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

Deleted User wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-tracking-every-global-effort-to-find-a-covid-19-vaccine-12030675

I think it should be compulsory especially in Austrailia.

They have the benefit of open society last 3 months (except Melbourne).

Life is always a trade off. As someone once said there is no such thing as a free lunch. For having normal society in austrailia while the rest of the world is in a mess, the trade off is citizens have to take vaccine as their population will be highly susceptible when they eventually open up again.

We do to in reality given that most people are not immune to getting it and passing it on.

Why not let the vulnerable and anybody else who wants to get it get it and let those who don't want it to do as they please?

stevek93 wrote: »

There already is a vaccine thread

Well here's another one then

stevek93 wrote: »

There already is a vaccine thread

Hopefully we're not putting this mess in there.

hmmm wrote: »

Hopefully we're not putting this mess in there.

About half the comments in "this mess" are yours

There has never been a vaccine for a coronavirus.

gabeeg wrote: »

Have you no major organs, Paddy?

I have one in my head, do you?

gabeeg wrote: »

Tough break. I have the full set.

I'll be looking to protect them all from damage with a vaccine, as ostensibly it's fairly common. Even in young people.

I'd advise you to do the same, especially if you're down to your last one.

Where did I say I was down to my last one? Was just pointing out that unlike you, I have one in my head, and don't blindly follow what the government tells me to do.

Fair enough.

Just do the rest of us a favour and don't moan about lockdowns or the economy or anything like that.

Here's a fun paper describing a covid outbreak during a fishing voyage out of Seattle in May (link).

There were 122 crew members on board the fishing vessel, almost all of whom were tested for SARS-CoV-2 before departure and on return.

120 crew members were tested 1-2 days prior to boarding using RT-qPCR and a serology test for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein.
None tested positive for viral RNA and six tested positive for antibodies, of whom three had borderline positive results.

A covid outbreak occurred at sea and the ship returned to shore 18 days into the voyage.
All 122 crew were tested again using RT-qPCR and 114 were tested for antibodies, with testing continuing to day 50.

98/122 crew tested positive the week of return and three more subsequently, giving an attack rate of 85%.
Most of the PCR-positive crew also tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein ,as this plot shows:



Tests on pre-departure sera showed that the three strong positives had high levels of neutralising antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike, while the three borderline positives did not.
The authors speculate that the three people who only had anti-nucleoprotein antibodies were either false positives, had an early stage infection, or had a prior transient infection that did not result in full immunity.
The three crew with anti-spike antibodies prior to boarding did not get infected during the voyage, while the three with only low levels of anti-nucleoprotein antibodies were all infected.

Sequencing of virus from 39 crew members showed that 38 were all so closely related that they almost certainly came from a single source of infection, while one was slightly more distantly related.

Seeing attack rates this high undercuts the notion that a substantial proportion of the population has a natural resistance to becoming infected.
If people are given enough opportunity to be exposed to the virus, they will become infected.

Also, it's encouraging that the three people with nABs all resisted becoming infected in this high challenge environment.

darjeeling wrote: »

Here's a fun paper describing a covid outbreak during a fishing voyage out of Seattle in May (link).

There were 122 crew members on board the fishing vessel, almost all of whom were tested for SARS-CoV-2 before departure and on return.

120 crew members were tested 1-2 days prior to boarding using RT-qPCR and a serology test for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein.
None tested positive for viral RNA and six tested positive for antibodies, of whom three had borderline positive results.

A covid outbreak occurred at sea and the ship returned to shore 18 days into the voyage.
All 122 crew were tested again using RT-qPCR and 114 were tested for antibodies, with testing continuing to day 50.

98/122 crew tested positive the week of return and three more subsequently, giving an attack rate of 85%.
Most of the PCR-positive crew also tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein ,as this plot shows:



Tests on pre-departure sera showed that the three strong positives had high levels of neutralising antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike, while the three borderline positives did not.
The authors speculate that the three people who only had anti-nucleoprotein antibodies were either false positives, had an early stage infection, or had a prior transient infection that did not result in full immunity.
The three crew with anti-spike antibodies prior to boarding did not get infected during the voyage, while the three with only low levels of anti-nucleoprotein antibodies were all infected.

Sequencing of virus from 39 crew members showed that 38 were all so closely related that they almost certainly came from a single source of infection, while one was slightly more distantly related.

Seeing attack rates this high undercuts the notion that a substantial proportion of the population has a natural resistance to becoming infected.
If people are given enough opportunity to be exposed to the virus, they will become infected.

Also, it's encouraging that the three people with nABs all resisted becoming infected in this high challenge environment.

IC50 of 1:161 for the lowest nAB titer of the trio. That's good news as the bulk of vaccine candidates get that quite handily. It's also around the same ballpark as the Mt Sinai study that estimated a correlate of protection to be in the 1:80 to 1:160 range for IC50.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Until they are dead they take up hospital space though.

Who? The anti vaxxers? Its fine there won't be that many.

DubInMeath wrote: »

The rate measles, which we have a vaccine for, has returned would suggest otherwise

Measles was never eradicated and in the last few years after a scare about the MMR vaccine linking it to autism, which turned out to have little basis is fact, many parents stopped vaccinating their children. This, in turn led to the increase in infections we are seeing today.
Haven't time myself but look up Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

paddythere wrote: »

A lot of talk starting to go around about a possible vaccine being made mandatory once it becomes available. Personally, I do not want any rushed vaccine and don't really see why that is such a problem for other people. Everyone who wants it can get it and everyone who doesn't feel the need to get it should not be required to get it. I'm not one of these 5g Bill Gates conspiracy nuts, I just look at the information on the virus and believe I would not be in any danger should I contract it.

I'm sure this has been discussed on here before but I just wanna gauge public opinion on the matter

Very selfish attitude on display.
Being part of society brings a lot of benefits, with that there are also some duties and responsibilities for each member of society to be fulfilled to ensure we have a functioning society with all those lovely benefits.
Some of those activities might incur some inconvenience or a calculated risk when viewed at an individual by individual base. By not taking that individual risk, you're offloading it to the rest of society to pick up your slack - that's freeloading, just like a parasite (or a virus, since we're on that topic here).