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

Gael23

dominatinMC wrote: »

Can't see that happening. City centres are decimated, sporting events, live music, etc. - all gone. Tourism industry on it's knees. Once the vaccine is here and is readily available, the general public, lobby groups, even the government themselves will be looking to get things up-and-running again. Hand washing and cough etiquette will, and should, remain - they are basic hygiene requirements. Maybe some mask wearing will persist as a legacy from this, but I don't see social distancing (particularly on the scale we have currently) existing. In many demographics (students, etc.) it's never even existed! :pac:

There will be a period of time where it is only available in very limited supply but it depends on how long that is

Hmmzis

Canada starting a rolling review of the Oxford vaccine as well, same process as initiated by the EU this week:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2020/10/health-canada-begins-first-authorization-review-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-submission.html

Interesting, the UK, Brazil and South Africa trials are single blinded but mostly for the single dose.

ACitizenErased

Am I right in saying that the fact AZ seem to be sending info early suggests that they have confidence in the single dose?

Hand in Your Pants

Nobody I have talked to says they are getting this if it comes out.

ACitizenErased

Hand in Your Pants wrote: »

Nobody I have talked to says they are getting this if it comes out.

nobody cares

Scuid Mhór

Hmmzis wrote: »

Canada starting a rolling review of the Oxford vaccine as well, same process as initiated by the EU this week:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2020/10/health-canada-begins-first-authorization-review-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-submission.html

Interesting, the UK, Brazil and South Africa trials are single blinded but mostly for the single dose.

What does this mean exactly? Like how can it be authorised if phase three trials have yet to be conducted?

Scuid Mhór

Speaking as a boards.ie poster who people probably look to as a beacon of common sense and a bastion of intellectuality, playful humour and handsome good looks, I just want to go on the record and say that I will absolutely take the first vaccine that is EU approved and rolled out in Ireland. This is because I believe in deferring to experts who understand far more about the development, regulation, dissemination and safety of vaccines than I do. I will have no sympathy for those who choose to forego the vaccine out of scientific illiteracy and unfounded paranoia.

Hmmzis

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

What does this mean exactly? Like how can it be authorised if phase three trials have yet to be conducted?

It's a process for a near realtime review of data that is coming in from a clinical trial. Not sure if AZ/Oxford would be requesting such a process if they didn't have some indicative statistically significant values in front od them. As I mentioned, the non-US trials are only single blind (recipient side).

Scuid Mhór

Hmmzis wrote: »

It's a process for a near realtime review of data that is coming in from a clinical trial. Not sure if AZ/Oxford would be requesting such a process if they didn't have some indicative statistically significant values in front od them. As I mentioned, the non-US trials are only single blind (recipient side).

I understand what you are saying. AZ/O must have confident in their product if they are already trying to sell it, so to speak.

Tenzor07

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

Speaking as a boards.ie poster who people probably look to as a beacon of common sense and a bastion of intellectuality, playful humour and handsome good looks, I just want to go on the record and say that I will absolutely take the first vaccine that is EU approved and rolled out in Ireland. This is because I believe in deferring to experts who understand far more about the development, regulation, dissemination and safety of vaccines than I do. I will have no sympathy for those who choose to forego the vaccine out of scientific illiteracy and unfounded paranoia.

Good for you, a national hero... Just keep in mind with your unquestioning faith in for profit big pharma companies who are being paid billions of $Dollars by governments that are driven by political aims, to be the first to develop a vaccine in 1/10th of the time it takes to develop a safe and effective one(https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation) that you will come back and tell us all how it went..

Tenzor07

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. AZ/O must have confident in their product if they are already trying to sell it, so to speak.

They also have a legal agreement with Governments that they cannot be sued by anyone who develops an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and indemnifies the big pharma companies from future lawsuits taken by individuals, groups and countries..

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

They also have a legal agreement with Governments that they cannot be sued by anyone who develops an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and indemnifies the big pharma companies from future lawsuits taken by individuals, groups and countries..

Any company who doesn't do that would be idiots

Dressoutlet

Tenzor07 wrote: »

They also have a legal agreement with Governments that they cannot be sued by anyone who develops an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and indemnifies the big pharma companies from future lawsuits taken by individuals, groups and countries..

Yeah this goes for every single vaccine and treatment ever made. That's why there is a literal pot of money for vaccine injured people. If the company who made the drug was sued then it would deter any other company from making any other drug.

Very dumbed down terms here for you.
Imagine I took an allergic reaction to paracetamol, and I could sue the manufacturer, there would be no paracetamol made by any company ever again

funnydoggy

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Good for you, a national hero... Just keep in mind with your unquestioning faith in for profit big pharma companies who are being paid billions of $Dollars by governments that are driven by political aims, to be the first to develop a vaccine in 1/10th of the time it takes to develop a safe and effective one(https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation) that you will come back and tell us all how it went..

Oh boy here we go again

Tenzor07

Dressoutlet wrote: »

Yeah this goes for every single vaccine and treatment ever made. That's why there is a literal pot of money for vaccine injured people. If the company who made the drug was sued then it would deter any other company from making any other drug.
Very dumbed down terms here for you.
Imagine I took an allergic reaction to paracetamol, and I could sue the manufacturer, there would be no paracetamol made by any company ever again

Very basic simple fact for you here, in a race by Governments and big pharma to bring out a new vaccine based on new methods/technology and tested on a very small number of humans is rushed to market in a fraction of the time as would be normal and that causes an adverse reaction in say 0.5% of a couple of billion people who take it therefore killing 10's of thousands, do you think that's acceptable they can't face punishment?

D.Q

DiD u nO dAt bIg pHarMa bAd???

I sAw iT On fAceBOok

WaKe uP $hEEpLe


Genuinely baffled by the arrogance of some people.

Absolute chancers with no experience in science or medicine, have done a few crash courses in Facebook research and think they know better than the best and brightest minds in the field.

And every single one of them that have posted on here each seem to think that their own hot take is unique, that they are the only ones that can see through the fake news.

Mental.

I'd love to know who they are in real life. Curious as to what they do for a living, how they spend their time, who they socialise with. Because there's no way that pig headed ignorance doesn't permeate into everything they do.

Graham

Tenzor07 wrote: »

causes an adverse reaction in say 0.5% of a couple of billion people who take it therefore killing 10's of thousands

If we're talking in pure guesswork, how about it causes an adverse reaction in 3 people rather than 10's of thousands?

Thereby it saves hundred's of thousands of people.

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Very basic simple fact for you here, in a race by Governments and big pharma to bring out a new vaccine based on new methods/technology and tested on a very small number of humans is rushed to market in a fraction of the time as would be normal and that causes an adverse reaction in say 0.5% of a couple of billion people who take it therefore killing 10's of thousands, do you think that's acceptable they can't face punishment?

Saving 95% of the world is a fine achievement

Tenzor07

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Any company who doesn't do that would be idiots

People deserve to be compensated in the event of injury due to adverse reactions to a companies products.

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

People deserve to be compensated in the event of injury due to adverse reactions to a companies products.

Who's saying people won't be compensated? A company not being able to be sued means sweet f* all about compensation.

Tenzor07

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Saving 95% of the world is a fine achievement

Yes, it's great that a new medicine can kill more people that Covid has killed all year..

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yes, it's great that a new medicine can kill more people that Covid has killed all year..

You should write a book. Your hyperbole is impressive.

Graham

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yes, it's great that a new medicine can kill more people that Covid has killed all year..

Any you expect this to happen because........

Tenzor07

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Who's saying people won't be compensated? A company not being able to be sued means sweet f* all about compensation.

Who assumes legal liability for deaths and injuries due to a company's new drug? Governments, i.e. the taxpayer?

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Who assumes legal liability for deaths and injuries due to a company's new drug? Governments, i.e. the taxpayer?

If that's what the EU signed up for then go ahead and sue the EU, see where that gets you.

Gael23

Some more bad news on the treatment front https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1002/1169088-covid-medicine-review/

Sconsey

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Very basic simple fact for you here, in a race by Governments and big pharma to bring out a new vaccine based on new methods/technology and tested on a very small number of humans is rushed to market in a fraction of the time as would be normal and that causes an adverse reaction in say 0.5% of a couple of billion people who take it therefore killing 10's of thousands, do you think that's acceptable they can't face punishment?

Fill yer boots.

Tenzor07

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You should write a book. Your hyperbole is impressive.

You should read a book... And one which says you can question the reasons for/against taking unproven medicines from a company that has legal indemnity
against being sued for adverse reactions..

I'm more than happy to let whoever wants to get the first of many of these newly developed medicines injected into them...

ACitizenErased

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You should read a book... And one which says you can question the reasons for/against taking unproven medicines from a company that has legal indemnity
against being sued for adverse reactions..

I'm more than happy to let whoever wants to get the first of many of these newly developed medicines injected into them...

I'll take your place in the queue so, cheers. Sound out.

Tenzor07

Gael23 wrote: »

Some more bad news on the treatment front https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1002/1169088-covid-medicine-review/

Careful or you'll be labelled as an "Anti-Vaxxer" or a "Facebook Doctor", you're not allowed to question whether a new medicine should be taken without hesitation as soon as it becomes available..

Van.Bosch

If Trump has been given this newly approved cocktail, it either works which means they have a belief it helps as a cure. Or else he is in a bad way and are rolling the dice...

funnydoggy

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Careful or you'll be labelled as an "Anti-Vaxxer" or a "Facebook Doctor", you're not allowed to question whether a new medicine should be taken without hesitation as soon as it becomes available..

Eh no, it is a report on a possible observed side effect from a European health agency.

This will inform future prescription and / or dosage.

Couldn't be closer to science, not quack pot conspiracies.

hmmm

Van.Bosch wrote: »

If Trump has been given this newly approved cocktail, it either works which means they have a belief it helps as a cure. Or else he is in a bad way and are rolling the dice...

Gottlieb was just interviewed on CNBC and seemed a bit shocked. You don't give the President an unproven treatment no matter how promising it is, you give him the stuff which has already been proven even if it is less promising (e.g. Remdesivir).

The odd thing here is the timeline, it would be odd if he went downhill really quickly. But if we were hearing the same things a week or 10 days from now there'd be a lot of speculation that things were not going well.

hmmm

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Careful or you'll be labelled as an "Anti-Vaxxer" or a "Facebook Doctor", you're not allowed to question whether a new medicine should be taken without hesitation as soon as it becomes available..

Remdesivir has always had kidney issues listed as a potential side-effect. We know that because it has been tested properly. It's not given to every patient, but for certain patients the risk of Covid outweighs the risk of side-effects.

polesheep

hmmm wrote: »

Remdesivir has always had kidney issues listed as a potential side-effect. We know that because it has been tested properly. It's not given to every patient, but for certain patients the risk of Covid outweighs the risk of side-effects.

I would just like to note those words.

speckle

Regarding remdesivir, it is also extremely important at what stage of the illness it used at.

smurfjed

Another interesting testing procedure.

ABU DHABI — A team of researchers from Khalifa University has developed a portable COVID-19 testing kit, no larger than your average smartphone. The new kit is both portable and can deliver the results in 45 minutes only.
Dr. Anas Alazzam, associate professor of mechanical engineering and member of the System on Chip Center (SOCC) is the primary investigator for the project with Dr. Habiba AlSafar, director of Khalifa University Center for Biotechnology and associate professor of genetics and molecular biology, as co-principal investigator. The research team includes the postdoctoral researchers Dr. Waqas Waheed and Dr. Sueda Saylan, along with research associate Hussein Kannout.
While PCR testing is always highly accurate, and the gold standard for detecting viruses, it can be complex to use. The researchers at Khalifa Universit used the Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification method (AMP) to provide a rapid, sensitive, and specific detection of the COVID-19 virus. It is faster than the conventional PCR method and uses primers that target two specific regions of the viral RNA.

The majority of PCR methods rely on thermal cycling where the reactants are exposed to repeated cycles of heating and cooling to start the RNA replication process. While laboratory PCR tests require a programmable thermocycler, LAMP can be carried out with a simple heat block, making it much more amenable to portable testing.
As complicated as this sounds, it’s all completed within the device and needs minimal knowledge to operate. For the Khalifa Universit testing kit, there is no need for any sophisticated equipment as the kit performs COVID-19 detection directly from a patient’s swab. A simple color change shows the result: pink for negative, yellow for positive.
Currently, in the clinical validation stage, this testing kit can detect active infections in 45 minutes, meaning it can be used in rapid testing while being cost-effective at the same time.
When the coronavirus pandemic is over, the kits remain useful, as they can be used with any virus detecting primer. The LAMP method will still replicate the RNA to make it testable and then the sample can be tested with a reagent looking for the influenza virus, for example.
Primers to detect an infectious agent can be produced quickly once the viral sequence is known, so if a new virus were to emerge, this PCR test from the team at Khalifa University would be able to detect it.

Let’s see if it gets beyond the clinical testing phase.

irishgeo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

People deserve to be compensated in the event of injury due to adverse reactions to a companies products.

People with nut allergies don't sue peanut manufacturers because they have an adverse reaction.

plodder

Gael23 wrote: »

So there won’t be large gatherings or offices reopening anytime in the foreseeable future?

That seems very pessimistic to me. If severe disease can be prevented then Covid is just another circulating bug. We don't shut offices for the flu etc.

We want people to take these vaccines, and I can't see a great uptake unless there is a promise that all the major restrictions will be gone. We'd have to review the situation based on what actually happens on the ground, but there has to be an expectation of substantial normality.

Panrich

D.Q wrote: »

DiD u nO dAt bIg pHarMa bAd???

I sAw iT On fAceBOok

WaKe uP $hEEpLe


Genuinely baffled by the arrogance of some people.

Absolute chancers with no experience in science or medicine, have done a few crash courses in Facebook research and think they know better than the best and brightest minds in the field.

And every single one of them that have posted on here each seem to think that their own hot take is unique, that they are the only ones that can see through the fake news.

Mental.

I'd love to know who they are in real life. Curious as to what they do for a living, how they spend their time, who they socialise with. Because there's no way that pig headed ignorance doesn't permeate into everything they do.

Exactly. A vaccine will not work for a community if there is poor uptake. If we get an EU approved vaccine it becomes our social obligation to take it to allow the country to return to normal.

We have a social welfare system and the name is self explanatory. If we have a viable vaccine and the hospitals are still being clogged up with people infected with COVID who refused to be vaccinated, they should be charged in full for their treatment.

manonboard

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Saving 95% of the world is a fine achievement

The poster said 0.5% with adverse reaction.
Thats 99.5% 'saved. The 0.5% is also adverse reaction...not death.
In those hypothetical numbers of course.

timsey tiger

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Very basic simple fact for you here, in a race by Governments and big pharma to bring out a new vaccine based on new methods/technology and tested on a very small number of humans is rushed to market in a fraction of the time as would be normal and that causes an adverse reaction in say 0.5% of a couple of billion people who take it therefore killing 10's of thousands, do you think that's acceptable they can't face punishment?

The third phase of clinical trials (for the covid 19 vaccines) consist of upwards of 30,000. If 2/3rds get the vaccine, thats 20,000 people. If the vaccine were to seriously harm 0.5% of people who take it and still only harm 5 or fewer people in the trial. The probability of that happening is about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000033.

A vaccine that is shown to seriously harm the volunteers in the trials is not getting approved. The chances of your scenario above is small.

Gael23

It needs to be free for everyone to ensure uptake

Tenzor07

Gael23 wrote: »

It needs to be free for everyone to ensure uptake

Why would it be free? Companies aren't charities at the end of the day. The U.S, Russian, Chinese governments and more are paying billions of dollars plus giving an insurance policy to all the manufacturers.

With the numbers of people on here who will run down to the nearest clinic with their sleeves rolled up to take the first vaccine, they better hope that it gives greater than 50% protection...otherwise you're into the next vaccine costing the state billions more....

charlie14

Gael23 wrote: »

It needs to be free for everyone to ensure uptake

If that was possible worldwide it would be brilliant as it`s in everybody`s interest to fight this virus at a global level.
Unfortunately in the poorer countries supplying a vaccine free of charge would most likely not be possible as their government would not have the resources.
For me at least, I would favor those in the richer countries paying for it, along with a surcharge, that would go to providing it either free or at a reduced cost to ensure as large an uptake of possible in the poorer countries.

Gael23

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Why would it be free? Companies aren't charities at the end of the day. The U.S, Russian, Chinese governments and more are paying billions of dollars plus giving an insurance policy to all the manufacturers.

With the numbers of people on here who will run down to the nearest clinic with their sleeves rolled up to take the first vaccine, they better hope that it gives greater than 50% protection...otherwise you're into the next vaccine costing the state billions more....

They can charge governments but people need every incentive to get this vaccine

Tenzor07

Gael23 wrote: »

They can charge governments but people need every incentive to get this vaccine

So not free then, Governments = you and me the taxpayer.

Currently the state is €9.4 billion in deficit with one financial quarter to go, so expect another €1 billion to be added onto that.

So who's going to pay for it? No increase of income tax this budget but there has to be an emergency one when the first vaccine pops up for sale, how will it be funded if not by an increase in tax? Borrowing? Will the markets be as friendly in 5 months time and offer the state €billions in low cost loans while our economy is flat lined? The only thing propping up the state is the multinational export sectors which when you remove that you get a very scary real picture of how bad the economy is..

hmmm

Tenzor07 wrote: »

So who's going to pay for it? No increase of income tax this budget but there has to be an emergency one when the first vaccine pops up for sale, how will it be funded if not by an increase in tax? Borrowing?

Economies are losing a fortune every day this pandemic continues, Governments all over the world are going to give out the vaccine for free to anyone who wants it. You're going to have to find another reason to argue against vaccination because this one is pretty weak. I seem to remember the Astra Zeneca one is less than 10 euros a head, and some of others are around 25 euro a head - it's trivial for this country.

Tenzor07

hmmm wrote: »

Economies are losing a fortune every day this pandemic continues, Governments all over the world are going to give out the vaccine for free to anyone who wants it. You're going to have to find another reason to argue against vaccination because this one is pretty weak. I seem to remember the Astra Zeneca one is less than 10 euros a head, and some of others are around 25 euro a head - it's trivial for this country.

Sorry, who's arguing against vaccination? You making stuff up now?

My whole point here is that running down to the nearest clinic with your sleeve rolled up to take the first jab that is rushed out to market won't be me...

What medicines cost and what they're sold for are two different things, you or I don't know what they will cost the state per dose!

If you recall a few years ago Mylan purchased the rights to EpiPen in 2007 and gradually raised the list price from about $50 per auto-injector to slightly over $600 for a two-pack..

They are not charities and the cost of opening new plants and distribution centres to transport the vaccine around the world will be vast, and Governments will pay for that too..

We don't know if this first vaccine will be 30% or 50% effective, so who pays for the 2 month booster jab?
Or if a vaccine with 70% effectiveness comes out do we borrow billions more to pay for it again?

Honestly think some of you live in la la land when it comes to the production and distribution of pharmaceuticals...

plodder

Sounds like the vaccine will be a lot cheaper than Covid testing. Wouldn't make sense to charge for a vaccine shot while keeping tests free.