nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Masala

Today being Paddy Day 2020... when do you think we will have a ‘flu jab’ / pill / syrup that we can take to make us immune/ les likely to catch this 19 virus?.

Mod: The purpose of this thread is baked into the title - COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures - it's not a platform to push an anti vaccination agenda. If posters wish to discuss the perceived cons of vaccinations, or push various theories regarding 'the agenda' (whatever that is supposed to mean), open a thread elsewhere on it.

Threadbanned Users:
3xh
Dr.Frost
kingbhome
nannerbenahs
skooterblue2
Fodla
Caraibh
drunkmonkey
lawrencesummers
Howard Beale

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

is_that_so

DubInMeath wrote: »

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

Measles has an R0 of 12-18 and it could be higher, which is why we need almost universal vaccination.

yosemitesam1

Hmmzis wrote: »

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).

At this point is there any proof that the vaccine candidates will stop significant amounts of people being asymptomatic spreaders (or with very very mild symptoms)?
The idea that everyone outside of at risk groups getting the vaccine will prevent them possibly being a carrier is not based on evidence as far as I can see

eleventh

DubInMeath wrote: »

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

Exactly. I got every vaccine as a child as well as booster injections.
Still got all the diseases - measles, german measles, mumps, chickenpox etc.

3xh

Hmmzis wrote: »

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).

Hmmzis, your attitude is just as selfish.

Regarding freeloading, we're all paying for the grants being flung at the multinational pharma companies in this race to be the first to market. The vaccine also doesn't need 100% uptake for it to 'work'

Will you acknowledge some health care workers will not take a covid vaccine?Can you think of a reason why?

I'd suggest your blind faith in and the desire to be vaccinated is clouding your judgment of those who simply do not agree with the idea of forced vaccinations with a rushed, lucrative vaccine.

[Deleted User]

Marhay70 wrote: »

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.

Wakefield is exactly my point and the idiots who believe and push that agenda.

Hmmzis

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

At this point is there any proof that the vaccine candidates will stop significant amounts of people being asymptomatic spreaders (or with very very mild symptoms)?
The idea that everyone outside of at risk groups getting the vaccine will prevent them possibly being a carrier is not based on evidence as far as I can see

There is quite good data on what would constitute a correlate of protection against SARS-cov-2 infection. The fishing ship case study mentioned upthread and the Mt Sinai study a while ago (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1.full.pdf+html.

Most of the current vaccine candidates that we have data for do show neutralizing titers in or above that range. The two exceptions are single dose of ChAdOx1 (needs a booster to get 100% coverage) and Innovio's plasmid DNA candidate (poorest of them all at the moment).

Phase 3 data from all those vaccine candidates will show how accurate and robust the current understanding is, but until then this is the best we have.

Hmmzis

3xh wrote: »

Hmmzis, your attitude is just as selfish.

Regarding freeloading, we're all paying for the grants being flung at the multinational pharma companies in this race to be the first to market. The vaccine also doesn't need 100% uptake for it to 'work'

Will you acknowledge some health care workers will not take a covid vaccine?Can you think of a reason why?

I'd suggest your blind faith in and the desire to be vaccinated is clouding your judgment of those who simply do not agree with the idea of forced vaccinations with a rushed, lucrative vaccine.

I'm not talking about money, it's risk freeloading I was talking about.

Don't worry, nobody is going to force anything on you that hasn't been approved, let alone anyone from this forum.

yosemitesam1

Hmmzis wrote: »

There is quite good data on what would constitute a correlate of protection against SARS-cov-2 infection. The fishing ship case study mentioned upthread and the Mt Sinai study a while ago (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1.full.pdf+html).

Most of the current vaccine candidates that we have data for do show neutralizing titers in or above that range. The two exceptions are single dose of ChAdOx1 (needs a booster to get 100% coverage) and Innovio's plasmid DNA candidate (poorest of them all at the moment).

Phase 3 data from all those vaccine candidates will show how accurate and robust the current understanding is, but until then this is the best we have.

Link doesn't work?
Point was more that coronavirus strains can replicate and survive in the mucous while not necessarily increasing to the point of generating an immune response to clear them entirely from the mucous.
So unless a vaccinated person maintains high levels of mucosal antibodies, the levels in their blood don't necessarily mean that they won't be susceptible to being a spreader.

Coronavirus is very different to the flu in that respect as the flu doesn't have the ability to survive/replicate in mucous

3xh

Hmmzis wrote: »

I'm not talking about money, it's risk freeloading I was talking about.

Don't worry, nobody is going to force anything on you that hasn't been approved, let alone anyone from this forum.

My point is it doesn't matter if it's approved. The H1N1 vaccine was approved. As was Thalidomide, etc. Surely, a vaccine recipient will be 'immune' from somebody not vaccinated?

As for people here forcing me to take it or not, again, that's not my point. The reason the Government took the decisions they did on the airports/routes/pushing that quarantine was 'mandatory' for returnees was partly based on the willingness of the populace to demand and take such action. You think the public feedback on what they wanted on this matter did not play a part in the Government's decision?

There will be people vocally calling for mass vaccination if and when there is one released. They populate Boards, for sure. Liveline and TDs will be inundated with demands for mandatory vaccination, guarantee you!

I'll await your support against such.

Hmmzis

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Link doesn't work?
Point was more that coronavirus strains can replicate and survive in the mucous while not necessarily increasing to the point of generating an immune response to clear them entirely from the mucous.
So unless a vaccinated person maintains high levels of mucosal antibodies, the levels in their blood don't necessarily mean that they won't be susceptible to being a spreader.

Coronavirus is very different to the flu in that respect as the flu doesn't have the ability to survive/replicate in mucous

Sorry, fixed the link.

Any and every virus needs living cells to replicate, I think you are mistaking a secreted substance (mucous) with the cell lining called the mucousal membrane.

Each and every respiratory virus can and does survive in the mucous, otherwise it wouldn't much of a respiratory virus and they all infect cells in the mucousal membranes (epithelial cells) in the various cavities of our bodies where they are present.

LessOutragePlz

https://twitter.com/highfrequency78/status/1296090242043334658?s=19

Call me selfish all you want but I'm on her side.

3xh

Very telling.

And apparently many NHS staff have died over this covid stuff.

Sconsey

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

https://twitter.com/highfrequency78/status/1296090242043334658?s=19

Call me selfish all you want but I'm on her side.

"How many good doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals are the nhs prepared to lose if this goes ahead.".....None, if they don't support vaccination they shouldn't be called 'good'. They might lose a few Luddites. They have no business being in healthcare if they are intent on risking their patients safety.

[Deleted User]

Working for the NHS doesn't mean you're not an idiot

LessOutragePlz

3xh wrote: »

Very telling.

And apparently many NHS staff have died over this covid stuff.

But, but, but it's for the greater good and we must all be responsible citizens and get the vaccine when it's released for a virus that we have a 99.9% chance of surviving if you're a younger person.

LessOutragePlz

Sconsey wrote: »

"How many good doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals are the nhs prepared to lose if this goes ahead.".....None, if they don't support vaccination they shouldn't be called 'good'. They might lose a few Luddites. They have no business being in healthcare if they are intent on risking their patients safety.

Are you in favour of mandatory vaccines?

Stark

Anyone read the rest of her twitter? Talking about treating people by "raising frequencies". I'd be very surprised if she was actually truthful about working for the NHS. As a cleaner maybe.

3xh

AdamD wrote: »

Working for the NHS doesn't mean you're not an idiot

And people saying they'll take the vaccine because the experts say it's 'safe' and 'approved' doesn't mean they're not idiots either.

Linking travel, access to education, jobs, medical treatment, etc. to having this or any vaccine is a step too far and obvious mission-creep from what we were told at the start.

I'd be wary of the Irish Government, personally.

Sconsey

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But, but, but it's for the greater good and we must all be responsible citizens and get the vaccine when it's released for a virus that we have a 99.9% chance of surviving if you're a younger person.

Selfish as fsck, vaccines will only be effective if the majority take it, there will always be a large cohort that cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. I believe if you are not willing to particiape then you should be excluded from other benefits of society. There should be a cost for saying "I'll be fine, to hell with the vulnerable".

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Are you in favour of mandatory vaccines?

I'm on the fence for the broad public, I would be more inclined to exclude non-vaccinated from society if possible. For health staff I think mandatory makes sense.

3xh

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But, but, but it's for the greater good and we must all be responsible citizens and get the vaccine when it's released for a virus that we have a 99.9% chance of surviving if you're a younger person.

Yep, I agree.

3xh

Sconsey wrote: »

Selfish as fsck, vaccines will only be effective if the majority take it, there will always be a large cohort that cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. I believe if you are not willing to particiape then you should be excluded from other benefits of society. There should be a cost for saying "I'll be fine, to hell with the vulnerable".

I'm on the fence for the broad public, I would be more inclined to exclude non-vaccinated from society if possible. For health staff I think mandatory makes sense.

Grand. Can I have my taxes back then? See? Now where do you draw the line?

Sconsey

3xh wrote: »

Grand. Can I have my taxes back then? See? Now where do you draw the line?

Dunno, I don't have all the answers, I was asked my opinion. I would start with limiting access to public services that could expose others...maybe schools, college, certain types of health care, etc.

Still have to pay tax, you would not be excluded from prison :pac:

LessOutragePlz

Sconsey wrote: »

Selfish as fsck, vaccines will only be effective if the majority take it, there will always be a large cohort that cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. I believe if you are not willing to particiape then you should be excluded from other benefits of society. There should be a cost for saying "I'll be fine, to hell with the vulnerable".

I'm on the fence for the broad public, I would be more inclined to exclude non-vaccinated from society if possible. For health staff I think mandatory makes sense.

It's nothing to do with saying fvck the vulnerable and all to do with not knowing the potential risks or side effects with taking the vaccine. There is no way that they'll be able to be perform enough testing to prove that it will be completely safe.

No doubt I'll be called an anti vaxxer but I'm not anti vaccine, I've been vaccinated as a child but, I would be very hesitant to take a rushed vaccine such as this one that is currently in development.

As for mandatory vaccines that's a slippery slope. When will stop letting the government interfere in our personal lives. Or is it all ok as long as it's for "the greater good" ?

seanb85

It's very disappointing that this thread is being derailed.

It was meant to be a discussion on what is in development and where they are at in terms of results.

Gael23

How might distribution work and decisions as to who is eligible to receive a limited supp,y of vaccines?

Deeper Blue

El Sueño wrote: »

Any chance this thread could go back to being an information thread?

I have zero interest in reading anti-vaxxer nonsense.

seanb85

Gael23 wrote: »

How might distribution work and decisions as to who is eligible to receive a limited supp,y of vaccines?

You'd hope there'd already be a plan in place, I'd presume it'll be very vulnerable/high risk together with healthcare workers first. Then high risk and some other key workers (Gardai, the Army, Teachers, perhaps the food industry), then schoolkids, and then everybody else.

3xh

seanb85 wrote: »

It's very disappointing that this thread is being derailed.

It was meant to be a discussion on what is in development and where they are at in terms of results.

Didn't mean to be part of the derailment. Sorry.

The support here (a few pages back) for mandatory vaccines surprised me, I have to say, when I read the posts. Throw in what has occured/been said in NZ and AUS in the past week and I could just see the argument coming to our shores very soon.

I would never insist on those people awaiting the covid vaccine to not take it nor threaten them with inability to travel, learn, get a job if they did get the jab and I hope for a similar stance regarding those who choose not to take it.

Regards.

Hmmzis

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

It's nothing to do with saying fvck the vulnerable and all to do with not knowing the potential risks or side effects with taking the vaccine. There is no way that they'll be able to be perform enough testing to prove that it will be completely safe.

No doubt I'll be called an anti vaxxer but I'm not anti vaccine, I've been vaccinated as a child but, I would be very hesitant to take a rushed vaccine such as this one that is currently in development.

As for mandatory vaccines that's a slippery slope. When will stop letting the government interfere in our personal lives. Or is it all ok as long as it's for "the greater good" ?

Nothing ever has been, is, or will be completely safe. It's always about risk vs benefit.

The safety for the front runner candidates has been established as safe for phase 3 trials. This brings them already below the risks of a wild type infection (no volunteer needed hospitalization, that's among a couple thousand of people).

If phase 3 doesn't bring back anything of note, given the numbers involved (well over 100k in total), it'll be magnitudes lower risk to take the vaccine than risk a wild type infection.
That's if you're only concerned about your own well being.

Can't find the UK age stratified IFR estimates at the moment, but here are the IFR estimates from Geneva:
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3.pdf

The UK had a more granular table and bigger numbers, making for a smaller standard deviation.

Also, death is not the only outcome of the wild type infection one should be looking at. The data on organ damage is very hospital centered at the moment, not enough to build a population level estimate yet.

JDD

There will be people vocally calling for mass vaccination if and when there is one released. They populate Boards, for sure. Liveline and TDs will be inundated with demands for mandatory vaccination, guarantee you!

I'll await your support against such

I will strongly support you. The one thing you own, completely, is your own body. No one should ever be forced to take a vaccine, or any other treatment for that matter, by law.

However, the consensus is that people who refuse the vaccine will be increasing the risk for all of us. As well as costing money to treat in hospital. So I say that after a reasonable amount of time after a vaccine is released - say 12 months - you should have to wear a leg tag. You will beep when you enter shops, public transport or indoor areas, and it will mean a small fine if you don't wear a mask. A small inconvenience. And you will not be able to get treatment for coronavirus through the public system. Happy to let you pay for it privately though.

That way you get to keep your bodily integrity, and we get protected from you.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Best Of