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.
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.
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
ACitizenErased wrote: » I think they should 100% do it tbh, if people volunteer and the scientists believe the vaccine works then go for it
Gael23 wrote: » How much money would you want to volunteer?
ACitizenErased wrote: » Volunteer = free no? Theres an organisation called 1DaySooner collecting names of people who’d do it for free
Gael23 wrote: » Yes you voluntarily offer yourself but I think you get paid
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.
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.
ACitizenErased wrote: » Is it normal for vaccinated persons to shed virus when infected? Eg people who get the flu vaccine
is_that_so wrote: » Finally the UK seem to have a rapid antibody test that works. Over 98% accuracy]
Thierry12 wrote: » Aren't those cheap tests a waste of time? T cells immunity not tested with them?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
ShineOn7 wrote: » Doesn't say which vaccinehttps://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
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?
