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; } } }

Child Item

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

Quick Links

Comments

Irish Stones

Le Bruise wrote: »

Aren't you a ray of sunshine!:)

Sorry, I'm not

Micky 32

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Turn that frown upside down man. At a time when there is so much negativity around, seeing some really good progress on vaccines can only be a good thing.

There seems to be a cohort who would love to see the vaccine fail. They love the drama and misery of it. Thankfully going by my research I’m confident they will be disappointed.

Irish Stones

Micky 32 wrote: »

There seems to be a cohort who would love to see the vaccine fail. They love the drama and misery of it. Thankfully going by my research I’m confident they will be disappointed.

I'm not happy if vaccine fails, but I think I'm being realistic here if I say that no vaccine will be available soon.
And when the vaccine is available, how long will it take to be produced and distributed to everyone on Earth?
We're 7.5 billions, how many "days" will it take to give them all a shot? And how many days if the shots will have to be more than one for each person?

That's why I can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

Sweet.Science

Irish Stones wrote: »

I'm not happy if vaccine fails, but I think I'm being realistic here if I say that no vaccine will be available soon.
And when the vaccine is available, how long will it take to be produced and distributed to everyone on Earth?
We're 7.5 billions, how many "days" will it take to give them all a shot? And how many days if the shots will have to be more than one for each person?

That's why I can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

But thats not really being realistic . Also all 7.5 billion people dont need a shot.

ACitizenErased

Irish Stones wrote: »

I'm not happy if vaccine fails, but I think I'm being realistic here if I say that no vaccine will be available soon.
And when the vaccine is available, how long will it take to be produced and distributed to everyone on Earth?
We're 7.5 billions, how many "days" will it take to give them all a shot? And how many days if the shots will have to be more than one for each person?

That's why I can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

What's your response to Pfizer being likely to get approval in the next 4 weeks?

Gael23

The supply from Pfizer this year will be under a million. Hard to get excited

zuutroy

Gael23 wrote: »

The supply from Pfizer this year will be under a million. Hard to get excited

You're a factor of 100 off what they themselves have estimated.

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

The supply from Pfizer this year will be under a million. Hard to get excited

What? It's 100m by end of year.

Irish Stones

Sweet.Science wrote: »

But thats not really being realistic . Also all 7.5 billion people dont need a shot.

And how many people do?
Half of them?
It's still a huge number to be handled in a relatively short time.

Micky 32

Irish Stones wrote: »

That's why I can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

Like i said, going by what i know and researched i can see a light ;-)

Irish Stones

ACitizenErased wrote: »

What's your response to Pfizer being likely to get approval in the next 4 weeks?

We don't know if it's effective. How long did they test it? A month? Two?

Micky 32

ACitizenErased wrote: »

What's your response to Pfizer being likely to get approval in the next 4 weeks?

Sure it will only stop you getting a headache and a sore throat ;-)

Irish Stones

ACitizenErased wrote: »

What? It's 100m by end of year.

That is far from what we need. Europe is 5 times more populated.
Especially when each of us will need two or more shots.

ACitizenErased

Irish Stones wrote: »

That is far from what we need. Europe is 5 times more populated.
Especially when each of us will need two or more shots.

It's 100m per month. Which the EU has pre-purchased.
And 100m can vaccinate most healthcare workers, straight away.

Irish Stones

ACitizenErased wrote: »

It's 100m per month. Which the EU has pre-purchased.
And 100m can vaccinate most healthcare workers, straight away.

My wife is a healthcare worker at the local hospital (we live in Italy, we're both Italians), and she said she isn't willing to get a shot of something that hasn't been tested properly.
A month or so testing isn't what we call it a thorough test.

ACitizenErased

Irish Stones wrote: »

My wife is a healthcare worker at the local hospital (we live in Italy, we're both Italians), and she said she isn't willing to get a shot of something that hasn't been tested properly.
A month or so testing isn't what we call it a thorough test.

A month?

[Deleted User]

Irish Stones wrote: »

We don't know if it's effective. How long did they test it? A month? Two?

With a raging pandemic, you don't actually need too long to determine efficacy. If they find 150 people in the study that develop the disease in the recent timeframe, and 120 of those are in the placebo group you can be pretty sure it's doing what you'd hope.

Obviously when you are testing a vaccine for a rarer infection, then you literally need years of research and might be waiting a long time for a significant number of infections to occur in the study.

Irish Stones

ACitizenErased wrote: »

A month?

A month or so... Maybe two or three? Not longer.
It usually teakes years to have a drug approved, because all side effects have to be taken into account, and the reports from the multitude of doctors around the world need a long time to be elaborated.

So, even if it is a three-month testing, we think it isn't enough.

[Deleted User]

Irish Stones wrote: »

My wife is a healthcare worker at the local hospital (we live in Italy, we're both Italians), and she said she isn't willing to get a shot of something that hasn't been tested properly.
A month or so testing isn't what we call it a thorough test.

That's why the FDA are waiting on two months of safety data, that means two months after all participants receive their second dose.

It doesn't mean just two months of data as the first participants received the second dose in early summer.

ShineOn7

I know some people who are hospital workers and the majority of them won't be getting the vaccine either until they see the after effects of it

But we only need a certain amount of people overall to get it to squash the R0 way, way down right?

FintanMcluskey

Irish Stones wrote: »

My wife is a healthcare worker at the local hospital (we live in Italy, we're both Italians), and she said she isn't willing to get a shot of something that hasn't been tested properly.
A month or so testing isn't what we call it a thorough test.

I’m very curious about this.

Are healthcare workers all in favour of taking it?

[Deleted User]

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I know some people who are hospital workers and the majority of them won't be getting the vaccine either until they see the after effects of it

But we only need a certain amount of people overall to get it to squash the R0 way, way down right?

Depends on the unmitigated reproductive number of the virus and the effectiveness of the vaccine. The goal is to get the reproductive number under 1.

Irish Stones

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I’m very curious about.

Are healthcare workers all in favour of taking it?

I don't know, my wife isn't feeling safe with a vaccine that hasn't been tested.

Neither am I.

Sconsey

Irish Stones wrote: »

I don't know, my wife isn't feeling safe with a vaccine that hasn't been tested.

Neither am I.

If there was any justice your wife and yourself would be sent home from the hospital on unpaid leave untill you were satisfied that the vaccine was safe. Considering you seem to know more than the actual experts you should put your money where your mouth is.

stephenjmcd

Irish Stones wrote: »

I don't know, my wife isn't feeling safe with a vaccine that hasn't been tested.

Neither am I.

Hasn't been tested.... sorry I must have mistaken the 60k plus in each trial going back to early summer as not being tested.... Bloody hell

Multiple reasons why it will be the quickest vaccine produced. Little point in trying to discuss though as your stance has been made perfectly clear.

Cordell

Irish Stones wrote: »

I don't know, my wife isn't feeling safe with a vaccine that hasn't been tested.

Neither am I.

With all due respect to health workers, and I'm genuine about it, neither you nor your wife have the qualifications to make this determination. You have the right to refuse it for yourselves, but its safety is not for you to decide.

irishgeo

We might have multiple vaccines. Some for young some for old.

China and Russia have vaccines produced maybe not to EU/USA standards but they rolling them out.

Irish Stones

Sconsey wrote: »

If there was any justice your wife and yourself would be sent home from the hospital on unpaid leave untill you were satisfied that the vaccine was safe. Considering you seem to know more than the actual experts you should put your money where your mouth is.

A vaccine is safe when it doesn't give any fatal or invalidating side effects in the middle to long term. And so far such a long term hasn't been tested.
A vaccine is effective when it does its job, that is giving a person a long lasting or life-long immunity, and this hasn't been proved yet.

Cordell

That's simply not true. There is no such thing as risk free drug, all have a level of risk that is reasonably low given their benefits.

is_that_so

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I’m very curious about this.

Are healthcare workers all in favour of taking it?

Probably not, they are barely in favour of taking the flu' vaccine!