ACitizenErased wrote: » Most of the trials so far have shown massive reduction in viral load in the upper airway, one of the biggest methods of transmission. Chances are that it will be the outcome.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Is this the trial for the Pfizer vaccine?
The BNT162b2 vaccination also cleared the nose of detectable viral RNA in 100% of the SARS-CoV-2 challenged rhesus macaques within 3 days after the infection
mohawk wrote: » To expand on this point. The acceptable side-effects depends on risk v reward. What I mean is it acceptable to have more severe side-effects for stage 4 cancer then we do for an itchy rash. Vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore side effects for the vast, vast majority of people should be mild and not long lasting otherwise it’s not justifiable to approve the vaccines for use. There will be side effects there always are.
First results of Russian coronavirus vaccine trial to include data from 5,000-10,000 people Interim results from the late-stage human trial of Russia's main coronavirus vaccine candidate could include data from 5,000 -10,000 participants, Denis Logunov, director at the Gamaleya Institute that developed the vaccine, said on Monday. Russia's plan to publish preliminary data about the Sputnik V jab as early as November is likely to make it one of the first vaccine developers to share any data from a final stage trial, known as Phase III, but also puts it at odds with competitors. The Sputnik V trial, involving 40,000 volunteers, has been underway in Moscow since the beginning of September. Interim results, when published, will be based on the first 42 days of monitoring participants, Gamaleya developers told Reuters last month.
yosemitesam1 wrote: » A trial on 6 monkeys in controlled conditions is vastly different to hundreds of thousands of people in real world conditions. Without any hard data from the latter, I would be very sceptical of what will actually be achieved as there is no comparison between the two
Gael23 wrote: » A year of restrictions until vaccine is rolled out? https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-54371559
marno21 wrote: » Getting sick of this ****e in the media now. Literally every talking point in this article is the worst case scenario approach. Yes all the vaccines may not work, but we have several in Phase III now and the data so far is promising. Yes the entire population won’t be vaccinated the day the vaccine is approved - but the world is on hold waiting for this to end, vaccination of people will be made the utmost priority and will be done on a scale not seen before Yes there may be logistical challenges involved but we can manage those - the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not doing so Yes the vaccine won’t be 100% efficacious and may not provide total sterilising immunity - but if it can reduce severe covid-19 down to the level of a seasonal cold - we can return to normal Beyond sick of articles laden with quotes from academics either outlining the worst case scenario as being the default outcome or else saying we can’t do this or that because it hasn’t been done before. It hasn’t been done before because we’ve never had reason to. There is no precedent here. There was no manual or playbook for this. All this is doing is creating even more anxiety in an already exhausted population
NEW YORK — As the world awaits a COVID-19 vaccine, UNICEF has begun laying the groundwork for the rapid, safe and efficient delivery of the eventual vaccine by purchasing and pre-positioning syringes and other necessary equipment. As soon as COVID-19 vaccines successfully emerge from trials and are licensed and recommended for use, the world will need as many syringes as doses of vaccine. To begin preparations, this year, UNICEF will stockpile 520 million syringes in its warehouses, part of a larger plan of 1 billion syringes by 2021, to guarantee initial supply and help ensure that syringes arrive in countries before the COVID-19 vaccines.
polesheep wrote: » The problem is that there has been a huge build up of expectations regarding possible vaccines. Over-promising by pharmaceuticals and politicians has fuelled this. In the public eye, science could come out of this either a hero or a villain. Hopefully there will be a vaccine that lives up to expectations but never trust a politician.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Early on I stupidly thought that all pharmaceutical companies would pool together to create a vaccine, which would make sense from the point of view of unlimited resources. It’s essentially a competition though, which is going to cause some to be sceptical until such a point that it is actually approved.
marno21 wrote: » The other side of that coin is that in a relatively similar modern time we have never seen such effort worldwide to progress a vaccine. Aside from the front runners there are over 200 vaccines in various stages of the development process. We have no precedent for this either.
Irish Stones wrote: » I just wouldn't want further side effects than I already received from this virus. To me, the optimum would be zero side effects, because I have mine already, don't need more.
ACitizenErased wrote: » Who cares about the risk to you? The risk is you pass it onto someone vulnerable. The world doesn't revolve around your health.
Maxpfizer wrote: » How do we know how it will interact with other conditions and medications etc?
Le Bruise wrote: » That report is from 1st October. There seems to be far more confidence in the UK now. Also, you're picking up the worse case scenario from the article with your 'a year of restrictions' statement.
zuutroy wrote: » A few thousand years of medical experience and literature maybe? It's not a case of George's Marvellous Medicine where they're mixing stuff from the garage in a bucket and injecting it into us.
Gael23 wrote: » I’m not an anti vaxxer at all but I will only take a vaccine if life quickly returns to normal
Maxpfizer wrote: » Fair enough but I thought the reason most treatments, medications etc go through such extremely rigorous testing is to discover these things before going to the public? Just saying that the turnaround time is so short that it's difficult to trust that they haven't missed something. Mistakes have been made before and while we have learned from those mistakes it doesn't mean we won't make more in the future. So while they're not exactly mixing stuff in the garage in a bucket they are also not exactly spending 5 years finding the answer to "is it safe".
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
