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

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/19/science.abc4776.full

Interesting bit was about the re-challenge inducing higher titres of antibodies than the original challenge.

Following SARS-CoV-2 rechallenge, animals exhibited rapid anamnestic immune responses, including increased virus-specific ELISA titers (P = 0.0034, two-sided Mann-Whitney test), pseudovirus NAb titers (P = 0.0003), and live virus NAb titers (P = 0.0003) as well as a trend toward increased IFN-γ ELISPOT responses (P = 0.1837) by day 7 after rechallenge (Fig. 6). In particular, NAb titers were markedly higher on day 14 following rechallenge compared with day 14 following primary challenge

To me that would point towards higher dosed vaccines, rather than lower dosed ones and for the ones where boosters are possible, we may need those boosters to get closer to sterilising protection.

Also, this would indicate that the re-challenge doses didn't get to replicate much before getting snuffed out by the immune response.

Viral RNA following rechallenge was higher in NS compared with BAL, but exhibited dose dependence and rapid decline

ShineOn7 wrote: »

"Superdrug is selling the coronavirus antibody test for £69


Test to show if you've had coronavirus can now be purchased from the high street store"


https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/superdrug-selling-coronavirus-antibody-tests-a4446371.html

https://in.reuters.com/article/brief-statement-from-abbott-uk-on-clarif/brief-statement-from-abbott-uk-on-clarification-regarding-abbotts-antibody-test-as-home-test-idINFWN2D20QX

A piece on a possible home-kit saliva test.

A 10-minute home saliva test for coronavirus is under development in a deal struck between the billionaire co-founder of online fashion brand BooHoo and a Cambridge-based firm.

The antigen test, which would be available to buy, will look similar to a pregnancy test but will use a saliva sample rather than urine, and is designed to give a result within 10 minutes.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/21/boohoo-founders-team-up-with-biotech-firm-for-covid-19-home-test-kit-uk-july

10,000 person trial in the UK (June), 30,000 in the US (July)

US has already bought 300 million doses.

Hopefully the Irish government is also paying attention.

hmmm wrote: »

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/22/early-study-of-covid-19-vaccine-developed-in-china-sees-mixed-results/

Mixed results with one of the Chinese vaccines. I heard the Chief Scientist for J&J being interviewed yesterday, and they had anticipated the problem with the Ad5 vector and pre-existing immunity and had chosen a different vector for their vaccine.

Hence ChAdOx decision to use a chimp specific AD vector. Not that many people would have previous exposure to that.

The DNA, VLP, deactivated virus and mRNA types don't get that problem as there is no vector.

JTMan wrote: »

Great to see how fast Oxford and Astrazeneca are going.

Haste in the development of medicines is generally not a good idea. I am very wary of the Oxford results - a tiny (like really, really, really tiny) sample with very "meh" results. In research terms, all they've done is present a good argument for a funding grant (as is the case with almost all of the 100-odd candidate studies). That is no basis on which to suddenly jump to a 10000-person trial.

JTMan wrote: »

Would also love to know which vaccines the Irish governments has done advanced purchases on.

Although I am not an Irish taxpayer, I would hope the Irish government has more sense than to buy any vaccine "off plan". Any money locked up in an advanced purchase would be far better used to administer the ever-increasing number of relatively simple treatments that help people recover (e.g. not using ventilators, but using low-pressure CPAP-type machines instead).

I think Oxford are only able to move this fast due to their version being effectively the same thing as the MERS candidate in phase II trials in South Korea. The vector is the same, the preservatives as well, the difference is the expressed proteins (which are still very similar). They simply have a big headstart when compared to others.

I agree that the lower doses didn't produce stellar results, which means higher doses most likely for further studies (think I saw a version with adjuvants as well, no results for that yet).

If this is tolerated well in the older population then even the lower doses could potentially drastically reduce severity and mortality. Bringing SARS-cov-2 down to HKU1 teritory would be a resounding success given the pickle we've landed in.

Level 42 wrote: »

Vaccine from china looks very promising the irony

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189221.shtml

Don't see how they can do Phase III trials in China which have to take place in an environment where the virus is active. There were apparently zero new cases in all of China yesterday.

Serum IgG and IgA might not be all that telling after all.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.21.108308v1

The bit about IgA in mucosal linings in HC workers that never tested positive is interesting. Would indicate that we might need mucosal prevalence studies instead of serological prevalence studies, or both side by side ideally.

I wish they would have tried to isolate the T cells from those HC workers to check if they happened to have the cross-reacting types from an earlier HCoV infection.

hmmm wrote: »

I don't quite agree. There's such a huge economic and medical cost to running an 80% economy, that being one of the first in line for a vaccine would be hugely beneficial. A 6 to 12 month delay getting a vaccine while other countries reopen their economies would be a disaster.

Not so. In the times we live in, it's not who's first in line that matters but who's later/last in line. The hit to the economy has already happened, due to decisions made and not made back in December, and in January, and in February, and in March, and in April ...

The mere fact of paying up front for a vaccine that may but probably won't work won't change any of that. Paying up front for options to purchase half a dozen vaccines that may but probably won't work won't help either.

And then, even if the government was lucky enough to bet on the right vaccine, there'd still be the question of when it'd be available (the rate of infection could well have dropped to almost zero by then), whether there'd be enough to make a difference (if you've only got 10000 doses, who gets them - teachers, doctors, nurses, politicians, publicans ...? )

And that's still only the start of it: right now, there's a heck of a lot of resistance amongst the public (even in Ireland) to being vaccinated with something that's been rushed through clinical trials. So it could be two, three or four years before sufficient people are vaccinated for a vaccine to make any difference to the spread of the disease.

Most of western Europe has already started re-opening their economies, with non-essential intra-European cross-border travel to be permitted from about three weeks from now (UK & Ireland excluded). Where's the advantage for Ireland in throwing money at an idea that just might turn into something in a year's time, when that money could be used more effectively today?

hmmm wrote: »

The hit to the economy will keep happening as we will be running an 80% economy until such time as we have a vaccine.

Of course paying for an option on a vaccine will pay off if we get back to a 100% economy quicker. I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.

There is no vaccine, and as of now, there is no realistic timeline for the delivery of a safe and effective vaccine. Paying up front for the chance to maybe be first in line for a vague and indefinite promise is pointless, a waste of money.

The economy will be back to "100%" (such as that ever exists) long before any vaccine becomes available. There is also no economic need for a vaccine, as the only thing stopping a return to normal behaviour is a satisfactory treatment protocol for the small percentage of people who get the severe form of Covid-19, to stop them dying. Additionally, the vast majority of those with severe Covid-19 are not economically active, so giving any limited-availability vaccine to the most vulnerable isn't going to change the economic equation.

How much do you think the Irish government should contribute to each of the 100 or so projects as an "option to purchase" and how many doses do you think they should be bidding for?

JTMan wrote: »

Bad news with Oxford vaccine trial. Phase III trials may not work in the UK because the virus is starting to disappear. "There's a 50% chance that we get no result at all."

The exact same issue with the Chinese Phase III trials but the issue is even more acute in China.

Why can they not move the trials to Brazil or Russia? Is it too complex?

The simple solution would be to open things up a bit faster. Not the most ethical one, but sure would help with the transmission rates.

Maybe have a big rave party, send the 10k people with the vaccine there and get another 10-20k unvaccinated to join in. Compare results in 2 weeks.

hmmm wrote: »

So I would happily let the Irish government risk a billion on pre-purchasing promising vaccine candidates. If we got it 3 or 6 months early, we would easily save potentially tens of billions, not even mentioning the lives saved.

So that's 100 billion for the 100 vaccine candidates ... or are you proposing that the government spins a bottle, or picks one with a nice name? There is no way, absolutely no way, we could "easily save potentially tens of billions" with a small batch of experimental vaccines, neither in three months, nor in six months, because (a) there's still too much about this disease that's poorly understood to be quick-fixed with a single injection; and (b) a huge part of the Irish economy is dependent on international commerce. So what are you going to do about all those foreigners - is the Irish government expected to pay for them to be vaccinated too? Because if you don't vaccinate everyone, you're back to selective vaccination, and there's no economic basis for that.

hmmm wrote: »

And you're inventing treatments which don't exist either - although when they do exist, we'll still have social distancing in place as most people would still rather not be rushed to hospital with this disease.

Ehhhh ... the treatments do exist, and are being used - and constantly improved - week after week after week. Immunosuppressive treatments, monoclonal antibodies, high-concentration-low-pressure oxygen treatment, etc., not to mention the several studies of additional drug trials under way, showing more useful results than any of the vaccine research. Now that the medical community is alerted to the various presentations of Covid-19, fewer people are being rushed to hospital; rather, they're being admitted to hospital at an earlier stage, with better chances of never getting to that desperate end-stage that characterised the start of the outbreak.