Maybe cut down the number of hours that people are out and around other people?
Essentially yes. It simply makes policing social distancing easier if for a chunk of each day people aren't supposed to be out and about.
Though I also agree everybody leaving it until the last possible minute to go home partly defeats the purpose. You've had a similar effect every time any kind of border closure has been announced.
Starting with what happened in Italy: announce a lockdown of Milan and Lombardy is imminent, and a whole lot of people decide that they simply must rush out of Lombardy towards parts of Italy further south, promptly carrying the virus with them.
A couple from Hawaii recently flew from SF to Hawai'i with their 4 year old, allegedly knowing they'd tested positive. Hawai'i was not pleased: when the situation was discovered the airport where they landed, they were arrested. Reportedly, they're out on bail. No word on where the kid is.
Obama addresses one big reason many African-Americans are hesitant to get the vaccine: there's a long history of them being experimented on without knowledge or permission (look up "Tuskegee experiments" for one of the worst), and being otherwise mistreated by doctors. I think that's one of the reasons he's volunteered.
I think what the former presidents propose would be a good thing...provided the vaccine really is safe, and none of them has a bad reaction soon afterward. If not, many more people would be scared off.
But if it all goes well, many, many more people would get the vaccine.
I think what the former presidents propose would be a good thing...provided the vaccine really is safe, and none of them has a bad reaction soon afterward. If not, many more people would be scared off.
The AstraZeneca vaccine works with a single shot at about 60-70% effectiveness, the second shot is needed to boost that to the 80%+ range
No, I don't think that's right. According to this AstraZeneca press release, it requires 2 shots - there isn't a single shot option. They've been reporting results for two different regimens, but both of those involve two shots one month apart. (The existence of two regimens rather than one is an accident - they fucked up the dosage for the first shot in a subset of the subjects, giving half the intended dose.)
Yup. Are you thinking they might back out, or that they might wind up with a placebo in a test?
The anti-vaxxers and conspiracy nuts will undoubtedly claim that the footage was faked / the vaccine wasn't real / they used body doubles or whatever other ludicrous claim allows them to keep peddling their nonsense.
I think what the former presidents propose would be a good thing...provided the vaccine really is safe, and none of them has a bad reaction soon afterward. If not, many more people would be scared off.
And provided they actually get the vaccine.
We've had assorted government ministers & TV people offer to receive the vaccine live on TV. However, they would be well down the priority scale for the expected order of roll-out (the ones I'm thinking of would be 8th or 9th on a list of 9 levels...)
I guess Clinton & Bush might be higher up the priority list by virtue of age, but I doubt Obama would be. And therefore might not actually get the vaccine in the first tranche of a roll-out.
The AstraZeneca vaccine works with a single shot at about 60-70% effectiveness, the second shot is needed to boost that to the 80%+ range
No, I don't think that's right. According to this AstraZeneca press release, it requires 2 shots - there isn't a single shot option. They've been reporting results for two different regimens, but both of those involve two shots one month apart. (The existence of two regimens rather than one is an accident - they fucked up the dosage for the first shot in a subset of the subjects, giving half the intended dose.)
OK, I must have misheard the news reports at the time. I thought the trial tested a single dose vs two doses (and, the error was in the second set), which would make a certain amount of sense if the expectation is that it needs a second booster but it would be useful to know how protected people who don't get that are, or whether the much more practical single jab would be sufficient where two doses can't be given.
Maybe it was the earlier safety trials that only had one shot. Or, just that the error in some cases created sufficient confusion that things were also reported incorrectly.
And, related to that there is some discussion going around about why a half dose + full dose gives a higher level of protection compared to two full doses. It appears that the error which resulted in some people getting a half dose wasn't randomly distributed, and that those who got this smaller dose were all in younger age groups (below 55 years). If so, that suggests that the effect could be a result of a significantly stronger response in younger people. If that's correct, and if this age response is also present in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines which from what I can see were only tested on younger people, then the government could be heading for trouble with the reported prioritisation of care home residents. If the effectiveness of the vaccine in older people is significantly reduced and after vaccinating staff and residents care homes are largely reopened to visitors then this is going to lead to a fresh surge of covid cases in care homes, including a boost in deaths. A lot of if's in that line of thought ... but, it certainly means that the UK government strategy has risks, and the mitigation of those would be to maintain restrictions on visitors to care homes until community transmission has been suppressed by significant vaccination of the general population (which isn't going to happen until after Easter, possibly not until well into the summer).
And, related to that there is some discussion going around about why a half dose + full dose gives a higher level of protection compared to two full doses. It appears that the error which resulted in some people getting a half dose wasn't randomly distributed, and that those who got this smaller dose were all in younger age groups (below 55 years). If so, that suggests that the effect could be a result of a significantly stronger response in younger people. If that's correct, and if this age response is also present in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines which from what I can see were only tested on younger people, then the government could be heading for trouble with the reported prioritisation of care home residents.
Moderna's test did include a broad demographic spread - from their press release:
The Phase 3 COVE study was designed in collaboration with the FDA and NIH to evaluate Americans at risk of severe COVID-19 disease and completed enrollment of 30,000 participants ages 18 and older in the U.S. on October 22, including those at high risk of the severe complications of COVID-19 disease. The COVE study includes more than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65. It also includes more than 5,000 Americans who are under the age of 65 but have high-risk chronic diseases that put them at increased risk of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease. These medically high-risk groups represent 42% of the total participants in the Phase 3 COVE study. The study also included communities that have historically been under-represented in clinical research and have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The study includes more than 11,000 participants from communities of color, representing 37% of the study population, which is similar to the diversity of the U.S. at large. This includes more than 6,000 participants who identify as Hispanic or LatinX, and more than 3,000 participants who identify as Black or African American.
I haven't looked, but I suspect Pfizer's test would have been similarly designed.
Yup. Are you thinking they might back out, or that they might wind up with a placebo in a test?
The anti-vaxxers and conspiracy nuts will undoubtedly claim that the footage was faked / the vaccine wasn't real / they used body doubles or whatever other ludicrous claim allows them to keep peddling their nonsense.
Yes, this -- if you aren't predisposed to believing the medical profession then you are unlikely to be convinced by a bunch of politicians being injected on stage.
I just hope they will allow firms to expect a vaccination certificate for use of their services, especially hotels and airlines - and workplaces too, as the NHS do with hepatitis.
A couple from Hawaii recently flew from SF to Hawai'i with their 4 year old, allegedly knowing they'd tested positive. Hawai'i was not pleased: when the situation was discovered the airport where they landed, they were arrested. Reportedly, they're out on bail. No word on where the kid is.
How can they be out on bail it they're accused of spreading a disease?
Must be something we don't know.
The right to release on bail is guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. I'm also unsure that keeping them in a poorly ventilated jail with other prisoners and guards is a better solution from a disease control point of view.
I'm also unsure that keeping them in a poorly ventilated jail with other prisoners and guards is a better solution from a disease control point of view.
I think it's clear that jails are not a suitable environment for confining infectious people. House Arrest would seem like a far more suitable approach.
Of course, this probably also gives them what they want (we're sick, so we want to go home and stay in our house.)
I just hope they will allow firms to expect a vaccination certificate for use of their services, especially hotels and airlines - and workplaces too, as the NHS do with hepatitis.
You have to be careful how you manage this to avoid wading into a HIPAA minefield in the US. I think it might be possible to do (although I'm far from an expert), but I'm sure that it's easy to accidentally do it wrong.
I just hope they will allow firms to expect a vaccination certificate for use of their services, especially hotels and airlines - and workplaces too, as the NHS do with hepatitis.
You have to be careful how you manage this to avoid wading into a HIPAA minefield in the US. I think it might be possible to do (although I'm far from an expert), but I'm sure that it's easy to accidentally do it wrong.
I imagine when we Americans get the vaccine, we will be encouraged to sign a release of information to be issued a card verifying our innoculation. What we do with that card is our responsibility. HIPPA prevents medical organizations from releasing information to outside organizations, but it does not prevent individuals from sharing their information.
I imagine when we Americans get the vaccine, we will be encouraged to sign a release of information to be issued a card verifying our innoculation. What we do with that card is our responsibility. HIPPA prevents medical organizations from releasing information to outside organizations, but it does not prevent individuals from sharing their information.
And if all that the outside organization does is look at the card, and makes no record, then you're OK. If they record the fact in a database somewhere, that database becomes subject to HIPAA rules. I think.
... If that's correct, and if this age response is also present in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines which from what I can see were only tested on younger people, ....
My husband is 72 and they joyfully glommed on to him for the Moderna trials. I don't recall an upper age limit in either the Moderna or Pfizer criteria (I was Pfizer, but I'm in my 50s). You did have to be in stable and fairly decent health, though--not with some clearly deteriorating condition. So controlled diabetes would be okay, but not uncontrolled, and not declining health due to end-stage renal disease, etc. etc.
I'm also unsure that keeping them in a poorly ventilated jail with other prisoners and guards is a better solution from a disease control point of view.
I think it's clear that jails are not a suitable environment for confining infectious people. House Arrest would seem like a far more suitable approach.
Of course, this probably also gives them what they want (we're sick, so we want to go home and stay in our house.)
Quite likely. But then, this is just before the court date. They are still at risk of jail time/fines etc. so even if they got exactly what they wanted now by being given house arrest, there's still a reckoning to come. (Not to mention, they may be at risk of private lawsuits from fellow passengers, if any of them catch the bug and have managed to suss out their identity.)
I've now looked up the trial protocols, and there was an older cohort (55-85) for the Pfizer trial, I can't see anything about how many were in that group (but, there must have been enough for it to be meaningful otherwise why bother?). So, it looks like the comments when those results came out about efficacy for older people being uncertain were based on false information.
Well, their pics and names are being used in news, so if passengers recognize them...
Odd thing: I checked a couple Hawai'ian new sites (Honolulu Star Advertiser and something else.) HSA did have an article, but it was mostly pieced together from various news services. Basically said what Croesos' link said. (Thx, Croesos.) The other site had no mention of it, as far as I can find. Maybe this stirred up some kind of hornets' nest?
I've now looked up the trial protocols, and there was an older cohort (55-85) for the Pfizer trial, I can't see anything about how many were in that group (but, there must have been enough for it to be meaningful otherwise why bother?). So, it looks like the comments when those results came out about efficacy for older people being uncertain were based on false information.
I think I heard something like that, but it was about the half first dose subset of the AstraZeneca test, as you originally said.
As I understand it, each American individual will be given an immunization card so they can keep track of the time between the first shot and the second shot.
What if someone gets the first shot, but not the second? (E.g., essential worker on a difficult schedule, transportation problems, quarantining, etc. Supply runs out. Or simply forgetting.)
Is there such a thing as anti-viral resistance, like anti-biotic resistance? Would that be a danger if a bunch of people only got the first shot?
IANAS but I think the only dangers would be that a) you'd be more likely to catch it, with insufficiently strong immune response, and b) you'd therefore be more likely to spread it to other people. I don't think your half-armed system would do anything to change the virus while it was (God forbid) reproducing inside you, though I defer of course to the scientists among us.
The worst that can happen if you get the first shot but not the second is that you don't gain any immunity (ie: the same as not getting a shot at all) and you've wasted a set of shots that could have been given to someone else (that's less of an issue once the supply of vaccine is greater). Probably the first shot gives a low level of enhanced immune response which either is never very high or which fades very quickly, and hence the second shot is needed. It's interesting that all the trials used a double shot regime, which I assume means that the labs developing these vaccines knew that the first shot is largely ineffective (efficacy below the 50% that was the benchmark against which they'd been set).
In terms of how the virus responds, the worst case is a mutation that changes the proteins that the vaccines imitate. But, we're talking about a vaccine that primes the immune response so that it kicks in faster and hits harder, not something like an antibiotic - with an antibiotic the drug kills a bacterial infection directly (usually working in parallel to the immune system), and it's known that within a bacterial population there's a chance of some mutants being able to resist the drug, so a drug course needs to be completed to kill all the susceptible bacteria leaving the few resistant bacteria for the immune system to mop up. Yes, it's possible for a virus to mutate and become resistant to the immune response, but the immune system will then adapt (adapting an antibiotic means having some boffin develop a new drug ... nowhere near as rapid as our immune response). Intuitively, a 'half-armed' immune response from an incomplete vaccination course (which could, of course, include someone who gets infected between shots as well as those who miss out on the second) would be functionally little different from the immune system of someone who's not been vaccinated at all ... and we've had a year of the virus reproducing in the bodies of people with a 'half-armed' immune system and not seen significant mutation.
Multiple shot vaccination is actually fairly common: it
is the basis of the childhood immunization programme in the UK after all. Dragonlet 3 is due to have her initial ones in the next few weeks, and looking at the schedule there is only one vaccine she will only get once in the initial course of 3 visits. That's the Pneumococcal one which is repeated at 1 year old. I had the Polio/Tetanus/Pertussis etc one as a booster in pregnancy, but that was only one shot, to make sure my immune system was actively producing Whooping Cough antibodies I could pass on to her.
I don't know how time critical the second dose for Covid 19 is, but for babies, with the exception of Rotavirus, which can't be given after a certain point, the advice is that it doesn't matter if you have to delay any or all of the immunizations, you can just pick back up where you left off - I expect we'll be told similar with this one once it's on public release. They seem more concerned about being too early or too close together.
It's not uncommon to hear of people who don't develop protective antibodies after one or even 2 courses of immunisation against Hepatitis B. Is it known whether this is an issue with any of the Covid vaccines?
There will be people with unusual immune systems (and therefore unusual vaccine responses) no matter what you do, or what vaccine is under consideration. The hope is to make sure as many people as possible are able to benefit, but if a handful are not, it may not be due to some defect in the vaccine—just one of those things. (An inexact parallel—my system metabolizes morphine far too quickly for it to do me any good, but that is not a defect in the drug, just me belonging to an unusual population with that gene).
The main effect of a vaccine, any vaccine, is to immunise a sufficient proportion of the population that the resulting 'herd immunity' stops the transmission of the disease. The few who can't be vaccinated or don't gain immunity are protected because of everyone who gets the vaccine. We don't get vaccinated to protect ourselves, because we can never be certain that we've gained immunity from a vaccine, but to protect everyone.
The main effect of a vaccine, any vaccine, is to immunise a sufficient proportion of the population that the resulting 'herd immunity' stops the transmission of the disease. The few who can't be vaccinated or don't gain immunity are protected because of everyone who gets the vaccine. We don't get vaccinated to protect ourselves, because we can never be certain that we've gained immunity from a vaccine, but to protect everyone.
Well except for those like rabies or tetanus which don't spread human to human.
True, but not relevant for a disease that is spread between humans without a significant animal reservoir.
[In theory, if there was a way to distribute a rabies vaccine among the animals who also carry the virus then it would also be possible to protect everyone, human and animal, from rabies and eradicate the disease]
Someone pointed out the use of the term "herd immunity" may be a wrong image--of cows being lead to the slaughterhouse. He suggested a better term my be hive immunity though myself I hate to think of being something like a bee.
The news this morning showed the lady getting the first jag ... so, yes it's starting. At moment it looks like just covering hospitals (patients in the first priority group, vulnerable NHS staff and those administering the vaccinations). So, that means not needing to face the logistic issues of taking the vaccine away from the very cold hospital stores yet, and three weeks before needing to face the logistics of getting people back in for the second jag.
T: "See? We didn't need that nasty vaccine after all. So it's perfectly ok that my administration totally botched pre-ordering vaccine months ago. Didn't need it. No one needs it--unless they're not thinking positively (as my pastor Norman Vincent Peale taught me), not creating their own reality, etc. Of course, if a vaccine really WAS important, it would all go to ME--ok, maybe my family, too. But I'm smart and I always think positively. 'Cause I'm the ultimate winner--always have been, always am, always will be. Amen. And nyah-nyah nyah-nyah nyah nyah to you!"
Yup. Are you thinking they might back out, or that they might wind up with a placebo in a test?
The anti-vaxxers and conspiracy nuts will undoubtedly claim that the footage was faked / the vaccine wasn't real / they used body doubles or whatever other ludicrous claim allows them to keep peddling their nonsense.
Yes, this -- if you aren't predisposed to believing the medical profession then you are unlikely to be convinced by a bunch of politicians being injected on stage.
Doesn't help that the US gov't doesn't exactly have a sterling record of honesty. Don't have to be an anti-vaxxer to have some doubt and caution.
Several years back, there was a show on PBS about vaccines. All sorts of scientists and medical folk; but kept pretty calm and low-key. They were trying to help the general public understand. No insults nor poking fun. One person said that anti-vaxxers (specifically the ones who focus on autism, IIRC) aren't stupid or crazy--they're just scared.
Comments
Essentially yes. It simply makes policing social distancing easier if for a chunk of each day people aren't supposed to be out and about.
Though I also agree everybody leaving it until the last possible minute to go home partly defeats the purpose. You've had a similar effect every time any kind of border closure has been announced.
Starting with what happened in Italy: announce a lockdown of Milan and Lombardy is imminent, and a whole lot of people decide that they simply must rush out of Lombardy towards parts of Italy further south, promptly carrying the virus with them.
A couple from Hawaii recently flew from SF to Hawai'i with their 4 year old, allegedly knowing they'd tested positive. Hawai'i was not pleased: when the situation was discovered the airport where they landed, they were arrested. Reportedly, they're out on bail. No word on where the kid is.
Must be something we don't know.
"Former Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton volunteer to get coronavirus vaccine publicly to prove it's safe." (CNN)
Obama addresses one big reason many African-Americans are hesitant to get the vaccine: there's a long history of them being experimented on without knowledge or permission (look up "Tuskegee experiments" for one of the worst), and being otherwise mistreated by doctors. I think that's one of the reasons he's volunteered.
I think what the former presidents propose would be a good thing...provided the vaccine really is safe, and none of them has a bad reaction soon afterward. If not, many more people would be scared off.
But if it all goes well, many, many more people would get the vaccine.
Well done, guys.
And provided they actually get the vaccine.
The anti-vaxxers and conspiracy nuts will undoubtedly claim that the footage was faked / the vaccine wasn't real / they used body doubles or whatever other ludicrous claim allows them to keep peddling their nonsense.
We've had assorted government ministers & TV people offer to receive the vaccine live on TV. However, they would be well down the priority scale for the expected order of roll-out (the ones I'm thinking of would be 8th or 9th on a list of 9 levels...)
I guess Clinton & Bush might be higher up the priority list by virtue of age, but I doubt Obama would be. And therefore might not actually get the vaccine in the first tranche of a roll-out.
Maybe it was the earlier safety trials that only had one shot. Or, just that the error in some cases created sufficient confusion that things were also reported incorrectly.
I haven't looked, but I suspect Pfizer's test would have been similarly designed.
Yes, this -- if you aren't predisposed to believing the medical profession then you are unlikely to be convinced by a bunch of politicians being injected on stage.
Here's an article on this incident.
The right to release on bail is guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. I'm also unsure that keeping them in a poorly ventilated jail with other prisoners and guards is a better solution from a disease control point of view.
I think it's clear that jails are not a suitable environment for confining infectious people. House Arrest would seem like a far more suitable approach.
Of course, this probably also gives them what they want (we're sick, so we want to go home and stay in our house.)
You have to be careful how you manage this to avoid wading into a HIPAA minefield in the US. I think it might be possible to do (although I'm far from an expert), but I'm sure that it's easy to accidentally do it wrong.
I imagine when we Americans get the vaccine, we will be encouraged to sign a release of information to be issued a card verifying our innoculation. What we do with that card is our responsibility. HIPPA prevents medical organizations from releasing information to outside organizations, but it does not prevent individuals from sharing their information.
And if all that the outside organization does is look at the card, and makes no record, then you're OK. If they record the fact in a database somewhere, that database becomes subject to HIPAA rules. I think.
My husband is 72 and they joyfully glommed on to him for the Moderna trials. I don't recall an upper age limit in either the Moderna or Pfizer criteria (I was Pfizer, but I'm in my 50s). You did have to be in stable and fairly decent health, though--not with some clearly deteriorating condition. So controlled diabetes would be okay, but not uncontrolled, and not declining health due to end-stage renal disease, etc. etc.
Quite likely. But then, this is just before the court date. They are still at risk of jail time/fines etc. so even if they got exactly what they wanted now by being given house arrest, there's still a reckoning to come. (Not to mention, they may be at risk of private lawsuits from fellow passengers, if any of them catch the bug and have managed to suss out their identity.)
Well, their pics and names are being used in news, so if passengers recognize them...
Odd thing: I checked a couple Hawai'ian new sites (Honolulu Star Advertiser and something else.) HSA did have an article, but it was mostly pieced together from various news services. Basically said what Croesos' link said. (Thx, Croesos.) The other site had no mention of it, as far as I can find. Maybe this stirred up some kind of hornets' nest?
Is there such a thing as anti-viral resistance, like anti-biotic resistance? Would that be a danger if a bunch of people only got the first shot?
In terms of how the virus responds, the worst case is a mutation that changes the proteins that the vaccines imitate. But, we're talking about a vaccine that primes the immune response so that it kicks in faster and hits harder, not something like an antibiotic - with an antibiotic the drug kills a bacterial infection directly (usually working in parallel to the immune system), and it's known that within a bacterial population there's a chance of some mutants being able to resist the drug, so a drug course needs to be completed to kill all the susceptible bacteria leaving the few resistant bacteria for the immune system to mop up. Yes, it's possible for a virus to mutate and become resistant to the immune response, but the immune system will then adapt (adapting an antibiotic means having some boffin develop a new drug ... nowhere near as rapid as our immune response). Intuitively, a 'half-armed' immune response from an incomplete vaccination course (which could, of course, include someone who gets infected between shots as well as those who miss out on the second) would be functionally little different from the immune system of someone who's not been vaccinated at all ... and we've had a year of the virus reproducing in the bodies of people with a 'half-armed' immune system and not seen significant mutation.
is the basis of the childhood immunization programme in the UK after all. Dragonlet 3 is due to have her initial ones in the next few weeks, and looking at the schedule there is only one vaccine she will only get once in the initial course of 3 visits. That's the Pneumococcal one which is repeated at 1 year old. I had the Polio/Tetanus/Pertussis etc one as a booster in pregnancy, but that was only one shot, to make sure my immune system was actively producing Whooping Cough antibodies I could pass on to her.
I don't know how time critical the second dose for Covid 19 is, but for babies, with the exception of Rotavirus, which can't be given after a certain point, the advice is that it doesn't matter if you have to delay any or all of the immunizations, you can just pick back up where you left off - I expect we'll be told similar with this one once it's on public release. They seem more concerned about being too early or too close together.
[In theory, if there was a way to distribute a rabies vaccine among the animals who also carry the virus then it would also be possible to protect everyone, human and animal, from rabies and eradicate the disease]
Question to our UK people:
Has anyone gotten the vaccine yet? How is the vaccination program going over there?
He was even from Warwickshire, and had a suitable beard and moustache.
It seems the press and social media do too for the potential to pun about it.
He did look like the barb.
"Rudy Giuliani says 'you can overdo the mask' while in hospital for COVID-19 after ignoring mask-wearing and social distancing guidelines" (Yahoo).
Oh, and the Arizona capitol shut down due to his diagnosis, because he'd been there for a particularly bizarre election hearing.
"Trump says it's 'terrific' so many Americans have caught the coronavirus because it 'is a very powerful vaccine in itself'" (Business Insider, via Yahoo).
"I'm so glad I caught the virus. Otherwise I might have caught the virus!"
(Not an actual quote, but possibly accurate.)
Doesn't help that the US gov't doesn't exactly have a sterling record of honesty. Don't have to be an anti-vaxxer to have some doubt and caution.
Several years back, there was a show on PBS about vaccines. All sorts of scientists and medical folk; but kept pretty calm and low-key. They were trying to help the general public understand. No insults nor poking fun. One person said that anti-vaxxers (specifically the ones who focus on autism, IIRC) aren't stupid or crazy--they're just scared.