COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Let's hope the SA variant doesn't become the most prevalent strain as it's looking more and more likely to be bad news for the vaccine at this stage.

GreeBo

titan18 wrote: »

So to me, I see this part

Until a batch is certified, it
should remain at the site of manufacture or be shipped under quarantine to
another site which has been approved for that purpose by the relevant Competent
Authority.

and ask why can't a site in each country be designated and approved for that purpose pretty quickly. I would assume there already are ones in some countries anyway. It's not like we need to ship them to every GP, pharmacist yet, but having them in the country would allow a much quicker turn around.

would we not need those approved sites anyway, once it is approved?
so I would assume we already have some sites designated...otherwise how are we going to store it once its delivered?

ACitizenErased

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's hope the SA variant doesn't become the most prevalent strain as it's looking more and more likely to be bad news for the vaccine at this stage.

Source?

ACitizenErased

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Source?

Vaccine may be less effective in preventing South Africa variant, study finds

Seemingly offering more evidence for a theory that has fuelled growing fears, a new study has concluded that vaccines being rolled out in the UK and around the world may be less effective against the new variant of coronavirus that has emerged in South Africa.
The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, also found that the SA variant, known as 501Y.V2, contains mutations that may be resistant to immunity from previous coronavirus infection.

Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at Warwick Medical School, who was not involved in the research, said: "This preprint suggests that individuals might be able to get infected with a variant of Sars-Cov-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) even if they have previously had COVID-19.

"It also shows we urgently need to find out if we could see infection with this variant post-vaccination."

It comes after the UK's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance told Sky News that coronavirus variants were a "real issue of concern".

Asked about variants such as 501Y.V2, he said laboratory studies suggested "this may be a virus that can escape some of the immune effects of antibodies", but "we don't know to what degree".


From Sky News.

ACitizenErased

Study not peer reviewed, so no real evidence other than that. Pfizer have already said it'll work for their vaccine.

titan18

GreeBo wrote: »

This was the same argument used when Ireland didnt start vaccinations on the same day that they arrived and we can see what difference it makes now (i.e. very little)

I think rushing experts to approve something that you are going to inject into hundreds of millions of people is not a good idea.

I'd say 3-4 days is a lot different than 3 weeks tbf, and I'd still argue it would have been better to start as early as you can (all the procedures and consent stuff should have been sorted already imo). Our issue atm is quantity of vaccines rather than time, and we hopefully won't have that issue of quantity when we're getting Moderna and AstraZenica, and our issue might be more of time (although I don't think it will be) If we're able to get vaccines earlier and get them into people first week of Feb instead of end of Feb, that's a big win imo.

Hooter23

Rte are great at reporting virus deaths but strangely enough do not even mention Vaccine deaths 55 deaths so far in america 29 in Norway...if "truth matters" as Rte says it does then why aren't they reporting it

Strange how the media always report negative news yet when it comes to the vaccine its all positive...do the vaccine deaths and people left crippled by it not matter

ACitizenErased

Hooter23 wrote: »

Rte are great at reporting virus deaths but strangely enough do not even mention Vaccine deaths 55 deaths so far in america 29 in Norway...if "truth matters" as Rte says it does then why aren't they reporting it

Strange how the media always report negative news yet when it comes to the vaccine its all positive...do the vaccine deaths and people left crippled by it not matter

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

ixoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Vaccine may be less effective in preventing South Africa variant, study finds

Even the headline shows the issue - _may_ be _less_ . Not "Will be ineffective" or even "will be less effective".
I'll prefer to wait for some stronger peer reviewed answers on this.

y2k2020

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's hope the SA variant doesn't become the most prevalent strain as it's looking more and more likely to be bad news for the vaccine at this stage.

You'll get ate here for that, no bad news on vaccines in this thread

Could mods open a new thread for that subject perphaps?

Mutant strain, when will a variant evade the vaccines, which vaccine will be evaded first, Pfizer, AZ, Moderna?

Doesn't sound too bad to me?

Personally and just my opinion but I don't think we will be waiting long for it to happen, the selective pressure put on the virus now with all the antibody treatments and vaccines is going to force the virus to adapt and die

Give any medicine to 7 billion people and watch that virus, bacteria etc adapt to evade that pharmacolgy, wheter antibiotics, anti viral's, vaccine's etc

Personally I think the AZ vaccine will be the first to be compromised, it's chimp vector has been seen by some humans already close to those animals

mightyreds

ixoy wrote: »

Even the headline shows the issue - _may_ be _less_ . Not "Will be ineffective" or even "will be less effective".
I'll prefer to wait for some stronger peer reviewed answers on this.

Article is excellent "may be", "dont know", "not clear", "not peer reviewed", "needs investigation", then brings in a specialist who immediately distances himself from it

ACitizenErased

y2k2020 wrote: »

You'll get ate here for that, no bad news on vaccines in this thread

Could mods open a new thread for that subject perphaps?

Mutant strain, when will a variant evade the vaccines, which vaccine will be evaded first, Pfizer, AZ, Moderna?

Doesn't sound too bad to me?

Personally and just my opinion but I don't think we will be waiting long for it to happen, the selective pressure put on the virus now with all the antibody treatments and vaccines is going to force the virus to adapt and die

Give any medicine to 7 billion people and watch that virus, bacteria etc adapt to evade that pharmacolgy, wheter antibiotics, anti viral's, vaccine's etc

Personally I think the AZ vaccine will be the first to be compromised, it's chimp vector has been seen by some humans already close to those animals

You wonder why people disagree with you when you're spouting this sort of crap

Micky 32

y2k2020 wrote: »

You'll get ate here for that, no bad news on vaccines in this thread

Could mods open a new thread for that subject perphaps?

Mutant strain, when will a variant evade the vaccines, which vaccine will be evaded first, Pfizer, AZ, Moderna?

Doesn't sound too bad to me?

Personally and just my opinion but I don't think we will be waiting long for it to happen, the selective pressure put on the virus now with all the antibody treatments and vaccines is going to force the virus to adapt and die

Give any medicine to 7 billion people and watch that virus, bacteria etc adapt to evade that pharmacolgy, wheter antibiotics, anti viral's, vaccine's etc

Personally I think the AZ vaccine will be the first to be compromised, it's chimp vector has been seen by some humans already close to those animals

As a matter of interest, will you be taking the vaccine?

Hmmzis

Deleted User wrote: »

Vaccine may be less effective in preventing South Africa variant, study finds

Seemingly offering more evidence for a theory that has fuelled growing fears, a new study has concluded that vaccines being rolled out in the UK and around the world may be less effective against the new variant of coronavirus that has emerged in South Africa.
The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, also found that the SA variant, known as 501Y.V2, contains mutations that may be resistant to immunity from previous coronavirus infection.

Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at Warwick Medical School, who was not involved in the research, said: "This preprint suggests that individuals might be able to get infected with a variant of Sars-Cov-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) even if they have previously had COVID-19.

"It also shows we urgently need to find out if we could see infection with this variant post-vaccination."

It comes after the UK's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance told Sky News that coronavirus variants were a "real issue of concern".

Asked about variants such as 501Y.V2, he said laboratory studies suggested "this may be a virus that can escape some of the immune effects of antibodies", but "we don't know to what degree".


From Sky News.

The actual pre-print was linked here already a few pages back, here it is again:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.426911v1.full.pdf+html

Fig. 1I is the impact on each individual mutation in the 501Y.V2 variant and all of them together. The overall reduction of neutralization is noticeable for both vaccines, they're basically the same in this regard. All tested sera did neutralize the variant though.

TL;DR - the vaccines still work on the new variants (even if we just look at antibodies only)

lucernarian

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

I understand the frustration but I don't think this counts as something constructive to post. Better to discuss all the facts as openly as possible than shunt people into a different sounding echo chamber.

ACitizenErased

lucernarian wrote: »

I understand the frustration but I don't think this counts as something constructive to post. Better to discuss all the facts as openly as possible than shunt people into a different sounding echo chamber.

You answered your own post

y2k2020

Micky 32 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, will you be taking the vaccine?

I will, RNA hopefully

y2k2020

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You wonder why people disagree with you when you're spouting this sort of crap

We all know a variant will pop up that will evade vaccine's at somepoint

It's clear as day it will happen, we might as well open a new thread and speculate there?

What's wrong with that?

lucernarian

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You answered your own post

I didn't see any such question. If deaths are ruled to be related to side effects of the vaccine administration (e.g. fever) as seems to be the case from what I saw in reputable Norwegian sources, then the place to explain and understand such findings is here, not Conspiracy Theories.

Hmmzis

y2k2020 wrote: »

We all know a variant will pop up that will evade vaccine's at somepoint

It's clear as day it will happen, we might as well open a new thread and speculate there?

What's wrong with that?

There will, that's for sure. It would be an interesting thread from a molecular biology and immunology point of view. Even before the current variants reared their heads there were some publications describing that mutations at site 484 could be problematic. Cell passages with the virus and antibodies/plasma all seemed to come to the same/similar conclusions.

There are numerous fascinating and valuable insights one could get by having constructive discussions about it.

By getting plasma samples from convalescents of the new variants we can run the same experiments to inform us of the next steps the virus might take.

That could greatly enhance future vaccine constructs and antibody selection for mAB cocktails.

irishguitarlad

I postes this in the other thread but It also has to do with testing so.I said I'd put It here and get your opinions.

Just tested positive for the 3rd time, I first had symptoms the 26th of december, was positive for the first time on the 2nd, did another test on the 13th and was told that I was positive but that the virus was very weak in my body and there was no need to isolate. Then today i did a lamp test with rocdoc and It came back positive, still not out of my system. They rang me and said for me to isolate, that surely can't be the case can it? I mean everyone so who went into isolation for 14 days after their 1st test and never got a re test should be all isolating for another 14 days. I rang my GP anyways to explain my situation to him. I feel great by the way, 26th and 27th i was under the weather alright.

Mike3549

irishguitarlad wrote: »

I postes this in the other thread but It also has to do with testing so.I said I'd put It here and get your opinions.

Just tested positive for the 3rd time, I first had symptoms the 26th of december, was positive for the first time on the 2nd, did another test on the 13th and was told that I was positive but that the virus was very weak in my body and there was no need to isolate. Then today i did a lamp test with rocdoc and It came back positive, still not out of my system. They rang me and said for me to isolate, that surely can't be the case can it? I mean everyone so who went into isolation for 14 days after their 1st test and never got a re test should be all isolating for another 14 days. I rang my GP anyways to explain my situation to him. I feel great by the way, 26th and 27th i was under the weather alright.

It will take a couple of months to get dead covid cells out of your system. if youre symptom free for 5-7 days, then youre fine.

Melanchthon

ceegee wrote: »

Unless you want the HPRA to blindly authorise it without looking at any data then that would take longer than waiting 10 days for the EMA to approve it.

Yes that is what I want them to do, I am not saying start dosing I am saying grant immediate authorisation which can be done, take delivery, the distribute when EMA approval has been granted. There is no additional risk.

Wolf359f wrote: »

You could, but you wouldn't be getting any doses from what the EU have bulk purchased. You would need to wait until all the EU's doses get distributed to the EU before Ireland would get their additional doses.

As I have pointed out numerous times on this thread initial EU distribution has been uneven this would force the matter politically at a minimum. We've led Europe in having longest periods in lockdown why not take initiative in something positive.

Actually here is a point, if there is an uneven distribution of the first delivery of Astra Zeneca vaccine will some of the posters here admit there is problems?

Also in regards of potential costs this thread is gas , GP's etc getting paid twice UK rate for delivering vaccine = Not a problem money doesn't matter costs outweigh benefits! Trying to have the vaccine in country so we could have a quicker smoother mass rollout = But but it might cost more!
One would almost think that it's not about consistency rather about always defending government/EU officialdom

y2k2020

Hmmzis wrote: »

There will, that's for sure. It would be an interesting thread from a molecular biology and immunology point of view. Even before the current variants reared their heads there were some publications describing that mutations at site 484 could be problematic. Cell passages with the virus and antibodies/plasma all seemed to come to the same/similar conclusions.

There are numerous fascinating and valuable insights one could get by having constructive discussions about it.

By getting plasma samples from convalescents of the new variants we can run the same experiments to inform us of the next steps the virus might take.

That could greatly enhance future vaccine constructs and antibody selection for mAB cocktails.

Maybe open up one Hmmzis

I'm only a fool, but would be interested to read stuff from people like yourself on a seperate thread

Amirani

Melanchthon wrote: »

Yes that is what I want them to do, I am not saying start dosing I am saying grant immediate authorisation which can be done, take delivery, the distribute when EMA approval has been granted. There is no additional risk.

A regulatory body is not going to authorise a medical product without access to any data as some sort of hack or workaround.

lucernarian

Amirani wrote: »

A regulatory body is not going to authorise a medical product without access to any data as some sort of hack or workaround.

Yet that is what many indirectly accused experts working in the UK's MRHA of doing. Does seem to be a case of double standards there, and the EMA moved forward their own approval date for comirnaty too.

lucernarian

lucernarian wrote: »

Yet that is what many indirectly accused experts working in the UK's MRHA of doing. Does seem to be a case of double standards there, and the EMA moved forward their own approval date for comirnaty too.

Regulatory bodies often give a commit date to have a review completed by. It does not preclude them from having that review completed earlier

lucernarian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Regulatory bodies often give a commit date to have a review completed by. It does not preclude them from having that review completed earlier

And the accusations that the MRHA somehow "rushed" the approval to give Boris an early Christmas present? The EMA *themselves* made thinly veiled comments about the MRHA's course of action.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-eu/eu-warns-of-risks-of-covid-19-vaccine-race-after-uk-approval-of-pfizer-shot-idUSKBN28C1B9

Melanchthon

lucernarian wrote: »

And the accusations that the MRHA somehow "rushed" the approval to give Boris an early Christmas present? The EMA *themselves* made thinly veiled comments about the MRHA's course of action.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-eu/eu-warns-of-risks-of-covid-19-vaccine-race-after-uk-approval-of-pfizer-shot-idUSKBN28C1B9

Also we know the vaccine is safe from UK data. Authorize for under 55's if there is an ethical dilemma just rubber stamp it and then put on pressure from delivery.(EMA approval could be used for over 55s)

Ireland has had the longest lockdowns in Europe , we are leading the way on that no problem at all, why not also try some initiative.

lucernarian

lucernarian wrote: »

And the accusations that the MRHA somehow "rushed" the approval to give Boris an early Christmas present? The EMA *themselves* made thinly veiled comments about the MRHA's course of action.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-eu/eu-warns-of-risks-of-covid-19-vaccine-race-after-uk-approval-of-pfizer-shot-idUSKBN28C1B9

The MHRA used the EUA approval process, which does not include review of manufacturing controls on the scaled up process, only the submission data which is often based on lab created vaccine and not scaled to mass production. So yes, the MHRA did take a risk. If the EMA had found something in the MA approval process related to the manufacturing process there would have been a ****storm in the UK. Its a moot point now as EMA have approved for full release. Hopefully it will be the same for AZ