Coronavirus outbreak

[Shreds]

A mask is primarily to protect others from you, not vice versa.

Most masks are so poor or poorly worn that they do not prevent droplets with the virus from others entering your mouth, nose or eyes.

I am also appalled at the nunber of people who tell you they have had it. Like some sort of badge of honour?

Maybe they have, as it varies in severity, but they should have it tattooed on their forehead so you can maintain a safe distance.

 

[kingrollo]

been away from this thread for a while...
What the cc expert opinion on progress towards a vaccine ?

 

[Slick]

A mask is primarily to protect others from you, not vice versa.

Most masks are so poor or poorly worn that they do not prevent droplets with the virus from others entering your mouth, nose or eyes.

I am also appalled at the nunber of people who tell you they have had it. Like some sort of badge of honour?

Maybe they have, as it varies in severity, but they should have it tattooed on their forehead so you can maintain a safe distance.

Round here, everyone who has ever had a sniffle from around October last year reckoned they have had it.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

been away from this thread for a while...
What the cc expert opinion on progress towards a vaccine ?

Drug Development:

Phase I: Safety and biological effect (immune response in this case) in a small number of subjects
Phase 2: Initial efficacy in a larger number of subjects, assurance of the correct dose.
Phase 3: Efficacy and safety in a large number of subjects to justify marketing the treatment.

For rapid developments, Phase 2 and 3 can be run together where the risk/benefit is justifiable. That applies here, at least to the frontrunners.

It's been reported that the Oxford/AstraZeneca Vaccine will publish peer reviewed Phase I data very soon, maybe today. As Phase 2/3 trials have already started, we can expect the results to at least be encouraging enough to justify that investment (and good enough to allow regulators to approve that phase 2/3 trial)

Other developments are at a similar stage but perhaps at least 3 months behind, maybe more.

Phase 3 results depend on sufficient people on the placebo arm going down with the disease - it is "event driven" in the parlance. Only then will you know how much protection the active arm has engendered, by measuring the difference. You also need sufficient subjects exposed to the vaccine to assure its safety. Manufacture is being done "at risk" ahead of the phase 3 readout to reduce lead time if successful.
A description of the Phase 2/3 trial is available here https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04400838
Observers seem to believe an efficacy readout may be available late this year, though this depends on being able to chase the virus around the world - you need to recruit subjects where the virus is active. Of course once proven to work you also need to actually vaccinate the population - a significant logistical effort.

If this one fails, add more time for the next to come through. It may also be active enough to help, but not active enough to solve the problem. And of course, no-one yet knows how long immunity will last if it does work. And no-one can be certain any of these will work, though the very broad range of different approaches to vaccine development being taken is encouraging.

There's quite a bit of noise at the moment about the potential ethics of "challenge" trials, where subjects are vaccinated then deliberately infected with COVID, to reduce timelines. Given the lack of virulence against younger people, and the huge impact on their wellbeing through social distancing, this could be an ethically acceptable way to accelerate things, particularly if the initial trials are negative and timelines stretch out.

How effective a vaccine will be depends both on how good it is biologically, but also on takeup - you need a very large proportion to engender herd immunity. Signs in Western countries on this are rather depressing - terrifyingly large proportions of the population say they wouldn't take a vaccine. Such is the age we live in.

If that's tl;dr then my summary would be

Early results are encouraging but not definitive. It's possible definitive results will be out on the fastest candidate this year, but first vaccinations are unlikely to be before the end of this year. It could be much longer, and is not guaranteed at all, though most scientists are cautiously optimistic.

 

[marinyork]

been away from this thread for a while...
What the cc expert opinion on progress towards a vaccine ?

And you haven't missed much.

There isn't expert opinion on a vaccine, just people who read stories that are drowned out in the noise on tv.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/n...vaccine-tracker-how-close-are-we-to-a-vaccine

A government minister said today that a vaccine would be 'after winter', a good while ago the coordinator of UK vaccines said the earliest would be January and that was quite some time ago and I'd be interested if there's an update on that as I know they have made some media appearances the last week. Articles/commentary on after phase 3 trials are complete suggest summer 2021-Spring 2022.

Other related commentary to a vaccine is caution. Fauci said recently he expects immunity (and especially antibody immunity) to coronavirus to last between 3 months and a year, based on other coronaviruses. Taken from this people are saying that a vaccine will likely require a booster and possibly every year. That might be wrong, but it's being cautious. There's also talk about a vaccine offering partial immunity, for example stopping people getting pneumonia but they still get the virus. There has been a lot of caution saying that people aren't assuming there will be a vaccine. Other comments have said if there was a vaccine the virus will still be around for some years (posing a deadly threat to the third world and a lot of this commentary is based on 1 year immunity).

The Oxford vaccine the preliminary results are published in the lancet today (I haven't read them). The most interesting bit for me was it's been reported that there are some T cell reactions in the body and not just antibody ones.

Nobody has any idea at this stage what level of antibodies/T cells means immunity or partial immunity to the virus. This has led to calls the last two weeks to deliberately infect volunteers, so called 'challenge trials' to speed up the process (and thereby potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide).

A lot of recent vaccine commentary has also been around seasonal flu and concern there that people might get both at the same time.

--------------------
The highly speculative bit on vaccines is there doesn't seem to be much coordination around the globe. The UK is saying this morning it's got options of 3 different vaccines that use completely different methods. I wonder in all this chaos whether in 2021 whether they'll be multiple companies flogging their wares and 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th choice vaccines that governments scramble and fight over or put a punt in to try and give bits of their population as opposed to nothing.

I don't think me or you will be getting a vaccine any time soon even if one comes along. There are too many people with asthma, there are too many people with all sorts of long term health conditions. There are too many vulnerable people in other countries. It's been speculated before that it might at first be offered to certain health workers and those over 80.

 

[marinyork]

As it happens following on from some of the stuff mentioned and not mentioned, from this morning...

Different vaccines might be needed for different groups of people, says vaccine taskforce chief
Kate Bingham, chair of the UK vaccine taskforce, told the Today programme this morning that there is unlikely to be a single coronavirus vaccine that will suit everyone. She explained:

What we are doing is identifying the most promising vaccines across the different categories, or different types of vaccine, so that we can be sure that we do have a vaccine in case one of those actually proves to be both safe and effective.
It’s unlikely to be a single vaccine for everybody.
We may well need different vaccines for different groups of people.

 

[marinyork]

Round here, everyone who has ever had a sniffle from around October last year reckoned they have had it.

Not October, here people say December.

This winter the antibody kits might settle that (although we might be in the nightmare scenario of those few that did have it last winter the antibodies have already vanished, which was a frustration on this tech months ago because if you knew that you could then pinpoint the people and do T cell research on them).

 

[Slick]

Not October, here people say December.

This winter the antibody kits might settle that (although we might be in the nightmare scenario of those few that did have it last winter the antibodies have already vanished, which was a frustration on this tech months ago because if you knew that you could then pinpoint the people and do T cell research on them).

Honestly, the people that I know who made the claim had no worse than a cold but I get your point of an opportunity missed.

 

[tom73]

Lockdown in Leicester look's like it's working as number come down. But Blackburn with Darwen numbers are rising looking like it's the new hot spot.

 

[marinyork]

Honestly, the people that I know who made the claim had no worse than a cold but I get your point of an opportunity missed.

The vast majority of them won't have had it. My father had four covid-19 tests over a couple of months and all negative, including two where the medics who'd seen a lot of people were somewhat worried.

Do you think this is affecting peoples' behaviour and how?

I would still be very interested to have an antibody test as if I had it the most likely date was in February. I'm attempting to shield parents. That said I'm in an age group that it's been speculated on some studies don't produce antibodies so I'd expect it to come up negative for time elapsed and that. Still curious. For me antibody positive doesn't change anything because you can't go around behaving in a silly way.

When mass testing comes this winter to distinguish, I think that'll change the views of a lot of people.

70% of people will never know they had it unless they have a test. It's far more likely you have met more people who have had it and had no symptoms than those claiming they probably had it.

 

[Slick]

I'm not sure if it's changed their behaviour or not, I think it's more a case of what they don't know they make up and without being disparaging as we all have different circumstances, there is a bit of hysteria as well.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Drug Development:

Phase I: Safety and biological effect (immune response in this case) in a small number of subjects
Phase 2: Initial efficacy in a larger number of subjects, assurance of the correct dose.
Phase 3: Efficacy and safety in a large number of subjects to justify marketing the treatment.

For rapid developments, Phase 2 and 3 can be run together where the risk/benefit is justifiable. That applies here, at least to the frontrunners.

It's been reported that the Oxford/AstraZeneca Vaccine will publish peer reviewed Phase I data very soon, maybe today. As Phase 2/3 trials have already started, we can expect the results to at least be encouraging enough to justify that investment (and good enough to allow regulators to approve that phase 2/3 trial)

Other developments are at a similar stage but perhaps at least 3 months behind, maybe more.

Phase 3 results depend on sufficient people on the placebo arm going down with the disease - it is "event driven" in the parlance. Only then will you know how much protection the active arm has engendered, by measuring the difference. You also need sufficient subjects exposed to the vaccine to assure its safety. Manufacture is being done "at risk" ahead of the phase 3 readout to reduce lead time if successful.
A description of the Phase 2/3 trial is available here https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04400838
Observers seem to believe an efficacy readout may be available late this year, though this depends on being able to chase the virus around the world - you need to recruit subjects where the virus is active. Of course once proven to work you also need to actually vaccinate the population - a significant logistical effort.

If this one fails, add more time for the next to come through. It may also be active enough to help, but not active enough to solve the problem. And of course, no-one yet knows how long immunity will last if it does work. And no-one can be certain any of these will work, though the very broad range of different approaches to vaccine development being taken is encouraging.

There's quite a bit of noise at the moment about the potential ethics of "challenge" trials, where subjects are vaccinated then deliberately infected with COVID, to reduce timelines. Given the lack of virulence against younger people, and the huge impact on their wellbeing through social distancing, this could be an ethically acceptable way to accelerate things, particularly if the initial trials are negative and timelines stretch out.

How effective a vaccine will be depends both on how good it is biologically, but also on takeup - you need a very large proportion to engender herd immunity. Signs in Western countries on this are rather depressing - terrifyingly large proportions of the population say they wouldn't take a vaccine. Such is the age we live in.

If that's tl;dr then my summary would be

Early results are encouraging but not definitive. It's possible definitive results will be out on the fastest candidate this year, but first vaccinations are unlikely to be before the end of this year. It could be much longer, and is not guaranteed at all, though most scientists are cautiously optimistic.

Study published in Lancet this afternoon:
https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140-6736(20)31604-4

Company press release:
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-c...-in-all-participants-in-phase-i-ii-trial.html

Looks so far, so good, but still early days. Fingers crossed for the longevity of response and phase 3 efficacy. Brazil and South Africa are in the phase 3, which is great for the trial, though not so good for the wider populations there in the short term.

 

[tom73]

Looking good so fair not without side effects though but they look mild and treatable only the wider trial will say for sure if this is going to work. Some time to go yet all we can do is wait and hope it go's well.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Looking good so fair not without side effects though but they look mild and treatable only the wider trial will say for sure if this is going to work. Some time to go yet all we can do is wait and hope it go's well.

The side effects piece is interesting.

They say they deliberately chose a dose sufficiently high they expected these side effects with the quid pro quo of a faster immune response to enable rapid immunity in the face of a potentially exploding pandemic.

 

[marinyork]

The side effects piece is interesting.

They say they deliberately chose a dose sufficiently high they expected these side effects with the quid pro quo of a faster immune response to enable rapid immunity in the face of a potentially exploding pandemic.

If this vaccine fails, commentary by people that know what they talk about says the research will provide useful information as to the level of response in the body needed to get protection (in humans).

I'm still not clear which vaccines the 500 000 UK wanted volunteers will be taking.