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

schmoo2k

tom1ie wrote: »

I believe that was the UK route. They changed that fairly quick.

Huh - this is predicated on having a vaccine???

schmoo2k

tom1ie wrote: »

What about high risk folks who can’t take the vaccine?

See point 1 - no matter what when or how (or not) restrictions are changed point 1 is a fact "High risk folks who are unable to take the vaccine will have to be very careful until herd immunity is achieved.".

Micky 32

tom1ie wrote: »

This is the problem.
Restrictions have to stay in place for a short period of time AFTER everyone who can get a vaccine gets a vaccine.
Otherwise people who can’t get could be in trouble.

Actually i have no issue with that. I’m basing my normality on when as many people get vaccinated as possible. My predictions were the last quarter of 2021.

seamus

tom1ie wrote: »

if these measures are lifted before we reach herd immunity, and then allow a short break for the virus to die off, then cases among the unvaccinated at risk group will rise.

That's OK.

In the broadest sense we don't care if 100,000 young people are infected once the ICU and hospital numbers remain low.

This is why most restrictions will lift well before we reach herd immunity.

schmoo2k

brisan wrote: »

Of course its true today
Nobody has one
You cannot ask somebody for something that does not exist at that point in time
What about in the future when the majority of people have one
Have you a definitive statement on that ,as it was the future we were talking about ie after the vaccination rollout
I have (nor can I possibly have ) no definitive statement on what may or may not happen in the future

If it happens I will be wrong (and you can get back to me then) - my point is that once the high risk folks are vaccinated, requiring a vaccine cert to go to a concert will have negligible effect on hospital admissions, which was the primary reason for restrictions in the first place...

tom1ie

Hmmzis wrote: »

For them this virus will be one more entry in an already very long list of pathogens that can be dangerous to them. There really are not that many people who can't take any type of vaccines. Not all vaccines are the same.

ok.
so 25% of the population cant take the vaccine. That's children under 16.
a certain percentage of these will have illness that means they have low immune systems or CF etc etc.
now add on the over 16s in that bracket, what's your percentage at now?
on top of that:
person A has a child that has a low immune system.
Person A has been restricting due to the child.
Person A gets the vaccine.
at the same time as person A gets the vaccine, restrictions are dropped.
Person A goes shopping, which used to be low risk, but due to restrictions being lifted is now back to the levels of risk we seen at the start of the year.
Person A becomes infected, but due to being vaccinated is fully protected but becomes a carrier.
Person A now brings the virus home to the child who wasn't allowed the vaccine.
replace shopping with indoor dining/cinema/gigs/plane/bus/office etc etc.

Do you see how this works now?

we NEED everyone that can to take the vaccine, however is equally important restrictions stay in place until herd immunity (approx 70%) is reached.

John O.Groats

schmoo2k wrote: »

Not taking the piss - Today in Ireland there are more than 23,364 people who are immune - no reason why they shouldn't have an "I am immune" cert.

How do you come to that figure?

brisan

dominatinMC wrote: »

Let's not be pedantic ffs. I think most people accept that "normal" refers to no social distancing, isolating, cocooning, masks, and such extreme measures. No one will give a toss if we're still asked to sanitise hands and observe better cough etiquette.

But that is your vision of a new normal
You like me and everybody else has no idea what the new normal will look like
I hope your vision of the new normal is correct ,but we do not now and nobody can claim any different

schmoo2k

tom1ie wrote: »

ok.
so 25% of the population cant take the vaccine. That's children under 16.
a certain percentage of these will have illness that means they have low immune systems or CF etc etc.
now add on the over 16s in that bracket, what's your percentage at now?
on top of that:
person A has a child that has a low immune system.
Person A has been restricting due to the child.
Person A gets the vaccine.
at the same time as person A gets the vaccine, restrictions are dropped.
Person A goes shopping, which used to be low risk, but due to restrictions being lifted is now back to the levels of risk we seen at the start of the year.
Person A becomes infected, but due to being vaccinated is fully protected but becomes a carrier.
Person A now brings the virus home to the child who wasn't allowed the vaccine.
replace shopping with indoor dining/cinema/gigs/plane/bus/office etc etc.

Do you see how this works now?

I would assume Person A will continue to sanitize, distance and wear a mask etc. But your point is valid - there may be a time where community spread is back at peak levels.

But conversely if we keep restricting we could end up in a situation where herd immunity is never achieved and that is equally worrisome I would imagine?

schmoo2k

John O.Groats wrote: »

How do you come to that figure?

Its the current number of folks who have recovered from Covid (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) now its generally accepted that number is only a fraction of the actual number - but I went with it for simplicity.

AdamD

tom1ie wrote: »

ok.
so 25% of the population cant take the vaccine. That's children under 16.
a certain percentage of these will have illness that means they have low immune systems or CF etc etc.
now add on the over 16s in that bracket, what's your percentage at now?
on top of that:
person A has a child that has a low immune system.
Person A has been restricting due to the child.
Person A gets the vaccine.
at the same time as person A gets the vaccine, restrictions are dropped.
Person A goes shopping, which used to be low risk, but due to restrictions being lifted is now back to the levels of risk we seen at the start of the year.
Person A becomes infected, but due to being vaccinated is fully protected but becomes a carrier.
Person A now brings the virus home to the child who wasn't allowed the vaccine.
replace shopping with indoor dining/cinema/gigs/plane/bus/office etc etc.

Do you see how this works now?

we NEED everyone that can to take the vaccine, however is equally important restrictions stay in place until herd immunity (approx 70%) is reached.

Quite frankly, at some point the needs of the many are going to outweigh the needs of the very very few.

schmoo2k

tom1ie wrote: »

we NEED everyone that can to take the vaccine, however is equally important restrictions stay in place until herd immunity (approx 70%) is reached.

Unfortunately, once you add up the under 16s, folks who cannot take it and folks who won't take it (and shortages?) we won't get to 70%, which is why we will rely on natural immunity within the low risk groups to make up the difference.

odyssey06

schmoo2k wrote: »

Its the current number of folks who have recovered from Covid (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) now its generally accepted that number is only a fraction of the actual number - but I went with it for simplicity.

I don't think we know e.g. that someone infected say last March would still be immune by Q2 2021.

Micky 32

brisan wrote: »

How do you know
Have you an alternative scenario on how things will go ?
Can you back it up
I have a rearranged holiday to the Canaries in July
Checked flights with Ryanair
Already 125 euro dearer than the same dates this year
No one knows ,even you

That could be a demand thing. More people are booking this summer with the vaccines being rolled out. You may have simply missed out on the cheaper seats.

To keep myself positive i have booked a flight to USA for next November. It was actually 20 euro cheaper than when i was there last November.

polesheep

tom1ie wrote: »

No. Because covid 19 is much worse. As is the general consensus at this stage.

Much worse than what?

BryanMartin21

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't think we know e.g. that someone infected say last March would still be immune by Q2 2021.

We don't know that not to be the case. Why worry about something that does not exist and has little to no indication it might even exist?

schmoo2k

schmoo2k wrote: »

Unfortunately, once you add up the under 16s, folks who cannot take it and folks who won't take it (and shortages?) we won't get to 70%, which is why we will rely on natural immunity within the low risk groups to make up the difference.

I like to think of it as Anti Vaxers volunteering to get Covid to help the greater good.

funnydoggy

Some people in here have gotten very comfortable with restrictions.

Hmmzis

tom1ie wrote: »

ok.
so 25% of the population cant take the vaccine. That's children under 16.
a certain percentage of these will have illness that means they have low immune systems or CF etc etc.
now add on the over 16s in that bracket, what's your percentage at now?
on top of that:
person A has a child that has a low immune system.
Person A has been restricting due to the child.
Person A gets the vaccine.
at the same time as person A gets the vaccine, restrictions are dropped.
Person A goes shopping, which used to be low risk, but due to restrictions being lifted is now back to the levels of risk we seen at the start of the year.
Person A becomes infected, but due to being vaccinated is fully protected but becomes a carrier.
Person A now brings the virus home to the child who wasn't allowed the vaccine.
replace shopping with indoor dining/cinema/gigs/plane/bus/office etc etc.

Do you see how this works now?

we NEED everyone that can to take the vaccine, however is equally important restrictions stay in place until herd immunity (approx 70%) is reached.

You are assuming that children below the age of 16 will not be allowed to take the vaccine. That's not entirely correct, the only reason that's the case now is that there isn't enough safety data at the moment for that age group, that part of phase 3 trials is still ongoing for Pfizer/BNT and Moderna just initiated theirs.

Once the safety data comes in there is no reason the at risk children would be denied vaccination.

Person A becomes infected, but due to being vaccinated is fully protected but becomes a carrier.

On that point, that's not a likely scenario in the first place. It has been shown that the current vaccines do prevent infections outright and the asymptomatic carriers are rarely household index cases (below 1% attack rate). Your overall risk reduction in this case is well above 90%.

schmoo2k

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't think we know e.g. that someone infected say last March would still be immune by Q2 2021.

True - but so far the reinfection numbers are holding and based on previous viruses the odds are that they will continue to do so.

If there was 1 dose of vaccine left and two folks who needed it, but one person had already had Covid, who do you give it to?

brisan

tom1ie wrote: »

ok.
so 25% of the population cant take the vaccine. That's children under 16.
a certain percentage of these will have illness that means they have low immune systems or CF etc etc.
now add on the over 16s in that bracket, what's your percentage at now?
on top of that:
person A has a child that has a low immune system.
Person A has been restricting due to the child.
Person A gets the vaccine.
at the same time as person A gets the vaccine, restrictions are dropped.
Person A goes shopping, which used to be low risk, but due to restrictions being lifted is now back to the levels of risk we seen at the start of the year.
Person A becomes infected, but due to being vaccinated is fully protected but becomes a carrier.
Person A now brings the virus home to the child who wasn't allowed the vaccine.
replace shopping with indoor dining/cinema/gigs/plane/bus/office etc etc.

Do you see how this works now?

we NEED everyone that can to take the vaccine, however is equally important restrictions stay in place until herd immunity (approx 70%) is reached.

You should have qualified that statement by saying "at the moment "
Trials will be (they already may be )on under 16s and then we will know if its safe to give it to this large percentage of the population
That puts a major dent in your figures

odyssey06

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

We don't know that not to be the case. Why worry about something that does not exist and has little to no indication it might even exist?

I have no idea where you are coming from which "something that does not exist".
Waning immunity from viruses is an established concept in medicine.
The only question is about how long it lasts.

So that seems like a rather reckless strategy... and why rely on it when we have vaccines.

odyssey06

schmoo2k wrote: »

True - but so far the reinfection numbers are holding and based on previous viruses the odds are that they will continue to do so.

If there was 1 dose of vaccine left and two folks who needed it, but one person had already had Covid, who do you give it to?

What previous viruses? Common cold coronavirus immunity wanes after 12 months. Other coronaviruses can last for years. So which one will covid be like?

So I'm saying we should not give vaccine certificate to someone who was infected or exclude them from vaccination programme.

BryanMartin21

odyssey06 wrote: »

I have no idea where you are coming from which "something that does not exist".
Waning immunity from viruses is an established concept in medicine.
The only question is about how long it lasts.

So that seems like a rather reckless strategy... and why rely on it when we have vaccines.

Established concept in medicine is your fallacy. You are adding 2+2 and getting 5. With respect to covid, if anything we are seeing the opposite; that severe reinfection does not happen.

Not sure how you can call it reckless. In fact, that hyperbole seems hysterical.

brisan

Micky 32 wrote: »

That could be a demand thing. More people are booking this summer with the vaccines being rolled out. You may have simply missed out on the cheaper seats.

To keep myself positive i have booked a flight to USA for next November. It was actually 20 euro cheaper than when i was there last November.

I have flights booked for Italy (June ) Canaries (July ) and Lisbon (August )
All rearranged from this year and all dearer than when I originally booked
Yes it may be down to demand but no one knows

odyssey06

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

Established concept in medicine is your fallacy. You are adding 2+2 and getting 5. With respect to covid, if anything we are seeing the opposite; that severe reinfection does not happen.

Not sure how you can call it reckless. In fact, that hyperbole seems hysterical.

The clock is still running.
So yes it is reckless, given that time is a factor in how long immunity lasts in response to coronaviruses, to assume that because we didn't have severe reinfections within X months than that maps out to X years.

BryanMartin21

odyssey06 wrote: »

The clock is still running.
So yes it is reckless, given that time is a factor in how long immunity lasts in response to coronaviruses, to assume that because we didn't have severe reinfections within X months than that maps out to X years.

And a vaccine is a silver bullet to these concerns?

Hmmzis

Some vaccine news. Two inactivated whole virus versions are reporting in:

Probably the only Western inactivated vaccine candidate going into phase 1/2, I'm not aware of any others going anywhere near it:
https://valneva.com/press-release/valneva-initiates-phase-1-2-clinical-study-of-inactivated-adjuvanted-covid-19-vaccine-candidate/

India's own inactivated vaccine candidate reporting phase 1 results (it's in phase 3 now), looks ok, one might wish for higher serocoversion rates maybe:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.11.20210419v1.full.pdf+html

schmoo2k

odyssey06 wrote: »

What previous viruses? Common cold coronavirus immunity wanes after 12 months. Other coronaviruses can last for years. So which one will covid be like?

So I'm saying we should not give vaccine certificate to someone who was infected or exclude them from vaccination programme.

I do agree and we won't know how long natural immunity will last until detailed longitudinal studies are performed. But so far we do know that natural immunity is still holding.

My point is simply folks with natural immunity (active anti bodies for example) should be afforded the same luxuries as those with a vaccine.

odyssey06

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

And a vaccine is a silver bullet to these concerns?

No, I don't think anyone has declared the vaccine won't need boosters in future, have they?

So I don't think at present we know enough to rely on someone infected 12 months ago having enough immunity they should be grouped as 'vaccinated' alongside those who got the vaccine in 2021. Nor should they be excluded from the vaccine programme.