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

Gael23

hmmm wrote: »

Based on the limited trial data we have so far, it may be the case that the first generation vaccines will give protection from serious disease but you can still get the virus and infect other people. We'll know more when the Phase 3 trials are over.

This is one of the reasons why we are told that even with the vaccine, we will be asked to keep up some of the social distancing, mask wearing etc. for some time.

So there won’t be large gatherings or offices reopening anytime in the foreseeable future?

funnydoggy

Gael23 wrote: »

So there won’t be large gatherings or offices reopening anytime in the foreseeable future?

I'd imagine it would be advised alright.

Marhay70

Gael23 wrote: »

So there won’t be large gatherings or offices reopening anytime in the foreseeable future?

Really it's enough in my view that the universal death sentence is removed at the first hurdle. I know we would all love a one shot covers all solution but I don't mind carrying on with social distancing, hand washing, face masks etc. just for the peace of mind that that would bring.
My son and daughter are coming to visit today for the first time in months and though I know that both they and ourselves will follow the guidelines to the letter, there is always the nagging doubt that we might have missed something.

timsey tiger

hmmm wrote: »

Based on the limited trial data we have so far, it may be the case that the first generation vaccines will give protection from serious disease but you can still get the virus and infect other people. We'll know more when the Phase 3 trials are over.

This is one of the reasons why we are told that even with the vaccine, we will be asked to keep up some of the social distancing, mask wearing etc. for some time.

This might give the anti-vaxers food for thought.

Gael23

I thought the whole idea of a vaccine was to prevent transmission

JDD

I imagine the whole idea of a vaccine is to prevent the adverse complications, including death, from the infection? As a secondary bonus prevention of transmission would be preferable?

I don't really mean this, but I nearly hope the first generation vaccines do still make you somewhat infectious. That would stop all the "oh I'll just let everyone else take the vaccine and rely on the herd immunity to get by" bollix that anti-vaxxers rely on.

Gael23

JDD wrote: »

I imagine the whole idea of a vaccine is to prevent the adverse complications, including death, from the infection? As a secondary bonus prevention of transmission would be preferable?

I don't really mean this, but I nearly hope the first generation vaccines do still make you somewhat infectious. That would stop all the "oh I'll just let everyone else take the vaccine and rely on the herd immunity to get by" bollix that anti-vaxxers rely on.

Won’t get the world moving again if that’s the aim

Hmmzis

Gael23 wrote: »

I thought the whole idea of a vaccine was to prevent transmission

The primary outcome for any vaccine effort is to prevent disease, preventing transmission is and has been a secondary outcome.

That said, the polio vaccines do not provide sterilizing protection, yet humans have managed to bring it to near extinction.

With most of the vaccine candidates we have NHP data for, we can see that the viral loads (where they are detected) persist for a shorter time and at lower levels. That means the effective transmission window would also be reduced, effectively slowing down spread. You might want to opine that ChAdOx1 didn't have reduced nose viral loads. True, the nose was not protected, the other respiratory organs though were protected, quite noticeably. That reduces the overall viral burden and would decrease the total number of virions one is able to shed and for a shorter period of time. It would also most likely change how much infectious aerosols one is able to produce. All that adds up to reduce the effective reproduction rate of the virus (Rt).

dominatinMC

hmmm wrote: »

Based on the limited trial data we have so far, it may be the case that the first generation vaccines will give protection from serious disease but you can still get the virus and infect other people. We'll know more when the Phase 3 trials are over.

This is one of the reasons why we are told that even with the vaccine, we will be asked to keep up some of the social distancing, mask wearing etc. for some time.

Can't see that happening. City centres are decimated, sporting events, live music, etc. - all gone. Tourism industry on it's knees. Once the vaccine is here and is readily available, the general public, lobby groups, even the government themselves will be looking to get things up-and-running again. Hand washing and cough etiquette will, and should, remain - they are basic hygiene requirements. Maybe some mask wearing will persist as a legacy from this, but I don't see social distancing (particularly on the scale we have currently) existing. In many demographics (students, etc.) it's never even existed! :pac:

Beasty

Threads merged

Gael23

dominatinMC wrote: »

Can't see that happening. City centres are decimated, sporting events, live music, etc. - all gone. Tourism industry on it's knees. Once the vaccine is here and is readily available, the general public, lobby groups, even the government themselves will be looking to get things up-and-running again. Hand washing and cough etiquette will, and should, remain - they are basic hygiene requirements. Maybe some mask wearing will persist as a legacy from this, but I don't see social distancing (particularly on the scale we have currently) existing. In many demographics (students, etc.) it's never even existed! :pac:

There will be a period of time where it is only available in very limited supply but it depends on how long that is

Hmmzis

Canada starting a rolling review of the Oxford vaccine as well, same process as initiated by the EU this week:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2020/10/health-canada-begins-first-authorization-review-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-submission.html

Interesting, the UK, Brazil and South Africa trials are single blinded but mostly for the single dose.

ACitizenErased

Am I right in saying that the fact AZ seem to be sending info early suggests that they have confidence in the single dose?

Hand in Your Pants

Nobody I have talked to says they are getting this if it comes out.

ACitizenErased

Hand in Your Pants wrote: »

Nobody I have talked to says they are getting this if it comes out.

nobody cares

Scuid Mhór

Hmmzis wrote: »

Canada starting a rolling review of the Oxford vaccine as well, same process as initiated by the EU this week:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2020/10/health-canada-begins-first-authorization-review-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-submission.html

Interesting, the UK, Brazil and South Africa trials are single blinded but mostly for the single dose.

What does this mean exactly? Like how can it be authorised if phase three trials have yet to be conducted?

Scuid Mhór

Speaking as a boards.ie poster who people probably look to as a beacon of common sense and a bastion of intellectuality, playful humour and handsome good looks, I just want to go on the record and say that I will absolutely take the first vaccine that is EU approved and rolled out in Ireland. This is because I believe in deferring to experts who understand far more about the development, regulation, dissemination and safety of vaccines than I do. I will have no sympathy for those who choose to forego the vaccine out of scientific illiteracy and unfounded paranoia.

Hmmzis

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

What does this mean exactly? Like how can it be authorised if phase three trials have yet to be conducted?

It's a process for a near realtime review of data that is coming in from a clinical trial. Not sure if AZ/Oxford would be requesting such a process if they didn't have some indicative statistically significant values in front od them. As I mentioned, the non-US trials are only single blind (recipient side).

Scuid Mhór

Hmmzis wrote: »

It's a process for a near realtime review of data that is coming in from a clinical trial. Not sure if AZ/Oxford would be requesting such a process if they didn't have some indicative statistically significant values in front od them. As I mentioned, the non-US trials are only single blind (recipient side).

I understand what you are saying. AZ/O must have confident in their product if they are already trying to sell it, so to speak.

Tenzor07

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

Speaking as a boards.ie poster who people probably look to as a beacon of common sense and a bastion of intellectuality, playful humour and handsome good looks, I just want to go on the record and say that I will absolutely take the first vaccine that is EU approved and rolled out in Ireland. This is because I believe in deferring to experts who understand far more about the development, regulation, dissemination and safety of vaccines than I do. I will have no sympathy for those who choose to forego the vaccine out of scientific illiteracy and unfounded paranoia.

Good for you, a national hero... Just keep in mind with your unquestioning faith in for profit big pharma companies who are being paid billions of $Dollars by governments that are driven by political aims, to be the first to develop a vaccine in 1/10th of the time it takes to develop a safe and effective one(https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation) that you will come back and tell us all how it went..

Tenzor07

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. AZ/O must have confident in their product if they are already trying to sell it, so to speak.

They also have a legal agreement with Governments that they cannot be sued by anyone who develops an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and indemnifies the big pharma companies from future lawsuits taken by individuals, groups and countries..

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

They also have a legal agreement with Governments that they cannot be sued by anyone who develops an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and indemnifies the big pharma companies from future lawsuits taken by individuals, groups and countries..

Any company who doesn't do that would be idiots

Dressoutlet

Tenzor07 wrote: »

They also have a legal agreement with Governments that they cannot be sued by anyone who develops an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and indemnifies the big pharma companies from future lawsuits taken by individuals, groups and countries..

Yeah this goes for every single vaccine and treatment ever made. That's why there is a literal pot of money for vaccine injured people. If the company who made the drug was sued then it would deter any other company from making any other drug.

Very dumbed down terms here for you.
Imagine I took an allergic reaction to paracetamol, and I could sue the manufacturer, there would be no paracetamol made by any company ever again

funnydoggy

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Good for you, a national hero... Just keep in mind with your unquestioning faith in for profit big pharma companies who are being paid billions of $Dollars by governments that are driven by political aims, to be the first to develop a vaccine in 1/10th of the time it takes to develop a safe and effective one(https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation) that you will come back and tell us all how it went..

Oh boy here we go again

Tenzor07

Dressoutlet wrote: »

Yeah this goes for every single vaccine and treatment ever made. That's why there is a literal pot of money for vaccine injured people. If the company who made the drug was sued then it would deter any other company from making any other drug.
Very dumbed down terms here for you.
Imagine I took an allergic reaction to paracetamol, and I could sue the manufacturer, there would be no paracetamol made by any company ever again

Very basic simple fact for you here, in a race by Governments and big pharma to bring out a new vaccine based on new methods/technology and tested on a very small number of humans is rushed to market in a fraction of the time as would be normal and that causes an adverse reaction in say 0.5% of a couple of billion people who take it therefore killing 10's of thousands, do you think that's acceptable they can't face punishment?

D.Q

DiD u nO dAt bIg pHarMa bAd???

I sAw iT On fAceBOok

WaKe uP $hEEpLe


Genuinely baffled by the arrogance of some people.

Absolute chancers with no experience in science or medicine, have done a few crash courses in Facebook research and think they know better than the best and brightest minds in the field.

And every single one of them that have posted on here each seem to think that their own hot take is unique, that they are the only ones that can see through the fake news.

Mental.

I'd love to know who they are in real life. Curious as to what they do for a living, how they spend their time, who they socialise with. Because there's no way that pig headed ignorance doesn't permeate into everything they do.

Graham

Tenzor07 wrote: »

causes an adverse reaction in say 0.5% of a couple of billion people who take it therefore killing 10's of thousands

If we're talking in pure guesswork, how about it causes an adverse reaction in 3 people rather than 10's of thousands?

Thereby it saves hundred's of thousands of people.

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Very basic simple fact for you here, in a race by Governments and big pharma to bring out a new vaccine based on new methods/technology and tested on a very small number of humans is rushed to market in a fraction of the time as would be normal and that causes an adverse reaction in say 0.5% of a couple of billion people who take it therefore killing 10's of thousands, do you think that's acceptable they can't face punishment?

Saving 95% of the world is a fine achievement

Tenzor07

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Any company who doesn't do that would be idiots

People deserve to be compensated in the event of injury due to adverse reactions to a companies products.

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

People deserve to be compensated in the event of injury due to adverse reactions to a companies products.

Who's saying people won't be compensated? A company not being able to be sued means sweet f* all about compensation.