Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Options
12467…331

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Doc07
    Registered Users Posts: 985 ✭✭✭Doc07


    Doc07 wrote: »
    I have no issue whatsoever that efficacy ( the reduction in infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the relatively well controlled clinical trial conditions) does not equal real
    world effectiveness (not controlled, all comers)and I have stated that it won’t be known until after the vaccinations begin and public health specialists measure that down the line. The high efficacy implies it is likely to be also effective. Even if 90% drops to 40-50, if side effects profile acceptable then that still can be a useful vaccine. Apologies to all if I oversimplified inaccurately in an earlier post.
    You are correct sir , Efficacy does not equal effectiveness. WHO have freely available simple slides on this if anyone wants to google it for themselves.
    However efficacy is a very useful indicator and should be demonstrated in a trial (and has been done in the case of the first 2 vaccines) before you role out and see how overall effective it eventually is. You can’t have that effectiveness figure ready to go when you start the campaign but it can certainly be used to inform on use down the line and the companies and independent public health specialists and academics will also be measuring it.

    But you have repeatedly questioned the clinical trials results as spurious and implied only a handful of the vaccine group may have been exposed and the poor placebo lads were sent of the meat pack. Exposure potential and all other important variables were the same in each group.

    (You probably know this but all the methods , protocols and results publicly available now, all known or suspected side effects published to help informed consent)

    PS I’m as ‘pro safe vaccine’ as you can get. All scientists, doctors and basically any reasonable people are pro safe vaccine. Pro safe vaccine has nothing to do with causing confusion about transparent clinical trial results.

    Just in case my words are twisted against me.
    I’m absolutely not now nor never have been ‘anti-vax’.
    I was trying to make a point that ‘pro safe vax’ isn’t a position as I think everyone , sceptical or not is still pro safety and only a sociopath would be ‘pro dangerous vax’
    I’ve questioned the efficacy and effectiveness of medicines and medical procedures many times, including publishing my questions, but vaccines are incredibly effective and that’s been demonstrated plenty of times and I expect they will be very useful in removing the burden of Covid from our lives. They are not or won’t be authorised unless independent experts consider their benefits far outweigh any known or potential risks. If there is any lack of clarity or transparency il be the first to complain but I’m very satisfied by what has been
    demonstrated in the clinical trials.


  • Options
    #93
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,471 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Anyway. 100 x 20000 placebo groups sent out into the world. What do you reckon the spread of cases of Covid would be? And if we assume a normally distributed spread, where would the.middle of the curve land? If on 162, how is this estsblished?

    I won't give my consent for a variety of reasons. But I would nevertheless welcome being informed.

    You're just repeating your misunderstanding of what the results mean, there is a lot of work and analysis that occurs to calculate the figures based on the data that you will be unlikely to get answered here (as it would require a crash course in statistical analysis and pages of theory and explanation). There is a mathematics forum on boards where someone might indulge you, or you can go to college and learn it for yourself.

    You also seem to be doubling down on an incorrect assumption (that somehow running 100 trials will lead to vastly different results) which is a classic trait of somehow pursuing "alternative facts".

    And just to repeat them, as you seem to be ignoring it for some reason, these are the 3 points that matter with regard to the vaccine:
    astrofool wrote: »
    From the trials perspective there are two important items, 95% efficacy, i.e. after taking the vaccine's doses you have a 95% chance of not having symptoms if you are exposed to the virus.

    No severe illness for those who are vaccinated but do show symptoms, or test positive, i.e. the chance of dying from the virus is now extremely low.

    From a safety point of view, the amount of people in the trials and the lack of any severe effects in any of them points to a very safe set of vaccines


  • Options
    #94
    Doc07
    Registered Users Posts: 985 ✭✭✭Doc07


    Geuze wrote: »
    Just to be clear.

    The vaccine does not prevent infection with the coronavirus.

    It does not prevent any possible transmission to a person.

    What the mRNA vaccines do is trigger an immune response, so that **if** you are infected, then most people won't be as sick.


    It is not known yet whether the vaccine prevents ounwards tranmission.

    The trials demonstrated that in the case of the two mRNA vaccines, the proportion of clinical/symptomatic Covid infections was much less in the vaccine group compared to the placebo. The two groups as a whole had the same risk of getting Covid at the start of the trial.

    Yes the effect on asymptomatic infection or transmission not measured or demonstrated yet. However, reducing symptomatic infection (if that follows from the clinical trial out into the big broad real world) could be a very important intervention as plenty independent research showing the attack rate of transmission from symptomatic people is considerably higher than from asymptomatic.


  • Options
    #95
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Russman


    schmoo2k wrote: »
    If your vaccinated why would you care if others are vaccinated or not?

    Because I could still get it, carry it and pass it on to someone who maybe couldn’t get a vaccine or hadn’t yet got one.


  • Options
    #96
    JTMan
    Registered Users Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭JTMan


    350,000 people have now received their first dose of the vaccine in the UK.

    Great speedy progress. Ireland have a lot of catching up to do.

    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1340335961453031427


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    JTMan wrote: »
    350,000 people have now received their first dose of the vaccine in the UK.

    Great speedy progress. Ireland have a lot of catching up to do.

    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1340335961453031427

    Do the UK have anywhere we can track numbers ? I know last week there was suggestions that they didn't know the actual numbers


  • Options
    #98
    Doc07
    Registered Users Posts: 985 ✭✭✭Doc07


    antiskeptic wrote: »

    For example, a person is told (if it could be done) that the vaccine (which they imcorrectly assume is 95% effective) is in fact 55% effective.

    Do you think that would affect uptake? In other words, do you believe in informed consent?


    Anyway. 100 x 20000 placebo groups sent out into the world. What do you reckon the spread of cases of Covid would be? And if we assume a normally distributed spread, where would the.middle of the curve land? If on 162, how is this estsblished?

    I won't give my consent for a variety of reasons. But I would nevertheless welcome being informed.

    I’m not sure if you are just engaging in a bit of disingenuous sh!thousery but in fairness you are very polite so I will engage once more and refer to some of your post.

    I’m a big fan of informed consent but you can’t have the effectiveness measure at the time of the vaccination, you have efficacy which gives a good indication of effectiveness and you have the safety information.

    100x20,000 what would the spread be? Don’t know, I’d need to know the prevalence of Covid and infections rates etc in each place. Unless you are also measuring the spread of Covid cases in 100x20,000 matched vaccine groups sent out with them it is a meaningless academic exercise that would not add an iota useful knowledge to informing ones consent.


  • Options
    #99
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users Posts: 11,638 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    Switzerland just approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, vaccinations to start just after Christmas.


  • Options
    #100
    Dickie10
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭Dickie10


    is there any reason we shouldnt have all people in nurseing homes vaccinated by jan 31st? i think the figure include staff is around 45k. considering UK has 350k done in 10 days? 40k in 30 days would be very slow surely for ireland.


  • Options
    #101
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,471 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Dickie10 wrote: »
    is there any reason we shouldnt have all people in nurseing homes vaccinated by jan 31st? i think the figure include staff is around 45k. considering UK has 350k done in 10 days? 40k in 30 days would be very slow surely for ireland.

    For the first dose, that's probably reasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    Dickie10 wrote: »
    is there any reason we shouldnt have all people in nurseing homes vaccinated by jan 31st? i think the figure include staff is around 45k. considering UK has 350k done in 10 days? 40k in 30 days would be very slow surely for ireland.

    All with first dose would seem do able to me


  • Options
    #103
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    The great John Campbell

    The UK might have made a complete balls of things in general, but they are making amazing headway with their rollout

    Get the fcuking finger out Donnelly!

    This video covers more than the UK. It's a look at progress so far in general


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGQKAvsnISg


  • Options
    #104
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Sconsey wrote: »
    I did a rough calculation a while back...it was something like 650,000 people over the age of 65. Around 250,000 health care workers and who knows how many key workers...lets say 50,000.

    So that is 950,000 to cover the first 6 groups, then comes the medically vulnerable under the age of 65. No idea how many that is but it is hardly more than 500,000 (pure guess!). That is the 7 groups covered before the general population.

    Somewhere in the region of 1.5 million is their target between now and August.

    Yea that is fair enough, but we are not looking at a normal summer 2021 imo.
    It will be a mix of semi openness and restrictions.

    Remember as well, that other countries may be nowhere near our level of vaccination rates, what do we do with them?

    Lastly, we have no idea how long the efficiency of these vaccines last for.
    It could be 6-12 months or 6-12 years.

    If we are looking at the shorter end of things, once we get most people vaccinated, we will have to start all over again.
    Yes, we are at the end game of sorts, but 2021 will not be business as normal, not by a long shot.


  • Options
    #105
    schmoo2k
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭schmoo2k


    markodaly wrote: »
    Yea that is fair enough, but we are not looking at a normal summer 2021 imo.
    It will be a mix of semi openness and restrictions.

    Remember as well, that other countries may be nowhere near our level of vaccination rates, what do we do with them?

    Lastly, we have no idea how long the efficiency of these vaccines last for.
    It could be 6-12 months or 6-12 years.

    If we are looking at the shorter end of things, once we get most people vaccinated, we will have to start all over again.
    Yes, we are at the end game of sorts, but 2021 will not be business as normal, not by a long shot.

    I am assuming there will be less restrictions than we had last summer, especially given the low numbers last summer and the fact that the high risk folks will have been vaccinated? So I am expecting wet pubs (beer gardens?) and some sporting / gigs to go ahead.


  • Options
    #106
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Good explanatory piece summarising how and why COVID vaccine developments have been so fast and the possible influence of this on future vaccine work.
    The COVID-19 experience will almost certainly change the future of vaccine science, says Dan Barouch, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1


  • Options
    #107
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    schmoo2k wrote: »
    I am assuming there will be less restrictions than we had last summer, especially given the low numbers last summer and the fact that the high risk folks will have been vaccinated? So I am expecting wet pubs (beer gardens?) and some sporting / gigs to go ahead.

    I think the best estimate I've heard is that we might be talking about level 2 or 3 as a hard lockdown come summer with level 1 restrictions as the relaxed level.


  • Options
    #108
    schmoo2k
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭schmoo2k


    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    I think the best estimate I've heard is that we might be talking about level 2 or 3 as a hard lockdown come summer with level 1 restrictions as the relaxed level.

    Last year between May and Sept we had < 10 deaths a day (not good) and were at an aprox level 2.5?

    This year (with the high risk folks vaccinated) there is no reason that we shouldn't expect to have close to 0 deaths per day for the entire summer.

    It will be very hard to impose any restrictions above a 1 in that scenario.

    IMO more focus needs to be on the return to schools in Sept and I would suggest having a special category for households with school / college students at level 12 or 13?


  • Options
    #109
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Doc07 wrote: »
    I’m not sure if you are just engaging in a bit of disingenuous sh!thousery but in fairness you are very polite so I will engage once more and refer to some of your post.

    I take little for granted generally. And frequently, when I dig, I find things aren't quite as they are being presented. Its not a vaccine thing per se, just a general approach.

    Of course, my auto-suspicion meter rises when a corrupt sector like pharma rolls into view.




    I’m a big fan of informed consent but you can’t have the effectiveness measure at the time of the vaccination, you have efficacy which gives a good indication of effectiveness and you have the safety information.

    Would you agree that aiding informed consent would require the authories to stress and underline the difference between efficacy and effectiveness? This to offset the tendency for people to concuse things

    You said yourself (and others have said) "even if effectiveness is only 50% it will still be useful"

    Perhaps, but informed consent means beimg made aware that the medication you are taking (a rushed one without long term health impact data) may be but 50% effective.

    I asked did you think uptake would be affected (negstively) by proper revealing of such information. What you reckon?


    100x20,000 what would the spread be? Don’t know, I’d need to know the prevalence of Covid and infections rates etc in each place. Unless you are also measuring the spread of Covid cases in 100x20,000 matched vaccine groups sent out with them it is a meaningless academic exercise that would not add an iota useful knowledge to informing ones consent.

    The 100 placebo groups would be just as the two groups in the trial: as identical as trial protocol demands. It won't matter what Covid infection rates are because these identi groups will be like-exposed to Covid.

    Naturally, they can't be actually identical - as in exact clones of each other. And so you won't have 100 groups of 20000 reporting back with 162 cases of Covid each. Your going to have a range.

    (We don't need vaccinated groups for this exercise btw.)

    It does add to useful knowledge (or would if the question could be answered this way or otherwise). Because if the answer came back: " the range would be 4-250 fairly evenly spread.." then we would then be asking what use the pfizer trial result?


  • Options
    #110
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    schmoo2k wrote: »
    Last year between May and Sept we had < 10 deaths a day (not good) and were at an aprox level 2.5?

    This year (with the high risk folks vaccinated) there is no reason that we shouldn't expect to have close to 0 deaths per day for the entire summer.

    It will be very hard to impose any restrictions above a 1 in that scenario.

    IMO more focus needs to be on the return to schools in Sept and I would suggest having a special category for households with school / college students at level 12 or 13?

    The problem, as I see it, is that there is still no effective therapy. This is why I asked earlier if people with Covid had been given the vaccine and what was the effect.
    In truth we don't really know who is high risk. After the obvious elderly and immuno compromised, we can take an educated guess but we don't know for sure. The problem with long Covid hasn't helped, it seems to affect people randomly, with super fit and couch potatoes alike, succumbing.
    I would be very happy if a treatment emerged that at least removed the spectre of death from the equation.


  • Options
    #111
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    schmoo2k wrote: »
    I am assuming there will be less restrictions than we had last summer, especially given the low numbers last summer and the fact that the high risk folks will have been vaccinated? So I am expecting wet pubs (beer gardens?) and some sporting / gigs to go ahead.

    Well last summer we came out a hard enough lockdown that was generally followed.
    The following lockdowns haven't been as successful as the first, and I don't think the next will be much better.

    IMO, we are going to have a high-ish level of ongoing Covid transmission until late summer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    schmoo2k wrote: »
    Last year between May and Sept we had < 10 deaths a day (not good) and were at an aprox level 2.5?

    This year (with the high risk folks vaccinated) there is no reason that we shouldn't expect to have close to 0 deaths per day for the entire summer.

    It will be very hard to impose any restrictions above a 1 in that scenario.

    IMO more focus needs to be on the return to schools in Sept and I would suggest having a special category for households with school / college students at level 12 or 13?

    Deaths were low because cases were low.

    If we open up cases will be very high. Yes most cases will be mild but with cases high there will be enough hospitalisations that we will need periods of higher restrictions.


  • Options
    #113
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    markodaly wrote: »

    IMO, we are going to have a high-ish level of ongoing Covid transmission until late summer.

    Where would we be without the boards armchair experts.


  • Options
    #114
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    Deaths were low because cases were low.

    If we open up cases will be very high. Yes most cases will be mild but with cases high there will be enough hospitalisations that we will need periods of higher restrictions.

    Is your post regarding post-vaccinations?


  • Options
    #115
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Is your post regarding post-vaccinations?

    My post is regarding next summer when the most vulnerable wi be vaccinated but a very large majority of the population probably won't be.


  • Options
    #116
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    My post is regarding next summer when the most vulnerable wi be vaccinated but a very large majority of the population probably won't be.


    Thankfully by late summer your above scenario will be very unlikely.


  • Options
    #117
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Just listened to the UK Health Secretary admit that Covid is out of control in the UK. Why oh why is this country not increasing security on people travelling here from the UK. We all want to see our families but if allowing you to see your family this Christmas means somebody else not seeing their family ever again then why is this being tolerated?
    I'm sick of being told that travel only accounts for a small percentage of cases. How can we say that when we have virtually no checks on people who come into the country? All this talk about who will and who won't be vaccinated by what date is irrelevant.
    We only have to look at what happened in Co. Wexford in the last week or so, a county that went from having among the lowest rates in the country, to having one of the highest, and all, apparently on the back of one funeral and people travelling to that funeral and disregarding the rules.


  • Options
    #118
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    Just listened to the UK Health Secretary admit that Covid is out of control in the UK. Why oh why is this country not increasing security on people travelling here from the UK. We all want to see our families but if allowing you to see your family this Christmas means somebody else not seeing their family ever again then why is this being tolerated?
    I'm sick of being told that travel only accounts for a small percentage of cases. How can we say that when we have virtually no checks on people who come into the country? All this talk about who will and who won't be vaccinated by what date is irrelevant.
    We only have to look at what happened in Co. Wexford in the last week or so, a county that went from having among the lowest rates in the country, to having one of the highest, and all, apparently on the back of one funeral and people travelling to that funeral and disregarding the rules.

    What has this got to do with vaccine discussion & technical discussion


  • Options
    #119
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    I said in the post that discussing the effect of a vaccine on the population is moot if we keep allowing the situation to deteriorate by our own actions, hasn't the first and up until now, the only defence, against the virus been containment?


  • Options
    #120
    Micky 32
    Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    I said in the post that discussing the effect of a vaccine on the population is moot if we keep allowing the situation to deteriorate by our own actions, hasn't the first and up until now, the only defence, against the virus been containment?


    You sound like that you’d rather see people locked up to combat the virus rather than having an effective vaccine to combat it. Hopefully i did pick that up wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users Posts: 11,638 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    Quick question RE testing procedures:
    Has anyone heard anything about the testing process for contacts changing?
    My cousin was notified Friday, being tested today and has been told if negative he can go back to normal?
    Where has the two test system gone?
    This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this in the last three weeks.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement