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

is_that_so · 20-08-2020 12:19pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

The rate measles, which we have a vaccine for, has returned would suggest otherwise

Measles has an R0 of 12-18 and it could be higher, which is why we need almost universal vaccination.

yosemitesam1 · 20-08-2020 12:27pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

Very selfish attitude on display.
Being part of society brings a lot of benefits, with that there are also some duties and responsibilities for each member of society to be fulfilled to ensure we have a functioning society with all those lovely benefits.
Some of those activities might incur some inconvenience or a calculated risk when viewed at an individual by individual base. By not taking that individual risk, you're offloading it to the rest of society to pick up your slack - that's freeloading, just like a parasite (or a virus, since we're on that topic here).

At this point is there any proof that the vaccine candidates will stop significant amounts of people being asymptomatic spreaders (or with very very mild symptoms)?
The idea that everyone outside of at risk groups getting the vaccine will prevent them possibly being a carrier is not based on evidence as far as I can see

eleventh · 20-08-2020 1:31pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

The rate measles, which we have a vaccine for, has returned would suggest otherwise

Exactly. I got every vaccine as a child as well as booster injections.
Still got all the diseases - measles, german measles, mumps, chickenpox etc.

3xh · 20-08-2020 1:33pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

Very selfish attitude on display.
Being part of society brings a lot of benefits, with that there are also some duties and responsibilities for each member of society to be fulfilled to ensure we have a functioning society with all those lovely benefits.
Some of those activities might incur some inconvenience or a calculated risk when viewed at an individual by individual base. By not taking that individual risk, you're offloading it to the rest of society to pick up your slack - that's freeloading, just like a parasite (or a virus, since we're on that topic here).

Hmmzis, your attitude is just as selfish.

Regarding freeloading, we're all paying for the grants being flung at the multinational pharma companies in this race to be the first to market. The vaccine also doesn't need 100% uptake for it to 'work'

Will you acknowledge some health care workers will not take a covid vaccine?Can you think of a reason why?

I'd suggest your blind faith in and the desire to be vaccinated is clouding your judgment of those who simply do not agree with the idea of forced vaccinations with a rushed, lucrative vaccine.

20-08-2020 1:51pm

Marhay70 wrote: »

Measles was never eradicated and in the last few years after a scare about the MMR vaccine linking it to autism, which turned out to have little basis is fact, many parents stopped vaccinating their children. This, in turn led to the increase in infections we are seeing today.
Haven't time myself but look up Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Wakefield is exactly my point and the idiots who believe and push that agenda.

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 3:06pm

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

At this point is there any proof that the vaccine candidates will stop significant amounts of people being asymptomatic spreaders (or with very very mild symptoms)?
The idea that everyone outside of at risk groups getting the vaccine will prevent them possibly being a carrier is not based on evidence as far as I can see

There is quite good data on what would constitute a correlate of protection against SARS-cov-2 infection. The fishing ship case study mentioned upthread and the Mt Sinai study a while ago (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1.full.pdf+html.

Most of the current vaccine candidates that we have data for do show neutralizing titers in or above that range. The two exceptions are single dose of ChAdOx1 (needs a booster to get 100% coverage) and Innovio's plasmid DNA candidate (poorest of them all at the moment).

Phase 3 data from all those vaccine candidates will show how accurate and robust the current understanding is, but until then this is the best we have.

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 3:10pm

3xh wrote: »

Hmmzis, your attitude is just as selfish.

Regarding freeloading, we're all paying for the grants being flung at the multinational pharma companies in this race to be the first to market. The vaccine also doesn't need 100% uptake for it to 'work'

Will you acknowledge some health care workers will not take a covid vaccine?Can you think of a reason why?

I'd suggest your blind faith in and the desire to be vaccinated is clouding your judgment of those who simply do not agree with the idea of forced vaccinations with a rushed, lucrative vaccine.

I'm not talking about money, it's risk freeloading I was talking about.

Don't worry, nobody is going to force anything on you that hasn't been approved, let alone anyone from this forum.

yosemitesam1 · 20-08-2020 3:18pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

There is quite good data on what would constitute a correlate of protection against SARS-cov-2 infection. The fishing ship case study mentioned upthread and the Mt Sinai study a while ago (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1.full.pdf+html).

Most of the current vaccine candidates that we have data for do show neutralizing titers in or above that range. The two exceptions are single dose of ChAdOx1 (needs a booster to get 100% coverage) and Innovio's plasmid DNA candidate (poorest of them all at the moment).

Phase 3 data from all those vaccine candidates will show how accurate and robust the current understanding is, but until then this is the best we have.

Link doesn't work?
Point was more that coronavirus strains can replicate and survive in the mucous while not necessarily increasing to the point of generating an immune response to clear them entirely from the mucous.
So unless a vaccinated person maintains high levels of mucosal antibodies, the levels in their blood don't necessarily mean that they won't be susceptible to being a spreader.

Coronavirus is very different to the flu in that respect as the flu doesn't have the ability to survive/replicate in mucous

3xh · 20-08-2020 3:31pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

I'm not talking about money, it's risk freeloading I was talking about.

Don't worry, nobody is going to force anything on you that hasn't been approved, let alone anyone from this forum.

My point is it doesn't matter if it's approved. The H1N1 vaccine was approved. As was Thalidomide, etc. Surely, a vaccine recipient will be 'immune' from somebody not vaccinated?

As for people here forcing me to take it or not, again, that's not my point. The reason the Government took the decisions they did on the airports/routes/pushing that quarantine was 'mandatory' for returnees was partly based on the willingness of the populace to demand and take such action. You think the public feedback on what they wanted on this matter did not play a part in the Government's decision?

There will be people vocally calling for mass vaccination if and when there is one released. They populate Boards, for sure. Liveline and TDs will be inundated with demands for mandatory vaccination, guarantee you!

I'll await your support against such.

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 3:32pm

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Link doesn't work?
Point was more that coronavirus strains can replicate and survive in the mucous while not necessarily increasing to the point of generating an immune response to clear them entirely from the mucous.
So unless a vaccinated person maintains high levels of mucosal antibodies, the levels in their blood don't necessarily mean that they won't be susceptible to being a spreader.

Coronavirus is very different to the flu in that respect as the flu doesn't have the ability to survive/replicate in mucous

Sorry, fixed the link.

Any and every virus needs living cells to replicate, I think you are mistaking a secreted substance (mucous) with the cell lining called the mucousal membrane.

Each and every respiratory virus can and does survive in the mucous, otherwise it wouldn't much of a respiratory virus and they all infect cells in the mucousal membranes (epithelial cells) in the various cavities of our bodies where they are present.

LessOutragePlz · 20-08-2020 3:40pm

https://twitter.com/highfrequency78/status/1296090242043334658?s=19

Call me selfish all you want but I'm on her side.

3xh · 20-08-2020 3:43pm

Very telling.

And apparently many NHS staff have died over this covid stuff.

Sconsey · 20-08-2020 3:45pm

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

https://twitter.com/highfrequency78/status/1296090242043334658?s=19

Call me selfish all you want but I'm on her side.

"How many good doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals are the nhs prepared to lose if this goes ahead.".....None, if they don't support vaccination they shouldn't be called 'good'. They might lose a few Luddites. They have no business being in healthcare if they are intent on risking their patients safety.

AdamD · 20-08-2020 3:48pm

Working for the NHS doesn't mean you're not an idiot

LessOutragePlz · 20-08-2020 3:48pm

3xh wrote: »

Very telling.

And apparently many NHS staff have died over this covid stuff.

But, but, but it's for the greater good and we must all be responsible citizens and get the vaccine when it's released for a virus that we have a 99.9% chance of surviving if you're a younger person.

LessOutragePlz · 20-08-2020 3:49pm

Sconsey wrote: »

"How many good doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals are the nhs prepared to lose if this goes ahead.".....None, if they don't support vaccination they shouldn't be called 'good'. They might lose a few Luddites. They have no business being in healthcare if they are intent on risking their patients safety.

Are you in favour of mandatory vaccines?

Stark · 20-08-2020 3:51pm

Anyone read the rest of her twitter? Talking about treating people by "raising frequencies". I'd be very surprised if she was actually truthful about working for the NHS. As a cleaner maybe.

3xh · 20-08-2020 3:57pm

AdamD wrote: »

Working for the NHS doesn't mean you're not an idiot

And people saying they'll take the vaccine because the experts say it's 'safe' and 'approved' doesn't mean they're not idiots either.

Linking travel, access to education, jobs, medical treatment, etc. to having this or any vaccine is a step too far and obvious mission-creep from what we were told at the start.

I'd be wary of the Irish Government, personally.

Sconsey · 20-08-2020 3:57pm

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But, but, but it's for the greater good and we must all be responsible citizens and get the vaccine when it's released for a virus that we have a 99.9% chance of surviving if you're a younger person.

Selfish as fsck, vaccines will only be effective if the majority take it, there will always be a large cohort that cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. I believe if you are not willing to particiape then you should be excluded from other benefits of society. There should be a cost for saying "I'll be fine, to hell with the vulnerable".

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Are you in favour of mandatory vaccines?

I'm on the fence for the broad public, I would be more inclined to exclude non-vaccinated from society if possible. For health staff I think mandatory makes sense.

3xh · 20-08-2020 3:59pm

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But, but, but it's for the greater good and we must all be responsible citizens and get the vaccine when it's released for a virus that we have a 99.9% chance of surviving if you're a younger person.

Yep, I agree.

3xh · 20-08-2020 4:01pm

Sconsey wrote: »

Selfish as fsck, vaccines will only be effective if the majority take it, there will always be a large cohort that cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. I believe if you are not willing to particiape then you should be excluded from other benefits of society. There should be a cost for saying "I'll be fine, to hell with the vulnerable".

I'm on the fence for the broad public, I would be more inclined to exclude non-vaccinated from society if possible. For health staff I think mandatory makes sense.

Grand. Can I have my taxes back then? See? Now where do you draw the line?

Sconsey · 20-08-2020 4:06pm

3xh wrote: »

Grand. Can I have my taxes back then? See? Now where do you draw the line?

Dunno, I don't have all the answers, I was asked my opinion. I would start with limiting access to public services that could expose others...maybe schools, college, certain types of health care, etc.

Still have to pay tax, you would not be excluded from prison :pac:

LessOutragePlz · 20-08-2020 4:08pm

Sconsey wrote: »

Selfish as fsck, vaccines will only be effective if the majority take it, there will always be a large cohort that cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. I believe if you are not willing to particiape then you should be excluded from other benefits of society. There should be a cost for saying "I'll be fine, to hell with the vulnerable".

I'm on the fence for the broad public, I would be more inclined to exclude non-vaccinated from society if possible. For health staff I think mandatory makes sense.

It's nothing to do with saying fvck the vulnerable and all to do with not knowing the potential risks or side effects with taking the vaccine. There is no way that they'll be able to be perform enough testing to prove that it will be completely safe.

No doubt I'll be called an anti vaxxer but I'm not anti vaccine, I've been vaccinated as a child but, I would be very hesitant to take a rushed vaccine such as this one that is currently in development.

As for mandatory vaccines that's a slippery slope. When will stop letting the government interfere in our personal lives. Or is it all ok as long as it's for "the greater good" ?

seanb85 · 20-08-2020 4:20pm

It's very disappointing that this thread is being derailed.

It was meant to be a discussion on what is in development and where they are at in terms of results.

Gael23 · 20-08-2020 4:24pm

How might distribution work and decisions as to who is eligible to receive a limited supp,y of vaccines?

Deeper Blue · 20-08-2020 4:24pm

El Sueño wrote: »

Any chance this thread could go back to being an information thread?

I have zero interest in reading anti-vaxxer nonsense.

.

seanb85 · 20-08-2020 4:28pm

Gael23 wrote: »

How might distribution work and decisions as to who is eligible to receive a limited supp,y of vaccines?

You'd hope there'd already be a plan in place, I'd presume it'll be very vulnerable/high risk together with healthcare workers first. Then high risk and some other key workers (Gardai, the Army, Teachers, perhaps the food industry), then schoolkids, and then everybody else.

3xh · 20-08-2020 4:30pm

seanb85 wrote: »

It's very disappointing that this thread is being derailed.

It was meant to be a discussion on what is in development and where they are at in terms of results.

Didn't mean to be part of the derailment. Sorry.

The support here (a few pages back) for mandatory vaccines surprised me, I have to say, when I read the posts. Throw in what has occured/been said in NZ and AUS in the past week and I could just see the argument coming to our shores very soon.

I would never insist on those people awaiting the covid vaccine to not take it nor threaten them with inability to travel, learn, get a job if they did get the jab and I hope for a similar stance regarding those who choose not to take it.

Regards.

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 4:31pm

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

It's nothing to do with saying fvck the vulnerable and all to do with not knowing the potential risks or side effects with taking the vaccine. There is no way that they'll be able to be perform enough testing to prove that it will be completely safe.

No doubt I'll be called an anti vaxxer but I'm not anti vaccine, I've been vaccinated as a child but, I would be very hesitant to take a rushed vaccine such as this one that is currently in development.

As for mandatory vaccines that's a slippery slope. When will stop letting the government interfere in our personal lives. Or is it all ok as long as it's for "the greater good" ?

Nothing ever has been, is, or will be completely safe. It's always about risk vs benefit.

The safety for the front runner candidates has been established as safe for phase 3 trials. This brings them already below the risks of a wild type infection (no volunteer needed hospitalization, that's among a couple thousand of people).

If phase 3 doesn't bring back anything of note, given the numbers involved (well over 100k in total), it'll be magnitudes lower risk to take the vaccine than risk a wild type infection.
That's if you're only concerned about your own well being.

Can't find the UK age stratified IFR estimates at the moment, but here are the IFR estimates from Geneva:
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3.pdf

The UK had a more granular table and bigger numbers, making for a smaller standard deviation.

Also, death is not the only outcome of the wild type infection one should be looking at. The data on organ damage is very hospital centered at the moment, not enough to build a population level estimate yet.

JDD · 20-08-2020 4:32pm

There will be people vocally calling for mass vaccination if and when there is one released. They populate Boards, for sure. Liveline and TDs will be inundated with demands for mandatory vaccination, guarantee you!

I'll await your support against such

I will strongly support you. The one thing you own, completely, is your own body. No one should ever be forced to take a vaccine, or any other treatment for that matter, by law.

However, the consensus is that people who refuse the vaccine will be increasing the risk for all of us. As well as costing money to treat in hospital. So I say that after a reasonable amount of time after a vaccine is released - say 12 months - you should have to wear a leg tag. You will beep when you enter shops, public transport or indoor areas, and it will mean a small fine if you don't wear a mask. A small inconvenience. And you will not be able to get treatment for coronavirus through the public system. Happy to let you pay for it privately though.

That way you get to keep your bodily integrity, and we get protected from you.

is_that_so · 20-08-2020 4:35pm

seanb85 wrote: »

You'd hope there'd already be a plan in place, I'd presume it'll be very vulnerable/high risk together with healthcare workers first. Then high risk and some other key workers (Gardai, the Army, Teachers, perhaps the food industry), then schoolkids, and then everybody else.

I think gen pop might be up to six months after the high risk categories. End of next year even for an early vaccine is more realistic.

seanb85 · 20-08-2020 4:39pm

is_that_so wrote: »

I think gen pop might be up to six months after the high risk categories. End of next year even for an early vaccine is more realistic.

I wouldn't disagree. Even in a very optimistic scenario of emergency use approval for one or more by November it will take a significant amount of time to get to more than 50% of the population.

Coillte_Bhoy · 20-08-2020 4:46pm

AdamD wrote: »

Working for the NHS doesn't mean you're not an idiot

Indeed, and a quick look at her twitter tells you me all i need to know :pac:

hmmm · 20-08-2020 4:48pm

You have a right to your own bodily integrity. You have no right to put other people at risk. If the time comes, those who refuse to take a vaccination will have to be cocooned to protect everyone else, perhaps with designated shopping hours, work from home etc.

In better news, encouraging results from a small trial of Aviptadil:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665228

Note that "Conflict of Interest: Author JCJ is employed bya pharmaceutical company that is currently conducting clinical trials of RLF-100in patients with COVID-19 and has a financial interest in the outcome of those clinical trials."

I believe there is much larger studies of this particular drug taking place.

3xh · 20-08-2020 4:50pm

JDD wrote: »

I will strongly support you. The one thing you own, completely, is your own body. No one should ever be forced to take a vaccine, or any other treatment for that matter, by law.

However, the consensus is that people who refuse the vaccine will be increasing the risk for all of us. As well as costing money to treat in hospital. So I say that after a reasonable amount of time after a vaccine is released - say 12 months - you should have to wear a leg tag. You will beep when you enter shops, public transport or indoor areas, and it will mean a small fine if you don't wear a mask. A small inconvenience. And you will not be able to get treatment for coronavirus through the public system. Happy to let you pay for it privately though.

That way you get to keep your bodily integrity, and we get protected from you.

So will you get the vaccine for diphtheria, hep B and polio next year while you're at it? No, you'll only get the brand new covid vaccine because it's all we've heard about the past 6 months. Who decides what we hear and see each day? Ourselves?

Your tag solution, however meaningful, is unworkable also. If the tag beeps, who do I pay? You're not suggesting it's linked to my bank account? And if you actually are, how do I tell the tag I've put my mask on? Take a selfie and send it into some new Government Dept. set up to deal with fines/refunds? So, what's the cost benefit analysis of all this?

Keep it simple: Support the provision of a rapidly created vaccine to those who are happy to accept it and support those who don't want it.

20-08-2020 4:57pm

seanb85 wrote: »

It's very disappointing that this thread is being derailed.

It was meant to be a discussion on what is in development and where they are at in terms of results.

The closer we actually are to getting to a vaccine, the more your going to see that.

LessOutragePlz · 20-08-2020 5:01pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

The closer we actually are to getting to a vaccine, the more your going to see that.

I think a discussion about mandatory vaccines is a legitimate one given that it is being considered in some countries at the moment and shutting down the discussion of that isn't a good idea IMO but, of course people will scream "anti vaxxer" the second someone suggests that they are against mandatory vaccinations. They will all be tarred with the same brush.

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 5:03pm

hmmm wrote: »

You have a right to your own bodily integrity. You have no right to put other people at risk. If the time comes, those who refuse to take a vaccination will have to be cocooned to protect everyone else, perhaps with designated shopping hours, work from home etc.

In better news, encouraging results from a small trial of Aviptadil:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665228

Note that "Conflict of Interest: Author JCJ is employed bya pharmaceutical company that is currently conducting clinical trials of RLF-100in patients with COVID-19 and has a financial interest in the outcome of those clinical trials."

I believe there is much larger studies of this particular drug taking place.

Commercial interests or not, it's very hard to argue with those sort of clinical indicators. If that was their whole treatment group, it's nothing short of spectacular results. Especially keeping in mind that all of the 21 were in critical condition in ICU and 6 were already on ECMO (very few come off of that and live to tell the tale).

This needs to go in a bigger trial and into pre ICU patients to see if it keeps them from going critical.

hmmm · 20-08-2020 5:05pm

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/08/20/more-pfizer-biontech-data-on-their-actual-vaccine-candidate

" There are so many different platforms in trials now, each with their differences, and we will be getting piles of data in rapid succession from trials of tens of thousands of people all over the world. No one would have ever set up such a gigantic experimental landscape under non-emergency conditions; from the clinical perspective it’s an unprecedented immunological Woodstock.

And we’re going to have to get prepared for it. There are several believable outcomes (good, bad, and just plain mixed) that I don’t think that the general public has anticipated, and those will be the subject of a coming post!"

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 5:43pm

hmmm wrote: »

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/08/20/more-pfizer-biontech-data-on-their-actual-vaccine-candidate

" There are so many different platforms in trials now, each with their differences, and we will be getting piles of data in rapid succession from trials of tens of thousands of people all over the world. No one would have ever set up such a gigantic experimental landscape under non-emergency conditions; from the clinical perspective it’s an unprecedented immunological Woodstock.

And we’re going to have to get prepared for it. There are several believable outcomes (good, bad, and just plain mixed) that I don’t think that the general public has anticipated, and those will be the subject of a coming post!"

Here is the paper if anyone for some bizarre reason would want to skip Derek's comments on it.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.17.20176651v1.full.pdf

While the adverse events are clearly far less than in the b1 verison, I think another factor for choosing the b2 might have been the nAB titers in the b2 version looking a little bit better in the >65yo group.

yosemitesam1 · 20-08-2020 5:51pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

Sorry, fixed the link.

Any and every virus needs living cells to replicate, I think you are mistaking a secreted substance (mucous) with the cell lining called the mucousal membrane.

Each and every respiratory virus can and does survive in the mucous, otherwise it wouldn't much of a respiratory virus and they all infect cells in the mucousal membranes (epithelial cells) in the various cavities of our bodies where they are present.

No, I'm not mistaking mucous for mucousal membranes.
Coronavirus can infect and replicate within macrophages present in mucous. So it's not actually going to necessarily set off an immune response or be cleared by blood antibodies before it is spread.
That isn't possible for flu viruses. To infect someone, flu viruses have to make it through the mucous into the mucosal membrane cells.

Russman · 20-08-2020 6:18pm

Apologies if this has been covered or is unanswerable, but how soon are the Phase 3 results expected ?
Would the teams, like say, Oxford, privately have seen indicators already, albeit from incomplete data, where they might “know” if it works or not even though they have to wait another few months ?

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 6:26pm

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

No, I'm not mistaking mucous for mucousal membranes.
Coronavirus can infect and replicate within macrophages present in mucous. So it's not actually going to necessarily set off an immune response or be cleared by blood antibodies before it is spread.
That isn't possible for flu viruses. To infect someone, flu viruses have to make it through the mucous into the mucosal membrane cells.

Could you please link to the paper describing this mechanism? I've seen some about SARS, but I'm coming up empty for SARS2.

yosemitesam1 · 20-08-2020 7:17pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

Could you please link to the paper describing this mechanism? I've seen some about SARS, but I'm coming up empty for SARS2.

I don't know if the research has been carried out specifically on sars2.
There's this
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01312/full

But using macrophages to replicate is common across a lot of coronavirus strains and without evidence to say otherwise I would assume that as it's been so successful at spreading, sars2 also targets macrophages as a mechanism for surviving/spreading through the population.

eleventh · 20-08-2020 8:34pm

Interesting looking film here on Vaccine injury
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11137248/

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 9:04pm

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

I don't know if the research has been carried out specifically on sars2.
There's this
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01312/full

But using macrophages to replicate is common across a lot of coronavirus strains and without evidence to say otherwise I would assume that as it's been so successful at spreading, sars2 also targets macrophages as a mechanism for surviving/spreading through the population.

Thanks for the link, it's an interesting hypothesis they are proposing. The thing is, it's a theoretical exercise, and even they acknowledge in the paper that there is a lack of empirical evidence for what they are proposing. There are two citations in this paper that find that macrophages can be entered by SARS-cov, but the infection those cells is abortive. This means that the cels get killed, but no viral replication happens in them.

I do sort of recall a study from April where a group tried to do an in vitro experiment with SARS-cov-2 and lymphocytes. In their assay the virions were able to enter the cells, but were not able to replicate in them. Subsequently the paper was retracted as it turned out the cell culture they used was of the wrong type or something along those lines.

As to IgG and immunoglobulins in general, they don't just live in the serum. There is IgA, that is the main mucosal type and IgG is sort of everywhere, like IgM, but is longer lived. All are produced by B cells in more or less similar amounts.

I found this article quite informative about the Ig types:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064559/

The curious bit is that the intestinal tract doesn't have any appreciable amounts of IgG.

Hmmzis · 20-08-2020 9:13pm

Russman wrote: »

Apologies if this has been covered or is unanswerable, but how soon are the Phase 3 results expected ?
Would the teams, like say, Oxford, privately have seen indicators already, albeit from incomplete data, where they might “know” if it works or not even though they have to wait another few months ?

The hope for Oxford is September, but it all depends on how quickly the infections accumulate in the respective groups.

And no, the researchers would not know anything at this point. There is a separate panel of people who monitor the infection data coming in. Once they get to the required number of infections, they unblind the results to see what the distribution is between the placebo and vaccine groups.

Herb Powell · 20-08-2020 10:01pm

eleventh wrote: »

Interesting looking film here on Vaccine injury
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11137248/

Interesting use of the word "interesting"

Sconsey · 21-08-2020 11:45am

eleventh wrote: »

Interesting looking film here on Vaccine injury
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11137248/

Jesus that horseh1t should be banned under public safety laws. Just read the user review on IMDB. The user claims they were happily getting vaccinated as per medical advice but after watching this film they did their own research (Google? Facebook?) and decided they knew better than the worldwide scientific and medical expertise. They are now bragging about not vaccinating their kids. Morons. Absolute morons.

eleventh · 21-08-2020 6:13pm

Sconsey wrote: »

Jesus that horseh1t should be banned under public safety laws. Just read the user review on IMDB. The user claims they were happily getting vaccinated as per medical advice but after watching this film they did their own research (Google? Facebook?) and decided they knew better than the worldwide scientific and medical expertise. They are now bragging about not vaccinating their kids. Morons. Absolute morons.

The outrage seems a bit misplaced. The chances of anyone stopping you from vaccinating your kids and yourself, as much as you want, now or in the future, is zero.

And you can relax completely because they'll be upping the marketing of vaccination and promoting it heavily soon enough. You won't even have to pay for it. They may even call around door to door, because they are such caring people.

My post was really for anyone who is interested in health, which doesn't seem to be many on this thread, but nonetheless worth posting for the small minority of passersby who might be interested in human health (as opposed to what the medical/pharmaceutical industry is selling today).

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

Comments