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

Marhay70

Gael23 wrote: »

The last paragraph would put me off getting the vaccine. He says it won’t put us in a position where social distancing can be dropped. For me the point of getting a vs vine is so life returns to fest it was before match, don’t see a point otherwise

I thing the prospect of suffocating to death is infinitely less preferable to the pleasures of getting up close and personal with the great unwashed.

dominatinMC

jackboy wrote: »

Also, if it only lessens the severity of symptoms rather than preventing spread of infection then masks and social distancing will need to continue.

You stated this previously as well. How do you know this? Social distancing is destroying economies, it can't/won't continue once a vaccine has been distributed to the vulnerable in society

Le Bruise

moonage wrote: »

Dr Malcolm Kendrick takes a look at the trial process and observes:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/10/10/a-sars-cov2-vaccine-dont-hold-your-breath/

At first that article gave me a mild panic attack.....but then I googled Dr Malcolm Kendrick!

Gael23

dominatinMC wrote: »

You stated this previously as well. How do you know this? Social distancing is destroying economies, it can't/won't continue once a vaccine has been distributed to the vulnerable in society

Problem is there are many in the vulnerable category that are sceptical about getting it. My grandparents in their 80s want to see how others get on with it first

[Deleted User]

jackboy wrote: »

Also, if it only lessens the severity of symptoms rather than preventing spread of infection then masks and social distancing will need to continue.

Only until hospitalizations and deaths start to fall. Once that happens restrictions will start to disappear.

stephenjmcd

Gael23 wrote: »

The last paragraph would put me off getting the vaccine. He says it won’t put us in a position where social distancing can be dropped. For me the point of getting a vaccine is so life returns to what it was before March , don’t see a point otherwise

Of course it will but not overnight. That's pretty obvious. If you get the vaccine today you can't just resume normal life straight away

Hmmzis

Moderna have stareted a rolling review in Canada for their vaccine candidate:

https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-initiation-rolling-submission-health-canada

That's them joining Pfizer/BioNTech and AZ/Oxford in the same process.

jackboy

dominatinMC wrote: »

You stated this previously as well. How do you know this? Social distancing is destroying economies, it can't/won't continue once a vaccine has been distributed to the vulnerable in society

Masks can be worn without impacting the economy. Social distancing will continue to cause economic carnage but if the choice is between that and lots of deaths then I don’t think things will change.

Covid is much more infectious than the flu. If masks and social distancing stop it will rage through the population. Even with a moderately effective vaccine, large numbers will die.

stephenjmcd

jackboy wrote: »

Also, if it only lessens the severity of symptoms rather than preventing spread of infection then masks and social distancing will need to continue.

Which means less serious illness, which is exactly what is needed to get rid of those restrictions.

Did you think it was going to make you immune ?? Once it prevents serious illness in a majority then its acceptable. Covid just doesn't go away with a vaccine

jackboy

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Which means less serious illness, which is exactly what is needed to get rid of those restrictions.

Did you think it was going to make you immune ?? Once it prevents serious illness in a majority then its acceptable. Covid just doesn't go away with a vaccine

Yeah, but it needs to help the people that already have serious illness. Preventing serious illness for the majority won’t stop large numbers of deaths.

johnire

Can I ask you folks about something that has been the source of great debate with people I know?
If and when a vaccine becomes a reality I’m pretty sure I will get it(and my husband). However a close friend is adamant she won’t get it. I know of course that throughout the world they’ll be x number of people who will get it and x number who won’t. My question will it mean that life as it is now won’t essentially change for those who don’t get the vaccine? Or will life get back to some sort of normal for those who opt not to have the vaccine on the shirt tails of those that do get it? I know I’m not explaining it very well but I just don’t understand how the world is going to function if say 50% have got the vaccine and 50% haven’t.

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Which means less serious illness, which is exactly what is needed to get rid of those restrictions.

Did you think it was going to make you immune ?? Once it prevents serious illness in a majority then its acceptable. Covid just doesn't go away with a vaccine

So will lessening serious illness allow large gatherings and things to come back? Social groups cannot survive forever with Zoom calls

stephenjmcd

Gael23 wrote: »

So will lessening serious illness allow large gatherings and things to come back? Social groups cannot survive forever with Zoom calls

Of course it will. Preliminary data suggests lungs are protected and thats key

stephenjmcd

jackboy wrote: »

Yeah, but it needs to help the people that already have serious illness. Preventing serious illness for the majority won’t stop large numbers of deaths.

What are you on about??

The aim is to prevent serious illness in the majority, a vaccine that does that is acceptable.

Based on your previous posts I doubt you've looked into this too much.

You don't need everyone vaccinated to break transmission

dominatinMC

jackboy wrote: »

Masks can be worn without impacting the economy. Social distancing will continue to cause economic carnage but if the choice is between that and lots of deaths then I don’t think things will change.

Covid is much more infectious than the flu. If masks and social distancing stop it will rage through the population. Even with a moderately effective vaccine, large numbers will die.

Utterly ridiculous. You honestly think social distancing will continue ad infinitum?! We are approx. 9 months into the pandemic and society is already growing weary. In some cases, there is even blatant disregard for social distancing measures. Governments, companies, society at large want a return to normal, and the advent of a vaccine will allow this eventually. Not overnight, but once the virus is sufficiently suppressed (it will probably never be eliminated), then we can get on with things. What your suggesting is no more social gatherings/interactions, holiday's, concerts, pubs, restaurants, basically any kind of craic! Maybe it's some kind of wishful thinking on your part, but it ain't happening.

Dickie10

i have a feeling some governments such as ours actually like this control. they will definitley keep level 3 over christmas and into the new year. it cuts down on a huge amount of deaths on roads, fro alchol, drugs, common flu is way down because of masks, death numbers this year are tiny compared to a normal year. I think they are now in habit of controlling us, we could see periodic closing of society now each winter, like a forced , mandatory dry january or november. maybe pub closing times back to 9pm on sunday and week nights , put down as good for our health. maybe the pandoras box has been opened now

Gael23

Dickie10 wrote: »

i have a feeling some governments such as ours actually like this control. they will definitley keep level 3 over christmas and into the new year. it cuts down on a huge amount of deaths on roads, fro alchol, drugs, common flu is way down because of masks, death numbers this year are tiny compared to a normal year. I think they are now in habit of controlling us, we could see periodic closing of society now each winter, like a forced , mandatory dry january or november. maybe pub closing times back to 9pm on sunday and week nights , put down as good for our health. maybe the pandoras box has been opened now

If they keep the current restrictions over the Christmas period they will lose what little support is remaining

Leftwaffe

Dickie10 wrote: »

i have a feeling some governments such as ours actually like this control. they will definitley keep level 3 over christmas and into the new year. it cuts down on a huge amount of deaths on roads, fro alchol, drugs, common flu is way down because of masks, death numbers this year are tiny compared to a normal year. I think they are now in habit of controlling us, we could see periodic closing of society now each winter, like a forced , mandatory dry january or november. maybe pub closing times back to 9pm on sunday and week nights , put down as good for our health. maybe the pandoras box has been opened now

Jim Corr is that you?

Dickie10

christ no im no jim corr. God i was upbeat a few months back , its just i have a feeling theres a sector of NYPHET delighting in all this. the government will have to go for broke if the get these numbers down this time, are we destinied for the next 2021 and 2022 to do this every 3 months as waves come? vaccine even if its out by March to general population it wil be a t least 2 years before everyone has access, how do they go alone and cut NYPHET off their hip? when do they go for it? would the general population even notice covid had it never been signalled, would we have been an italy?

Strumms

We are one of the most socially active and outgoing races on the face of the earth. Also unfortunately quite socially needy and dependent in a lot of cases. With covid none of that is a great mix.

If we had have been left to our own devices with ‘recommendations’ rather then hard restrictions we’d have been donald ducked... quite frankly.

Le Bruise

Dickie10 wrote: »

christ no im no jim corr. God i was upbeat a few months back , its just i have a feeling theres a sector of NYPHET delighting in all this. the government will have to go for broke if the get these numbers down this time, are we destinied for the next 2021 and 2022 to do this every 3 months as waves come? vaccine even if its out by March to general population it wil be a t least 2 years before everyone has access, how do they go alone and cut NYPHET off their hip? when do they go for it? would the general population even notice covid had it never been signalled, would we have been an italy?

What makes you say it’ll be 2 years before everyone gets the vaccine.....and why would everyone even need to get the vaccine for normality to prevail?

While there are some ‘tv experts’ thriving in the doom as it keeps them relevant, I really doubt anyone from NPHET is delighting in this, and we won’t hear from them once the severe illnesses/deaths subside post-vaccine.

patnor1011

Le Bruise wrote: »

What makes you say it’ll be 2 years before everyone gets the vaccine.....and why would everyone even need to get the vaccine for normality to prevail?

While there are some ‘tv experts’ thriving in the doom as it keeps them relevant, I really doubt anyone from NPHET is delighting in this, and we won’t hear from them once the severe illnesses/deaths subside post-vaccine.

It may take even longer than 2 years. Even vaccine pope Gates said in recent interview that people needs to be ready for restrictions and lockdowns to continue for several years possibly even lifetime until....wait for it... second generation of covid vaccines become available.

(I know, this is precious - pretty much like slap in the face for everyone waiting for vaccine so everything gets back to where it was before).

marno21

patnor1011 wrote: »

It may take even longer than 2 years. Even vaccine pope Gates said in recent interview that people needs to be ready for restrictions and lockdowns to continue for several years possibly even lifetime until....wait for it... second generation of covid vaccines become available.

(I know, this is precious - pretty much like slap in the face for everyone waiting for vaccine so everything gets back to where it was before).

Reality check time.

Ireland will have to borrow around €20bn next year to sustain the economy with the restrictions we are living with (this is presumptive of no effective vaccine coming online in 2021 as per your scenario). This is completely unsustainable.

This is a cold hard fact some people will not agree with or can't bear to accept. The majority of people dying after getting diagnosed with Covid-19 are either old or have an underlying condition, and are able to live with a certain quality of life due to the advanced healthcare systems Ireland and similar western countries have. There is little people dying in the third world from Covid-19, despite widespread infection, because people of this age or with these conditions in those countries don't have the level of quality healthcare to be alive at that point.

Should you continue with the 90% economy we are currently running on, we will have to make serious cutbacks as a whole and the people who suffer will be those dependent on healthcare quality for the standard of living we have. It is not feasible to maintain the level of restrictions we currently have beyond a few months from now, and certainly beyond 2021.

We are either reliant on effective medical interventions (a vaccine or cure) coming online in the next few months or there will be some hard choices to be made. The current situation is completely unsustainable.

patnor1011

I agree. With exception of that I do not believe we are running at 90% it is likely much less than that. Thing is that we already wait too long and certainly cant wait for miracle which is not coming. At the very least even if it will come it will not come soon enough.

Like a lot of people are convinced that "when vaccines come everything will go back to normal" which is far from truth.

marno21

patnor1011 wrote: »

I agree. With exception of that I do not believe we are running at 90% it is likely much less than that. Thing is that we already wait too long and certainly cant wait for miracle which is not coming. At the very least even if it will come it will not come soon enough.

Like a lot of people are convinced that "when vaccines come everything will go back to normal" which is far from truth.

It was called the 90% economy in the late summer when we were running close to normal with restaurants open with measures etc. It is probably closer to 70% or so now as you say.

Completely unsustainable.

hmmm

johnire wrote: »

Or will life get back to some sort of normal for those who opt not to have the vaccine on the shirt tails of those that do get it? I know I’m not explaining it very well but I just don’t understand how the world is going to function if say 50% have got the vaccine and 50% haven’t.

It probably depends on how effective the vaccine is for a lot of these scenarios.

Ideally, enough people would get the vaccine in a short period of time which means the virus is effectively eliminated. The vaccine doesn't have to be perfect to achieve this, but it will essentially get starved of new human hosts to infect. This would be a relatively fast rollout. If not enough people take the vaccine, we would not achieve "herd immunity" and we will have to continue with restrictions like social distancing as vulnerable groups are still at risk.

It may be the case that the vaccine isn't very effective at preventing spread, but does protect against severe disease. In that case, we might see a relatively slow rollout with high-risk groups only getting the vaccine. Regulators will take their time deciding whether it's worthwhile giving it to lower-risk groups.

The bottom line is that vaccines are not really about protecting individuals, their effectiveness comes from increasing the protection for everyone. They are a bit like insurance - everyone pays in, and a small number of people benefit. If large numbers of people don't take the vaccine, everyone is less protected and everyone suffers.

Do unvaccinated people ride on the coat-tails of others? Yes to a point. But when that point is reached, they can suffer badly - e.g. we are seeing increasing numbers of measles cases across the West thanks to an increasing number of people not getting their children vaccinated.

Thierry12

johnire wrote: »

Can I ask you folks about something that has been the source of great debate with people I know?
If and when a vaccine becomes a reality I’m pretty sure I will get it(and my husband). However a close friend is adamant she won’t get it. I know of course that throughout the world they’ll be x number of people who will get it and x number who won’t. My question will it mean that life as it is now won’t essentially change for those who don’t get the vaccine? Or will life get back to some sort of normal for those who opt not to have the vaccine on the shirt tails of those that do get it? I know I’m not explaining it very well but I just don’t understand how the world is going to function if say 50% have got the vaccine and 50% haven’t.

If the vaccine doesn't give sterilising immunity will the people that get the vaccine be contagious?

I am guessing they will be contagious in theory but viral load they can give out will be so small that it would be extremely rare for them to infect someone

I don't expect sterilising immunity from these early vaccines, but do expect no worse than a flu and the odd person being contagious

Hector Savage

Marhay70 wrote: »

I thing the prospect of suffocating to death is infinitely less preferable to the pleasures of getting up close and personal with the great unwashed.

Even if you get it you have 99.8% chance of this not happening to you ...

hmmm

Biontech is one we haven't been keeping an eye on. I know very little about how reputable they or this news is:
https://www.wa.de/deutschland-welt/corona-impfstoff-impfungen-winter-forschung-gegenmittel-infizierte-dosis-deutschland-biontech-zr-90068929.html

"The vaccine is now being tested in the so-called rolling review process in Amsterdam. In April, Biontech was the first German company to receive approval to receive clinical studies. Around 37,000 participants have now been included in the study, 28,000 of whom have already received the second dose."

Jeremy Farrarr is Director of the huge Wellcome trust and has been pretty conservative to date, so I was surprised to read this:
https://twitter.com/JeremyFarrar/status/1316136452900761600

Gael23

There needs to be some consequences for refusing this vaccine as it damages society as a whole of you don’t have it. Only 35% of people here say they will take it