dominatinMC wrote: » A bit dismayed by the news this evening and the reporting of Paul Reid's assessment that "Covid will be with us for a very long time - irrespective of a vaccine". He is insisting that behavioural changes across society will be needed for a long time (didn't quantify this) even with a vaccine. To which it begs the question, why the hell do we need a vaccine if things can't go back to normal? I know the vaccine isn't a "silver bullet" but my understanding was that it would suppress the virus to such an extent that things could, indeed, go back to normal. We get it, the virus will always be with us, but if it's not rampaging through society, I fail to see why we can't go back to normal.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Last I heard they were talking about mid 2021 for vaccines exiting trials. I see talk about it taking upto a year to ramp up production so that everyone gets vaccinated. I also see mention that that a vaccine won't work on everyone (flu vaccine is 67% effective for comparison, ie it doesn't help 1 in 3 who get it) so risks will remain until a sufficient quantity have been vaccinated for there to be herd immunity. If herd immunity occurs at 60% and the vaccine is 50% effective 100% vaccination will not achieve herd immunity. There's also a lot of discussion about how long lasting any immunity received by vaccine will be. There are sources showing that antibody levels are low 3 months after receipt of vaccine. If it turns out that booster vaccines (ie revaccination) are necessary it could take upto 2 years to ramp up production sufficiently to ensure sufficient supply. I would hope that once a vaccine is available in small numbers (to protect our most vulnerable people) we will only need small scale behavioural changes (social distancing, cough etiquette and regular hand sanitisation) but we may need to do something til at least mid 2023.
Santy2015 wrote: » Agree with most of what your saying but society isn’t going to stick any sort of restrictions until 2023. Business can’t keep going on like this also our city and town centres will be destroyed!
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » Well I'm hoping that by 2023 some social distancing (not the current level), decent cough etiquette and hand sanitisation will be enough. If it's normal to socially distance in workplaces the workplaces people can stay socially distanced in workplaces. I remember some discussion about 1 metre vs 2 metre social distancing. I can't remember the specific numbers but I believe that you get 3/4 of the benefit of social distancing at the lower distance. If the background risk factors fall sufficiently we can revisit the how much social distancing debate. I actually hope that cough etiquette and occasional washing hands become a permanent part of life. I do agree the question of how much restrictions society will take will determine how long they are kept.
Le Bruise wrote: » If we’re still social distancing in 2023 we can say goodbye to professional sport, along with the music industry and hospitality trade. Even mid 2021 will put them all to the wall! I agree that hand hygiene and cough etiquette should stay with us forever....as that’s just good manners!
theguzman wrote: » Ending professionalism in sport would be a very good thing to emerge, sport should be played for the love of the game and not mercenaries, look at the Premier League which has destroyed English football, Man City able to bridbe and buy their way to the top, in GAA Dublin with tens of millions able to field a professional team aided and abetted by the corrupt GAA and corrupt referees. I'd have more respect for a bunch of amateur guys any day of the week over the likes of the Ronaldos and the Dean Rock's of this world. 1 billion on Premier league when there is starvation and the GAA getting €45m when we have homelessness, hospital mayhem and road infrastructure like the congo basin, I have zero sympathy for the sporting sector and the less they get the better.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: Im not saying it will be the current social distancing till 2023 but some form may exist.
Sconsey wrote: » I think the comparisons with the flu vaccine are pointless as they are for two very different things. The flu vaccine is based each year on the known strains of flu that are expected to be in circulation, the vaccine changes annually to cover different strains and it doesn't always cover all strains in circulation. It's hit-and-miss based on the strains in circulation in any given year.There is only one strain of Covid 19, the covid vaccines are all only targeting one strain of the virus. Assuming covid vaccine effictivness based on past flu vaccine effictveness is not valid at all.
From immunity to the role of genetics, Nature looks at five pressing questions about COVID-19 that researchers are tackling.
hmmm wrote: » The big trial news yesterday was Regeneron's first release of datahttps://www.statnews.com/2020/09/29/regenerons-covid-19-antibody-may-help-non-hospitalized-patients-recover-faster-early-data-show/ Mixed bag I would say. The biggest disappointment for me was that their production capacity in 2021 would be in the order of hundreds of thousands a month, which sounds a lot lower than what is needed.
patnor1011 wrote: » Do you seriously think that there is only one strain of covid 19?
Sconsey wrote: » Not anymore, looks like there are up to six known strains, not that that directly impacts the vaccine development.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803105246.htm So I still think comparing the effectiveness of the flu vaccine (for a virus with so many strains) to a covid 19 vaccine is pointless.
Hmmzis wrote: » Depends how you define a strain, it can be a very fuzzy term to get an agreement on. It will be interesting to see how the G clades behave once there are sufficient convalescent people, vaccinations have started and mABs used. So far the G clades have been observed to be more infectious and to be spreading faster while at the same time being more sensitive to neutralization (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.28.317685v1).
Becton Dickinson & Co’s Covid-19 test that returns results in 15 minutes has been cleared for use in countries that accept Europe’s CE marking, the diagnostics maker said Wednesday. The test is part of a new class of quicker screening tools named for the identifying proteins called antigens they detect on the surface of SARS-CoV-2. Becton Dickinson expects to begin selling the test, which runs on the company’s cellphone-sized BD Veritor Plus System, in European markets at the end of October. It will likely be used by emergency departments, general practitioners and pediatricians. “It is really a game-changing introduction here in Europe,” said Fernand Goldblat, BD’s head of diagnostics for Europe. Europe was really at the epicenter of the pandemic in April and May, “and unfortunately I think we’re headed back in that direction. So the need will be extremely high,” he said. Antigen tests have emerged as a valuable tool because they produce results much more quickly than gold-standard PCR diagnostic assays. However, they are generally less accurate. In the U.S., for instance, instructions for BD’s system recommend that negative results be confirmed by a molecular testing method. Becton Dickinson said its antigen assay is 93.5% sensitive, a measure of how often it correctly identifies infections, and 99.3% specific, the rate of correct negative tests. The data, which differ from the U.S. label’s 84% sensitivity and 100% specificity, come from a new clinical study that was recently submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, spokesman Troy Kirkpatrick said. In the U.S., where regulators cleared the assay in July, the Veritor Plus System has an average selling price of $250 to $300, and the tests themselves are about $20 each.
funnydoggy wrote: » I'm assuming any side effects from a vaccine would've been spotted within the last 3 phases of human trials, and longer term ones would be much rarer? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that part but I trust the science
Mark1916 wrote: » https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-30/oxford-astra-covid-vaccine-review-said-to-start-in-europe Looks like the EU are starting the ball rolling!
ACitizenErased wrote: » Interesting that Oxford could jump ahead again. Was expecting Pfizer to lead the way.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0ec48fe92b0cf92f5cdae52d3485d794.svg)