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

WoollyRedHat

I reckon major universities will play an important role in vaccination distribution, plus a lot of research labs will have freezers that can store it.

St.Spodo

Thinking back to September time, it was touted on Irish television that a reasonable best case scenario for the country in terms of a vaccine would be that one 70% effective vaccine would be approved by spring time. It was said that this would eventually provide protection to just over half of the population towards the end of 2021. It's looking likely that we'll have two 95% effective vaccines approved by Christmas, likely another 90% effective vaccine approved early in the new year and possibly one or two more by the summer. Amid the relentless misery of the lockdown, I think many people have not quite processed that we are most likely going to see a steady march towards normality right throughout 2021.

plodder

timsey tiger wrote: »

"The efficacy was estimated only seven days (Pfizer) or 14 days (Moderna) after the last of two vaccinations."

I didn't think it was a good article. Take this sentence as an example. If it read "The efficacy was estimated from only..." it would be accurate. It is both inaccurate and given what follows in the article seems to imply the vaccines only give short term immunity.

Yes, it seems to imply that the trials checked on everyone seven days (or 14 days) after the second vaccination to see who had the disease and who didn't. But, they clearly didn't do that.

I assume what he meant is that anyone who caught the disease in the one or two week window after the second shot, was just excluded from the results, which is totally reasonable as it takes time to build up the immunity.

Dickie10

St.Spodo wrote: »

Thinking back to September time, it was touted on Irish television that a reasonable best case scenario for the country in terms of a vaccine would be that one 70% effective vaccine would be approved by spring time. It was said that this would eventually provide protection to just over half of the population towards the end of 2021. It's looking likely that we'll have two 95% effective vaccines approved by Christmas, likely another 90% effective vaccine approved early in the new year and possibly one or two more by the summer. Amid the relentless misery of the lockdown, I think many people have not quite processed that we are most likely going to see a steady march towards normality right throughout 2021.

Just waiting for king tony with the "were deeply concerned " about safety of these vaccines....

Micky 32

El Sueño wrote: »

I don't see many "vaccines won't end the pandemic" articles anymore.

I take it the general consensus is that vaccines will provide a return to normality in the next 12 months?

As far as I’m concerned normality will come back in to my life once i get vaccinated along with my family. I’ll have no hesitation hopping back on a plane to visit family.

JTMan

The Telegraph are reporting that the UK regulator could give approval to the Pfizer vaccine by 27 November.

Maybe the UK will start vaccinations before the US start on 11/12 December?

https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1330600991889219585

lbj666

JTMan wrote: »

The Telegraph are reporting that the UK regulator could give approval to the Pfizer vaccine by 27 November.

Maybe the UK will start vaccinations before the US start on 11/12 December?

https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1330600991889219585

Better bring foward that task force meeting to Tuesday.

ACitizenErased

JTMan wrote: »

The Telegraph are reporting that the UK regulator could give approval to the Pfizer vaccine by 27 November.

Maybe the UK will start vaccinations before the US start on 11/12 December?

https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1330600991889219585

If the UK are doing that then the EU EMA could be even closer...

ACitizenErased

News circulating that the UK may approve Pfizer's vaccine by Friday. Massive news.

Russman

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If the UK are doing that then the EU EMA could be even closer...

Was there an announcement saying they had applied to the EMA ? I remember seeing the FDA application alright but didn’t know they had applied in the EU & UK already.

ACitizenErased

Russman wrote: »

Was there an announcement saying they had applied to the EMA ? I remember seeing the FDA application alright but didn’t know they had applied in the EU & UK already.

EMA commenced rolling reviews for approval weeks ago

Russman

ACitizenErased wrote: »

EMA commenced rolling reviews for approval weeks ago

Yeah I’d seen that alright. Think the FDA were doing that also. Just didn’t realise a formal application had been made in Europe tbh. Great news if true.

[Deleted User]

I assume the UK can start using the vaccine whenever either approval comes through.

Russman

Deleted User wrote: »

I assume the UK can start using the vaccine whenever either approval comes through.

I’d guess so, if it’s before 31st Dec as they’d still be in the transition phase.

[Deleted User]

Russman wrote: »

I’d guess so, if it’s before 31st Dec as they’d still be in the transition phase.

I'm a little sceptical of the Telegraph, very biased paper. If you look at any of the right wing papers recently they've been desperately trying to spin bad Covid news as "it's not that bad, look cases only increased 14% compared with the same day last week".

Looking at the case numbers in the last month, unfortunately the UK will be facing into December with death numbers possibly approaching 1,000 a day.

They might be hoping pumping the positive vaccine stories will distract from the grim situation.

In any event, hopefully we see approval by early December.

Thierry12

ACitizenErased wrote: »

News circulating that the UK may approve Pfizer's vaccine by Friday. Massive news.

Strange they are all taking so long anyway

Its not as if the regulatories are testing the vaccine in vitro in a lab or anything for efficacy, safety etc?

They are just reading through paperwork?

What could they possibly find in the paperwork to fail it?

Pfizer will have double checked and triple checked everything

They might as well just sign it.

billybonkers

Thierry12 wrote: »

Strange they are all taking so long anyway

Its not as if the regulatories are testing the vaccine in vitro in a lab or anything for efficacy, safety etc?

They are just reading through paperwork?

What could they possibly find in the paperwork to fail it?

Pfizer will have double checked and triple checked everything

They might as well just sign it.

That's not how this works

ACitizenErased

billybonkers wrote: »

That's not how this works

All they're doing is reviewing the paperwork and getting independent thoughts. There's no testing per se.

Russman

Thierry12 wrote: »

Strange they are all taking so long anyway

Its not as if the regulatories are testing the vaccine in vitro in a lab or anything for efficacy, safety etc?

They are just reading through paperwork?

What could they possibly find in the paperwork to fail it?

Pfizer will have double checked and triple checked everything

They might as well just sign it.

Always thoroughly read anything you’re putting your name to.
Plus there’d be an element of setting a precedent for future approvals.

In reality though, as you say, Pfizer will have checked everything.

hmmm

Thierry12 wrote: »

What could they possibly find in the paperwork to fail it?

Pfizer will have double checked and triple checked everything

They might as well just sign it.

"Trust but verify" as we say. They trust the data they've been given is correct, but their job is to double-check. Apparently applications like this can run into thousands of pages so it takes time even to read it all.

Gael23

I’m glad to see the rollout being an aged by someone not employed within the HSE

Thierry12

ACitizenErased wrote: »

All they're doing is reviewing the paperwork and getting independent thoughts. There's no testing per se.

Exactly

They can read later

People are dieing, just put it out there

Pfizer will have that paperwork A1

billybonkers

ACitizenErased wrote: »

All they're doing is reviewing the paperwork and getting independent thoughts. There's no testing per se.

Exactly, they can't just "sign" it

Thierry12

hmmm wrote: »

"Trust but verify" as we say. They trust the data they've been given is correct, but their job is to double-check. Apparently applications like this can run into thousands of pages so it takes time even to read it all.

True

While people are dieing?

They are 99.999999999% going to clear it for use anyway

Just wasting valuable time imo

ACitizenErased

billybonkers wrote: »

Exactly, they can't just "sign" it

But there likely shouldn't be any reason for them to be taking extra time than what is necessary.

Thierry12

billybonkers wrote: »

Exactly, they can't just "sign" it

If UK have it out on 27th

They just did.;-)

Le Bruise

Thierry12 wrote: »

True

While people are dieing?

They are 99.999999999% going to clear it for use anyway

Just wasting valuable time imo

They’re cancelling out the 0.000000001% of doubt....can’t be too careful when vaccinating a large portion of the population

[Deleted User]

Thierry12 wrote: »

Strange they are all taking so long anyway

Its not as if the regulatories are testing the vaccine in vitro in a lab or anything for efficacy, safety etc?

They are just reading through paperwork?

What could they possibly find in the paperwork to fail it?

Pfizer will have double checked and triple checked everything

They might as well just sign it.

If you look at the Russian vaccine some scientists noticed inconsistencies in the published data

https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-raise-concerns-over-russia-s-vaccine-trial-s-data-inconsistencies

I'm not suggesting Pfizer would be anything like this, but I'd much rather a process where all the available data is assessed by the regulators prior to giving it to the public

hmmm

Thierry12 wrote: »

Exactly

They can read later

People are dieing, just put it out there

Pfizer will have that paperwork A1

A week or two of a delay will be better than listening to endless anti-vax youtube videos about how it was not properly reviewed by regulators

It's important to be able to say all the safety and regulatory steps were taken to give people confidence.

Russman

I suppose if they did just sign it, it would give the “rushed unproven vaccine” crowd even more reason to not take it.