COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Talking about safety of rushed vaccines

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN26G0NE

If it's true, this is what I was talking about.

Irish Stones wrote: »

Talking about safety of rushed vaccines

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN26G0NE

If it's true, this is what I was talking about.

An article from September, any new news for us ? This was widely known already by anyone following news in general or this thread.

Standard deal with regards to vaccines, companies supply at lower price for countries (EU in this case) providing higher indemnity, if countries want less indemnity they pay a higher price . Its explained in the article how this happens. It literally happens with every vaccine.

What you were talking about? You mean the posts where you came out with nonsense and multiple posters (some more knowledgeable than me in the area of vaccines)called you out on it.

We get it you wont be taking a vaccine, you've made that perfectly clear and have nothing to back up your opinion, we've been around in circles here.

theguzman wrote: »

A digital passport will be the modern day equivelant, I hope there is a vaccine and it works but it should not come at the expense of freedom or liberty, yes Covid is a disease, I have had it myself so I am not a covid denier. It was however man-made and unleashed for a purpose, we are witnessing the reasons for this already now. I have no worries that a vaccine will be found because a vaccine was already made and tested and designed prior to all this, remember the war on terror, 9/11 etc. the American's are now actually allied with the Taliban, however our lives completely for the worse as a direct result of that and Covid is no different.

This has to be the most tin foil hat post I’ve ever read....and there’s been a few!

stephenjmcd wrote: »

We get it you wont be taking a vaccine, you've made that perfectly clear and have nothing to back up your opinion, we've been around in circles here.

Isn't that great that you keep saying that you got it already what I am writing, that I made myself clear, yet you haven't understood what I am talking about?

Irish Stones wrote: »

Isn't that great that you keep saying that you got it already what I am writing, that I made myself clear, yet you haven't understood what I am talking about?

I think the majority of posters on here are fairly well informed and do their bit of research (unlike the main Covid thread!), so I would think that they do understand your points but just don't agree with them. That is allowed you know, you're word isn't gospel. And just because you keep saying the same thing over and over again, doesn't necessarily make it true.

Thierry12 wrote: »

This thread like the Covid19 thread on reddit should require some medical qualifications in the field to let you post in it

You've a few posters here posting every day acting like doctors, taking it very serious, posting links to medical journals, talking about efficacy, immunity, logistics involved, slamming other posters

What is your medical qualification btw?

Who made you arbiter of this thread? If the moderators want to impose that condition, let them do so, until then we are all free to post.

As for the rest of your post, please point to an example where I linked a medical journal. And I fail to see what my qualifications have to do with this? Unless there is a requirement that you must have one in order to post in this thread? However, you certainly don't need a medical qualification to recognise a gob****e posting rubbish.

Gael23 wrote: »

Is there an ethical case for permitting adverse events in a small number of patients for the greater good of saving humanity?
We have seen AZ and J&J pause for one adverse event in approx 30k participants each. If these did turn out to be related to the vaccine is that 1in30,000 event acceptable to save the world?

Would you accept in a case like that if everyone in Ireland was vaccinated the vaccine would kill 100 healthy people.

Gael23 wrote: »

Is there an ethical case for permitting adverse events in a small number of patients for the greater good of saving humanity?
We have seen AZ and J&J pause for one adverse event in approx 30k participants each. If these did turn out to be related to the vaccine is that 1in30,000 event acceptable to save the world?

There are a lot of questions for a serious adverse event (SAE). There is also a difference with adverse event. An adverse event is like bruising, a sore shoulder, not getting a hard on for a day or two.

An SAE is usually an event that usually, not always, requires hospitalisation (so heart attack, stroke etc). This is where things will slow down a bit as they need to see what triggered it. I’ve been on studies where someone took paracetamol and the interaction caused a SAE. That is where you typically get warnings etc on medications.

In both cases the trial was stopped and investigated. An external board takes in all the data (extra blood work /testing would be required) and go from there. If they can’t find any association then the trial resumes.

If it passes Phase III, it goes to IV where if something is seen in the general public the drug gets pulled quickly. So the drug will still be closely monitored on rollout (all drugs go through this)

Sky picking this up https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-republic-of-ireland-could-begin-vaccinations-in-early-2021-says-leo-varadkar-12114248

Apogee wrote: »

Interesting to see whether this approach ultimately succeeds or not:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-covid-sweeps-europe-one-country-tries-a-new-tactic-test-the-entire-population-11603462995

They did similar in Iceland from what I know.

Apogee wrote: »

Interesting to see whether this approach ultimately succeeds or not:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-covid-sweeps-europe-one-country-tries-a-new-tactic-test-the-entire-population-11603462995

thats a brilliant idea, and pure common sense to.

The only stumbling block is imprted cases, but you'd imagine if you mass test the population then you really can out test the spread of this bloody thing

Apogee wrote: »

Interesting to see whether this approach ultimately succeeds or not:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-covid-sweeps-europe-one-country-tries-a-new-tactic-test-the-entire-population-11603462995

The Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) were asked by NPHET to undertake a rapid health technology assessment (HTA) of the alternatives to laboratory-based PCR to diagnose current infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Some snippets from the report in relation to rapid antigen tests include:

"Due to reduced sensitivity associated with Rapid Antigen Detection Tests (RADTs), the WHO suggests that RADTs should only be used when rRT-PCR is unavailable, or where prolonged turnaround times preclude clinical utility (i.e. a patient who needs a result urgently and can't wait).
Where RADTs are used, the WHO suggests a desirable minimum performance of ≥90% sensitivity and ≥99% specificity."

"The WHO currently advises against the use of rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs)s in a number of situations, including for the purposes of screening in airports or other border points of entry; this is due to the highly uncertain prevalence of disease and unknown predictive value of the test."

"For RADTs, only one systematic review of diagnostic accuracy was identified. Sensitivity of such tests was found to vary significantly across test brands; estimates ranged from 0% to 94%, with an average sensitivity of 56.2% (95% CI 29.5% to 79.8%). Average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%)."

A test with 56% sensitivity means it will miss nearly half of positive cases.

"There is a lack of information on the diagnostic accuracy of alternatives to rRT-PCR in important patient sub-populations and settings. This includes asymptomatic individuals, specific at-risk populations such as healthcare workers, and the validation of diagnostic performance of tests outside of the hospital setting."

This implies rapid antigen tests would not be suitable in people with no symptoms or in vulnerable settings like nursing homes.


It's certainly an interesting project that Slovakia have undertaken. But they have not carried out as many tests as Ireland [tests per million pop: 127,116 versus Ireland's 310,431]. Perhaps they are trying this strategy if their lab based PCR testing cannot meet demand.