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?

NH2013

stevek93 wrote: »

There already is a vaccine thread

To be fair further evidence has since emerged about the vaccine and the disease since that thread was created, a fresh poll, and a simpler one at that may offer better current insight into people's mood on taking a vaccine.

Personally more than happy to take the Oxford vaccine now given all the data and studies we've seen published so far.

stevek93 wrote: »

There already is a vaccine thread

Well here's another one then

The_Brood

What 2021, if the Russians start mass vaccinating in October and we just wait years on end for the WHO etc what will be left of the economy and people's mental health?

And the answer to the question depends entirely on if you will be given a restrictions free passport of sorts. If getting the vaccine means you are allowed to live, travel etc as normal, I am first in line. Otherwise no point.

hmmm

stevek93 wrote: »

There already is a vaccine thread

Hopefully we're not putting this mess in there.

The_Brood wrote: »

What 2021, if the Russians start mass vaccinating in October and we just wait years on end for the WHO etc what will be left of the economy and people's mental health?

And the answer to the question depends entirely on if you will be given a restrictions free passport of sorts. If getting the vaccine means you are allowed to live, travel etc as normal, I am first in line. Otherwise no point.

This kinda talk about people who refuse a vaccine losing their rights really worries me I have to say. Can't imagine any such restrictions would be constitutional

hmmm wrote: »

Hopefully we're not putting this mess in there.

About half the comments in "this mess" are yours

paddythere wrote: »

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?

Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Vulnerable don't get as good immunity from it as a young person. If everyone takes it we get herd immunity and it dies out first in a few countries and then eventually the world. The vulnerable are then protected by the overall population and the virus pretty much dies out and cannot get over 1 r rate. I don't think people will have much choice especially in austrailia China New Zealand.

Fr_Dougal

There has never been a vaccine for a coronavirus.

Micky 32

paddythere wrote: »

This kinda talk about people who refuse a vaccine losing their rights really worries me I have to say. Can't imagine any such restrictions would be constitutional

Given what’s going on around the world with this virus governments won’t take it likely if people refuse to take it. If 60-70% take it you might be fine no one will hassle you to take the vaccine. But if most people refuse you can certainly expect restrictions on people who won’t.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

There has never been a vaccine for a coronavirus.

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

Not for long...

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

Have you no major organs, Paddy?

gabeeg wrote: »

Have you no major organs, Paddy?

I have one in my head, do you?

paddythere wrote: »

I have one in my head, do you?

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.

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.

Galwayguy35

Once a vaccine has been proven to be safe I would indeed get it, its not something I would rush into though.

Fair enough.

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

https://twitter.com/AdrianAmcgold/status/1295829080760295424?s=19

darjeeling

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.

MadYaker

I don't think it needs to be mandatory. Once it has passed all the trials the % of people willing to take it will be high enough that the skeptics can be left alone. If they get sick and die there'll be space in the hospitals.

Hmmzis

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.

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't think it needs to be mandatory. Once it has passed all the trials the % of people willing to take it will be high enough that the skeptics can be left alone. If they get sick and die there'll be space in the hospitals.

Until they are dead they take up hospital space though.

MadYaker

DubInMeath wrote: »

Until they are dead they take up hospital space though.

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

Squeaksoutloud

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:

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.

Think the thoughts on t cells is that you still get infected but largely remain asymptomatic so you would still test positive. So I don't think it would under cut the natural resistance theory.

Beasty

Threads merged