holdyerhorses wrote: » Why would you suggest that? Many different types of people (thankfully) take part in clinical trials, there would be no particular reason why you could assume they would be "very responsible conscientious individuals".
plodder wrote: » It's all speculation but I think the CEO of Pfizer was quoted as saying they might be "more attuned with the science" and really it's not hard to see a possible bias away from the most criminally irresponsible elements, who would have little interest in taking part, and be more likely to engage in risky behaviours.
holdyerhorses wrote: » "..most criminally irresponsible elements, who would have little interest in taking part, and be more likely to engage in risky behaviours" - Crikey!
plodder wrote: » I think you're reading too much into it But, it's a self selecting group. It isn't a random cross section of society. If it were, it would include a certain number of "criminally irresponsible" types, more likely to catch and spread the virus. And they could be as likely to be over 50 as under 50. I'm not putting the participants on some moral pedestal if that is how it's coming across.
holdyerhorses wrote: » What is 'criminally irresponsible'? Is it that they don't take care when comitting a crime? Or that they are generally non-carers and more likely to be a criminal? And how would either of those labels be likely to confer a more likely vector for SARS-Cov2 transmission? Well, yes, you are putting participants on a pedestal (at least it appeared that way), or at minimum, denigrating those that don't take part.
There is an urgent need to create novel models using human disease-relevant cells to study SARS-CoV-2 biology and to facilitate drug screening. As SARS-CoV-2 primarily infects the respiratory tract, we developed a lung organoid model using human pluripotent stem cells (hPSC-LOs).
hmmm wrote: » Looks like good news. Note in particular this includes people who had "mild" or "asymptomatic" infection which is even better.https://www.uk-cic.org/news/cellular-immunity-sars-cov-2-found-six-months-non-hospitalised-individuals "Cellular (T cell) immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be present within most adults six months after primary infection, a new pre-print on bioRxiv suggests. The research from the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC), Public Health England and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust demonstrates robust T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 virus peptides at this timepoint in all participants following asymptomatic or mild/moderate COVID-19 infection."
holdyerhorses wrote: » Well, that is good news, for both immunity through infection and vaccines. Re-infections then, what's causing the admittedly minuscule amount? The 'most' v 'all' i guess.
hmmm wrote: » The most frequent speculation I read is that like the common cold coronavirus you can probably get re-infected relatively quickly, but a previous infection will help to reduce the likelihood of serious disease. We can do this "naturally" over several decades (with a relatively high mortality), or a vaccine can accelerate the process. I remember at the start of this there were some virologists arguing that we were seeing the birth of a new common cold variant.
Thierry12 wrote: » https://www.rac1.cat/programes/el-mon/20201102/49160676124/josep-baselga-vacuna-astrazeneca-immunitat-farmaceutica-anticossos-monoclonals.html Good read Vice Presidential oncology for Astrazeneca says 3 billion doses ready for distribution in Jan Vaccine works People that got Covid already wont need vaccine immediately Immunity is long lasting, 1-2 years minimum, not 6 months scaremongering stuff. All positive stuff
holdyerhorses wrote: » Well, even more good stuff... (How do the know the immunity is long-lasting though?)
Thierry12 wrote: » He doesn't know for sure but he seems pretty convinced its longer than 6 months Lets be real, Covid has been around over a year now and reinfections have been rare Unless you work in a Covid ward without PPE I'd say its almost impossible to get reinfected before 6 months Hit by lightning odds
holdyerhorses wrote: » Yes, that's what I was hinting at, immunity seems to be long-lasting except for rare occurances
holdyerhorses wrote: » IFR in Ireland over the last two weeks was 0.14%.
Thierry12 wrote: » One notable was the Russian researcher who tried his best to get reinfected in Covid wards without PPE and he made it over 6 months
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » It sounds great but I don't believe the figure of 3 billion. Surely something is wrong there. If they have 3 billion ready to go surely they have over produced as they won't 3 billion people to take their vaccine if other vaccines will be competing with them and some people just won't take vaccines.
ShineOn7 wrote: » Feckin' lunatic Was he relatively young or relatively insane?
3xh wrote: » hmmm, did we not read a few months ago that T-cell immunity was coming back as largely non-existent in previous sufferers of Covid? Even after just a few weeks/months after the infection. It was said that that proved the policy of herd immunity was not a viable option. Is this something manifestly different we’re hearing about now?
Hmmzis wrote: » The latter, he's 69 now.
NH2013 wrote: » I believe that Oxford is a double injection vaccine so 3b billion would only cover 1.5 billion people with doses. Either way, probably all already accounted for. Don't forget most of these manufacturers have orders to manufacture at risk on the chance other vaccines don't get approval. A case of better to be looking at it than looking for it. A very impressive number though, would certainly bode well for a return to some sort of normality within the next 3-4 months.
speckle wrote: » https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200924/Tokyo-citizens-may-have-developed-COVID-19-herd-immunity-say-researchers.aspx More interesting recent research.
Gael23 wrote: » “Some sort of normality” being the key. I don’t see any way out of this until we see vaccines with sterilising immunity.
