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

stephenjmcd

timsey tiger wrote: »

Your other one isn't one. Not enough in the vaccinated group, wouldn't slow things down, just you wouldn't put this in a press release unless it actually happened.

The bigger the difference in the proportions, the smaller the sample size required to show statistical significance.

My second point wasn't not enough people in the vaccinated group.

It was not enough virus in circulation which hence slows down trials, this happened to Oxford back in May. Less infection causes delays such as this.

[Deleted User]

I know nothing about vaccines.

But if a vaccine is not enough to eventually end lockdown and restrictions then it isn’t too helpful. Of course restrictions may still be needed while we roll it out globally and I do understand that.

But we need a way to get back to normal very soon. And that can’t involve rolling out a vaccine and continuing with lockdowns while we keep waiting for a better vaccine.

timsey tiger

stephenjmcd wrote: »

My second point wasn't not enough people in the vaccinated group.

It was not enough virus in circulation which hence slows down trials, this happened to Oxford back in May. Less infection causes delays such as this.

You had point (a) the vaccine works - this one is wrong

and (b) - not enough covid 19 in community - this one is correct.

Many times you hear of trialls being suspended early for medicines, because they work better than anticipated and it becomes unethetical to keep giving the palcebo. Not quiet the same scenario, but the mathematics is the same.

Gael23

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know nothing about vaccines.

But if a vaccine is not enough to eventually end lockdown and restrictions then it isn’t too helpful. Of course restrictions may still be needed while we roll it out globally and I do understand that.

But we need a way to get back to normal very soon. And that can’t involve rolling out a vaccine and continuing with lockdowns while we keep waiting for a better vaccine.

Agree with this fully but I believe Holohan will want to wait

marno21

Gael23 wrote: »

I don’t see Holohan allowing that. His approach is zero risk

Tony Holohan doesn’t work in the Department of Finance.

FintanMcluskey

marno21 wrote: »

Tony Holohan doesn’t work in the Department of Finance.

No, but the department of finance have no bearing on the response so far

Le Bruise

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

No, but the department of finance have no bearing on the response so far

They will when there's no money left

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

I don’t see Holohan allowing that. His approach is zero risk

He doesn't have a choice, has nothing to do with him.
HPRA and HSE will deal with the vaccines.

Gael23

ACitizenErased wrote: »

He doesn't have a choice, has nothing to do with him.
HPRA and HSE will deal with the vaccines.

If the risk is not zero after the first round of vaccines then Holohan won’t let up on restrictions

Irish Stones

astrofool wrote: »

You're saying that before a pandemic occurred, that we should have been manufacturing excess masks? Before even knowing what type of virus, how it spreads, or if and when it would or even could occur? So basically stop manufacturing everything in the world today and concentrate on what might be needed for a future pandemic?

You do realise how stupid that sounds?

It seems that some countries had excess masks, in the first weeks China was selling millions masks a day to Europe, so someone else had been forward-looking.
Now, I'm not saying that we should have manufactured 50 millions masks a day, but having so few of them to even tell people they are useless so not to create panic when people weren't able to find them is crazy just the same.
Is it wiser to have a year worth stock of food when you know that you won't sell it in one day?

Stark

Didn't those excess masks that China sold to Europe turn out to be **** quality?

ACitizenErased

Gael23 wrote: »

If the risk is not zero after the first round of vaccines then Holohan won’t let up on restrictions

Holohan doesn't have a choice. He doesn't decide restrictions.

micks_address

One of the key rationale for lockdown is to avoid older and higher risk folks getting sick. Once a vaccine is available and those in that group accept it we should be able to end lockdowns. Sure people in lower age groups will get sick but generally will get better. if we can have front line health staff and vulnerable groups vaccinated by march i think that's pretty realistic and a viable timeline for ending restrictions. I can imagine hse advice re masks and shops/numbers might remain longer but everything else should be all systems go. The question about who rejects a vaccine is largely irrelevant. No country is going to lockdown to prevent vulnerable people getting sick when there's a viable vaccine available. At that point those who refuse the vaccine accept the risk getting sick poses to them.

eigrod

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1321461212660588551?s=21

FintanMcluskey

micks_address wrote: »

One of the key rationale for lockdown is to avoid older and higher risk folks getting sick. Once a vaccine is available and those in that group accept it we should be able to end lockdowns. Sure people in lower age groups will get sick but generally will get better. if we can have front line health staff and vulnerable groups vaccinated by march i think that's pretty realistic and a viable timeline for ending restrictions. I can imagine hse advice re masks and shops/numbers might remain longer but everything else should be all systems go. The question about who rejects a vaccine is largely irrelevant. No country is going to lockdown to prevent vulnerable people getting sick when there's a viable vaccine available. At that point those who refuse the vaccine accept the risk getting sick poses to them.

The question remains how effective that vaccine will be at preventing severe symptoms in significant numbers of vulnerable people.

It’s not as simple as mass administration of a vaccine and back to normal

micks_address

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The question remains how effective that vaccine will be at preventing severe symptoms in significant numbers of vulnerable people.

It’s not as simple as mass administration of a vaccine and back to normal

initial reports seem to indicate its effective across all age ranges. We should have a lot of answers by Christmas it seems

Hmmzis

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The question remains how effective that vaccine will be at preventOMG severe symptoms in significant numbers of vulnerable people.

It’s not as simple as mass administration of a vaccine and back to normal

For the most vulnerable (nursing home residents, cancer patients undergoing active treatment etc.) monoclonal antibody cocktails can be used. While not cheap, they are safe in any age group and do not depend on a working immune system to provide a benefit.

For those that still have a working immune system the vaccines should be fine, with the caveat that they might require an additional booster shot somewhere down the line. The paper I linked today (a few pages back) highlighted the mechanics of the immune response in geriatric mice - the single dose was kind of 'meh', but the first booster sorted that out quite well. Giving a 2nd booster 6-12 months later could see the response being brought up to average adult ranges. The J&J and AZ/Oxford vaccines in younger people might be fine with a single shot (especially J&J).

Irish Stones

Stark wrote: »

Didn't those excess masks that China sold to Europe turn out to be **** quality?

Yes, but we're still stumbling into some bad quality stock every now and then, 6 months later.

Irish Stones

Hmmzis wrote: »

the single dose was kind of 'meh', but the first booster sorted that out quite well. Giving a 2nd booster 6-12 months later could see the response being brought up to average adult ranges. The J&J and AZ/Oxford vaccines in younger people might be fine with a single shot (especially J&J).

Do you think we will have to produce sort of a "vaccine passport" in order to travel with fewer or no limitations?
Something like the rabies passport for pets across Europe?

Irish Stones

Kate Bingham, chair of the UK government’s Vaccine Taskforce, warns that the first generation of vaccine, if ever available, might be not perfect, and we should not rely our strategy on the vaccine alone.

https://scroll.in/latest/976980/coronavirus-first-generation-of-vaccines-is-likely-to-be-imperfect-says-uk-official

timsey tiger

Irish Stones wrote: »

Do you think we will have to produce sort of a "vaccine passport" in order to travel with fewer or no limitations?
Something like the rabies passport for pets across Europe?

I don't think that anything like this will ever arise. This is the EU not North Korea.

Irish Stones

timsey tiger wrote: »

I don't think that anything like this will ever arise. This is the EU not North Korea.

I agree with you, but what if one wants to travel outside EU? Could they ask you a proof of vaccination in order to get access to their country and avoid isolation?

johnire

I do agree with you but I really do think that the original poster has a very good point. I definitely think that travel insurance policies are going to exclude Covid 19 as standard and if you want cover for it it'll be an extra. Perhaps not in the E.U. but in other countries it's very possible that they won't allow a person into the country who hasn't been vaccinated.

timsey tiger wrote: »

I don't think that anything like this will ever arise. This is the EU not North Korea.

7aubzxk43m2sni

I think what might happen would be the introduction of a non mandatory 'vaccine passport'.

If you choose to get one after being vaccinated, then you produce it when arriving at an airport, and you don't have to quarantine/get tested.

If you choose not to use one, you have to get tested upon arrival and quarantine until the test results are back

holdyerhorses

Karina Fancy Thumbnail wrote: »

I think what might happen would be the introduction of a non mandatory 'vaccine passport'.

If you choose to get one after being vaccinated, then you produce it when arriving at an airport, and you don't have to quarantine/get tested.

If you choose not to use one, you have to get tested upon arrival and quarantine until the test results are back

If the goal for those imposing a vaccine passport was to prevent the passing of the virus that leads to covid19, then I would argue they are ignorant of the science, given they're non sterilising. At this point youd have to assume that a vaccine passport would be implemented as a political measure rather than a medical or scientific one.

And those that are vaccinated would still need to quarantine and be tested under the suggestion in that last paragraph.

hmmm

Karina Fancy Thumbnail wrote: »

I think what might happen would be the introduction of a non mandatory 'vaccine passport'.

If you choose to get one after being vaccinated, then you produce it when arriving at an airport, and you don't have to quarantine/get tested.

If you choose not to use one, you have to get tested upon arrival and quarantine until the test results are back

A Yellow fever vaccine passport is required for some countries. I expect Covid will be no different - why would you take the risk of allowing unvaccinated people into your country?

I doubt quarantine will be an option for travel once a vaccination is available. No vaccination = no travel.

Airlines are already experimenting with rapid testing.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/927334455/can-pre-flight-covid-19-testing-get-travelers-back-on-planes

hmmm

Good article on vaccine supplies expected in 2021, and which countries have pre-purchased which vaccines:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3107262/production-covid-19-vaccine-could-top-16-billion-doses-delivery

"Of the 12 billion projected or planned doses the Yellow House tallied in September for production by the end of next year, only a third to a half might actually materialise, they forecast after taking into account historical failure rates in vaccine development for clinical trials, as well as possible setbacks when boosting production."

holdyerhorses

hmmm wrote: »

A Yellow fever vaccine passport is required for some countries. I expect Covid will be no different - why would you take the risk of allowing unvaccinated people into your country?

I doubt quarantine will be an option for travel once a vaccination is available. No vaccination = no travel.

Airlines are already experimenting with rapid testing.

But it's a pointless endeavour, the vaccine candidates put limits on the disease, not the spread of the virus.

A country, concerned about risk, would be better served convincing its citizens to take any of the candidates should they be successful.

is_that_so

Karina Fancy Thumbnail wrote: »

I think what might happen would be the introduction of a non mandatory 'vaccine passport'.

If you choose to get one after being vaccinated, then you produce it when arriving at an airport, and you don't have to quarantine/get tested.

If you choose not to use one, you have to get tested upon arrival and quarantine until the test results are back

More likely to see the implementation of quick testing technology instead, backed by PCR and possibly quarantine than this type of potential diplomatic incident stuff.

holdyerhorses

is_that_so wrote: »

More likely to see the implementation of quick testing technology instead, backed by PCR and possibly quarantine than this type of potential diplomatic incident stuff.

And also, tourism, are countries reliant on tourism for exports, likely to impose restrictions, to prevent travellers needing public health resources in their home country, I would doubt it.

Yellow fever vaccines are generally recommended for travellers from places with high transmission rates, enough vaccination in a destination and home country would negate any vaccine passport need extremely quickly. Complete red herring I think.