lurker2000 wrote: » Thanks al; - tbh I just feel bummed that its so last minute and that any of them could have it now without knowing, yet I'm the leper. Anyway, any ideas where I could get it done - will ring the GP in the morning for suggestions also ...
funnydoggy wrote: » That's the mRNA vaccine isn't it? Wow. Reading about how that type of delivery could potentially be used for cancer treatments and the like. Amazing.
stargazer 68 wrote: » Unless you have been at home for 12 weeks another test wont show negative! When the HSE test the staff at nursing homes etc if you have had a positive test you cant be tested for another 12 weeks as you will still show remains of the virus. Now my time could be inaccurate but that's from what I remember from drawing up the staff lists to submit to the HSE
is_that_so wrote: » Q3-Q4 for most people in that scenario.
astrofool wrote: » It's amazing, but a pandemic like this could end up having a positive effect for a range of diseases, as well as enable us to fight future pandemics much more effectively.
marno21 wrote: » We got away lightly here. A virus that causes disease with an IFR ten times that of Covid-19 would still only be around 5%. Depending on other factors, possibly higher. A virus with pre-symptomatic transmission with a R0 similar to SARS-CoV-2, with a far higher rate is not inconceivable. Hopefully this pandemic wakes us up to the threat of rapidly spreading infectious disease the same was SARS was the reason Taiwan/HK/South Korea were so well able to contain this one.
drunkmonkey wrote: » It's reported in the news this morning that the antibodies don't last long. Does that mean any vaccine will suffer the same faith and not offer protection without constant boosters? It would also imply the the longer we drag this out the greater chance of reinfection for those who already had it.
mean gene wrote: » any link to that
drunkmonkey wrote: » It's reported in the news this morning that the antibodies don't last long.
Hmmzis wrote: » Let me guess, they're referencing the 3 month follow-up study in Nature, right?
Irish Stones wrote: » My personal opinion is that once a person gets infected and recovers from it, they are immune, or we would see several thousands of cases of people getting reinfected, which is not happening. There are undreds of thousands of new cases daily, but a very little number of reinfections.
average_runner wrote: » In fairness, considering the amount of people infected in Ireland is low, it will be hard to see re-infected cases. But Sweden and the US have reported some already. Don't think there is any immunity to any respiratory disease out there, so why is this different?
Irish Stones wrote: » Please, bear with me. Say that an infection takes a month on average to clear (30 days). Say that the antibodies vanish after three months (90 days). Now, Joe gets the coronavirus, and is clear from it on day 30, while his antibodies vanish on day 120. Now, Joe would be at risk again, say from day 150? Over here we had 100,000 cases of infections in March. Then we had 100,000 further cases in April, and about 30,000 new cases in May. They're 230+k in just three months. Now, all these people, unless they unfortunately died (33k died in three months), are again subject to the infection, because for each of them the 120+ days have elapsed. Say that about 1% of them gets the infection again (which is a very conservative number given the current environmental situation with 20,000+ cases everyday), so I'd expect that 2,000 persons would be reinfected. Not all of them get on the news, say that only 1% of them get on the news (and I'm being conservative again here), we should have heard that in the last two months 20 persons, in this country only, have been reinfected. And I haven't heard anything of the kind. Just imagine if it isn't the 1% of the 1%, numbers should be incredibly high, and yet I haven't heard any news of the kind. So I could say that people who get the coronavirus and recover from it are immune. A few reported cases in the world is not surprise, after all we have 41+ millions cases worldwide, I would be surprised of the opposite. I'm open to any explanation.
average_runner wrote: » How many people do you hear getting the flu more than once in a year ? Yet there is no immunity for it ? Even when a vaccine comes it will be only 70% effective per person, same as the flu vaccine
Marhay70 wrote: » I could be completely wrong but logically i fail to see why antibodies would persist after recovery. Surely antibodies are there while your body is fighting the disease and once it has cleared there is no longer any need to produce them, the body uses other means to protect you.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » People tend to hold antibodies for years for many flu viruses. I believe they are left over rather than constant production.
drunkmonkey wrote: » No the imperial college london. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54696873
Hmmzis wrote: » The problem with flu is the antigenic drift, the damn thing keeps mutating away all the time. That really screws with vaccine efficacy for it and immune responses. Would you have a source for the 70% efficacy claim for SARS-cov-2 vaccines? Which of them is that for? I haven't seen any phase 3 efficacy data yet, if you could provide a link to that it would be greatly appreciated. If it's true that sounds actually rather good.
Irish Stones wrote: » As far as I know, people do not hold antibodies, the immune system holds memory of the infection and can produce the right antibodies faster and more effectively than in the first event. The memory of the immunity could reside in the T cells.
