COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

funnydoggy · 27-11-2020 03:31PM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Why not? His opinion is worth a lot, given his importance in the control and tracing of the pandemic in this country.
He had been praised when back in March he was able to do miracles and his peers said he was the best we had, and now he's been dumped by his peers for his opinion.
It seems that as long as you comform with the thought of the majority, all is well and you're a hero, and as soon as you say something out of the common thought, you lose your value.

I know how it is. I'm one of the people who think our restrictions are too tough, but I'm not getting into that here. It's a science thread. The trials have been done, and all requisite data is ready for the associated bodies in charge of vaccine approval & rollout. If they're approved (and I'd do a charity bet on it), I can *guarantee* that professor will take it.

Irish Stones · 27-11-2020 03:32PM

El Sueño wrote: »

Well the last time you quoted one of these professors he said there'd be no vaccine until 2023. About two hours later Pfizer made their announcement so forgive me if I don't pay any heed to the people you're quoting.

Forget about me for just a moment. The point is that if people (not me, just the millions others) listened to him on TV from home, many of them might follow his example/suggestion/whatever you want to call it, be it right or wrong, doesn't matter. Because he's so highly regarded, chances are that a number of persons won't take the vaccine because he said it's not good.

Add to this the fact that it will take a couple of years to give a shot to a good part of the population who really wants to have the vaccine and wants to ignore the nonsense of the same professor.

The result is that by the end of 2021, my country will be only halfway through the vaccination plan.
How this could be take us to the normal in 12 months, when most part of the population isn't covered by the vaccine is what I wonder.
If a country, or more than one, in the continent faces the same route, moving safely across it won't be feasible.

Sconsey · 27-11-2020 03:34PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I don't think he's speaking for himself, more for others and his points are perfectly valid, whether you agree with them or not.

There will be reluctance to a vaccine in some quarters - you cannot control what people think.

So, if people think a 70% vaccine may still leave them susceptible to infection, that could be a deal breaker for some.

I've seen a large amount of people say "I will take the vaccine but I'm going to wait a year first to see if there are side effects". You can see the obvious fallacy here in this mindset, but it does exist.

And there is a strong resistance to the vaccine in many countries such as the US. They may struggle to get to 70% take up within the first year. Which will leave them in trouble for that year.

Yeah I agree. I do think that anyone that wants to make a song and dance next year about not being able to go to the pub should be told to f**k off if they are refusing to get vaccinated.

Deeper Blue · 27-11-2020 03:43PM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Forget about me for just a moment. The point is that if people (not me, just the millions others) listened to him on TV from home, many of them might follow his example/suggestion/whatever you want to call it, be it right or wrong, doesn't matter. Because he's so highly regarded, chances are that a number of persons won't take the vaccine because he said it's not good.

Add to this the fact that it will take a couple of years to give a shot to a good part of the population who really wants to have the vaccine and wants to ignore the nonsense of the same professor.

The result is that by the end of 2021, my country will be only halfway through the vaccination plan.
How this could be take us to the normal in 12 months, when most part of the population isn't covered by the vaccine is what I wonder.
If a country, or more than one, in the continent faces the same route, moving safely across it won't be feasible.

Once the vulnerable are vaccinated and hospitalisations and deaths fall off a cliff there'll be no need for restrictions.

tobefrank321 · 27-11-2020 03:46PM

El Sueño wrote: »

Once the vulnerable are vaccinated and hospitalisations and deaths fall off a cliff there'll be no need for restrictions.

Yes, that's probably true, although only if its a highly effective vaccine for the vulnerable. If they use a 90% effective one, that will be a great start.

Micky 32 · 27-11-2020 03:51PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Yes, that's probably true, although only if its a highly effective vaccine for the vulnerable. If they use a 90% effective one, that will be a great start.

We have 2 upcoming vaccines 90% plus, so shouldn’t be a problem.

Micky 32 · 27-11-2020 04:04PM

Sconsey wrote: »

Yeah I agree. I do think that anyone that wants to make a song and dance next year about not being able to go to the pub should be told to f**k off if they are refusing to get vaccinated.

Lets hope the vaccines also prevent people from being contagious carriers of the virus so at least people who take the vaccines can start living normally again.

El Weirdo · 27-11-2020 04:07PM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Unfortunately, he's the most regarged virologist in this country, he has a remarkable experience in this field and was taken as an example at the beginning of the pandemic even in other parts of the planet, and chances are that most of us will follow his example, leading to a non completed plan of vaccinations within the year, unless something safer (in his highly regarded opinion) comes up later in 2021.

Irish Stones wrote: »

Why not? His opinion is worth a lot, given his importance in the control and tracing of the pandemic in this country.
He had been praised when back in March he was able to do miracles and his peers said he was the best we had, and now he's been dumped by his peers for his opinion.

Irish Stones wrote: »

The point is that if people (not me, just the millions others) listened to him on TV from home, many of them might follow his example/suggestion/whatever you want to call it, be it right or wrong, doesn't matter. Because he's so highly regarded, chances are that a number of persons won't take the vaccine because he said it's not good.

This wonderful professor got a name?

celt262 · 27-11-2020 04:08PM

Micky 32 wrote: »

Lets hope the vaccines also prevent people from being contagious carriers of the virus so at least people who take the vaccines can start living normally again.

Is there any data on this ?

Hmmzis · 27-11-2020 04:10PM

celt262 wrote: »

Is there any data on this ?

Only a statement from Oxford that they observed less asymptomatic infections in their trial:

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-23-oxford-university-breakthrough-global-covid-19-vaccine

Irish Stones · 27-11-2020 04:44PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

This wonderful professor got a name?

Yes, Andrea Crisanti.
I am aware that to an English-speaking person's ear the name Andrea might remind of a woman, but actually in our language it's a male name, stands for Andrew, as you can figure it out.

I think that this link might give you a glimpse on him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Crisanti_(scientist)

tobefrank321 · 27-11-2020 05:01PM

I'm beginning to wonder where or how a lot of these professors got their qualifications.

Deeper Blue · 27-11-2020 05:11PM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Yes, Andrea Crisanti.
I am aware that to an English-speaking person's ear the name Andrea might remind of a woman, but actually in our language it's a male name, stands for Andrew, as you can figure it out.

I think that this link might give you a glimpse on him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Crisanti_(scientist)

Thanks for that, hopefully that's the last we hear of him in this thread

Irish Stones · 27-11-2020 05:15PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder where or how a lot of these professors got their qualifications.

What's wrong with his qualifications?

Deeper Blue · 27-11-2020 05:24PM

Irish Stones wrote: »

What's wrong with his qualifications?

The guy is obviously clueless and I can't be the only one that doesn't want to hear his nonsense opinions.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 27-11-2020 05:27PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder where or how a lot of these professors got their qualifications.

He is qualified for messing with mosquitos. That's all well and good but not really relevant for coronavirus.

jackboy · 27-11-2020 05:32PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

He is qualified for messing with mosquitos. That's all well and good but not really relevant for coronavirus.

Do you hate him because he is unqualified or because he holds a different opinion to you.

tobefrank321 · 27-11-2020 05:39PM

Irish Stones wrote: »

Yes, Andrea Crisanti.
I am aware that to an English-speaking person's ear the name Andrea might remind of a woman, but actually in our language it's a male name, stands for Andrew, as you can figure it out.

I think that this link might give you a glimpse on him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Crisanti_(scientist)

I read his profile and while it seems impressive, he has no background in vaccine development, so to use his reputation to cast doubt on vaccines which he knows little about, is irresponsible.

Hmmzis · 27-11-2020 06:10PM

On a lighter Friday note, Prof. Adrian Hill from Oxford answering some questions about the ChAdOx1 vaccine interim results and other related topics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhTcofDqOw&feature=youtu.be&t=1250

We might have a published version of the interim results next week if the unnamed journal reviewer and editors can make it happen.

Micky 32 · 27-11-2020 07:46PM

I see prof Horgan downplaying the vaccines, just merely tools along with our behaviours. If this vaccine doesn’t work expect the rest of our lives to be just as an existence while listening to George Lee and the taiseacht with his Friday speeches on what we can’t do, f*****g depressing future...

ShineOn7 · 27-11-2020 07:57PM

Press briefings going on for at least an hour now and I'm only half listening tbh

Since 6pm have these wasters mentioned a single thing about a rollout plan?

ACitizenErased · 27-11-2020 08:17PM

Does anyone know what the story is with the EMA now? Are we close to an EUA?
Seems to be like we're in a bit of an unknown period now

is_that_so · 27-11-2020 08:20PM

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Press briefings going on for at least an hour now and I'm only half listening tbh

Since 6pm have these wasters mentioned a single thing about a rollout plan?

That will be delivered to government by December 11 I believe, by the task force.

is_that_so · 27-11-2020 08:23PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Does anyone know what the story is with the EMA now? Are we close to an EUA?
Seems to be like we're in a bit of an unknown period now

Here's a link from a couple of days ago.

"Reviewing the data and optimistic of a decision before Christmas!"

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1125/1180439-coronavirus-vaccines/

Deeper Blue · 27-11-2020 08:23PM

is_that_so wrote: »

That will be delivered to government by December 11 I believe, by the task force.

A rollout plan should have been delivered the same week that Pfizer made their announcement.

That was 3 weeks ago, and it'll be another 2 weeks before the task force deliver it to government?

Not good enough.

is_that_so · 27-11-2020 08:26PM

El Sueño wrote: »

A rollout plan should have been delivered the same week that Pfizer made their announcement.

That was 3 weeks ago, and it'll be another 2 weeks before the task force deliver it to government?

Not good enough.

They set it up on Nov 11 and the HSE/DoH had some preliminary planning going on from August.

ShineOn7 · 27-11-2020 08:27PM

El Sueño wrote: »

Not good enough.

100%

Nothing mentioned about it and they've been prattling on for 90 mins?

Disgraceful

ACitizenErased · 27-11-2020 08:29PM

El Sueño wrote: »

A rollout plan should have been delivered the same week that Pfizer made their announcement.

That was 3 weeks ago, and it'll be another 2 weeks before the task force deliver it to government?

Not good enough.

But they're meeting!!! is that not good enough for us peasants

froog · 27-11-2020 08:34PM

did people miss this or something?

https://twitter.com/davidmurphyRTE/status/1332387942799650816

27-11-2020 09:03PM

Public Health England have published a provisional list of conditions for priority vaccination:

Table 3 Clinical risk groups 18 years of age and over who should receive COVID-19 immunisation.

Chronic respiratory disease
Individuals with a severe lung condition, including those with asthma that
requires continuous or repeated use of systemic steroids or with previous
exacerbations requiring hospital admission, and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) including chronic bronchitis and emphysema;
bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, interstitial lung fibrosis, pneumoconiosis and
bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).

Chronic heart disease and vascular disease
Congenital heart disease, hypertension with cardiac complications, chronic
heart failure, individuals requiring regular medication and/or follow-up for
ischaemic heart disease. This includes individuals with atrial fibrillation,
peripheral vascular disease or a history of venous thromboembolism.

Chronic kidney disease
Chronic kidney disease at stage 3, 4 or 5, chronic kidney failure, nephrotic
syndrome, kidney transplantation.

Chronic liver disease
Cirrhosis, biliary atresia, chronic hepatitis.

Chronic neurological disease
Stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Conditions in which respiratory
function may be compromised due to neurological disease (e.g. polio
syndrome sufferers). This includes individuals with cerebral palsy, severe or
profound learning disabilities, Down’s Syndrome, multiple sclerosis,
epilepsy, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease and related
or similar conditions; or hereditary and degenerative disease of the
nervous system or muscles; or severe neurological disability.

Diabetes
Type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes requiring insulin or oral hypoglycaemic
drugs, diet-controlled diabetes.

Immunosuppression
Immunosuppression due to disease or treatment, including patients
undergoing chemotherapy leading to immunosuppression, patients
undergoing radical radiotherapy, solid organ transplant recipients, bone
marrow or stem cell transplant recipients, HIV infection at all stages,
multiple myeloma or genetic disorders affecting the immune system (e.g.
IRAK-4, NEMO, complement disorder, SCID).
Individuals who are receiving immunosuppressive or immunomodulating
biological therapy including, but not limited to, anti-TNF, alemtuzumab,
ofatumumab, rituximab, patients receiving protein kinase inhibitors or
PARP inhibitors, and individuals treated with steroid sparing agents such as
cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil.
Individuals treated with or likely to be treated with systemic steroids for
more than a month at a dose equivalent to prednisolone at 20mg or more
per day (any age).
Anyone with a history of haematological malignancy, including leukaemia,
lymphoma, and myeloma and those with systemic lupus erythematosus
and rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis who may require long term
immunosuppressive treatments.
Some immunocompromised patients may have a suboptimal
immunological response to the vaccine.

Asplenia or dysfunction of the spleen
This also includes conditions that may lead to splenic dysfunction, such as
homozygous sickle cell disease, thalassemia major and coeliac syndrome.

Morbid obesity
Adults with a Body Mass Index ≥40 kg/m².

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-the-green-book-chapter-14a

COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Comments