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

hmmm

Hector Savage wrote: »

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

There's an entire Restrictions thread where people can post spurious statistics to their heart's content.

hmmm

Thierry12 wrote: »

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

Christian Drosten said similar in his recent interview. I don't have the exact quote, but his expectation was that even if people remained contagious after a vaccine he expected a much shorter period where that would be the case, and it would help to reduce spread significantly.

is_that_so

Gael23 wrote: »

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

Judging by the flu' vaccine demand you're being very pessimistic. A few strident voices can give the impression of a lot of people. A good majority of people should go for it.

Hector Savage

Question - Why is Bill Gates the public health expert all of a sudden ?

He made his billions as a tech nerd - wtf does he know about medicine ?

Just because he has lots invested in pharma ?

It's like interviewing Roman Abramovich as a football expert because he has billions invested in Chelsea - I'm sure he enjoys the game, but would know f*ck all compared to Lawro or Hanson ....

Gael23

is_that_so wrote: »

Judging by the flu' vaccine demand you're being very pessimistic. A few strident voices can give the impression of a lot of people. A good majority of people should go for it.

Maybe, I’m happy to be wrong on this. Boards posters alone isn’t the most reliable sample I suppose

Hmmzis

hmmm wrote: »

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

That's the BioNTech/Pfizer candidate. It's arguably the front running candidate at this moment.

Thierry12

hmmm wrote: »

Christian Drosten said similar in his recent interview. I don't have the exact quote, but his expectation was that even if people remained contagious after a vaccine he expected a much shorter period where that would be the case, and it would help to reduce spread significantly.

Yeah thats the best we can hope for right now, hope he is right

Thierry12

Hector Savage wrote: »

Question - Why is Bill Gates the public health expert all of a sudden ?

He mad his billions as a tech nerd - wtf does he know about medicine ?

Just because he has lots invested in pharma ?

It's like interviewing Roman Abramovich as a football expert because he has billions invested in Chelsea - I'm sure he enjoys the game, but would know f*ck all compared to Lawro or Hanson ....

When your as rich as him you can do what you like

This decade he's a virologist

Next decade he'll probably be an astronaut working with the Chinese on a Mars or moon landing

hmmm

Hmmzis wrote: »

That's the BioNTech/Pfizer candidate. It's arguably the front running candidate at this moment.

Oops

I was confusing them in my head with Novavax. Interesting nevertheless to hear from the Biontech/German side, everything else we've heard has been from Pfizer.

hmmm

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's like interviewing Roman Abramovich as a football expert because he has billions invested in Chelsea - I'm sure he enjoys the game, but would know f*ck all compared to Lawro or Hanson ....

After Gates retired, and to atone for Windows Clippy, he decided that if he was going into philanthropy as a multi-billionaire he should tackle some of the really big problems. Healthcare in poor countries is one of those problems. Similar to Carnegie building libraries all over the world, despite making his fortune in steel.

I think if I had 50 billion I'd do the same.

So after spending 10 years working on issues like vaccines and preventative healthcare, spending billions on research and employing some of the best scientists in the world, Gates can be called a "medical expert". It's just a pity the Internet has facilitated the efforts of a small (but vocal) group of anti-vaccine activists who want us to go back to leeches and witchdoctors to cure disease instead of science.

Sconsey

Hector Savage wrote: »

Question - Why is Bill Gates the public health expert all of a sudden ?

He made his billions as a tech nerd - wtf does he know about medicine ?

Just because he has lots invested in pharma ?

It's like interviewing Roman Abramovich as a football expert because he has billions invested in Chelsea - I'm sure he enjoys the game, but would know f*ck all compared to Lawro or Hanson ....

No it's not because of his investments in pharma, if any. It's because of his philantropic activity and the foundation he set up with his wife. He is pumping most of his own wealth into areas like malaria treatments and prevention, including vaccine research (more for TB than malaria). Morons on Facebook have decided to villify him because they can't get their small brains around the fact that he is trying to help the less well off, it scares them. This moronic idea has been picked up by other hate groups who promote mis-information.

He has become a public health expert through his research. He is not qualified but his insights on global health issues, through the work of his foundation, are still valuable. This did not happen all of a sudden.

The comparison to Roman Abramovich makes no sense to me.

Gael23

Hmmzis wrote: »

That's the BioNTech/Pfizer candidate. It's arguably the front running candidate at this moment.

I imagine they will prioritise the US for supply so we won’t get much

Hector Savage

hmmm wrote: »

After Gates retired, and to atone for Windows Clippy, he decided that if he was going into philanthropy as a multi-billionaire he should tackle some of the really big problems. Healthcare in poor countries is one of those problems. Similar to Carnegie building libraries all over the world, despite making his fortune in steel.

I think if I had 50 billion I'd do the same.

So after spending 10 years working on issues like vaccines and preventative healthcare, spending billions on research and employing some of the best scientists in the world, Gates can be called a "medical expert". It's just a pity the Internet has facilitated the efforts of a small (but vocal) group of anti-vaccine activists who want us to go back to leeches and witchdoctors to cure disease instead of science.

Where as Bill wants us all to stay at home and die of ****ing poverty and starvation ... whilst he is ok on his billions ?

F*CK HIM!

And don't lump me in with an anti vax crowd either ....

Hector Savage

Sconsey wrote: »

No it's not because of his investments in pharma, if any. It's because of his philantropic activity and the foundation he set up with his wife. He is pumping most of his own wealth into areas like malaria treatments and prevention, including vaccine research (more for TB than malaria). Morons on Facebook have decided to villify him because they can't get their small brains around the fact that he is trying to help the less well off, it scares them. This moronic idea has been picked up by other hate groups who promote mis-information.

He has become a public health expert through his research. He is not qualified but his insights on global health issues, through the work of his foundation, are still valuable. This did not happen all of a sudden.

The comparison to Roman Abramovich makes no sense to me.

Yeah sure he is, cop on ffs!!!

You think he gives two ****s about "the less well off" ?
This is all about power and control.

stephenjmcd

Gael23 wrote: »

I imagine they will prioritise the US for supply so we won’t get much

No, Pfizer have a deal done with EU, production taking place in multiple sites including Europe

Sconsey

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yeah sure he is, cop on ffs!!!

You think he gives two ****s about "the less well off" ?
This is all about power and control.

Apologies I didn't realise I was replying to one of the aforementioned morons.

Edit: makes me wonder why you asked the question in the first place when you are already so sure of the answer? looks like you are dieing to go off on one about Bill but felt you had to make it look like a question to get started. Why the cloak and dagger? just go directly to conspiracy theories next time.

Hector Savage

Sconsey wrote: »

Apologies I didn't realise I was replying to one of the aforementioned morons.

Brilliant!!
It's all a far right conspiracy right ?

Hector Savage

Sconsey wrote: »

Apologies I didn't realise I was replying to one of the aforementioned morons.

Edit: makes me wonder why you asked the question in the first place when you are already so sure of the answer? looks like you are dieing to go off on one about Bill but felt you had to make it look like a question to get started. Why the cloak and dagger? just go directly to conspiracy theories next time.

Not a conspiracy, Bill Gates is a typical on the spectrum programmer, he is not qualified to speak and dictate to us about public health.

Full stop.

I trust doctors way before Bill and a lot don't agree with him.

faceman

Not really sure what to title this thread but hopefully someone here as some insight. Anyone familiar with the science behind covid-19 testing?

I've always wondered, given the contagious nature of the virus, why is the testing method so invasive and specific? Why for example, can a swab of saliva from the mouth not be used?

CIARAN_BOYLE

It can be used im sure but would detect the virus in a narrower window and would not be considered reliable.

PCR is the gold standard. Our government seem to ignore other test options.

otnomart

The US FDA page has a very handy page explaining differences between molecular tests, such as RT-PCR tests, that detect the virus’s genetic material, and antigen tests that detect specific proteins.
Both are conducted with nasal or throat swab.
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-testing-basics

As far as I have read so far from various sources, the saliva tests are considered not yet reliable as those above.

DaSilva

faceman wrote: »

Not really sure what to title this thread but hopefully someone here as some insight. Anyone familiar with the science behind covid-19 testing?

I've always wondered, given the contagious nature of the virus, why is the testing method so invasive and specific? Why for example, can a swab of saliva from the mouth not be used?

Speaking as a layman here so be warned, possible false info:

Sampling from the throat can work too, I think they call it an oropharyngeal swab. Many countries/labs/manufacturers do use this method, but in some cases it comes down to regulations. A test for sars-cov-2 has to be approved, you can't just go out and make your own equipment and start testing people and telling them if they are infected or not, it has to be approved, and it gets approved not just as a test for a specific thing, but as a method (how it is applied). So basically, maybe the reason for the continued use of the "brain swab" is that many or all of the tests used in Ireland only have regulatory approval for nasopharyngeal samples

Any time I see recent footage of testing in China it seems to be oropharyngeal swab, so I wonder if the skepticism over quality of those samples is misguided. There are studies I think, but I haven't read any of them

hmmm

The UK appear to be trying to lower expectations for vaccines. I think that's a good idea, but you don't want to go off the other end either and make people think a vaccine is useless which will decrease uptake.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-first-vaccines-unlikely-to-end-pandemic-says-uk-vaccines-chief-12103362

Strumms

Gael23 wrote: »

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

Problem is, if a law is attempted to be introduced to the effect... whereby the taking of the vaccine is mandatory the small number of anti vaxxers who’d oppose it might drag it out in court for x years. That cant be afforded.

And those head bangers couldn’t give two fùcks about health, life vs death... it’s simply an exercise in attention seeking and trying to put their views onto the public... the impact on the public AND the health services, the people working in the health service would be catastrophic.

I don’t know how long it will take to vaccinate the country but if at a guess on average we can vaccinate about 24,000 people per day. I base this on there being about 2,500 active gps in active practice and obviously the vaccine being in continuous supply and available to them. Each gp would be vaccinating 9 people per day so it’s a conservative number. People making an appointment to get a sore foot looked at receive the vaccine if they haven’t received it already.

Also an IMPORTANT point : Nurses who are qualified can give the flu jab, it doesn’t need to be a doctor I’m reading. If a qualified nurse can give you a flu vaccine as they can in my gp surgery it would be logical to presume that they can too give you the covid vaccine.

Maths isn’t my strong point but the vaccine could be administered countrywide in about 180-200 days ‘roughly’.....

martingriff

Gael23 wrote: »

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

Well if your going that way then any vaccine should have a fine or whatever

hmmm

This is interesting - antibodies from blood samples of patients who had SARS 1 & taken at the time neutralised SARS-COV infection, suggesting the possibility we might be able to develop a universal vaccine. Such a pity work stopped on SARS1 when it was defeated, we could have treatments ready to go today.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/08/sciadv.abc9999

munchkin_utd

Theres really informative podcasts done by the germany public service broadcaster NDR, obviously in German, which since March have been exploring every aspect of the covid pandemic.
Anyhow, the one last week went into detail on the testing, from saliva to fresh faeces to sewage, and in the end the long cotton bud to the pharyngeal area wins out just for reliability, and you are taking a sample from right where the virus grows in its initial stages.

For saliva theres a high chance of the sample being unusable if you dont fast overnight and take in the morning. If you brush your teeth the chemicals in the toothpaste just ruin the sample too. Another problem would be that you need larger containers and if youre processing 1000s a day the lab would get very cluttered very quick (I presume slowing down the amount that can be processed in a day) .

The interesting thing is that the PCR test is super sensitive so can pick up traces of the virus until 60 days after you are infected, so you could be long recovered.
The new antigen tests on the other hand are not as sensitive, so arent a direct replacement, but they essentially show if you have high viral load meaning you are very likely to be infectious and a danger to be let out and about (or into a country, or in the future a bar or stadium!!!)

Cordell

It is a shame that they didn't foresee that SARS and MERS will be eventually followed by something that will cause a global pandemic. Who would have thought that? WHO? They were to busy playing politics.

Gael23

Strumms wrote: »

Problem is, if a law is attempted to be introduced to the effect... whereby the taking of the vaccine is mandatory the small number of anti vaxxers who’d oppose it might drag it out in court for x years. That cant be afforded.

And those head bangers couldn’t give two fùcks about health, life vs death... it’s simply an exercise in attention seeking and trying to put their views onto the public... the impact on the public AND the health services, the people working in the health service would be catastrophic.

I don’t know how long it will take to vaccinate the country but if at a guess on average we can vaccinate about 24,000 people per day. I base this on there being about 2,500 active gps in active practice and obviously the vaccine being in continuous supply and available to them. Each gp would be vaccinating 9 people per day so it’s a conservative number. People making an appointment to get a sore foot looked at receive the vaccine if they haven’t received it already.

Also an IMPORTANT point : Nurses who are qualified can give the flu jab, it doesn’t need to be a doctor I’m reading. If a qualified nurse can give you a flu vaccine as they can in my gp surgery it would be logical to presume that they can too give you the covid vaccine.

Maths isn’t my strong point but the vaccine could be administered countrywide in about 180-200 days ‘roughly’.....

Yes nurses can give vaccines but I don’t see a GP surgery being able to cope. I think the HSE will have to set up clinics.

Regarding my comment about it being mandatory, there could be something like if you don’t have it then you are not allowed work in an office, you must work from home and kids must have it in order to go to school.
Something along those lines

Cordell

Pharmacists can give vaccines too.