Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chenks]

vaccines are generally giving to you *before* you get the virus, by essentially giving you a small dose of the virus to build up the anti-bodies.
i would assume this vaccine follows the same process, so you actually wouldn't want the test group to have the virus before testing the vaccine.

[Alex Atkin UK]

vaccines are generally giving to you *before* you get the virus, by essentially giving you a small dose of the virus to build up the anti-bodies.
i would assume this vaccine follows the same process, so you actually wouldn't want the test group to have the virus before testing the vaccine.

As I understand it this vaccine is synthetic designed to tell your body to destroy the outer shell of the virus so your body can kill it quickly.  Its quite revolutionary as I believe it means it will work with different mutations, so long as the outer shell of the virus is the same.

I believe part of the reason is because the body doesn't seem to produce antibodies for this virus for very long, so using the virus itself would not be effective.  Possibly also to reduce the potential for side effects from the vaccine.

[chenks]

my niece has actually made some of these batches
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ayrshire/coronavirus-scotland-ayrshire-site-forefront-22359461?fbclid=IwAR2g3MCsY_8vahJm1jfn8qn3JLLgml2Cnd215bH-2mXN_BY_A6GBFbN_hMw

[sevenlayermuddle]

Still comes back to what was mentioned before though, how do we know these vaccines work if nobody has been infected yet to see what happens?
Also, how long does the protection last?

We shouldn’t preempt, but the process is basically to select the trial participants and then give some of them the real vaccine and others an inert placebo, then then let them go about their lives.  Nobody knows which one they got, vaccine or placebo.   If the vaccine works, you then expect some of the placebo group to get the virus, but hardly any of the vaccine group to get it. 

You also monitor both groups for side effects etc, so that if (say) 90% of the vaccine group get an ingrown toenail, vs 2% of the placebo group, that ingrown toenails might be a side effect.

The problem is that the number of participants and of infected & uninfected need to be large, to be statistically convincing.   If just a handful were trialed, and only one of them got the virus, that could obviously be fluke.   I believe the Oxford vaccine trials were partly conducted large scale in places like Brazil, where the numbers have been bigger, after it started to quieten down here in the UK.

Hopefully though, today’s publication might end some of the guesswork.

[chenks]

If the vaccine works, you then expect some of the placebo group to get the virus, but hardly any of the vaccine group to get it. 

well not really, as the placebo group going about "their lives" might not contract the virus anyway, so you end up with bad data.

[sevenlayermuddle]

well not really, as the placebo group going about "their lives" might not contrac the virus anyway, so you end up with bad data.

That’s why you need large numbers.  If only 1% of the population at large are getting the virus, then only 1% of the placebo group should get it.  If you test 50,000 people in each group, you hope to see 500 in the placebo group getting it, and none of the vaccinated, which would be quite convincing.

Ref today’s other news

new treatment.   Needs further trials and peer review, but industry seems excited and company’s share price has nearly trebled this morning. 

http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/synairgens_sng001_shows_strong_promise_in_covid-19_trial_1345119

... Synairgen SP closed at 36.5p on Friday, now trading at £1.29,  nearly 4 fold, somebody must be feeling optimistic.

[chenks]

That’s why you need large numbers.  If only 1% of the population at large are getting the virus, then only 1% of the placebo group should get it.  If you test 50,000 people in each group, you hope to see 500 in the placebo group getting it, and none of the vaccinated, which would be quite convincing.

it's not quite as simplistic as that

[sevenlayermuddle]

it's not quite as simplistic as that

Agreed, it's not quite that simple.  I was trying to simplify it a little, as a response of your previous post...

well not really, as the placebo group going about "their lives" might not contract the virus anyway, so you end up with bad data.

But none of us are experts in the field, certainly not me.  I do however have trust in scientists who are expert in their fields, providing they can convince me that the science is free of political meddling and other interference.  I have seen no suggestion so far of any significant political/celebrity etc interference in the science of the pandemic, thus far - I trust them.

[chenks]

i'm not sure it is their jobs to convince you of anything.
you either accept the scientific evidence or you don't. your tinfoil hat appears to close to you at all times though.

[sevenlayermuddle]

i'm not sure it is their jobs to convince you of anything.
you either accept the scientific evidence or you don't. your tinfoil hat appears to close to you at all times though.

Ok that's your view and everybody is entitled to their own view. So based on that, will you accept the results of the vaccine trials, or won't you?

[chenks]

have i ever intimated that i wouldn't?
if the scientists deem it good enough to be used (and it's approved by the MHRA/EMA) then that's good enough for me, just like any other medicine out there.

[sevenlayermuddle]

have i ever intimated that i wouldn't?
if the scientists deem it good enough to be used (and it's approved by the MHRA/EMA) then that's good enough for me, just like any other medicine out there.

Phew, peace at last.

[chenks]

there's only 1 conspiracy theoriest in thread!

[sevenlayermuddle]

Back on the vaccine research...

Hmm, a slightly subdued reception, if you ask me..?  I guess I'd prefer 'subdued' to 'sensationalised', though.  AstraZeneca are involved too as they'll be manufacturing it. Their share price is now up ~2.5% on the day, but had been even higher - dropped back a few percent coincident  with publication.   

https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/20/study-provides-first-glimpse-of-efficacy-of-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

Of interest, my highlighting, maybe of relevance to point raised by Alex earlier, regarding duration of protection...?

The vaccine also produced a response in T cells, a type of white blood cell that attacks cells infected with viruses, according to the paper. In a statement, Andrew Pollard of the University of Oxford, the study’s lead author, said that the vaccine is intended to induce both types of responses. “We hope this means the immune system will remember the virus, so that our vaccine will protect people for an extended period,” he said.

This seems to be the report itself, though I doubt whether many of us would be qualified to interpret it, certainly not me.

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620316056.pdf

edit: Added quote from statnews

[Alex Atkin UK]

It just baffles me that the body can have a response where it DOESN'T remember the virus.  I've not seen any explanation for why that is.