COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

Wolf359f

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Can we note that the scopi “study” was a farce also by the way, hardly indicative

Was there not one done with HCW's more recently.
And could that not be extrapolated to the general public?
Or is the SCOPI study that flawed it's useless?

Strazdas

Wolf359f wrote: »

The UK mainly vaccinated while in a lockdown, it will be telling tomorrow as they open up and we can see the impact the 12 week gap with Pfizer has.
It will be very easy for them to see with so many vaccinated with 1 dose of AZ and 1 dose of Pfizer, it's one to watch.

They're opening up a tad too soon in my book. Still 3000 cases a day....I would have held off for another fortnight at least. Also, the very opening may encourage everyone to drop their guard and think the pandemic is effectively over.

stephenjmcd

Wolf359f wrote: »

Was there not one done with HCW's more recently.
And could that not be extrapolated to the general public?
Or is the SCOPI study that flawed it's useless?

There was a study carried out in Tallaght hospital in terms of health care workers, perhaps there's a more recent one ? (this is the one I know of off the top of my head)

https://www.tuh.ie/News/TUH-Release-Results-on-Healthcare-Worker-COVID-19-Antibodies-Study.html

The problem with the SCOPI study was basically that the sample set used was tiny & only in 2 areas, nowhere near enough to project out to the population but they did it anyway. Wasn't really much mention of it again after it was published

Wolf359f

Strazdas wrote: »

They're opening up a tad too soon in my book. Still 3000 cases a day....I would have held off for another fortnight at least. Also, the very opening may encourage everyone to drop their guard and think the pandemic is effectively over.

Yeah I agree to an extent. It will be the younger crowd who will take advantage of the restrictions being lifted and of course mainly unvaccinated. Deaths should be lower though.

I think them opening at 3000 cases a day is still lower than they reopened previously. So once it's not too much too soon, they could be ok.

Certain states in the US are seeing cases and more importantly hospitalizations increase. Wile Israel, opening up after a certain threshold in vaccinations seems to be working for them.

More data for other countries to consume and decide when (what % vaccinated) to open

Wolf359f

stephenjmcd wrote: »

There was a study carried out in Tallaght hospital in terms of health care workers, perhaps there's a more recent one ? (this is the one I know of off the top of my head)

https://www.tuh.ie/News/TUH-Release-Results-on-Healthcare-Worker-COVID-19-Antibodies-Study.html

The problem with the SCOPI study was basically that the sample set used was tiny & only in 2 areas, nowhere near enough to project out to the population but they did it anyway. Wasn't really much mention of it again after it was published

Yeah, that's the study. It's more recent.
I'm sure given all the data, positivity rate among TUH staff, % of TUH staff hospitalised, % of the population hospitalized during the same timeframe, you could possibly produce a more accurate result than the SCOPI study.

Why they weren't testing outpatient bloods for antibodies throughout this is a mystery to me.

Strazdas

Wolf359f wrote: »

Yeah I agree to an extent. It will be the younger crowd who will take advantage of the restrictions being lifted and of course mainly unvaccinated. Deaths should be lower though.

I think them opening at 3000 cases a day is still lower than they reopened previously. So once it's not too much too soon, they could be ok.

Certain states in the US are seeing cases and more importantly hospitalizations increase. Wile Israel, opening up after a certain threshold in vaccinations seems to be working for them.

More data for other countries to consume and decide when (what % vaccinated) to open

What would worry me is the figure of near 60% vaccinated and many places reopening might given people in Britain the impression that they are 'good to go' and the pandemic is fizzling out. It wouldn't take much to see a sudden surge in daily case numbers again.

TomOnBoard

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Initial study linked below on the impact of 1 dose of Pfizer on those previously infected

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01325-6

1 dose would probably do the job but overall yes vaccination is still recommended as it provides more protection than wild type infection & against variants.

It's a no brianer really, vacciantion gives increased protection.

Thanks. I'll go through that tomorrow.

What surprises me is that, I cannot find any peer-reviewed studies that assess prior-Covid infection immunity VS vaccine-induced immunity.

OK, I'm a tech and data guy. I don't know my IgM from my IgC or IgZs! I don't know my T-cells from my A-cells (if such even exist). However, I DO know that, if someone tells me to 'Trust Me'- I Won't, unless we're sharing bodily fluids! If someone is telling me to INJECT something into my body, THAT SOMETHING having bypassed DECADES-OLD processes designed to minimise collateral damage,

Is it not reasonable and understandable that I would want to perform due diligence on the substance that SOMEONE e!se is telling me I should inject?

Is it also not reasonable and understandable that, as a nation, we would limit the injection of a compound that has BYPASSED ALL prior standards through an Emergency Use Authorisation, to those people who REALLY need it, that need being defined by individual risk, RATHER THAN simply doing an age-based water fluoridation equivalent that makes NO contact with the vaccine recipient's prior exposure to the pathogen against which, s/he is being vaccinated?

TomOnBoard

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Can we note that the scopi “study” was a farce also by the way, hardly indicative

Ooook!I

Do tell!

TomOnBoard

Wolf359f wrote: »

So your saying we have 3 times more infected with covid that we know. Fair assumption. So of the 4.9 mil in Ireland, there's potentially 480k unknown who don't need a vaccine as a top priority. That's 10% of the population. So if were jabbing 30k a day (getting close to it) We will need to be testing 33k a day for antibodies? 33k antibody tests should show 3k with antibodies and 30k who need a vaccine. So that could take potentially 24hrs while people wait for results.... why not just jab them and be done with them?

"why not just jab them and be done with them?"

WOW!

Just go ahead and fcukin inject everybody with compounds that APPEAR TO BE highly effective, but have been aurhorised for use STRICTLY on an Emergency Use Authorisation basis, and for which there are NO long-term safety studies, conducted in accordance with decades-old and established protocols, put in place to prevent catastrophic vaccine disasters (such as that which occurred in the 'Cutter Incident' in 1955)..

Would you even bother to tell 'them' that you just want to 'jab them and be done wth them'?

Ya know what? This is EXACTY why a person who is unsure/has concerns/asks questions will be turned into someone who says: "I wudda liked to get the vaccine, and thereby protect myself and those around me, but I had some worries. However, when I asked some questions, in connection with my worries, but THEY said "Just bare the frickin arm!" In other words, " Shut Up and Dribble"!

Ya reckon, that's an appropriate strategy for a National health system?

HhhhhMmmmmm!!

TomOnBoard

Wolf359f wrote: »

Yeah, that's the study. It's more recent.
I'm sure given all the data, positivity rate among TUH staff, % of TUH staff hospitalised, % of the population hospitalized during the same timeframe, you could possibly produce a more accurate result than the SCOPI study.

Why they weren't testing outpatient bloods for antibodies throughout this is a mystery to me.

Great question.

Place it alongside the other imponderable: Who decided that:

We will ONLY accept PCR tests to establish Covid infection. We won't accept LFT for such purposes. In fact, we won't accept LFT for ANY real Covid-related indicators. And wrt PCR, we won't tell ppl what ct value we used to decide you were positive!

Wolf359f

TomOnBoard wrote: »

"why not just jab them and be done with them?"

WOW!

Just go ahead and fcukin inject everybody with compounds that APPEAR TO BE highly effective, but have been aurhorised for use STRICTLY on an Emergency Use Authorisation basis, and for which there are NO long-term safety studies, conducted in accordance with decades-old and established protocols, put in place to prevent catastrophic vaccine disasters (such as that which occurred in the 'Cutter Incident' in 1955)..

Would you even bother to tell 'them' that you just want to 'jab them and be done wth them'?

Ya know what? This is EXACTY why a person who is unsure/has concerns/asks questions will be turned into someone who says: "I wudda liked to get the vaccine, and thereby protect myself and those around me, but I had some worries. However, when I asked some questions, in connection with my worries, but THEY said "Just bare the frickin arm!" In other words, " Shut Up and Dribble"!

Ya reckon, that's an appropriate strategy for a National health system?

HhhhhMmmmmm!!

Sorry I stopped reading after that. The EU have NOT authorised for emergency use, the UK and USA have though.

Wolf359f

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Great question.

Place it alongside the other imponderable: Who decided that:

We will ONLY accept PCR tests to establish Covid infection. We won't accept LFT for such purposes. In fact, we won't accept LFT for ANY real Covid-related indicators. And wrt PCR, we won't tell ppl what ct value we used to decide you were positive!

There's no need for inaccurate Lateral Flow Test when we have spare capacity for PCR tests.
Your last post you were ranting about unsafe and unproven vaccines and this post your wanting inaccurate LFT's to be used?

I'm not sure that the CT value would do for an individual. If it's a high value they are either presymptomatic or post symptomatic. Or do you believe the PCR is picking up infections from months ago?

TomOnBoard

Wolf359f wrote: »

Sorry I stopped reading after that. The EU have NOT authorised for emergency use, the UK and USA have though.

I.only posted in this thread for the 1st time 2 days ago.

Your reply is a great example of the general unwillingness of ppl in here to listen to contrary perspectives, to pounce on a clause within a sentence, within the totality of an argument, and use their disagreement (valid or otherwise) with the clause, to then ignore ALL other points in the argument...

Oh, and BTW, I have still not seen ANYONE (possibly excepting one poster whose contribution is on my list for tomorrow) to give ANY valid science-based argument in respect of the issues I raised. Responses whose only contribution is "STFU and dribble" are irrelevant to me and demeaning of the thread.

Wolf359f

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I.only posted in this thread for the 1st time 2 days ago.

Your reply is a great example of the general unwillingness of ppl in here to listen to contrary perspectives, to pounce on a clause within a sentence, within the totality of an argument, and use their disagreement (valid or otherwise) with the clause, to then ignore ALL other points in the argument...

Oh, and BTW, I have still not seen ANYONE (possibly excepting one poster whose contribution is on my list for tomorrow) to give ANY valid science-based argument in respect of the issues I raised. Responses whose only contribution is "STFU and dribble" are irrelevant to me and demeaning of the thread.

Can you show how the EU approved vaccines for emergency use only?
If you post lies about the EU approving vaccines for emergency use and cannot back it up with evidence, how can we take anything else in your post as truth?
I'll ignore other points in your post because you opened with a false statement, so I can't be fact checking everything you post after it.

TomOnBoard

Wolf359f wrote: »

Can you show how the EU approved vaccines for emergency use only?
If you post lies about the EU approving vaccines for emergency use and cannot back it up with evidence, how can we take anything else in your post as truth?
I'll ignore other points in your post because you opened with a false statement, so I can't be fact checking everything you post after it.

At what point did I even MENTION the EU in respect of an EUA?

Please stop making **** up!

TomOnBoard

Wolf359f wrote: »

There's no need for inaccurate Lateral Flow Test when we have spare capacity for PCR tests.
Your last post you were ranting about unsafe and unproven vaccines and this post your wanting inaccurate LFT's to be used?

I'm not sure that the CT value would do for an individual. If it's a high value they are either presymptomatic or post symptomatic. Or do you believe the PCR is picking up infections from months ago?

What an absolute !oad of twaddle, and such a pathetic attempt at a kick-down response..

Let me take it in pieces:

1. Alleged "Innacurate LFTs"

Bollox!

2. "Spare Capacity for PCR tests"

Bollox!

If you live in Athlone, you must get to either Castlerea in Roscommon or Mu!lingar in Westmeath. NEITHER are accessible via public transport within a reasonable timeframe. Basically they are NOT reasonably avai!able to ppl in Athlone.

Perhaps that explains spare capacity thus:

Make stuff available at Point A
Ask ppl at Point B to get that stuff
Don't give ppl in B the means to get to A.
Spare capacity much?

3. Please give me the words I used that allowed you to conc!ude that "Your last post you were ranting about unsafe and unproven vaccines ".. Waiting......

4. "I'm not sure that the CT value would do for an individual"... Wow! Do I really need to explain that to you?

5. "Or do you believe the PCR is picking up infections from months ago"

ABSO****INLOOTELY! NOT because of the PCR per se, but because of the ct interval,not published along with the test result, that is a)not published and b) Is not attached as metadata to a set of test results.

Probes

TomOnBoard wrote: »

What an absolute !oad of twaddle, and such a pathetic attempt at a kick-down response..

Let me take it in pieces:

1. Alleged "Innacurate LFTs"

Bollox!

2. "Spare Capacity for PCR tests"

Bollox!

If you live in Athlone, you must get to either Castlerea in Roscommon or Mu!lingar in Westmeath. NEITHER are accessible via public transport within a reasonable timeframe. Basically they are NOT reasonably avai!able to ppl in Athlone.

Perhaps that explains spare capacity thus:

Make stuff available at Point A
Ask ppl at Point B to get that stuff
Don't give ppl in B the means to get to A.
Spare capacity much?

3. Please give me the words I used that allowed you to conc!ude that "Your last post you were ranting about unsafe and unproven vaccines ".. Waiting......

4. "I'm not sure that the CT value would do for an individual"... Wow! Do I really need to explain that to you?

5. "Or do you believe the PCR is picking up infections from months ago"

ABSO****INLOOTELY! NOT because of the PCR per se, but because of the ct interval,not published along with the test result, that is a)not published and b) Is not attached as metadata to a set of test results.

Replying with "bollox" and "Wow! Do I really need to explain that to you?" is probably going to have the opposite effect to that which you want, at least if your concern is about getting a good quality response from people.

Regarding the study from Israel. Here's a thread from one of the authors that adds some clarity to its findings. They suggest that the reduced efficacy for B.1.351 seems to occur during a 14 day window after the second dose. There were no incidents of breakthrough after this period.

https://twitter.com/SternLab/status/1380922920734711811?s=19

Miike

TomOnBoard wrote: »

ABSO****INLOOTELY! NOT because of the PCR per se, but because of the ct interval,not published along with the test result, that is a)not published and b) Is not attached as metadata to a set of test results.

Out of curiosity. What benefits do you propose for telling people the Ct value of their PCR?

dodzy

Maxface wrote: »

I take the winter jab through work, I have no issue with a vaccine. I want and will take whatever but I have a reluctance to take the AZ jab, if that makes me a anti vaccine person then so be it. It looks like from here that there is many more that are happy to take any jab, much more than AZ will ever provide, surely then there is more of that than can be provided. For others like myself, that are happy to get a vaccine but not AZ, surely there should be an alternative? Not anti vaccine but with concerns?

Well if J&J is your chosen tipple, you won’t be getting that as an option anytime soon either. Reserved *cough* for other folk....

“As the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is a one-dose vaccine, these initial supplies will in the main be used for homeless patients, members of the Travelling community, members of the Roma community and those with substance addiction issues for whom it may be difficult to ensure a second dose,” said the organization.”

salmocab

dodzy wrote: »

Well if J&J is your chosen tipple, you won’t be getting that as an option anytime soon either. Reserved *cough* for other folk....

“As the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is a one-dose vaccine, these initial supplies will in the main be used for homeless patients, members of the Travelling community, members of the Roma community and those with substance addiction issues for whom it may be difficult to ensure a second dose,” said the organization.”

That’s the right thing to do though

is_that_so

dodzy wrote: »

Well if J&J is your chosen tipple, you won’t be getting that as an option anytime soon either. Reserved *cough* for other folk....

“As the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is a one-dose vaccine, these initial supplies will in the main be used for homeless patients, members of the Travelling community, members of the Roma community and those with substance addiction issues for whom it may be difficult to ensure a second dose,” said the organization.”

That group is about 40K, the total of the first planned batch from J&J.

spakman

salmocab wrote: »

That’s the right thing to do though

Why? Because they can't be relied upon to attend an appointment for a second dose?

is_that_so

spakman wrote: »

Why? Because they can't be relied upon to attend an appointment for a second dose?

High risk groups because of how they live. The J&J shot will complete that group in one swoop so it's also good management of the vaccination programme.

trellheim

Daily High Points so far of total shots

5 March 19449
24 Mar 23330
25 March 27490
1 April 30915
7 April 56377 (some jump)

MerlinSouthDub

Two interesting things in this story - France extending dose gap from 4 weeks to 6 weeks, and also expecting a J& J delivery tomorrow (1 week early)

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0411/1209075-coronavirus-global/

Stark

trellheim wrote: »

Daily High Points so far of total shots

5 March 19449
24 Mar 23330
25 March 27490
1 April 30915
7 April 56377 (some jump)

The last one was two days of data rolled into one afaik

Stark

Miike wrote: »

Out of curiosity. What benefits do you propose for telling people the Ct value of their PCR?

Sounds related to the conspiracy theorist "98% false positive due to high Ct" stuff that's been doing the rounds on Twitter.

FWIW my understanding is we do use a very high cycle threshold but those cases are considered "weak positives" and those people are retested.

dominatinMC

Hardyn wrote: »

Regarding the study from Israel. Here's a thread from one of the authors that adds some clarity to its findings. They suggest that the reduced efficacy for B.1.351 seems to occur during a 14 day window after the second dose. There were no incidents of breakthrough after this period.

https://twitter.com/SternLab/status/1380922920734711811?s=19

Does this not undermine the study though? We've been told that individuals are not fully-protected until 14 days after the second dose, so what run a study during that window? Doesn't make sense to me..

Turtwig

Stark wrote: »

Sounds related to the conspiracy theorist "98% false positive due to high Ct" stuff that's been doing the rounds on Twitter.

FWIW my understanding is we do use a very high cycle threshold but those cases are considered "weak positives" and those people are retested.

Yep that's what it sounded like to me too.

The poster Martina1991 addressed that stuff here:


(See also raind's quoted post)