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

FutureTeashock

A 2 day pause is quite laughable really.

Van.Bosch

FutureTeashock wrote: »

A 2 day pause is quite laughable really.

In what way? They only had one patient to confirm their illness wasn’t caused by the vaccine?

Marhay70

FutureTeashock wrote: »

A 2 day pause is quite laughable really.

Are you still here? We told you the big bad man is not going to force you to take the nasty medicine.
Why don't you just run along and play, adults have things to discuss?

speckle

Question have any of the covid vaccine options been tested on people with auto immune disorders yet?
And a general vaccine question are vaccines ever tested on those with documented adverse reactions in the past? I wouldn't think so but someone here might have better knowlege

scooby77

Does anyone know the false positive rate for test used by HSE (if one is published)? Cant find online.
I ask because I've heard, and know 1st hand, of some cases, of children in particular, testing positive ( very mild symptoms) but not being an identified close contact, and all their close contacts, including parents and siblings, testing negative.

speckle

scooby77 wrote: »

Does anyone know the false positive rate for test used by HSE (if one is published)? Cant find online.
I ask because I've heard, and know 1st hand, of some cases, of children in particular, testing positive ( very mild symptoms) but not being an identified close contact, and all their close contacts, including parents and siblings, testing negative.

Have you tried martina or mandrake on the main thread?

Polar101

iguana wrote: »

Why doesn't this fit the narrative? Why would there be a narrative that doesn't want this to be over in the near future? I mean clearly there is. I've taken to watching the WHO press briefings whenever I see any sort of reporting about what the WHO say and it is almost always the worst possible take on a usually quite neutral, sometimes even potentially positive statement. But why?

It's the cool thing to say now. According to people who don't actually follow the mainstream media, only negative or "fear-mongering" things are reported. Or if they are reported, they are hidden somewhere out of sight, such as the front page of the Irish Times. People only see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/covid-19-oxford-university-trials-to-resume-on-astrazeneca-vaccine-1.4353650

Trials of a Covid-19 vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University will resume after the late-stage studies of the vaccine were paused due to a reported side-effect in a patient in the UK.

FutureTeashock

I paused work on Friday and will resume work on Monday, exactly the same timing as the vaccine trial pause.

timsey tiger

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I paused work on Friday and will resume work on Monday, exactly the same timing as the vaccine trial pause.

I went to the doctor and got diagnosed with a minor skin infection in 20 mins instead of the skin cancer i wanted ruled out, exactly 144 times less time than the scientists spent ruling out the vaccine in this case.

timsey tiger

Polar101 wrote: »

It's the cool thing to say now. According to people who don't actually follow the mainstream media, only negative or "fear-mongering" things are reported. Or if they are reported, they are hidden somewhere out of sight, such as the front page of the Irish Times. People only see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/covid-19-oxford-university-trials-to-resume-on-astrazeneca-vaccine-1.4353650

Well, the Irish Times do say side effect instead of potential or suspected side effect. The is either sloppy or sensationalist.

mandrake04

scooby77 wrote: »

Does anyone know the false positive rate for test used by HSE (if one is published)? Cant find online.
I ask because I've heard, and know 1st hand, of some cases, of children in particular, testing positive ( very mild symptoms) but not being an identified close contact, and all their close contacts, including parents and siblings, testing negative.

There is no true rate for false positive, it usually from human contamination or some sort of carryover and it’s not down to the test itself but human or lab equipment error. ie. You could run a million tests in one lab with no False positive and 10000 in another and have a handful because something or someone stuffed up.

False negative if you can call it that ...is more common and this is down to poor sample provided by the patient ...most likely testing too early.

ACitizenErased

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I paused work on Friday and will resume work on Monday, exactly the same timing as the vaccine trial pause.

You clearly know absolutely nothing about pharmaceuticals if you’re surprised. Maybe you should join another thread?

Deeper Blue

FutureTeashock wrote: »

A 2 day pause is quite laughable really.

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I paused work on Friday and will resume work on Monday, exactly the same timing as the vaccine trial pause.

We get it, you're anti vaccine

Not sure why you bothered posting the same thing twice, nobody cared the first time

Graham

FutureTeashock wrote: »

A 2 day pause is quite laughable really.

In your experience of previous vaccination trials, what would you say was the usual pause in such circumstances?

irishgeo

Graham wrote: »

In your experience of previous vaccination trials, what would you say was the usual pause in such circumstances?

He wouldn't know what a proper vaccine trial is unless you slapped him in the face with it.

yosemitesam1

mandrake04 wrote: »

There is no true rate for false positive, it usually from human contamination or some sort of carryover and it’s not down to the test itself but human or lab equipment error. ie. You could run a million tests in one lab with no False positive and 10000 in another and have a handful because something or someone stuffed up.

False negative if you can call it that ...is more common and this is down to poor sample provided by the patient ...most likely testing too early.

Is there anything to say that the specificity of the test is 100%?
If not, false positives are possible even if all sampling procedures etc are perfect

Gael23

Oxford were hoping to have findings towards the end of September, I suppose that timeline is pushed out a bit now?

mandrake04

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Is there anything to say that the specificity of the test is 100%?
If not, false positives are possible even if all sampling procedures etc are perfect

Im talking about 100% specificity tests

some are 100% other brands are not, The NVRL according to DeGascun uses the Cobas which is 100%, I think Irish hospitals use mixture of Cobas, Seegene Allplex, Abbott and Cepheid wouldnt bet my house on it but maybe Martina can confirm.

Martina1991

mandrake04 wrote:

some are 100% other brands are not, The NVRL according to DeGascun uses the Cobas which is 100%, I think Irish hospitals use mixture of Cobas, Seegene Allplex, Abbott and Cepheid wouldnt bet my house on it but maybe Martina can confirm.

I dont know what every lab is using but it is a mix of the ones you listed. Along with Altona and Gene Xpert as well.

scooby77 wrote:

Does anyone know the false positive rate for test used by HSE (if one is published)? Cant find online. I ask because I've heard, and know 1st hand, of some cases, of children in particular, testing positive ( very mild symptoms) but not being an identified close contact, and all their close contacts, including parents and siblings, testing negative.

The likelihood of false positives are extremely low due to the high specificity of the assays.
There is more talk now about the cycle threshold (Ct) being too high and picks up dead viral RNA. But labs should assess their own Ct when they validated thier assay for use using control material. i.e the lab should determine the cut of point where they can say a result is definitely detected or not detected.

Its not unusual for close contacts to test negative. Just because people live in the same house, doesnt mean all will become infected. The timing of testing is also important. If a swab was taken before the virus has had time to replicate it may not be detected. There are many variables.

All the test result tells you is:
Is there SARS-COV-2 viral RNA on this swab.

Thats it. It wont tell you how infectious the person is. It wont tell you at what stage of infection the person is in.

But you can be confident if Covid19 is detected then the result is valid.

mandrake04

Martina1991 wrote: »

I dont know what every lab is using but it is a mix of the ones you listed. Along with Altona and Gene Xpert as well.

Thanks for confirming, Cepheid Gene Xpert is running Xpert Xpress cartridge and Altona Realstar is very reliable too.

Martina1991 wrote: »

The likelihood of false positives are extremely low due to the high specificity of the assays.
There is more talk now about the cycle threshold (Ct) being too high and picks up dead viral RNA. But labs should assess their own Ct when they validated thier assay for use using control material. i.e the lab should determine the cut of point where they can say a result is definitely detected or not detected.

Its not unusual for close contacts to test negative. Just because people live in the same house, doesnt mean all will become infected. The timing of testing is also important. If a swab was taken before the virus has had time to replicate it may not be detected. There are many variables.

All the test result tells you is:
Is there SARS-COV-2 viral RNA on this swab.

Thats it. It wont tell you how infectious the person is. It wont tell you at what stage of infection the person is in.

But you can be confident if Covid19 is detected then the result is valid.

I would agree and Pathologists decide the protocol and this was all brought up back in April so they would be well aware.

Call me Al

Cillian de Gascun has tweeted a very comprehensive explanation for the extensive contact tracing that is happening, and why they're not restricting this to those who might be assessed as having high viral loads.

https://twitter.com/CillianDeGascun/status/1305250887246458880?s=20

Gael23

Once a vaccine is approved is it a big deal to source raw materials and manufacture millions of doses?

stephenjmcd

Gael23 wrote: »

Once a vaccine is approved is it a big deal to source raw materials and manufacture millions of doses?

They aren't waiting for approval to manufacture. Its already underway

is_that_so

Call me Al wrote: »

Cillian de Gascun has tweeted a very comprehensive explanation for the extensive contact tracing that is happening, and why they're not restricting this to those who might be assessed as having high viral loads.

https://twitter.com/CillianDeGascun/status/1305250887246458880?s=20

Thanks for that and to DeGascun. It's rare that Twitter offers up such cogent and detailed information.

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

They aren't waiting for approval to manufacture. Its already underway

At the volume being produced there will be far from enough for everyone that wants one

stephenjmcd

Gael23 wrote: »

At the volume being produced there will be far from enough for everyone that wants one

Over time, you'll have all going well different vaccines being produced so no reliance on just the one.

It'll take a while to produce billions, that could take a few years but you don't need billions vacinated to reduce the spread.

Take here for example. Frontline workers and those classed as at risk would be first in line, a very big start in breaking transmission. Existing EU deals based on population would see Ireland get enough initially to start on these groups.

General poplulation will come later, young people will be last if they've not already been covered in the at risk grouping

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Over time, you'll have all going well different vaccines being produced so no reliance on just the one.

It'll take a while to produce billions, that could take a few years but you don't need billions vacinated to reduce the spread.

Take here for example. Frontline workers and those classed as at risk would be first in line, a very big start in breaking transmission

How much would be needed to allow the world to return to the “old normal”? We can’t live like this for a period of years

JDD

Gael23 wrote: »

How much would be needed to allow the world to return to the “old normal”? We can’t live like this for a period of years

Honestly I think we will return to something very close to the "old normal" once frontline workers and over-70s/vulnerable people are vaccinated.

We may not go back completely to the old normal though, if the majority of office workers end up WFH 2-3 days a week. Cities will be quieter, public transport will be quieter and perhaps less frequent at rush hour, and there will not be as much office building in the centre of big towns and cities. Whether this will ultimately be a good thing or bad thing (shops and cafes in town centres will hit the wall, construction companies will feel the pinch) will depend on where we stand when the short term ill effects of this change wane.

Gael23

It’s my 30th birthday in April 2021 and I’d like to be able to have some sort of party

Atlantic Dawn

Gael23 wrote: »

It’s my 30th birthday in April 2021 and I’d like to be able to have some sort of party

I wouldn't be booking the DJ just yet.