• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Non-Political Coronavirus Thread

I *think* I got exposed to something about three weeks ago. Might have just been a fall cold or leafy-downy time; but I don't really have allergies. I had immune-system-activation symptoms like malaize, runny nose, etc. But it went away after a few days.

You guys can 100% call me a selfish asshole, but I'm running at about a 90% activity rate of my pre-COVID life. Part of that is being an essential worker, the other is that I'm a Cub Scout Den Leader and a rec soccer coach (or ass.) for 3 teams. Restaurants every day. I mask up at all of them, but I'm still getting shit done.
 
Serious question: if there is debate amongst the "experts" on whether having the virus creates long-term immunity to the virus, how is there any certainty that the vaccine will create long-term immunity to the virus? Isn't the vaccine synthesized from the virus?

It’s about the nature of the immune response induced. Natural infection (at least to other coronaviruses) does not induce an immune response that drives long lasting memory responses. Hence “short term” immunity. Vaccines, on the other hand, are designed to induce long term memory responses. So when you add the viral protein, or proteins in some cases, to the vaccine platform you essentially trick the immune system into driving a long lasting response as opposed to the natural response to infection. This can be accomplished by the vector used and/or the adjuvant included, depending on the vaccine.

Even the seasonal influenza vaccine drives longer immunity than a year in many people, problem is we deal with different influenza strains each year so we administer it once a year. So far, SARS-CoV-2 has shown no signs of being a rapidly mutating virus so there is hope a vaccine can bring longer lasting immunity. We certainly know from natural infection that the immune system has no issues generating responses against the Spike protein and other viral proteins. Antibodies are high in sick people, they just don’t seem to be highly effective. Contest this to a pathogen like HIV for which many people have poor antigenic responses to begin with. Hence why we’ve been working to no avail on an HIV vaccine for over 3 decades.

Proof will always be in the pudding. And that will take s couple of years before we know.
 
We'll probably never know if there was any kind of political motivation which caused these results to come out so soon after the election (instead of before)... But this is the best summary I've seen today on the timeline.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/

The story of how the data have been analyzed seems to include no small amount of drama. Pfizer, seeing an opportunity to both help battle a pandemic and demonstrate its research prowess, made decisions that were always likely to make its study the first of a Covid-19 vaccine to produce data — including its decision to have an independent group of researchers, known as a data safety and monitoring board, take an early look at the data in the 44,000-volunteer study before its completion.

The first analysis was to occur after 32 volunteers — both those who received the vaccine and those on placebo — had contracted Covid-19. If fewer than six volunteers in the group who received the vaccine had developed Covid-19, the companies would make an announcement that the vaccine appeared to be effective. The study would continue until at least 164 cases of Covid-19 — individuals with at least one symptom and a positive test result — had been reported.

That study design, as well as those of other drug makers, came under fire from experts who worried that, even if it was statistically valid, these interim analyses would not provide enough data when a vaccine could be given to billions of people.

In their announcement of the results, Pfizer and BioNTech revealed a surprise. The companies said they had decided not to conduct the 32-case analysis “after a discussion with the FDA.” Instead, they planned to conduct the analysis after 62 cases. But by the time the plan had been formalized, there had been 94 cases of Covid-19 in the study. It’s not known how many were in the vaccine arm, but it would have to be nine or fewer.

Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday.

This means that the statistical strength of the result is likely far stronger than was initially expected. It also means that if Pfizer had held to the original plan, the data would likely have been available in October, as its CEO, Albert Bourla, had initially predicted.
 
The dude volunteered to take a potentially risky vaccine for the betterment of the people. What have you done you fucking loser?

Maybe read his post again and figure out why I immediately responded with those exact words.
 
I'm torn.. on one hand, the more Knight is exposed to covid, the better and faster results we get for the trial itself.. otoh if he did just get a placebo he could be out there spreading it around willynilly.
 
I'm torn.. on one hand, the more Knight is exposed to covid, the better and faster results we get for the trial itself.. otoh if he did just get a placebo he could be out there spreading it around willynilly.

Dood, I independently verified that I didn't get the placebo.
 
We just need Knight to eat indoors at buffet style restaurants for a week straight to confirm the efficacy.
 
invalidating the results of a double blind experiment?

Naw man. Nearly 50,000 participants. Whether or not I know if I have antibodies in the aftermath don't make a hill of beans. Especially here, where the "double blind" is fundamentally exposed in the post - every participant has a pretty good idea if they got the real deal - hard (but not impossible) to fake a 100+ degree fever on the day after the second shot.
 
I'm torn.. on one hand, the more Knight is exposed to covid, the better and faster results we get for the trial itself.. otoh if he did just get a placebo he could be out there spreading it around willynilly.

Even if he had the vaccine, he could still be spreading it. Vaccines can prevent symptoms but still leave the person infectious to others.
 
Back
Top