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

Irish Stones

Fodla wrote: »

Because even countries that have dealt with it still have masks. I'm just saying that there's no evidence to suggest that they will ever be got rid of. But that could change.

I think that masks will be a part of our life for many years more. Along with distances and other measures, like staggered people in the shops and long queue at services.

I don't have problems with distancing, because I've never been a social animal, I am better off with few people around me.

But I have already give in to the idea that travelling abroad as I used to do will be a thing of the past, and it is more than likely that I won't ever be able to visit Ireland, which has been my holiday destination for the past 25 years, again.

As for me, as long as shops will keep this one-person-at-the-time rule, they will never get a cent from me.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.

pconn062

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Seen on Reddit Ireland

Has December 11th been confirmed as the date the "plan" is announced?

There's this too

:pac:

Yes, the single biggest issue with regards to the vaccine in Ireland is going to be the ability of our health service to roll it out. Our inept health service is simply not going to be capable of handling such a task and we are already behind many of our european colleagues. I expect Ireland to be a minimum of 6 months behind the rest of western Europe with regards to roll out.

funnydoggy

pconn062 wrote: »

Yes, the single biggest issue with regards to the vaccine in Ireland is going to be the ability of our health service to roll it out. Our inept health service is simply not going to be capable of handling such a task and we are already behind many of our european colleagues. I expect Ireland to be a minimum of 6 months behind the rest of western Europe with regards to roll out.

People would lose their shít and demand a better health service. I know I would.

Irish Stones

pconn062 wrote: »

I expect Ireland to be a minimum of 6 months behind the rest of western Europe with regards to roll out.

You're overestimating the ability of other countries, like Spain, Italy, Greece, etc

ixoy

I wonder if some of the efficacy figures for Moderna/Pfizer will be skewed by the fact that you reported in only if you had symptoms so that cases may have gone undetected. Whereas with the Oxford vaccine, you had to send in a weekly nasal swab meaning they'd have a more accurate picture of who got infected, mild or not.

CIARAN_BOYLE

ixoy wrote: »

I wonder if some of the efficacy figures for Moderna/Pfizer will be skewed by the fact that you reported in only if you had symptoms so that cases may have gone undetected. Whereas with the Oxford vaccine, you had to send in a weekly nasal swab meaning they'd have a more accurate picture of who got infected, mild or not.

So Moderna and Pfizer are measuring disease while Oxford is measuring cases.

Very interesting distinction if correct.

Fodla

Irish Stones wrote: »

I think that masks will be a part of our life for many years more. Along with distances and other measures, like staggered people in the shops and long queue at services.

I don't have problems with distancing, because I've never been a social animal, I am better off with few people around me.

But I have already give in to the idea that travelling abroad as I used to do will be a thing of the past, and it is more than likely that I won't ever be able to visit Ireland, which has been my holiday destination for the past 25 years, again.

As for me, as long as shops will keep this one-person-at-the-time rule, they will never get a cent from me.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.

Yes, that's my fear. That even with a vaccine we'll never be free of the mask. I pointed out that there is no evidence from around the world that masks will ever be got rid of.

hmmm

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

So Moderna and Pfizer are measuring disease while Oxford is measuring cases.

Very interesting distinction if correct.

As I understand it the primary measurement for all three is disease. That's what the 70% and 90% reported for Oxford is based on.

Oxford were separately monitoring for evidence of infection also. I don't think we've seen those results yet?

A third statistic sometimes quoted is the number who went on to have severe disease.

CIARAN_BOYLE

hmmm wrote: »

As I understand it the primary measurement for all three is disease. That's what the 70% and 90% reported for Oxford is based on.

Oxford were separately monitoring for evidence of infection also. I don't think we've seen those results yet?

A third statistic sometimes quoted is the number who went on to have severe disease.

Thanks for that. I thought there was something wrong with the previous posters comment.

iamwhoiam

Irish Stones wrote: »

Does this mean that a real normal as it was before could be never reached?
I have read somewhere that Bill Gates said that most of our behaviours will be changed forever, and that some precuations like distances and masks will be going on for a long while, along with the lack of confidence in other people.
If this is true, these vaccines will only do half of the job people would like to see.

I will definitely change some habits . This has opened my eyes to the dangers of some things
I will be bringing hand sanitizer when in an airport or cinema and wipe the arm rests before i use them
I will use hand sanitizer before and after shopping and be aware of touch buttons and key pads etc
This made me aware of the handrails on escalators and touching things others have repeatedly touched
In that sense I think Yes I think habits will change forever

Hmmzis

ixoy wrote: »

I wonder if some of the efficacy figures for Moderna/Pfizer will be skewed by the fact that you reported in only if you had symptoms so that cases may have gone undetected. Whereas with the Oxford vaccine, you had to send in a weekly nasal swab meaning they'd have a more accurate picture of who got infected, mild or not.

I think that would be unlikely given the two are entirely different endpoints in the trials. The main efficacy values would have to come from the primary endpoints, trying to pool that together with secondary endpoints might be frowned upon and I'm not sure what value it would even provide.

It would be far more valuable to see the different endpoints with their own efficacy values and confidence intervals:

62% symptomatic disease reduction +/- 4% (primary endpoint No 1)*
98% hospitalization reduction +- 2% (primary endpoint No 2)*
40% asymptomatic infection reduction +/- 8% (secondary endpoint No 1)*

* - above figures are just pulled out of thin air for illustratory purposes, any resemblance to real world figures is entirely coincidental.

ixoy

hmmm wrote: »

As I understand it the primary measurement for all three is disease. That's what the 70% and 90% reported for Oxford is based on.

Oxford were separately monitoring for evidence of infection also. I don't think we've seen those results yet?

A third statistic sometimes quoted is the number who went on to have severe disease.

That makes a lot more sense. I was confusing disease vs infection and putting them down as the same thing. Infection / transmission is a separate area.

Micky 32

Irish Stones wrote: »

But I have already give in to the idea that travelling abroad as I used to do will be a thing of the past, and it is more than likely that I won't ever be able to visit Ireland, which has been my holiday destination for the past 25 years, .

If the vaccines are as effective as they are claiming, and as i have mentioned in earlier posts once i get vaccinated along with my family i will be travelling abroad. I have family abroad.

Ficheall

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Some concerns for AZ.

Are the actual reports for the other trials freely avaliable anywhere, as opposed to interpretations thereof? (I'm on the phone at the moment, so searching is a balls, will have a proper look later if no one has a link handy)

stephenjmcd

Ficheall wrote: »

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Some concerns for AZ.

Are the actual reports for the other trials freely avaliable anywhere, as opposed to interpretations thereof? (I'm on the phone at the moment, so searching is a balls, will have a proper look later if no one has a link handy)

Been discussed yesterday and today regarding AZ. Probably hard to see with all the out of place mask talk, but there doesn't appear to be an issue with AZ for EU or UK.

The issue is the FDA don't accept data from a trial not conducted in the USA. Some of the AZ trials which the data comes from didn't take place in the USA so they want a trial ran in the USA with the half dose full dose regime.

Really is being misread by a few media outlets.

Ficheall

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Been discussed yesterday and today regarding AZ. Probably hard to see with all the out of place mask talk, but there doesn't appear to be an issue with AZ for EU or UK.

The issue is the FDA don't accept data from a trial not conducted in the USA. Some of the AZ trials which the data comes from didn't take place in the USA so they want a trial ran in the USA with the half dose full dose regime.

Really is being misread by a few media outlets.

Fair enough, I'll have a further look later, cheers. The exclusions of over 55's and asymptomatics, respectively, at first glance seem concerning though.

stephenjmcd

Ficheall wrote: »

Fair enough, I'll have a further look later, cheers. The exclusions of over 55's and asymptomatics, respectively, at first glance seem concerning though.

Its not exclusions though, it was a dosing error in the initial trial so wasn't purposely done like that.

Hmmzis

Ficheall wrote: »

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Some concerns for AZ.

Are the actual reports for the other trials freely avaliable anywhere, as opposed to interpretations thereof? (I'm on the phone at the moment, so searching is a balls, will have a proper look later if no one has a link handy)

Only press releases from all at this point.

[Deleted User]

Ficheall wrote: »

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Some concerns for AZ.

Are the actual reports for the other trials freely avaliable anywhere, as opposed to interpretations thereof? (I'm on the phone at the moment, so searching is a balls, will have a proper look later if no one has a link handy)

One of the Oxford team says they hope to publish in the Lancet, this weekend possibly. That might clear some stuff up.

Necro

Fodla wrote: »

Yes, that's my fear. That even with a vaccine we'll never be free of the mask. I pointed out that there is no evidence from around the world that masks will ever be got rid of.

Mod:

You've been warned previously about discussing masks in this thread.

Do not post in this thread again

The rest of you get back on topic or use the mask thread, I've deleted multiple off topic posts

tobefrank321

Ficheall wrote: »

Fair enough, I'll have a further look later, cheers. The exclusions of over 55's and asymptomatics, respectively, at first glance seem concerning though.

Its unfortunate although not a deliberate mistake.

While they claim 90% efficacy in the low/high dose combination, the danger is statistically they didn't have enough enrolled (accidently) to give accurate results. And yes not having over 55s in that group isn't great because primarily covid 19 is a serious disease for over 55s.

They are starting a new trial for low/high dose - but it could be 3-4 months before they have results, by which stage, a large portion of the population will already be vaccinated. I can see them playing a big part in vaccinating the non vulnerable and u55s though as they seem to be the cheapest vaccine.

Marhay70

Irish Stones wrote: »

Does this mean that a real normal as it was before could be never reached?
I have read somewhere that Bill Gates said that most of our behaviours will be changed forever, and that some precuations like distances and masks will be going on for a long while, along with the lack of confidence in other people.
If this is true, these vaccines will only do half of the job people would like to see.

Speaking from my own perspective, like yourself I'm in a high risk category, I trust nobody to dress or act in a way that keeps me safe, therefore I take all the necessary precautions myself.
I can't see me going back,to the way things were before Covid, for a very long time after the first vaccinations, there's always going to be that niggle of doubt.

tobefrank321

Hard to see the Oxford AZ vaccine being used on the elderly here or in the UK as it stands. The high-high dose seems to be about 70% effective which is clearly not enough for vulnerable categories. With 700,000 over 65s here, that would leave about 200,000 who won't be protected after vaccination. That's obviously too much. You are then leaving them to depend on herd immunity which could take a further 6 months and only if there is a high take up in the general public. We'd be stuck with crippling restrictions economically up to Autumn next year, so it makes no sense to go for the less effective vaccine.

Charles Babbage

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Hard to see the Oxford AZ vaccine being used on the elderly here or in the UK as it stands. The high-high dose seems to be about 70% effective which is clearly not enough for vulnerable categories. With 700,000 over 65s here, that would leave about 200,000 who won't be protected after vaccination. That's obviously too much. You are then leaving them to depend on herd immunity which could take a further 6 months and only if there is a high take up in the general public.

70% is enough for the vaccine to be approved

However the lack of proper design of dosing levels is unfortunate.

Perhaps the Oxford vaccine could be used for younger health care workers and the like and the Pfizer used for vulnerable people.

The EU now has a deal with Moderna, I'm not sure when then are likely to be available.

tobefrank321

Charles Babbage wrote: »

70% is enough for the vaccine to be approved

However the lack of proper design of dosing levels is unfortunate.

Perhaps the Oxford vaccine could be used for younger health care workers and the like and the Pfizer used for vulnerable people.

The EU now has a deal with Moderna, I'm not sure when then are likely to be available.

Its enough to be approved granted, but if we use it here on the elderly we will need a high level of herd immunity in the rest of society and that's going to take time.

Absolutely the Pfizer one should be used on the vulnerable, I think there's no question about that now.

So the first screw up the government and HSE could make is to opt for the cheaper Oxford vaccine for vulnerable categories - hopefully they don't make that mistake and go with Pfizer.

Roger_007

It doesn’t seem to bother any of the celebrity epidemiologists that the error with the Oxford AZ vaccine was made in the manufacturing process. It seems that the quality control was deficient.
I wonder what would have happened if they had manufactured double doses by mistake instead of half doses.
Given the scale of manufacturing that is going to be required, it would not inspire confidence that the quality control is up to spec.
Even at this early I would guess that the Oxford AZ vaccine is dead in the water, (lower efficacy and dodgy manufacturing = loss of confidence).

Deeper Blue

Roger_007 wrote: »

It doesn’t seem to bother any of the celebrity epidemiologists that the error with the Oxford AZ vaccine was made in the manufacturing process. It seems that the quality control was deficient.
I wonder what would have happened if they had manufactured double doses by mistake instead of half doses.
Given the scale of manufacturing that is going to be required, it would not inspire confidence that the quality control is up to spec.
Even at this early I would guess that the Oxford AZ vaccine is dead in the water, (lower efficacy and dodgy manufacturing = loss of confidence).

Is there some news out there today that I'm not hearing??

Dead in the water? Come on

tobefrank321

Roger_007 wrote: »

It doesn’t seem to bother any of the celebrity epidemiologists that the error with the Oxford AZ vaccine was made in the manufacturing process. It seems that the quality control was deficient.
I wonder what would have happened if they had manufactured double doses by mistake instead of half doses.
Given the scale of manufacturing that is going to be required, it would not inspire confidence that the quality control is up to spec.
Even at this early I would guess that the Oxford AZ vaccine is dead in the water, (lower efficacy and dodgy manufacturing = loss of confidence).

Yes it doesn't look great for them. The higher the efficacy the sooner life returns to normality, travel, hospitality, retail opening up, etc. The lower the efficacy the longer all that takes.

hmmm

Roger_007 wrote: »

It doesn’t seem to bother any of the celebrity epidemiologists that the error with the Oxford AZ vaccine was made in the manufacturing process. It seems that the quality control was deficient.
I wonder what would have happened if they had manufactured double doses by mistake instead of half doses.).

It was a small number of doses, caught early in the process and part of why trials are conducted. The lack of side effects in the group getting the half dose was noticed and investigated. The error was then reported to regulators, who agreed with AZ that they could continue with the half/full dose regime because of the unexpectedly good results.

"Dead in the water" - you're having a laugh. Even at 70% with no evidence of severe disease it is good news, and if they can get it up towards 90% even better. Plus it is being sold at cost, and will be the vaccine of choice for those countries who can't afford the mRNA vaccines. I'd take the vaccine tomorrow if it was offered.

stephenjmcd

Roger_007 wrote: »

It doesn’t seem to bother any of the celebrity epidemiologists that the error with the Oxford AZ vaccine was made in the manufacturing process. It seems that the quality control was deficient.
I wonder what would have happened if they had manufactured double doses by mistake instead of half doses.
Given the scale of manufacturing that is going to be required, it would not inspire confidence that the quality control is up to spec.
Even at this early I would guess that the Oxford AZ vaccine is dead in the water, (lower efficacy and dodgy manufacturing = loss of confidence).

Dead in the water.... give us a break. A 70% effective vaccine would have been praised a month ago.

There currently isn't anything impending EMA or UKMA approval that's cropped up. It was submitted to the UKMA to start the approval process today. Regulators were made aware of the half dose full dose error previously and trials were allowed to continue.

A best guess would be AZ/Oxford is perfectly acceptable to vaccinate those not classed as vulnerable, takes a bit of pressure off on the Pfizer & Moderna supply demands in that case.

The new study is to tick a box on FDA requirements only.