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/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Options
1…168169171173174…325

Comments

  • Options
    #5102
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,499 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    This is very positive development but there is a long winter ahead.

    At least people can see light at the end of the tunnel which will lift spirits.


  • Options
    #5103
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users Posts: 12,079 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    AssetBacked2 wrote: »
    Yes, it is a fact they don't need it. This virus affects a tiny percentage of young people. To say otherwise is to, quite frankly, display pure ignorance.

    No, that isn't correct .

    The vulnerable and older need vaccination first , is what I said , no matter where they are .
    But to say that young do not need to be vaccinated is wrong and missing the point of mass vaccination and herd immunity .
    Some people are most vulnerable and cannot either take a vaccine or it has no effect on them due to immune deficiency. These can be young or old, as a previous poster has given a very good example of .
    If these people are to be protected the majority who can transmit the virus , or the majority who can be infected , not affected , need to be vaccinated , otherwise we will never reach the famous herd immunity .


  • Options
    #5104
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    This is very positive development but there is a long winter ahead.

    At least people can see light at the end of the tunnel which will lift spirits.


    Now, now Kermit

    Don't spoil this rare day of happiness on here :p


  • Options
    #5105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    lbj666 wrote: »
    Big question, if Pfizer say 90% reduction in infections, does that mean the 10% that do get infected can still get the same severity of the disease or would it be diminished also, its kind of a can you get half (or 10%) pregnant sort of question.

    I mentioned before that the mortality rate here for +65 is around 1 in 8 probably improving to 1 in 10, if the vaccine just improves that to 1 in 100, its still significant an not reason to let the virus run rampant.

    What it actually means is the the stats don't support a claim of greater than 90% reduction in infection. from what has been shared, 94 people in the trial got covid, and there where 90% fewer infections in the vaccine population. This could be one of two results - 9 of 94 infections got the the vaccine, just under 10%. The stats on this would suggest 95% of the time the true proportion would be between 4.4 and 17.2%. Or the 95% CI has a maximum of 10%. In this case only 4 of 94 would have received the vaccine and the true proportion could be between 2 and 10%.


  • Options
    #5106
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    440Hertz wrote: »
    One of the issues with the BioNTech vaccine is the super low temp logistic chain. That’s feasible in Europe, the USA and elsewhere, but it’s more feasible in the developing world.
    The first Ebola vaccine also required low temperatures for storage, and it was successfully distributed in what was effectively a warzone in Africa. I can't see the world not being able to pull this off given the current economic impact of Covid.

    In saying that it sounds like the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines will be too expensive for poorer countries (about $40 a dose I've read). They'll be looking more towards the Oxford vaccine, and perhaps some of the Chinese ones.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5107
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    thebaz wrote: »
    In such a horrific year , all the fear and anxiety back in March how good it is to announce a Vaccine that seams 90% effective - first real good news story on Covid this year - given what happened at weekeend - been a pretty good few days .
    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54873105

    We're having a very cautious celebration in here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058062347&page=340

    Join us


  • Options
    #5108
    leahyl
    Registered Users Posts: 14,246 ✭✭✭✭leahyl


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Now, now Kermit

    Don't spoil this rare day of happiness on here :p

    Tbh, I think most people were prepared by now for this winter/Christmas to be a write off with regard to it being "normal" - hearing this news today might just encourage people to hang in there a little bit longer and we will all meet again in the next 6 months :)


  • Options
    #5109
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users Posts: 11,636 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1325825561302806529?s=20


  • Options
    #5110
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Deleted User wrote: »
    With regard to the topic in hand I am using the correct term. If I called them curmudgeons then I would be using the wrong term.
    There are many other words that wouldn't reveal your personality so baldly and your dubious alternative here suggests an even higher level of disdain but I understand your urgent need to get just that right word.


  • Options
    #5111
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Professor Jonathan Van-Tam and Brigadier Joe Fossey are to be speaking at Johnson's presser this evening. That sounds like the people you'd have with you to discuss the vaccine and distribution plans as we know the military will play a huge role in setting up vaccination centres.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    is_that_so wrote: »
    There are many other words that wouldn't reveal your personality so baldly and your dubious alternative here suggests an even higher level of disdain but I understand your urgent need to get just that right word.
    I don't know what your issue is but I don't think you actually know what the term actually means. "Geriatric" is the right term when speaking about the medical needs specific to older people. It is and will always be the appropriate term to use when speaking about the health of older people.


  • Options
    #5113
    leahyl
    Registered Users Posts: 14,246 ✭✭✭✭leahyl


    I suppose there'll be a similar press conference in Ireland this evening? :pac:


  • Options
    #5114
    funnydoggy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭funnydoggy


    leahyl wrote: »
    I suppose there'll be a similar press conference in Ireland this evening? :pac:


    Yup, Tony Holohan will talk about how NPHET will have a meeting in a few weeks time to discuss a possible vaccine and if we're in the right place for one. Will probably bring up traffic activity or something to distract us :pac::pac:


  • Options
    #5115
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    leahyl wrote: »
    I suppose there'll be a similar press conference in Ireland this evening? :pac:


    You'll get Gloom Porn and a shíte slideshow and you'll like it boyo!


  • Options
    #5116
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1325815206698737667


  • Options
    #5117
    funnydoggy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭funnydoggy


    hmmm wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1325815206698737667


    Jesus chríst science just took a huge leap forward


  • Options
    #5118
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users Posts: 11,636 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    funnydoggy wrote: »
    Jesus chríst science just took a huge leap forward
    This. Understatement of the year. This could change medicine forever.


  • Options
    #5119
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    They were absolutely waiting to drop all this great news until the election was over

    It seems too coincidental


  • Options
    #5120
    simongurnick
    Registered Users Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭simongurnick


    Hmmzis wrote: »
    There is no licensed vaccine against RSV. What your children are getting is called monoclonal antibodies (mABs), passive immunization. The long life ones can persist for 6 to 12 months and protect from severe disease with 40-80% efficacy. They do not prevent infection in the case of RSV. The vaccines in the works against RSV should be doing better than that as they would stimulate the immune system itself to fight off the infection.

    You know what, you're right. We used to call it the "rsv shot". They got it every month over winter for 3 or 4 years. They had so much going on over that time, it's hard to keep it all straight. But that's a good clarification and important distinction between the two.


  • Options
    #5121
    AssetBacked2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭AssetBacked2


    Goldengirl wrote: »
    No, that isn't correct .

    The vulnerable and older need vaccination first , is what I said , no matter where they are .
    But to say that young do not need to be vaccinated is wrong and missing the point of mass vaccination and herd immunity .
    Some people are most vulnerable and cannot either take a vaccine or it has no effect on them due to immune deficiency. These can be young or old, as a previous poster has given a very good example of .
    If these people are to be protected the majority who can transmit the virus , or the majority who can be infected , not affected , need to be vaccinated , otherwise we will never reach the famous herd immunity .

    Herd immunity? Why is that necessary? Protect the vulnerable via measures such as social distancing, masks etc. and/or with a vaccine and/or by helping educate them on boosting their immune system.

    HPSC stats available from their website;

    49 people under the age of 55 died in Ireland in the 8 months with covid in Ireland. Objectively this is a low figure. However, even taking the reported positive cases in that age group (of course the actual infections is likely much higher) it would kill around 0.1% of those under the age of 55 that get it. This is a bit meaningless though as it is not as high as 0.1% (more like 0.01% in reality) and is further diluted by the fact 93% of all deaths had clinical underlying conditions.

    Net point; not harmful to young (ie under 55s) people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5122
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't know what your issue is but I don't think you actually know what the term actually means. "Geriatric" is the right term when speaking about the medical needs specific to older people. It is and will always be the appropriate term to use when speaking about the health of older people.
    Your usage of it here is wrong as you're using it refer to the people, when it actually refers to care of the elderly. As a medical term it's fine but as used like that, it is derogatory as it suggests that everyone in that age cohort is in need of special care.


  • Options
    #5123
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    hmmm wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1325815206698737667

    I know this might sound ridiculous but Fauci backing these is very reassuring to me


  • Options
    #5124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Your usage of it here is wrong as you're using it refer to the people, when it actually refers to care of the elderly. As used like that, it is derogatory as it suggests that everyone in that age cohort is in need of special care.
    You are simply wrong. I am not debating this with you any more as it is dragging the thread off-topic. I may have injured your pride by correcting you but you'll just have to get over it.


  • Options
    #5125
    firemansam4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,690 ✭✭✭firemansam4


    So can anyone "In the know" on these matters explain whether they are claiming that this vaccine actually stopped 90% of the candidates in the study from catching the disease at all, meaning that they would not have been contagious?

    Or is it just that they didn't develop the severe symptoms but could still potentially spread covid?

    Is sterilising immunity the correct word for it?


  • Options
    #5126
    AssetBacked2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭AssetBacked2


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Your usage of it here is wrong as you're using it refer to the people, when it actually refers to care of the elderly. As a medical term it's fine but as used like that, it is derogatory as it suggests that everyone in that age cohort is in need of special care.

    Is that not the insinuation from the restrictions imposed on economic and social life? The virus pretty much only impacts that age group in a meaningful way, but even at that, not even all of the older people. However, all are assumed to be vulnerable which is why restrictions have been imposed on all of society. That is the NPHET and government approach; to treat older people as geriatrics.


  • Options
    #5127
    3xh
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭3xh


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Your usage of it here is wrong as you're using it refer to the people, when it actually refers to care of the elderly. As a medical term it's fine but as used like that, it is derogatory as it suggests that everyone in that age cohort is in need of special care.

    Christ sake.


  • Options
    #5128
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    AssetBacked2 wrote: »
    Is that not the insinuation from the restrictions imposed on economic and social life? The virus pretty much only impacts that age group in a meaningful way, but even at that, not even all of the older people. However, all are assumed to be vulnerable which is why restrictions have been imposed on all of society. That is the NPHET and government approach; to treat older people as geriatrics.
    NPHET are medical so they can do that. Not everyone in that age group is in need of "geriatrics".


  • Options
    #5129
    Irish Stones
    Registered Users Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭Irish Stones


    Gael23 wrote: »
    Will take years to vaccinate everyone then


    Do not say that, or you will be critized and accused of being negative.

    When I said that a few weeks back I was beaten up!


  • Options
    #5130
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,835 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Stheno wrote: »
    I know this might sound ridiculous but Fauci backing these is very reassuring to me

    No, it's never ridiculous to trust professionals with their professional opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5131
    snotboogie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,567 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    Irish Stones wrote: »
    Do not say that, or you will be critized and accused of being negative.

    When I said that a few weeks back I was beaten up!

    Because you are ignoring that there are dozens of viable vaccine candidates and applying the rollout of one vaccine to the worlds population.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement