DaSilva wrote: » In fact what it might be saying is that natural immunity is better than the trial suggested.
DaSilva wrote: » No I don't think it really changes the efficacy results of the vaccine trial, it just effects the observation they made where they seemed to notice that people were getting infected with the new variant regardless of their previous infection status, now it seems like that observation might have been muddied by those tests not being very accurate in some groups of people. In fact what it might be saying is that natural immunity is better than the trial suggested.
is_that_so wrote: » I admire your efforts in decoding it! There was survey of academics I recall about reading research papers. The word impenetrable emerged as a comment on a lot of them. Concise and precise are great qualities in writing but the key factor is comprehensibility. That tweet has words has no meaning to anyone except a very select few.
jackryan34 wrote: » Give me a bit room here, it wasn't intelligence that got me this far. Antibody tests don't work well on Africans? They work well on Europeans and Americans, yeah ok, hmmm Because of that the Novavax vaccine is now a very good vaccine and works well against SA variant
Hardyn wrote: » Okay. I'll try again. The trial showed that people who previously had Covid and those who didn't were infected with the South African variant at the same rate. This new study suggests that the tests Novavax used to check for antibodies from past infection are significantly less accurate in African samples. It means they possibly overestimated the number of participants who previously had Covid. This means their findings may be inaccurate and that prior infection does offer some protection.
... in this trial, approximately 1/3 of the patients enrolled ... were seropositive, demonstrating prior COVID-19 infection ... the pre-trial infections are thought to have been caused by the original COVID-19 strain (i.e., non-variant), while the subsequent infections during the study were largely variant virus. These data suggest that prior infection with COVID-19 may not completely protect against subsequent infection by the South Africa escape variant
15 of 600 African sera were ... positive in ... spike/S1‐based Euroimmun ELISA, but did not inhibit spike/ACE2 binding in a surrogate virus neutralization test. ... SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA specificity may be significantly reduced in certain populations
is_that_so wrote: » That's English- the tweet is utter rubbish!
Hardyn wrote: » That's my fault. I should have explained it better in my first post.
[Deleted User] wrote: » We're not dicks. Everyone needs a vaccine. We still have given over double our fair share compared to the average
Hmmzis wrote: » Some interesting reading during lunchtime.https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-310773/v1_stamped.pdf It describes how the current mRNA vaccines are working within vaccinated humans with a very close look at the lymph nodes and germinal center B cells. GC B cells are important in terms of antibody maturation, longevity of the response and the affinity of antibodies (countering variations in the virus). There is some very interesting data there for those interested. For the TL;DR synopsis, here are a few of the important bits: IgA class of antibodies is very important in protecting mucosal membranes as there is very little IgG type antibodies residing in our snot. Too long for a quote, but previously infected and then vaccinated individuals had a significantly broader response to all circulating variants (good thing). Note: it's a preprint but their methods look good and the names on the paper look solid (Florian Krammer among them).
lucernarian wrote: » That is excellent news, especially the higher than expected IGA+ rate.
D.Q wrote: » Haha this thread should have red coloured font for bad news and green for good news
titan18 wrote: » UK is an export ban in everything but name really. It might not be as harsh as the US one but they're not exporting vaccines like the EU (we exported 8m to them). My opinion is unless they're going to play fair we shouldn't with them or the US.
brickster69 wrote: » The EU is not exporting vaccines. Only overseas companies who have plants based in the EU who have contracted orders with other countries. Ban exports and they will seriously think about not carrying on business in the EU. The UK has no ban and was the worse hit nation in Europe. If a company wants to export that is up to them.
AdamD wrote: » No they won't. No large pharma company is writing off 20 of the richest countries on the planet for an issue that will be irrelevant in a year.
is_that_so wrote: » Regulations versus laws. The 1947 Health Act has always had that option of doing whatever is required for public health anyway. The recent amendments are really tweaks to cover what we've had to do. She's a bit late to the party, too.
seamus wrote: » It's a good opportunity for the E.U. to tighten up on exports. The evidence is right there that the EU has not engaged in vaccine nationalism despite manufacturers continuously letting us down even while exporting doses out of the EU. The US or UK would have no basis to complain about the EU engaging in a little bit of vaccine nationalism at this stage. Warn manufacturers that if there are any further shortfalls in delivery, their products will not leave the EU until the shortfall has been rectified.
Apogee wrote: » Sat No: 8,604 administered. Mostly Cohort 3 first doses. Mon-Sat: 79,328. 10% of vaccinatible population (3.7M) given first dose - 373,149.
Apogee wrote: » Very slow with the Dashboard update today. Sunday: 1375 administered. Mon-Sun: 81,340 vs target of 84,000
Gile_na_gile wrote: » We saw that with the warning shot in Italy with EC approval. I think we should cap and control exports to nations that are exporting banning / blocking by other means in order to meet our delivery schedules, while also working harder to export more to COVAX. What, if anything, has left the UK for export elsewhere, for example? They have obviously imported plenty from AZ in Belgium and Pfizer in Germany, and rely on our broad pan-European supply network. I imagine they will be exporting Novavax later but that is no good for us at this stage.
stephenjmcd wrote: » Geo Hub was updated this morning
Apogee wrote: » Was aware of that, but it's hard to tell from the Geo Hub what was actually administered on an individual day, or over a week.
astrofool wrote: » That's doublespeak of Orwellian dimensions.The UK has an export ban in place for their AZ produced vaccines. The EU does not have an export ban in place and is exporting it's EU produced Pfizer vaccines to the UK (as well as AZ produced vaccines).
brickster69 wrote: » They don't they don't have enough capacity to export. That's why they have placed orders ages ago with India. It has nothing to do with the EU, they are an American business exporting goods that have been bought and paid for months ago. Get this EU thing out of your head, the EU is just a customer waiting on deliveries, like most other countries.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c8f64116a02fb35bb4652b6f11c7f3cf.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
