Fucking idiotsI expect there's some stuff in this article that not everyone will agree with.
Covid: What’s the best way to top up our immunity?
Now we have some protection, do we need to keep boosting or can nature take its course?www.bbc.co.uk
Possible vaccines/treatment(s) for Coronavirus
- Thread starter cupid_stunt
- Start date
elbows
Well-Known Member
I expect there's some stuff in this article that not everyone will agree with.
Covid: What’s the best way to top up our immunity?
Now we have some protection, do we need to keep boosting or can nature take its course?www.bbc.co.uk
What do you think about it?
I think its a typical mix of reasonable points and details, but with shitty framing sponsored by the approach this government already decided to take long ago.
Bits I agree with include that I dont think the easy to detect antibodies should be used as a complete guide, and I dont want us to be locked into a cycle of boosters when there are still so many completely unvaccinated people in the world.
Problems include how you establish whether boosters are necessary without doing so via masses real world data that inevitably involves putting people in harms way.
The worst thing about the article and some of the comments by professor Riley is that in order to write such an article, look at what is left out. We are invited to think of a picture where a year ago catching covid for the first time could be deadly, as if that is somehow not the case at all these days. They arent exactly drawing attention to the current hospitalisation and death rate. And the idea of actually trying to keep the number of new infections down is absent, just like its absent from current government policy.
There are rationales baked into this sort of thinking which do make some more sense in the long term. ie as people think of how some viruses transition from having the potential to cause a bad pandemic, to something that is still a killer at times but in other ways is very much something lots of people learn to live with. There is a sense of inevitability to some of that, but I really question the timing of a push towards such a way of thinking in the UK - its hugely premature to say the very least. And very large questions remain in regards whether going in hard and narrow in this way will actually get us to the promised land sooner than would otherwise have been the case, or whether it totally blows up in our face and sets the whole schedule back.
elbows
Well-Known Member
And Riley can absolutely fuck off when it comes to this:
Oh we are close to that are we? Fuck off, people arent stupid enough to fall for this unless their agenda already points in that direction. Because those who are not so inclined are more than capable of seeing the hospitalisation figures for themselves and reaching their own conclusions. Which is probably why some of the fuckers with this agenda would like to see some of the daily data fade out, dont worry people with actual data and the full picture, suppress it!
Personally when it comes to how I think about the appropriateness of my own messages of concern and whether the 'frightening people' thing is really so undesirable, comes down to things like what the actual hospitalisation figures look like, and whether we are at a stage where we actually need the fears of the population to stay in place in order to moderate behaviour and thus stand a chance of coping with a particular wave.
And since it is currently unclear to me how much behavioural changes of the masses may be required in order to get us through the coming autumn and winter, there is no way I would want to start putting such 'relax and dont be afraid' ideas in peoples heads at this particular stage. Which also means that I will seriously question the agenda of anyone pushing hard to rush, rush, rush back to a sense of normality, free from fear. Not to mention that a fear-free agenda is a delicate matter, if you push for it too hard and fast then you run the risk of achieving the very opposite effect should the shit hit the fan again in the coming months, and articles like that one will seem even more ludicrous than they do today.
If the UK had been able to stick to its original plan a in the first place, rather than u-turning mid-march 2020, I'm sure we would have been treated to and endless stream of such justifications and framing all the way through the pandemic. There would have been no shortage of experts ready to come out with this shit, dressed up in reasonable, rational terms, but no less deadly and absurd. Not that the pandemic makes me think any less of such experts because I was already well aware of where their sense of balance and ability to justify the unjustifiable can lead, long before this pandemic arrived.
Oh we are close to that are we? Fuck off, people arent stupid enough to fall for this unless their agenda already points in that direction. Because those who are not so inclined are more than capable of seeing the hospitalisation figures for themselves and reaching their own conclusions. Which is probably why some of the fuckers with this agenda would like to see some of the daily data fade out, dont worry people with actual data and the full picture, suppress it!
Personally when it comes to how I think about the appropriateness of my own messages of concern and whether the 'frightening people' thing is really so undesirable, comes down to things like what the actual hospitalisation figures look like, and whether we are at a stage where we actually need the fears of the population to stay in place in order to moderate behaviour and thus stand a chance of coping with a particular wave.
And since it is currently unclear to me how much behavioural changes of the masses may be required in order to get us through the coming autumn and winter, there is no way I would want to start putting such 'relax and dont be afraid' ideas in peoples heads at this particular stage. Which also means that I will seriously question the agenda of anyone pushing hard to rush, rush, rush back to a sense of normality, free from fear. Not to mention that a fear-free agenda is a delicate matter, if you push for it too hard and fast then you run the risk of achieving the very opposite effect should the shit hit the fan again in the coming months, and articles like that one will seem even more ludicrous than they do today.
If the UK had been able to stick to its original plan a in the first place, rather than u-turning mid-march 2020, I'm sure we would have been treated to and endless stream of such justifications and framing all the way through the pandemic. There would have been no shortage of experts ready to come out with this shit, dressed up in reasonable, rational terms, but no less deadly and absurd. Not that the pandemic makes me think any less of such experts because I was already well aware of where their sense of balance and ability to justify the unjustifiable can lead, long before this pandemic arrived.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
So to be clear, I suppose as the pandemic progresses I eventually expect to have far more in common with such stances than I do today. But timing is critical, and I dont have much respect for those who wish to rush off in that direction right now. I will be sure to declare when I think a time thats appropriate for that sort of thinking has actually arrived.
MrCurry
right after this urgent rest
I can‘t begin to match you for your solid grip of the details elbows so I won’t even try to comment on those, but my observation is I wonder how such an article comes about. I mean who whispered into the editorial leadership‘s ear to lead to the journalist being tasked with putting this whole piece together?
I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a sign of the path the U.K. will be taking, opening up more and more agressively and early compared to others in search of a competitive edge in global markets. All backed up by suitable advice from tame scientific advisors and media articles such as this one to set the stage.
I wouldn’t want to be a member of a risk group living in the U.K. with the current govt at the helm.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a sign of the path the U.K. will be taking, opening up more and more agressively and early compared to others in search of a competitive edge in global markets. All backed up by suitable advice from tame scientific advisors and media articles such as this one to set the stage.
I wouldn’t want to be a member of a risk group living in the U.K. with the current govt at the helm.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well a chunk of it is typical stuff as described by the likes of Chomsky - those with suitable attributes fill those sorts of jobs. In a world where pliable & compliant candidates are deemed the best for the job, this is what we get, by design. People trained to sell a line and fall into line at the right time.
There are some limits to that though, as demonstrated during March 2020. Even then the state broadcaster and a whole bunch of others were ready to sell plan a to us, no matter how much of a stretch that task was. But some other journalists were not convinced and actually managed to ask a few of the right questions during crucial press conferences on a very important week in March 2020. In great part because they saw what most other nations were doing, and we were so obviously out of line with our response and plan. That was a chaotic time with much confusion within the establishment, and boat rocking and the media somewhat living up to the myths of the noble journalist are more likely to occur, briefly, on such occasions. I recall for example that there was a stage during the buildup to the Iraq war when even the BBC called some of our sides propaganda propaganda, and I attribute much of the noise and dissent of that period to the fact there was a split within the establishment.
As for experts, advisors and professionals willing to share their thoughts with the media, its partly a similar story in terms of personnel. But its also a simple case of there being enough diversity of expert opinion on every detail that its usually not hard to find someone prepared to say something that can be used to serve a particular agenda.
The UK has signalled its intent to tread that path for a very long time now, they never wanted to take an alternative approach in the first place and they do not disguise their ambition to get back to it as soon as possible. So far they've always tried it when it was doomed to fail as the agenda was incompatible with reality and hospital capacity. The vaccine era encourages them to push their luck still further. They've had some victories already this summer, but it remains for me too early to tell if the gains they have made will actually hold in the coming months, or whether this approach is still unsustainable.
There are some limits to that though, as demonstrated during March 2020. Even then the state broadcaster and a whole bunch of others were ready to sell plan a to us, no matter how much of a stretch that task was. But some other journalists were not convinced and actually managed to ask a few of the right questions during crucial press conferences on a very important week in March 2020. In great part because they saw what most other nations were doing, and we were so obviously out of line with our response and plan. That was a chaotic time with much confusion within the establishment, and boat rocking and the media somewhat living up to the myths of the noble journalist are more likely to occur, briefly, on such occasions. I recall for example that there was a stage during the buildup to the Iraq war when even the BBC called some of our sides propaganda propaganda, and I attribute much of the noise and dissent of that period to the fact there was a split within the establishment.
As for experts, advisors and professionals willing to share their thoughts with the media, its partly a similar story in terms of personnel. But its also a simple case of there being enough diversity of expert opinion on every detail that its usually not hard to find someone prepared to say something that can be used to serve a particular agenda.
The UK has signalled its intent to tread that path for a very long time now, they never wanted to take an alternative approach in the first place and they do not disguise their ambition to get back to it as soon as possible. So far they've always tried it when it was doomed to fail as the agenda was incompatible with reality and hospital capacity. The vaccine era encourages them to push their luck still further. They've had some victories already this summer, but it remains for me too early to tell if the gains they have made will actually hold in the coming months, or whether this approach is still unsustainable.
2hats
Dust.
Valneva (whole virus, inactivated vaccine) have started a rolling submission with the MHRA in the UK, aiming to be granted approval before the end of the year when Cov-Compare phase 3 trial results should be available, assuming those data, and MHRA review, are favourable.
Valneva Commences Rolling Submission to MHRA for its Inactivated, Adjuvanted COVID-19 Vaccine – Valneva
Valneva Commences Rolling Submission to MHRA for its Inactivated, Adjuvanted COVID-19 Vaccine – Valneva
2hats
Dust.
A phase 1, non-randomised dose escalation study (15 healthy volunteers, 30-55 years, previously vaccinated with intramuscular AZD1222), to be conducted in the UK (Oxford/Imperial), with AstraZeneca AZD1222 (ChAdOx1) administered as an aerosol via nebuliser directly to the respiratory tract. Aims are to determine safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity, delivering first results in mid-2022. This trial is investigating the potential for producing a needle-free, viral vector based, booster option, better targeted at respiratory mucosal surfaces where infection first takes hold.
Last edited:
2hats
Dust.
Following publication of interim immunogenicity data from phase 1/2a studies of earlier vaccinees, J&J recommend a booster shot after several months for recipients of their "single dose" viral vector vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S.
Johnson & Johnson Announces Data to Support Boosting its Single-Shot COVID-19 Vaccine
Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine booster, after single dose primary regimen, provided rapid and robust increase in spike-binding antibodies New studies build on data demonstrating strong durability through eight months after immunization
www.jnj.com
2hats
Dust.
Preprint of relevant study - DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.25.21262569.
2hats
Dust.
Chongqing Zhifei Biological Products' protein subunit vaccine, ZF2001 (a 3 dose regimen over 8 weeks, already approved for use in China), reported here to have achieved a 81.76% efficacy rate against COVID-19 (any severity) in a phase 3 trial (>28k participants), with 100% efficacy to severe cases and death. Also reported to have 77.54% efficacy against delta/B.1.617.2 (precise nature of efficacy not defined). No preprint yet available.
www.reuters.com
China's Zhifei says unit's COVID shot shows 81.76% efficacy in late-stage trial
A COVID-19 vaccine developed by a unit of China's Chongqing Zhifei Biological Products (Zhifei) (300122.SZ) showed an 81.76% efficacy rate against COVID-19 cases of any degree of severity in a large, late-stage trial, Zhifei said on Friday.
www.reuters.com
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
I always though the "single dose" thing was a bit iffy with most of the others being two doses ...
2hats
Dust.
Repeated exposure to the same, or better, slight variations on the same antigen over reasonably long intervals not unsurprisingly improves affinity maturation through somatic hypermutation and perhaps even class switching recombination.
Somewhat underlining this, a preprint from Israel (Maccabi) for a retrospective cohort study that appears to demonstrate "that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalisation caused by the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."
DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415.
More:
www.sciencemag.org
See also J&J Ad26.COV2.S late boosting (DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.25.21262569) and a Canadian (UHN) study on delaying BNT162b2 second dose (DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-793234/v1).
Somewhat underlining this, a preprint from Israel (Maccabi) for a retrospective cohort study that appears to demonstrate "that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalisation caused by the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."
DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415.
More:
Science | AAAS
See also J&J Ad26.COV2.S late boosting (DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.25.21262569) and a Canadian (UHN) study on delaying BNT162b2 second dose (DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-793234/v1).
Last edited:
2hats
Dust.
From Germany (Charite, Berlin) interim results of a prospective cohort study comparing immune responses in a cohort of vaccinated elderly persons (ages 78-87) to those in younger healthcare workers (ages 30-48), HCW (both up to six months after administration of BNT162b2).
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1-, full spike- and RBD -IgG seropositivity rates and IgG levels were significantly lower in the elderly cohort, with around 60% producing sera that could neutralise delta/B.1.617.2, compared to over 95% of the healthcare workers. Similarly a reduction in SARS-CoV-2-S1 T cell reactivity of around 5-fold was observed.
This suggests that the standard two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination regimen elicits less durable immune responses in the elderly compared to young adults, and may support booster vaccinations of such a cohort.
DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.26.21262468.
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1-, full spike- and RBD -IgG seropositivity rates and IgG levels were significantly lower in the elderly cohort, with around 60% producing sera that could neutralise delta/B.1.617.2, compared to over 95% of the healthcare workers. Similarly a reduction in SARS-CoV-2-S1 T cell reactivity of around 5-fold was observed.
This suggests that the standard two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination regimen elicits less durable immune responses in the elderly compared to young adults, and may support booster vaccinations of such a cohort.
DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.26.21262468.
Last edited:
2hats
Dust.
Indian Cadila Healthcare's DNA-plasmid (encodes spike) based COVID-19 vaccine, ZyCoV-D (three dose regimen delivered intradermally; storable at 2-8C), has been approved by the Indian regulator, DCGI, for use in 12 year olds and up. In phase III trials (28k participants) it is reported to have demonstrated 66.6% efficacy to symptomatic infection (delta/B.1.617.2 dominated at the time of the trial). Furthermore, no cases of moderate disease, or worse, where reported during the trial.
This is the first regulatory body approval of any DNA vaccine anywhere in the world. This platform may open the door for a range of anti-cancer vaccines.
This is the first regulatory body approval of any DNA vaccine anywhere in the world. This platform may open the door for a range of anti-cancer vaccines.
Last edited:
2hats
Dust.
Moderna are seeking approval from the FDA for a half dose (50μg) mRNA-1273 third-dose (6 month post-dose-2) booster:
investors.modernatx.com
Also from the EMA and other regulatory bodies in coming days...
www.reuters.com
Moderna Announces Submission of Initial Data to U.S. FDA for Its COVID-19 Vaccine Booster | Moderna, Inc.
mRNA-1273 at 50 µg dose level induced robust antibody responses of more than 40x against the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) CAMBRIDGE, Mass. --(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sep. 1, 2021-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq:MRNA), a biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines, today announced
Moderna seeks EU authorization for COVID-19 vaccine booster dose
Moderna Inc said on Friday it had asked the EU drugs regulator for conditional approval of a booster shot of its COVID-19 vaccine at a 50 microgram dose.
www.reuters.com
Voley
🐀
I prefer the new lateral flow tests that I've just got.
You just do your nostrils with these ones. Much better imo. I kept irritating my tonsils with the previous ones and thinking I'd got a sore throat /Covid.
They're quicker at just 15 minutes too. Badgers are these the ones you're getting better accuracy with?
You just do your nostrils with these ones. Much better imo. I kept irritating my tonsils with the previous ones and thinking I'd got a sore throat /Covid.
They're quicker at just 15 minutes too. Badgers are these the ones you're getting better accuracy with?
2hats
Dust.
EMA evaluating BNT162b2 third-dose boosters (at six months post-second-dose) for healthy and immunocompromised individuals.
They are an improvement. The main issue with accuracy is that people did not do them properly. I can see why as they are not very pleasant
currently I do around 10-12 a week and still dislike them. The LFT is not really any different from the PCR test. Like anything you just have to do it properly.
Voley
🐀
I think these will be easier for people to do right. The throat bit was the worst bit with the others I thought.They are an improvement. The main issue with accuracy is that people did not do them properly. I can see why as they are not very pleasant
The LFT is not really any different from the PCR test. Like anything you just have to do it properly.
As an estimate around 70% of people hate the throat swab but around 30% think the nose is the worst part of it.
We have to enforce it more often than not. The below is slightly overkill but people should be SURE their results are accurate, even it is uncomfortable for 20 seconds.
Most of us have done a 'quick swab' rather than deal with it. I don't really blame them but it causes inaccuracies in the results which people are keen to blame on the test kit.
Like I said the official guidelines I posted above are overkill. However if you are going to be uncomfortable for 2-3 seconds then why not just be sure?
It is uncomfortable but might as well do it properly rather than blame the tools when you catch/spread it.
2hats
Dust.
Slovakia to offer BNT162b2 at one-third standard dose to children 5-11 years.
spectator.sme.sk
Vaccination against Covid open for children older than five in Slovakia
Paediatricians will assess cases individually.
2hats
Dust.
Treble mega vax being developed
Amongst a slew of new mRNA vaccines, Moderna are just embarking on a phase 1 trial of a next generation COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1283, that encodes for epitopes in both spike receptor binding and N-terminal domains (RBD and NTD), which should hopefully be more effective across a range of variants.
Similar threads
