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

Goldengirl

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

Yes, it is a fact they don't need it. This virus affects a tiny percentage of young people. To say otherwise is to, quite frankly, display pure ignorance.

No, that isn't correct .

The vulnerable and older need vaccination first , is what I said , no matter where they are .
But to say that young do not need to be vaccinated is wrong and missing the point of mass vaccination and herd immunity .
Some people are most vulnerable and cannot either take a vaccine or it has no effect on them due to immune deficiency. These can be young or old, as a previous poster has given a very good example of .
If these people are to be protected the majority who can transmit the virus , or the majority who can be infected , not affected , need to be vaccinated , otherwise we will never reach the famous herd immunity .

ShineOn7

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is very positive development but there is a long winter ahead.

At least people can see light at the end of the tunnel which will lift spirits.

Now, now Kermit

Don't spoil this rare day of happiness on here

[Deleted User]

lbj666 wrote: »

Big question, if Pfizer say 90% reduction in infections, does that mean the 10% that do get infected can still get the same severity of the disease or would it be diminished also, its kind of a can you get half (or 10%) pregnant sort of question.

I mentioned before that the mortality rate here for +65 is around 1 in 8 probably improving to 1 in 10, if the vaccine just improves that to 1 in 100, its still significant an not reason to let the virus run rampant.

What it actually means is the the stats don't support a claim of greater than 90% reduction in infection. from what has been shared, 94 people in the trial got covid, and there where 90% fewer infections in the vaccine population. This could be one of two results - 9 of 94 infections got the the vaccine, just under 10%. The stats on this would suggest 95% of the time the true proportion would be between 4.4 and 17.2%. Or the 95% CI has a maximum of 10%. In this case only 4 of 94 would have received the vaccine and the true proportion could be between 2 and 10%.

hmmm

440Hertz wrote: »

One of the issues with the BioNTech vaccine is the super low temp logistic chain. That’s feasible in Europe, the USA and elsewhere, but it’s more feasible in the developing world.

The first Ebola vaccine also required low temperatures for storage, and it was successfully distributed in what was effectively a warzone in Africa. I can't see the world not being able to pull this off given the current economic impact of Covid.

In saying that it sounds like the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines will be too expensive for poorer countries (about $40 a dose I've read). They'll be looking more towards the Oxford vaccine, and perhaps some of the Chinese ones.

ShineOn7

thebaz wrote: »

In such a horrific year , all the fear and anxiety back in March how good it is to announce a Vaccine that seams 90% effective - first real good news story on Covid this year - given what happened at weekeend - been a pretty good few days .
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

We're having a very cautious celebration in here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058062347&page=340

Join us

leahyl

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Now, now Kermit

Don't spoil this rare day of happiness on here

Tbh, I think most people were prepared by now for this winter/Christmas to be a write off with regard to it being "normal" - hearing this news today might just encourage people to hang in there a little bit longer and we will all meet again in the next 6 months

ACitizenErased

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1325825561302806529?s=20

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

With regard to the topic in hand I am using the correct term. If I called them curmudgeons then I would be using the wrong term.

There are many other words that wouldn't reveal your personality so baldly and your dubious alternative here suggests an even higher level of disdain but I understand your urgent need to get just that right word.

iguana

Professor Jonathan Van-Tam and Brigadier Joe Fossey are to be speaking at Johnson's presser this evening. That sounds like the people you'd have with you to discuss the vaccine and distribution plans as we know the military will play a huge role in setting up vaccination centres.

[Deleted User]

is_that_so wrote: »

There are many other words that wouldn't reveal your personality so baldly and your dubious alternative here suggests an even higher level of disdain but I understand your urgent need to get just that right word.

I don't know what your issue is but I don't think you actually know what the term actually means. "Geriatric" is the right term when speaking about the medical needs specific to older people. It is and will always be the appropriate term to use when speaking about the health of older people.

leahyl

I suppose there'll be a similar press conference in Ireland this evening? :pac:

funnydoggy

leahyl wrote: »

I suppose there'll be a similar press conference in Ireland this evening? :pac:

Yup, Tony Holohan will talk about how NPHET will have a meeting in a few weeks time to discuss a possible vaccine and if we're in the right place for one. Will probably bring up traffic activity or something to distract us :pac::pac:

ShineOn7

leahyl wrote: »

I suppose there'll be a similar press conference in Ireland this evening? :pac:

You'll get Gloom Porn and a shíte slideshow and you'll like it boyo!

hmmm

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1325815206698737667

funnydoggy

hmmm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1325815206698737667

Jesus chríst science just took a huge leap forward

ACitizenErased

funnydoggy wrote: »

Jesus chríst science just took a huge leap forward

This. Understatement of the year. This could change medicine forever.

ShineOn7

They were absolutely waiting to drop all this great news until the election was over

It seems too coincidental

simongurnick

Hmmzis wrote: »

There is no licensed vaccine against RSV. What your children are getting is called monoclonal antibodies (mABs), passive immunization. The long life ones can persist for 6 to 12 months and protect from severe disease with 40-80% efficacy. They do not prevent infection in the case of RSV. The vaccines in the works against RSV should be doing better than that as they would stimulate the immune system itself to fight off the infection.

You know what, you're right. We used to call it the "rsv shot". They got it every month over winter for 3 or 4 years. They had so much going on over that time, it's hard to keep it all straight. But that's a good clarification and important distinction between the two.

AssetBacked2

Goldengirl wrote: »

No, that isn't correct .

The vulnerable and older need vaccination first , is what I said , no matter where they are .
But to say that young do not need to be vaccinated is wrong and missing the point of mass vaccination and herd immunity .
Some people are most vulnerable and cannot either take a vaccine or it has no effect on them due to immune deficiency. These can be young or old, as a previous poster has given a very good example of .
If these people are to be protected the majority who can transmit the virus , or the majority who can be infected , not affected , need to be vaccinated , otherwise we will never reach the famous herd immunity .

Herd immunity? Why is that necessary? Protect the vulnerable via measures such as social distancing, masks etc. and/or with a vaccine and/or by helping educate them on boosting their immune system.

HPSC stats available from their website;

49 people under the age of 55 died in Ireland in the 8 months with covid in Ireland. Objectively this is a low figure. However, even taking the reported positive cases in that age group (of course the actual infections is likely much higher) it would kill around 0.1% of those under the age of 55 that get it. This is a bit meaningless though as it is not as high as 0.1% (more like 0.01% in reality) and is further diluted by the fact 93% of all deaths had clinical underlying conditions.

Net point; not harmful to young (ie under 55s) people.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know what your issue is but I don't think you actually know what the term actually means. "Geriatric" is the right term when speaking about the medical needs specific to older people. It is and will always be the appropriate term to use when speaking about the health of older people.

Your usage of it here is wrong as you're using it refer to the people, when it actually refers to care of the elderly. As a medical term it's fine but as used like that, it is derogatory as it suggests that everyone in that age cohort is in need of special care.

Stheno

hmmm wrote: »

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1325815206698737667

I know this might sound ridiculous but Fauci backing these is very reassuring to me

[Deleted User]

is_that_so wrote: »

Your usage of it here is wrong as you're using it refer to the people, when it actually refers to care of the elderly. As used like that, it is derogatory as it suggests that everyone in that age cohort is in need of special care.

You are simply wrong. I am not debating this with you any more as it is dragging the thread off-topic. I may have injured your pride by correcting you but you'll just have to get over it.

firemansam4

So can anyone "In the know" on these matters explain whether they are claiming that this vaccine actually stopped 90% of the candidates in the study from catching the disease at all, meaning that they would not have been contagious?

Or is it just that they didn't develop the severe symptoms but could still potentially spread covid?

Is sterilising immunity the correct word for it?

AssetBacked2

is_that_so wrote: »

Your usage of it here is wrong as you're using it refer to the people, when it actually refers to care of the elderly. As a medical term it's fine but as used like that, it is derogatory as it suggests that everyone in that age cohort is in need of special care.

Is that not the insinuation from the restrictions imposed on economic and social life? The virus pretty much only impacts that age group in a meaningful way, but even at that, not even all of the older people. However, all are assumed to be vulnerable which is why restrictions have been imposed on all of society. That is the NPHET and government approach; to treat older people as geriatrics.

3xh

is_that_so wrote: »

Your usage of it here is wrong as you're using it refer to the people, when it actually refers to care of the elderly. As a medical term it's fine but as used like that, it is derogatory as it suggests that everyone in that age cohort is in need of special care.

Christ sake.

is_that_so

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

Is that not the insinuation from the restrictions imposed on economic and social life? The virus pretty much only impacts that age group in a meaningful way, but even at that, not even all of the older people. However, all are assumed to be vulnerable which is why restrictions have been imposed on all of society. That is the NPHET and government approach; to treat older people as geriatrics.

NPHET are medical so they can do that. Not everyone in that age group is in need of "geriatrics".

Irish Stones

Gael23 wrote: »

Will take years to vaccinate everyone then

Do not say that, or you will be critized and accused of being negative.

When I said that a few weeks back I was beaten up!

Cordell

Stheno wrote: »

I know this might sound ridiculous but Fauci backing these is very reassuring to me

No, it's never ridiculous to trust professionals with their professional opinion.

snotboogie

Irish Stones wrote: »

Do not say that, or you will be critized and accused of being negative.

When I said that a few weeks back I was beaten up!

Because you are ignoring that there are dozens of viable vaccine candidates and applying the rollout of one vaccine to the worlds population.

What Username Guidelines

ACitizenErased wrote: »

This. Understatement of the year. This could change medicine forever.

It will take a while for this to sink in for most, even having followed the vaccine thread and expecting some news this month, I don't think it's sunk in for me. Especially as the news is far better than expected!