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

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You can email Professor Kavanagh

Do you intend on replying to your flu claims or are you just trying reaffirm what everyone's thinking?

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Seeing as he is correcting my paper I reserve the right to stay quiet and pass

Shouldn't you be studying?

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Just heard it in a lecture yesterday in Maynooth University

Are all lectures not online now? Are there usually lectures on Sundays?

Just saw a different interview with Adrian Hill on CNN and he says that the vaccine comes in 10 dose vials and it will be up to the end user to just administer the half dose. So no special requirements for the half/full regimen.

Ten of Swords wrote: »

skooterblue2, back your stats up or stop trolling right now

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You can email Professor Kavanagh

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Seeing as he is correcting my paper I reserve the right to stay quiet and pass

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Father?!!!?

Mod

You reply to a mod note not to troll and to back up your stats with a

'You look for them' comment.

You obviously cannot act in good faith here.

Don't post in this thread again.

Daisy03 wrote: »

Does anyone have any info on how efficacy is calculated for the vaccines? This is a genuine question. I am not anti vaccines but I am just curious to understand the figures a little more.

The people in the trials are not deliberately infected with Covid19 as far as I know. Were they all told to continue to observe social distancing and mask wearing? Do they just compare the % that caught covid in the placebo group vs the group who received the vaccine? If so, I assume they would categorise people based on their risk of being exposed to Covid and try and balance this out in both groups. For example, those working from home versus a job were someone is exposed to a lot of people.

I had naively assumed people would have to be deliberately infected with Covid to properly test the efficacy of the vaccine.

Deliberately infecting anyone with a pathogen for what there is no reliable treatment is considered unethical (opinions vary, but that's the de-facto state of play).
All vaccine trials use at least two groups, one groups receives the vaccine, the other a placebo (irrelevant vaccine or a saline injection). Both groups are randomized and blinded so that participants are those administering the doses don't know what was administered.
After a while, if the trial population is large enough, there will the inevitable infection cases and all trials preferably recruit people who would have a higher than average risk of being exposed to the virus. After a predefined infection count has been reached, the Data Safety Monitoring Board unblinds the participant's data and runs some statistical analysis to get the efficacy estimates, confidence intervals, p values, etc. What they're effectively are looking for is the rate at which the placebo group got sick and the rate at which the vaccine group got sick. If the vaccine group gets less sick, the vaccine works, the numerical differences between the groups then can tell how well the vaccine works.

Just wondering. Are there any pro vaxxers trolling on the anti vax threads? There seems to be an inordinate amount of antivaxxers trolling on here and I wonder if there aren't enough arguments posed on their own threads to keep them occupied.

Westernworld. wrote: »

Probably

Look what happened with covid . Got more serious as time went on

I don't understand, covid got more serious ?



The IFR has been dropping with covid ...

TomSweeney wrote: »

OK so it's looking more and more likely that the vaccine will be mandatory in order to fly.
Now as I've said before I'm not anti vax, my boys have all the usual vaccines, but these have been around for a long while and are as safe as you can get.
So far we know with these new covid vaccines that they are safe at least in the short term.

My question is this, is it possible for a vaccine to appear safe for 3/6/9 months etc .. and then the negative side effects appear years later ?

Genuine question, I am ignorant when it comes to vaccine tech and was planning to keep an eye on this for a few years before getting it, but looks like we will have to get it before stepping on a plane.

- and it does annoy me that my kids will need it despite flu being more dangerous - to them.

That's a very unlikely scenario. The two critical periods for vaccine safety are the first couple days after the injection and then a few weeks to couple months later when your body is developing the most antibodies and T cells against the virus bits that got presented to it in the vaccine.

The first period is the fevers, allergies, pain etc.
The second period is the auto-immune issues that can happen if the wrong viral bits n' pieces got included in the vaccine.

After that there is nothing left from the vaccine in your body, only the immune memory that will get (hopefully) recalled in time to prevent disease when you encounter the read deal virus out in the wild.

TomSweeney wrote: »

My question is this, is it possible for a vaccine to appear safe for 3/6/9 months etc .. and then the negative side effects appear years later ?

Genuine question, I am ignorant when it comes to vaccine tech and was planning to keep an eye on this for a few years before getting it, but looks like we will have to get it before stepping on a plane.

None of the current vaccines look likely to be given to children in the near future. I expect any vaccination requirement (if it comes in) will be waived for under 18s for quite a while.

2 months was picked for Covid vaccines for initial safety data. It will then only be authorised for a small number of very high-risk groups. The regulators will continue monitoring for any safety isses.

By the time an "ordinary" person is offered it, we should have a few more months of data. I don't personally understand why anyone would choose to take their chances with a disease like Covid which can kill and cause debilitating illness now and has unknown effects in the future, versus taking a vaccine which will by then have been tested on tens of thousands of people and with the data scrutinised by multiple regulators.

hmmm wrote: »

None of the current vaccines look likely to be given to children in the near future. I expect any vaccination requirement (if it comes in) will be waived for under 18s for quite a while.

2 months was picked for Covid vaccines for initial safety data. It will then only be authorised for a small number of very high-risk groups. The regulators will continue monitoring for any safety isses.

By the time an "ordinary" person is offered it, we should have a few more months of data. I don't personally understand why anyone would choose to take their chances with a disease like Covid which can kill and cause debilitating illness now and has unknown effects in the future, versus taking a vaccine which will by then have been tested on tens of thousands of people and with the data scrutinised by multiple regulators.

Well, I think you are making covid more dangerous than it is there, for the vast majority it's mild, up to 40% don't even know they have it , as time goes on and more data comes in we see the IFR trending down.


I can understand why people would be cautious.