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

Hmmzis

average_runner wrote: »

How many people do you hear getting the flu more than once in a year ? Yet there is no immunity for it ? Even when a vaccine comes it will be only 70% effective per person, same as the flu vaccine

The problem with flu is the antigenic drift, the damn thing keeps mutating away all the time. That really screws with vaccine efficacy for it and immune responses.

Would you have a source for the 70% efficacy claim for SARS-cov-2 vaccines? Which of them is that for? I haven't seen any phase 3 efficacy data yet, if you could provide a link to that it would be greatly appreciated. If it's true that sounds actually rather good.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Marhay70 wrote: »

I could be completely wrong but logically i fail to see why antibodies would persist after recovery. Surely antibodies are there while your body is fighting the disease and once it has cleared there is no longer any need to produce them, the body uses other means to protect you.

People tend to hold antibodies for years for many flu viruses.

I believe they are left over rather than constant production.

Micky 32

https://www.thejournal.ie/vaccine-covid-oxford-5245646-Oct2020/

Irish Stones

average_runner wrote: »

How many people do you hear getting the flu more than once in a year ? Yet there is no immunity for it ? Even when a vaccine comes it will be only 70% effective per person, same as the flu vaccine

Alright, the common seasonal flu can be caught twice (we don't know if we get the same virus twice though, there might be more than flu virus around), and it isn't something that gets on the news.

This coronavirus is strictly and closely monitored, a case of reinfection is a news for sure, as it has proved so far with the few cases reported.

Irish Stones

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

People tend to hold antibodies for years for many flu viruses.

I believe they are left over rather than constant production.

As far as I know, people do not hold antibodies, the immune system holds memory of the infection and can produce the right antibodies faster and more effectively than in the first event.
The memory of the immunity could reside in the T cells.

Hmmzis

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No the imperial college london. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54696873

Ah, thanks, there was a paper published in Nature yesterday that references UK data:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00813-8

Hence me thinking it could have been the same.

Marhay70

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

People tend to hold antibodies for years for many flu viruses.

I believe they are left over rather than constant production.

Yes, I can understand they would be left over but as with other agents in the body, presumably they would diminish over time. I just don't see that the presence or not of antibodies, is necessarily a reliable indicator of resistance to the disease.

average_runner

Hmmzis wrote: »

The problem with flu is the antigenic drift, the damn thing keeps mutating away all the time. That really screws with vaccine efficacy for it and immune responses.

Would you have a source for the 70% efficacy claim for SARS-cov-2 vaccines? Which of them is that for? I haven't seen any phase 3 efficacy data yet, if you could provide a link to that it would be greatly appreciated. If it's true that sounds actually rather good.

From the NPR:

As we get closer to a COVID-19 vaccine, it's exciting to imagine a day when the virus is gone. But a vaccine will not be a magic bullet. In fact, it may be only about 50% effective.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Health and Infectious Disease, has tried to set realistic expectations when discussing the importance of a vaccine. "We don't know yet what the efficacy might be. We don't know if it will be 50% or 60%," Fauci said during a Brown University event in August.
"I'd like it to be 75% or more," Fauci said, but he acknowledged that may not be realistic.
The Food and Drug Administration has said that once a vaccine is shown to be safe and at least 50% effective, it could be approved for use in the U.S.

Russman

Isn't the efficacy number to do with the amount of people protected rather than the level of protection ?
As I understand it, and I could be completely wrong, 70% efficacy would mean that 70% of people who take it are protected, as opposed to the people who take it are 70% protected - am I right in thinking this ?

Hmmzis

Irish Stones wrote: »

As far as I know, people do not hold antibodies, the immune system holds memory of the infection and can produce the right antibodies faster and more effectively than in the first event.
The memory of the immunity could reside in the T cells.

Antibodies are produced by B cells. T (helper) cells are needed to induce them.
The main types for this discussion would be:

Plasmablasts - short lived B cells that secrete all isotypes of Ig, they die off in a couple of weeks after an infection.

LLPC (Long lived plasma cells) - they are the ones that migrate to the bone marrow after an infection and can stay there for extended periods of time (years - life long). They secrete IgG constantly giving a stable background level of antibodies.

Memory B cells - also long lived, but they don't stay in the bone marrow. They don't produce a constant flow of antibodies, but instead can be activated by a T helper cell causing it to proliferate and initiate antibody production (anamnestic response).

(just skip the first paragraph unless you're into cell receptors):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012397933900014X

Knex*

Some positive momentum starting to build in terms of vaccine news, it seems.

Fauci thinks a vaccine might be available next month (albeit with the caveat of rollout taking some months).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adr-fauci-covid-vaccine-us-trump-coronavirus-news-b1312560.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Oxford leading professor saying it will be ready by Christmas.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-oxford-vaccine-will-be-ready-by-christmas-says-professor-leading-the-project/N5VKSFNULMSXMFITODAWLQV3SU/

Hmmzis

average_runner wrote: »

From the NPR:

As we get closer to a COVID-19 vaccine, it's exciting to imagine a day when the virus is gone. But a vaccine will not be a magic bullet. In fact, it may be only about 50% effective.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Health and Infectious Disease, has tried to set realistic expectations when discussing the importance of a vaccine. "We don't know yet what the efficacy might be. We don't know if it will be 50% or 60%," Fauci said during a Brown University event in August.
"I'd like it to be 75% or more," Fauci said, but he acknowledged that may not be realistic.
The Food and Drug Administration has said that once a vaccine is shown to be safe and at least 50% effective, it could be approved for use in the U.S.

Thanks, that's from August and is really just an opinion and some expectations, not actual data.
Was just wondering if anything new had come out from one of the phase 3 trials.

marno21

Knex* wrote: »

Some positive momentum starting to build in terms of vaccine news, it seems.

Fauci thinks a vaccine might be available next month (albeit with the caveat of rollout taking some months).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adr-fauci-covid-vaccine-us-trump-coronavirus-news-b1312560.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Oxford leading professor saying it will be ready by Christmas.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-oxford-vaccine-will-be-ready-by-christmas-says-professor-leading-the-project/N5VKSFNULMSXMFITODAWLQV3SU/

Fauci has always been one of the more conservative voices regarding vaccine timelines. This is very positive news.

iguana

average_runner wrote: »

In fairness, considering the amount of people infected in Ireland is low, it will be hard to see re-infected cases. But Sweden and the US have reported some already.

In much of Europe and the US we missed the majority of cases in the spring/early summer. Most people in this country who had Covid 6 months ago couldn't get a test. If any of them gets reinfected now, we'd never know for sure that it's a reinfection.

Deeper Blue

average_runner wrote: »

From the NPR:

As we get closer to a COVID-19 vaccine, it's exciting to imagine a day when the virus is gone. But a vaccine will not be a magic bullet. In fact, it may be only about 50% effective.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Health and Infectious Disease, has tried to set realistic expectations when discussing the importance of a vaccine. "We don't know yet what the efficacy might be. We don't know if it will be 50% or 60%," Fauci said during a Brown University event in August.
"I'd like it to be 75% or more," Fauci said, but he acknowledged that may not be realistic.
The Food and Drug Administration has said that once a vaccine is shown to be safe and at least 50% effective, it could be approved for use in the U.S.

That's not a source, he literally says in the quote that he doesn't know.

Chris_5339762

Irish Stones wrote: »

A few reported cases in the world is not surprise, after all we have 41+ millions cases worldwide, I would be surprised of the opposite.

WHO estimated about 10% of the worlds population have had it, thats actually about 700 million cases, and still only a handful of confirmed reinfections. With those numbers (even if we only "know" about 40 million of them) I really would have thought we'd see far more reinfections so far.

Irish Stones

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

WHO estimated about 10% of the worlds population have had it, thats actually about 700 million cases, and still only a handful of confirmed reinfections. With those numbers (even if we only "know" about 40 million of them) I really would have thought we'd see far more reinfections so far.

So you are supporting my point of view? That with so many confirmed cases so far we only have seen a handful of "second cases" and so the theory of an immunity is valid?

Irish Stones

About the risks of a rushed vaccine, this is an article on today's newspaper. In Italian, but I think that a help from Google Translator might give you the full picture.

https://www.lastampa.it/salute/2020/10/27/news/corsa_al_vaccino_ma_quanto_rischiano_i_volontari_che_si_sottopongono_ai_test_-271579819/

Marhay70

Irish Stones wrote: »

About the risks of a rushed vaccine, this is an article on today's newspaper. In Italian, but I think that a help from Google Translator might give you the full picture.

https://www.lastampa.it/salute/2020/10/27/news/corsa_al_vaccino_ma_quanto_rischiano_i_volontari_che_si_sottopongono_ai_test_-271579819/

Luke O'Neill on radio this morning was saying that these vaccines have been subject to the most rigorous safety checks ever known in the history of medical science.
There comes a time when you have to put your faith in the men and women of science and as far as I'm concerned, this is one of them.

jackboy

Marhay70 wrote: »

Luke O'Neill on radio this morning was saying that these vaccines have been subject to the most rigorous safety checks ever known in the history of medical science.
There comes a time when you have to put your faith in the men and women of science and as far as I'm concerned, this is one of them.

He also said masks were ineffective and actually dangerous to use, so there is a chance he may not be correct.

Marhay70

jackboy wrote: »

He also said masks were ineffective and actually dangerous to use, so there is a chance he may not be correct.

But he wasn't making any claims for the efficacy of the vaccines, just commenting on the safety regime. It's the researchers and scientists who are developing the vaccines we need to put our faith in which is what we have been doing since the first headache pill rolled onto the scene back in old God's time.

marno21

jackboy wrote: »

He also said masks were ineffective and actually dangerous to use, so there is a chance he may not be correct.

That’s the essence of science. A belief based on limited data can be changed when more data comes available.

This was a novel virus when those claims were made about masks and there was limited data available on the transmission characteristics of the virus.

jackboy

marno21 wrote: »

That’s the essence of science. A belief based on limited data can be changed when more data comes available.

This was a novel virus when those claims were made about masks and there was limited data available on the transmission characteristics of the virus.

He should have said he didn’t know then rather than saying masks were dangerous with no evidence. Don’t trust a word he says, he is loving the attention too much and he doesn’t admit when he is wrong. Not good qualities in a scientist.

Irish Stones

jackboy wrote: »

He also said masks were ineffective and actually dangerous to use, so there is a chance he may not be correct.

Take comfort from the fact that he wasn't alone in this.
At the beginning of the pandemic, we had a bunch of experts here in Italy that kept saying that masks were "not advised" because they give a false perception of safety, so they kept saying to avoid them.

astrofool

Irish Stones wrote: »

Take comfort from the fact that he wasn't alone in this.
At the beginning of the pandemic, we had a bunch of experts here in Italy that kept saying that masks were "not advised" because they give a false perception of safety, so they kept saying to avoid them.

That was mostly to prevent a run or hoarding of masks being used by medical personnel, not because they weren't effective.

A lot of people are too stupid to realise this (unfortunately some state leaders also fall into this).

3xh

Irish Stones wrote: »

Take comfort from the fact that he wasn't alone in this.
At the beginning of the pandemic, we had a bunch of experts here in Italy that kept saying that masks were "not advised" because they give a false perception of safety, so they kept saying to avoid them.

And then when the worldwide political consensus on masks during this worldwide pandemic changed over the summer, they used the example that Asians wear masks to stop viral spread. So nothing new there.

Were Asians always just chancing their arms and guessing or did they have accurate research info on the efficacy of masks??

3xh

astrofool wrote: »

That was mostly to prevent a run or hoarding of masks being used by medical personnel, not because they weren't effective.

A lot of people are too stupid to realise this (unfortunately some state leaders also fall into this).

When Fauci and co were saying in April we don’t recommend masks, they backed it up with suggestions that frequent touching will increase transmissions. That masks should be handled by professionals, there’s a knack to their use, etc that lay people couldn’t get.

It was only further into the summer did they amend the reasons to include this idea of protecting the supply. Right or wrong, truth or spin, ‘they’ were happy to lie to the masses. But you can be sure everything else they’re spouting to us is truthful......

stephenjmcd

I see RTE are running a story saying 2022 before enough vaccine doses available for everyone
"There will not be sufficient doses of Covid-19 vaccines for the entire population before the end of 2021," a European Commission official told diplomats from EU states in a closed-door meeting"

..... you don't say, did they expect entire populations to get it in 2021. It'll be Q3/4 before young people would even be offered a vaccine.

Christ it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you wont get entire populations vaccinated in 2021 nor do you need to.

The level of journalism and research is in the gutter.

jackboy

astrofool wrote: »

That was mostly to prevent a run or hoarding of masks being used by medical personnel, not because they weren't effective.

A lot of people are too stupid to realise this (unfortunately some state leaders also fall into this).

Exactly. And this is why anything Luke O Neill says regarding vaccines should be ignored. He doesn’t respect the general public as demonstrated by his not trusting the public with the truth.

Gael23

stephenjmcd wrote: »

I see RTE are running a story saying 2022 before enough vaccine doses available for everyone
"There will not be sufficient doses of Covid-19 vaccines for the entire population before the end of 2021," a European Commission official told diplomats from EU states in a closed-door meeting"

..... you don't say, did they expect entire populations to get it in 2021. It'll be Q3/4 before young people would even be offered a vaccine.

Christ it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you wont get entire populations vaccinated in 2021 nor do you need to.

The level of journalism and research is in the gutter.

Was just coming on to post this. Nothing but doom from them

Morries Wigs

Rte click bait doomsday merchants thrash journalism

ShineOn7

Tony currently stating his in depth thoughts on the vaccine

Perhaps someone can transcribe the highlights of what he said, I'll keep an eye out for it on Reddit Ireland

I'm feeling he doesn't think the vaccine is a silver bullet many think it is

Dressoutlet

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Tony currently stating his in depth thoughts on the vaccine

Perhaps someone can transcribe the highlights of what he said, I'll keep an eye out for it on Reddit Ireland

I'm feeling he doesn't think the vaccine is a silver bullet many think it is

Most people know its not a silver bullet already

ShineOn7

Dressoutlet wrote: »

Most people know its not a silver bullet already

Most people on here, yes

The average Joe who reads the Daily Star: less so

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

I see RTE are running a story saying 2022 before enough vaccine doses available for everyone
"There will not be sufficient doses of Covid-19 vaccines for the entire population before the end of 2021," a European Commission official told diplomats from EU states in a closed-door meeting"

..... you don't say, did they expect entire populations to get it in 2021. It'll be Q3/4 before young people would even be offered a vaccine.

Christ it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you wont get entire populations vaccinated in 2021 nor do you need to.

The level of journalism and research is in the gutter.

What is the betting though that the Government keep us in rolling lockdowns until 2022 at least. It won't matter that the vulnerable and healthcare staff can be vaccinated. I hope I'm wrong but it's a fear I have.

stephenjmcd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is the betting though that the Government keep us in rolling lockdowns until 2022 at least. It won't matter that the vulnerable and healthcare staff can be vaccinated. I hope I'm wrong but it's a fear I have.

Its all about keeping pressure off heslthcare systems. When you start vaccinating those working in those environments and those likely to be admitted to those environments then your taking pressure off and therefore can slowly start to unwind restrictions.

conor_mc

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is the betting though that the Government keep us in rolling lockdowns until 2022 at least. It won't matter that the vulnerable and healthcare staff can be vaccinated. I hope I'm wrong but it's a fear I have.

Not sure where the fear/distrust about govt intentions come from.... sure one poster here a couple of weeks back thought they were “enjoying the power a bit too much”.

If they wanted us all in a permanent state of lockdown, they wouldn’t have opened up in the summer. If they do have to keep us in rolling lockdowns through next year, the political pressure on them will be immense.... like diamond-forming immense!

I actually couldn’t see this government lasting in that case, the Greens would probably split in two under the pressure.

Beasty

No need for lockdown discussion in this thread - there are threads dedicated to lockdowns, restrictions and indeed the general thread where such issues can be, and indeed are, discussed

Steve F

Question.
57 year old Male.
Physically active
Take Hypertension medication.
Would I be classed as "at risk" and be included in the first wave of vaccinations?
Genuine question this

CIARAN_BOYLE

Steve F wrote: »

Question.
57 year old Male.
Physically active
Take Hypertension medication.
Would I be classed as "at risk" and be included in the first wave of vaccinations?
Genuine question this

I thought hcw would be first wave while at risk would be second wave.

We will see. Who knows.

Hmmzis

Steve F wrote: »

Question.
57 year old Male.
Physically active
Take Hypertension medication.
Would I be classed as "at risk" and be included in the first wave of vaccinations?
Genuine question this

I think you would probably be among the first few groups to be vaccinated. Hypertension and age 55+ would class you as "at risk".

Cordell

Definitely at risk for the flu vaccine fwiw.

Steve F

Hmmzis wrote: »

I think you would probably be among the first few groups to be vaccinated. Hypertension and age 55+ would class you as "at risk".

Jeez...I'm a bit worried now

Gael23

Hmmzis wrote: »

I think you would probably be among the first few groups to be vaccinated. Hypertension and age 55+ would class you as "at risk".

I’d guess there would be a priority list of high risk. I have an autoimmune disease so would hope to be up on the list I’m only 29 though

Professor Moriarty

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I thought hcw would be first wave while at risk would be second wave.

We will see. Who knows.

25% of medical staff in Liege (Belgium) are off sick with Covid-19. Things are so bad there now, doctors are being asked to work even if they are diagnosed with Covid-19.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

25% of medical staff in Liege (Belgium) are off sick with Covid-19. Things are so bad there now, doctors are being asked to work even if they are diagnosed with Covid-19.

Medical staff have been getting it hard alright.

Interestingly our medical staff are around 1 in 6 cases at the moment compared to 1 in 5 a few weeks ago and 1 in 4 a few months ago.

I guess this is a sign our hospitals have been getting some stuff right.

It also clearly shows how health care workers deserve priority for any vaccines that become available.

Steve F

Steve F wrote: »

Question.
57 year old Male.
Physically active
Take Hypertension medication.
Would I be classed as "at risk" and be included in the first wave of vaccinations?
Genuine question this

The UK have a provisional priority list drawn up which might be worth looking at:

1.older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
2.all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
3.all those 75 years of age and over
4.all those 70 years of age and over
5.all those 65 years of age and over
6.high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7.moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8.all those 60 years of age and over
9.all those 55 years of age and over
10.all those 50 years of age and over
11.rest of the population (priority to be determined)

tobefrank321

stephenjmcd wrote: »

I see RTE are running a story saying 2022 before enough vaccine doses available for everyone
"There will not be sufficient doses of Covid-19 vaccines for the entire population before the end of 2021," a European Commission official told diplomats from EU states in a closed-door meeting"

..... you don't say, did they expect entire populations to get it in 2021. It'll be Q3/4 before young people would even be offered a vaccine.

Christ it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you wont get entire populations vaccinated in 2021 nor do you need to.

The level of journalism and research is in the gutter.

The question is do you keep up restrictions and lockdowns once all the at risk groups are vaccinated.

Once you lift most restrictions its likely to rip through the young and healthy and most will be infected within 6 months to a year. Governments may well be tempted to keep restrictions in place until at least 50% of the young are vaccinated. And by young I mean anyone under 55!

CIARAN_BOYLE

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The question is do you keep up restrictions and lockdowns once all the at risk groups are vaccinated.

Once you lift most restrictions its likely to rip through the young and healthy with most infected within 6 months to a year. Governments may well be tempted to keep restrictions in place until at least 50% of the young are vaccinated. And by young I mean anyone under 55!

It depends on what a vaccine does.

There's a lot of talk about vaccines merely reducing symptoms. If so it may increase asymptomatic transmission.

Even if only the young are unvacinated it could go out of control in the population.

Dressoutlet

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The question is do you keep up restrictions and lockdowns once all the at risk groups are vaccinated.

Once you lift most restrictions its likely to rip through the young and healthy with most infected within 6 months to a year. Governments may well be tempted to keep restrictions in place until at least 50% of the young are vaccinated. And by young I mean anyone under 55!

The thing is, despite the nannying they do saying they want to keep us all safe, they know well the vast majority of under 55s will not be seriously ill and overwhelm the hospitals, so nope, they won't give a shiny ****3 if it rips through the young, this in turn creates a herd immunity type situation. The very very few fatalities will not be worth closing down for