russian, US, British and German Scientists are all very smart people.

You can see that throughout history.

I trust the European Medicines Agency or Commission to figure out the effectiveness of all these vaccines and I will get one as soon as its available to me.

Martina1991

Thierry12 wrote: »

Commercial T Cell test should be available in few weeks

Seems way more accurate

97% detectable tcells vs 77% antibodies in a group of covid infected

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/health/t-cell-test-coronavirus-immunity.html#click=https://t.co/rGeGE2FE0t

This kind of technology is highly specialised, complicated and expensive. Techniques like this are carried out in research and specialised labs.

From that article:
"Isolating T cells is an elaborate and onerous process, severely limiting the information about their role.

A single researcher can process no more than five blood samples over the course of a day and a half.

That’s pretty much why every single paper that is done on T cells, the number of subjects that are studied is never higher than 100,” said Dr. Antonio Bertoletti, a virologist at Duke NUS Medical School in Singapore."

Its great that advances are being made in this field at a rapid pace but to suggest T cell tests will be commercially available "in a few weeks" is misleading and incorrect.

stephenjmcd

This article actually makes me laugh, its so misleading its unbelievable. Independent also reporting similar.
Citing reports of IgG levels in the blood and how it impacts vaccines.

Is it that difficult to do some research and see how various vaccines work & that how blood level IgG aren't that important in terms of immune reposnse from vaccines.

Such a shoddy piece of reporting from both Hiqa and the journalists themselves.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-booster-doses-may-be-needed-for-vaccine-nphet-told-1.4406263?mode=amp

stephenjmcd

Martin giving a small bit of information on vaccine rollout

"Taoiseach Micheál Martin has told the Dáil that a high-level taskforce has been created by the Government to oversee the roll-out of Covid-19 vaccines in Ireland once they are approved by the statutory authorities.

Mr Martin said that targeting people who are vulnerable to Covid-19 will be the immediate priority, adding that Ireland is due to receive roughly 1% of whatever vaccines are made available through the EU's collective purchase scheme.

He was replying to Labour leader Alan Kelly who said the Government needed a detailed plan "very soon" on how vaccines will eventually be rolled-out by the State.

He argued that the "work programme" of the high-level taskforce would have to be regularly updated and, consequently, the public needed to be informed "on a weekly basis" about developments.

The Taoiseach said he "accepted" that regular updates would be necessary but he declined to commit to a weekly system.

The Fianna Fáil leader added that due to significant issues, such as vaccine manufacture and transport logistics, he said it was important that there was "external expertise" on the taskforce."

dominatinMC

stephenjmcd wrote: »

This article actually makes me laugh, its so misleading its unbelievable. Independent also reporting similar.
Citing reports of IgG levels in the blood and how it impacts vaccines.

Is it that difficult to do some research and see how various vaccines work & that how blood level IgG aren't that important in terms of immune reposnse from vaccines.

Such a shoddy piece of reporting from both Hiqa and the journalists themselves.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-booster-doses-may-be-needed-for-vaccine-nphet-told-1.4406263?mode=amp

My biggest conclusion from this whole pandemic isn't that we should trust science, that WFH is here to stay, etc. but that the general standard of journalism in this country is ****e.

Thierry12

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Claiming virtually the same efficacy "5 minutes" after the Pfizer release does look a bit questionable. You can understand why people have some doubts.

Oxford also leaked 90% efficacy just after

We don't question them

Honestly we need to stop this propaganda rubbish and start accepting this global effort

CIARAN_BOYLE

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Martin giving a small bit of information on vaccine rollout

"Taoiseach Micheál Martin has told the Dáil that a high-level taskforce has been created by the Government to oversee the roll-out of Covid-19 vaccines in Ireland once they are approved by the statutory authorities.

Mr Martin said that targeting people who are vulnerable to Covid-19 will be the immediate priority, adding that Ireland is due to receive roughly 1% of whatever vaccines are made available through the EU's collective purchase scheme.

He was replying to Labour leader Alan Kelly who said the Government needed a detailed plan "very soon" on how vaccines will eventually be rolled-out by the State.

He argued that the "work programme" of the high-level taskforce would have to be regularly updated and, consequently, the public needed to be informed "on a weekly basis" about developments.

The Taoiseach said he "accepted" that regular updates would be necessary but he declined to commit to a weekly system.

The Fianna Fáil leader added that due to significant issues, such as vaccine manufacture and transport logistics, he said it was important that there was "external expertise" on the taskforce."

No they dont.

It would be silly to say we are going to vaccinate the elderly first then 2 weeks later the final results come out of phase 3 for a vaccine and it doesn't work on older people so large have a change of plans.

Let them plan. We dont need weekly updates on the planning.

CIARAN_BOYLE

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

No they dont.

It would be silly to say we are going to vaccinate the elderly first then 2 weeks later the final results come out of phase 3 for a vaccine and it doesn't work on older people so large have a change of plans.

Let them plan. We dont need weekly updates on the planning.

Its completely normal in every line of work to give weekly project updates. I would fully expect weekly updates on one of the most important projects the state has ever, and probably will ever undertake.

Cordell

Russian vaccine reported as 92% because of course, it's Russian and it has to be better.

funnydoggy

The government has been shocking since the start of the pandemic on communication. Messaging has been conflicting even within the same parties. Leo would say one thing, CMO another.

Consistently inconsistent.

We deserve weekly updates IMO.

ACitizenErased

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

No they dont.

It would be silly to say we are going to vaccinate the elderly first then 2 weeks later the final results come out of phase 3 for a vaccine and it doesn't work on older people so large have a change of plans.

Let them plan. We dont need weekly updates on the planning.

We absolutely deserve weekly updates.

stephenjmcd

dominatinMC wrote: »

My biggest conclusion from this whole pandemic isn't that we should trust science, that WFH is here to stay, etc. but that the general standard of journalism in this country is ****e.

Wont find me disagreeing there. A simple bit of research wouldn't go amiss

ThewhiteJesus

Cordell wrote: »

Russian vaccine reported as 92% because of course, it's Russian and it has to be better.

you'd probably do amazing in the olympics if you took the russian one