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

Thierry12

polesheep wrote: »

It's not actually, being obese increases the risk. Randomly picking an age of 30 is not based on fact.

I'd back a fit 55 year old 6ft man of 12 stone who runs everyday over a 30 year old 6ft man of 20 stone who struggles for breath up the stairs to do better with Covid?

Would you?

polesheep

Thierry12 wrote: »

Naive to think its not happening

Some guy posting here working as a hospital pharmacist in HSE says it happens more than you think in Ireland, just not reported

If we have a handful of cases , simple math suggest thousands have been reinfected worldwide

That guys expirement proves if your in contact with the virus where viral load is high reinfection is possible

Take away masks and social distancing, back to jammed cinemas, nightclubs etc and watch reinfections sky rocket

That poster has been asked again and again for evidence and cannot provide it.

It's good to have an opinion, but it's important to base it on facts and evidence.

Thierry12

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Agreed. Although most of the people you see end up in ICU seem to be hugely obese. They'd surely be among the first in line for a vaccine.

That was my point

BMI was wrong to use maybe

Other poster was right on BF being better

Over 30% BF might be better to use

Thierry12

polesheep wrote: »

That poster has been asked again and again for evidence and cannot provide it.

It's good to have an opinion, but it's important to base it on facts and evidence.

Thanks

Didn't know that

He seemed pretty legit

tobefrank321

The consensus now appears to be that while first generation vaccines will help, they are not going to deliver a knockout blow to covid 19.

They will reduce the infectiousness period of someone from the current 5-7 days down to about 3 days. This will reduce the R0 maybe by half. However there's going to be a minority of vulnerable people who the vaccine won't work for, maybe up to 25% and they will still be susceptible.

There's going to be a 3rd and 4th wave even with a vaccine. They are going to be smaller but its vital that we plan for them by setting up dedicated covid hospitals and hugely expanding ICU. If we end up in lockdown for those waves, governments really will have messed up, especially after being handed the vaccine as a weapon. I suppose they'll use the same excuse of not expecting it.

Hmmzis

Regarding reinfections.
The study linked by hmmm a couple pages back would show the expected ratios of potentially protected people (link here again):

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/27/science.abd7728

If you read that, it would be clear that there should be a good few reinfections happening by now. The overall seroconversion rate is ~90% with neutralizing ability. That leaves about 10% without that, while there are T cells involved they do not prevent an infection, they can only be effective when cells have already been invaded.

I'm actually a little bit surprised by the lack of reported reinfections at this point. We have a raging 2nd wave in Europe and while there are some official cases and the odd anecdotal reports, it's far from the rates one could be expecting looking at serological data.

There is also the caveat that most reported reinfection cases would have to be symptomatic to the point of hospital admissions to be noticed. Barely anyone is going to get tested without showing symptoms, so asymptomatic reinfections could be quite a bit but very few will be tested (only as part of routine screening in healthcare settings or contact tracing). This is going to skew the numbers towards less reinfections detected and those detected would be skewed towards symptomatic ones.

Based on that, my thinking is that, yes, there are certainly far more reinfections happening than is being detected or even reported anecdotally. Also, this would mean that most of those cases would be in the non-shedding/asymptomatic category. Routine screening of high exposure individuals who have had confirmed PCR positive tests could shed some light into this topic.

Micky 32

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The consensus now appears to be that while first generation vaccines will help, they are not going to deliver a knockout blow to covid 19.

Which vaccine trials are revealing their results to come to this conclusion and links to their info?

stephenjmcd

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The consensus now appears to be that while first generation vaccines will help, they are not going to deliver a knockout blow to covid 19.

They will reduce the infectiousness period of someone from the current 5-7 days down to about 3 days. This will reduce the R0 maybe by half. However there's going to be a minority of vulnerable people who the vaccine won't work for, maybe up to 25% and they will still be susceptible.

There's going to be a 3rd and 4th wave even with a vaccine. They are going to be smaller but its vital that we plan for them by setting up dedicated covid hospitals and hugely expanding ICU. If we end up in lockdown for those waves, governments really will have messed up, especially after being handed the vaccine as a weapon. I suppose they'll use the same excuse of not expecting it.

Not sure where your getting the info that they'll reduce the period that a person is infectious, thats an unknown as data hasn't been released in that regard from what I can find. In phase 1 trials shedding was & wasn't observed depending on viral load and vaccine dose, this is what trials aim to find out.

Until efficney data is released nothing is known for sure.

When you reference knockout blow, the data manufacturers refenece they have but isn't released yet, is they will protect the most vulnerable, will require 2 doses more than likely but will therefore reduce pressure on hospital systems and that is essentially what its all about. I'm not sure why people thought the aim of the vaccines was immunity, its all about reducing the impact of the infection. When there is less pressure on hospitals you can ease up on restrictions.

timsey tiger

Thierry12 wrote: »

I'd back a fit 55 year old 6ft man of 12 stone who runs everyday over a 30 year old 6ft man of 20 stone who struggles for breath up the stairs to do better with Covid?

Would you?

I'm not a morbid sick fúck who would bet on another person dying or not.:mad:

tobefrank321

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Not sure where your getting the info that they'll reduce the period that a person is infectious, thats an unknown as data hasn't been released in that regard from what I can find. In phase 1 trials shedding was & wasn't observed depending on viral load and vaccine dose, this is what trials aim to find out.

Until efficney data is released nothing is known for sure.

When you reference knockout blow, the data manufacturers refenece they have but isn't released yet, is they will protect the most vulnerable, will require 2 doses more than likely but will therefore reduce pressure on hospital systems and that is essentially what its all about. I'm not sure why people thought the aim of the vaccines was immunity, its all about reducing the impact of the infection. When there is less pressure on hospitals you can ease up on restrictions.

Good enough for you?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40067709.html

Mr Vallance told the committee: “I think it is unlikely that we will end up with a truly sterilising vaccine that completely stops infection.

“It is likely that this disease will circulate and be endemic.

“My assessment – and I think that’s the view of many people – is that’s the likely outcome.

Many other experts have said similar in recent days.

So that is the current consensus among experts.

It may change, but currently that is it.

Hmmzis

tobefrank321 wrote: »

There's plenty of literature on this and plenty of experts far more in the know than you have commented that first generation vaccines are unlikely to offer full immunity from infection. That's why I said consensus.

Oxford have said their vaccine provides a strong immune response. They didn't say it was a sterilizing response. That's pretty telling.

Because they cannot possibly tell one way or another. Phase 1/2 does not measure efficacy as it's not expected the participants will be exposed to the virus. It might happen by chance, but it's not assessed at those phases.

Micky 32

tobefrank321 wrote: »

There's plenty of literature on this and plenty of experts far more in the know than you have commented that first generation vaccines are unlikely to offer full immunity from infection. That's why I said consensus.

Oxford have said their vaccine provides a strong immune response. They didn't say it was a sterilizing response. That's pretty telling.

Unless the literature is from the pharma companies themselves it’s a case here of assholes, opinions, everyone’s got one and all that.

Micky 32

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Good enough for you?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40067709.html

Many other experts have said similar in recent days.

So that is the current consensus among experts.

It may change, but currently that is it.

Which pharma company is Mr Vallance involved with?

tobefrank321

Micky 32 wrote: »

Unless the literature is from the pharma companies themselves it’s a case here of assholes, opinions, everyone’s got one and all that.

You missed the gist of my post, unsurprisingly.

The vaccine is not going to be a knockout blow, therefore we need to plan for future waves which are going to happen, vaccine or no vaccine.

And your opinion is as invalid as everyone elses

tobefrank321

Micky 32 wrote: »

Which pharma company is Mr Vallance involved with?

He's only running the UK's fight against Covid, but hey, that's not important in the grand scheme. Why take his opinion on this?

[Deleted User]

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Good enough for you?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40067709.html

Many other experts have said similar in recent days.

So that is the current consensus among experts.

It may change, but currently that is it.

You don't seem to understand the word consensus. It means general agreement, which at this stage is impossible as the important data is unknown. Any expert worth their salt will essentially be on the fence.

Micky 32

tobefrank321 wrote: »

You missed the gist of my post, unsurprisingly.

The vaccine is not going to be a knockout blow, therefore we need to plan for future waves which are going to happen, vaccine or no vaccine.

And your opinion is as invalid as everyone elses

Once again So where is your evidence from the vaccine companies where they have stated the vaccine results won’t be a knock out blow?

Micky 32

tobefrank321 wrote: »

He's only running the UK's fight against Covid, but hey, that's not important in the grand scheme. Why take his opinion on this?

Because he isn’t involved with the vaccine trials.

tobefrank321

It boils down to whether it will eliminate covid as a major issue anytime soon or not. Its unlikely to do so.

Micky 32

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Its unlikely to do so.

Thankfully to be taken as only of an opinion rather than fact also taken with a very large pinch of salt until the actual results in a month or so are released.

tobefrank321

Hmmzis wrote: »

Because they cannot possibly tell one way or another. Phase 1/2 does not measure efficacy as it's not expected the participants will be exposed to the virus. It might happen by chance, but it's not assessed at those phases.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

The Oxford Phase 3 trials are not primarily focused on checking if someone is infected or not or whether they can pass on an infection.

They are primarily focused on disease progression of someone who has been infected and the immune response to that infection.

I think you'd agree its important to make a clear distinction between a trial for disease progression and a trial for onward transmission. Now if they also see limits in onward transmission that's great. But its not their main focus. Which is why some experts have reasonable doubts about sterilizing immunity. I'd be hoping when the trial results come out, they outline clearly their observations on this.

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Not sure where your getting the info that they'll reduce the period that a person is infectious, thats an unknown as data hasn't been released in that regard from what I can find. In phase 1 trials shedding was & wasn't observed depending on viral load and vaccine dose, this is what trials aim to find out.

Until efficney data is released nothing is known for sure.

When you reference knockout blow, the data manufacturers refenece they have but isn't released yet, is they will protect the most vulnerable, will require 2 doses more than likely but will therefore reduce pressure on hospital systems and that is essentially what its all about. I'm not sure why people thought the aim of the vaccines was immunity, its all about reducing the impact of the infection. When there is less pressure on hospitals you can ease up on restrictions.

How does this allow life to get back to normal when there is still a highly infectious illness circulating?

Hmmzis

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

The Oxford Phase 3 trials are not primarily focused on checking if someone is infected or not or whether they can pass on an infection.

They are primarily focused on disease progression of someone who has been infected and the immune response to that infection.

I think you'd agree its important to make a clear distinction between a trial for disease progression and a trial for onward infection.

There are lots of outcomes being assessed in a phase 3 trial, here is the AZ US trial:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746

The first primary outcome measured is clinical symptoms (does the vaccine prevent illness?).
The first secondary outcome measured is asymptomatic infection (does the vaccine prevent infection?).

There are a few more in that link listed. A data readout would be assessing all trial outcome endpoints.

stephenjmcd

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Good enough for you?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40067709.html

Many other experts have said similar in recent days.

So that is the current consensus among experts.

It may change, but currently that is it.

That references an endemic and is essentially what my whole point was.

Makes no reference to your claim of reducing the infectious period which is what I questioned as to where you were seeing that being suggested.

It literally backs up what I've said about no immunity via vaccine and how I'm not sure why people haven't gotten that into their heads yet, we'll see when efficiency data is released but its unlikely. Theres nothing new in that article.

Until theres data released from phase 3 nothing is certain but nowhere in that article does it reference a reduction in the period your infections nor a concensus on such.

If you re read my post I don't expect immunity but enough of an immune response to combat serious illness hence reduced pressure on health services

tobefrank321

timsey tiger wrote: »

I'm not a morbid sick fúck who would bet on another person dying or not.:mad:

You know what he meant, no need to be overly dramatic.

His point was that a healthy middle aged person has a better chance than a severely obese and unhealthy young person. Its not rocket science.

tobefrank321

Gael23 wrote: »

How does this allow life to get back to normal when there is still a highly infectious illness circulating?

If there's 100% takeup and at least 90% efficacy among the vulnerable group, which by the way Holohan estimates at 30% of the population, then we can cope with it being endemic and could even allow a combination of vaccination and mostly letting rip among the non risk groups in 2021.

Alternatively there may be need for a lockdown or rolling lockdowns to allow time for most of the non risk to be vaccinated in the spring to winter 2021 - depends how long it takes.

If the efficacy is lower among the at risk group, then we are only slightly better off than we are now - still hundreds of thousands at risk and lockdowns will be a feature for most of 2021, with ICU and hospitals still under pressure.

Gael23

tobefrank321 wrote: »

If there's 100% takeup and at least 90% efficacy among the vulnerable group, which by the way Holohan estimates at 30% of the population, then we can cope with it being endemic and could even allow a combination of vaccination and mostly letting rip among the non risk groups in 2021.

Alternatively there may be need for a lockdown or rolling lockdowns to allow time for most of the non risk to be vaccinated in the spring to winter 2021 - depends how long it takes.

If the efficacy is lower among the at risk group, then we are only slightly better off than we are now - still hundreds of thousands at risk and lockdowns will be a feature for most of 2021, with ICU and hospitals still under pressure.

No vaccine has ever been 100% effective and if we get 50% uptake I think that’s a good result

D.Q

Any word on when we should expect some results from the companies themselves?

holdyerhorses

stephenjmcd wrote: »

That references an endemic and is essentially what my whole point was.

Makes no reference to your claim of reducing the infectious period which is what I questioned as to where you were seeing that being suggested.

It literally backs up what I've said about no immunity via vaccine and how I'm not sure why people haven't gotten that into their heads yet, we'll see when efficiency data is released but its unlikely. Theres nothing new in that article.

Until theres data released from phase 3 nothing is certain but nowhere in that article does it reference a reduction in the period your infections nor a concensus on such.

If you re read my post I don't expect immunity but enough of an immune response to combat serious illness hence reduced pressure on health services

Yes. Assuming waning antibodies from vaccine similar to a regular infection and immune response, this would further render talk of mandates and passports redundant.

hmmm

holdyerhorses wrote: »

Yes. Assuming waning antibodies from vaccine similar to a regular infection and immune response, this would further render talk of mandates and passports redundant.

We'll probably be getting a Covid vaccine every few years, waning levels of immunity will be topped up.