Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Or am I misunderstanding the relation between contagiousness and viral activity?
I don't think it's that simple. Studies have shown that children rarely develop COVID symptoms when infected, but that they are still almost as contagious as adults.
-
Oh well. I shall go back to not understanding electricity then. It seems less depressing.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Oh well. I shall go back to not understanding electricity then. It seems less depressing.
At least it has a lot of shocking puns.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
this new strain appears to be more contagious than the previous UK one (which was itself significantly more contagious than the "old" one) and spreading rapidly.
It makes me wonder how well behaviour is separated from proper transmissibility in The Science™, seeing as far fewer people give a shit about the restrictions now especially as they just want to get on with their lives on the run up to Christmas.
-
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
It makes me wonder how well behaviour is separated from proper transmissibility in The Science™
It's not at all separated.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Oh well. I shall go back to not understanding electricity then. It seems less depressing.
Recently I tried to explain to my sister and then to my mom how three-way switches work, and they both noped out.
-
@izzion said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Unless we take a more Chinese approach to our statistics, I supposeOr a more Chinese approach to lockdowns!
Nailing doors shut, anyone?
-
@PotatoEngineer Not any more:
-
-
-
@HardwareGeek said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@PotatoEngineer Not any more:
-
I'm usually opposed to the use of Autotune, but in that case I'd allow it.
-
@Zerosquare Maybe, but I prefer just not listening to it. The only good Tyson is on a barbecue.
-
Let's delay the second dose of the vaccine for some people by a couple of months despite the manufacturer saying it's not designed to be used that way, and let's do it for people with appointments already because the staff at doctor surgeries have nothing more important to do.
Pfizer/BioNTech said that their vaccine was not designed to be used in two shots 12 weeks apart. In a statement, the firms said there was no evidence the first shot continued to work beyond three weeks.
“Data from the phase 3 study demonstrated that, although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95%. There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days,” they said.
-
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days,” they said.
More importantly, perhaps: Is there data to demonstrate that it doesn't?
-
@boomzilla I wouldn’t, eh, release untested software to production.
-
@Grunnen I just find the two dose thing interesting. Did they test a single dose? There were probably people who didn't make it for their second shot, but then they probably also lost surveillance on them, too.
But it's very different if they just gave everyone two doses and don't know anything about how well a single dose works vs actually trying that with some people and seeing a real difference.
-
@boomzilla they did test a single dose (just by virtue of there being 3 weeks until the next). Single doses were also somewhat effective (at least for the BioNTech one) after ten days but less so than two doses, which achieved the often repeated 95%.
I assume there is simply no data available on the effectiveness of doing the second dose after 12 weeks instead of 3, but since there’s one procedure that’s proven to work and one that’s basically “maybe, maybe not, nobody knows” it’s basically playing a double or nothing lottery.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But it's very different if they just gave everyone two doses and don't know anything about how well a single dose works
Pfizer/BioNTech said they'd only tested two doses up to 3 weeks apart.
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
actually trying that with some people
They're trying it with everyone now. It'll be a thorough experiement, at least.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I assume there is simply no data available on the effectiveness of doing the second dose after 12 weeks instead of 3, but since there’s one procedure that’s proven to work and one that’s basically “maybe, maybe not, nobody knows” it’s basically playing a double or nothing lottery.
Yeah, all that is what I figured. I just hate the language used by the news people. Murray Gell-Mann could not be reached for comment.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I assume there is simply no data available on the effectiveness of doing the second dose after 12 weeks instead of 3, but since there’s one procedure that’s proven to work and one that’s basically “maybe, maybe not, nobody knows” it’s basically playing a double or nothing lottery.
Yeah, all that is what I figured. I just hate the language used by the news people. Murray Gell-Mann could not be reached for comment.
The idea at least seems reasonable on the surface. It could be anything from idiotic to strongly advisable if we had further insight on how likely the effect of the first dose is to wear off until the second. I assume they don’t know either but do have more educated guesses than we do.
-
@topspin The other question is how long the vaccine provides protection (with two doses). There are estimates that range from over a year, to about six months all the way down to three months (though that one seems unlikely?). If it's about or less than six months ... well, that will interesting.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
If it's about or less than six months ... well, that will interesting.
Should still be fine in the long term. (2022+) Just another shot during flu season, then. After all, you don't need anywhere near the whole population to be immune to prevent or significantly slow down a pandemic and mass production capacity and the number of vendors will increase over time.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I assume there is simply no data available on the effectiveness of doing the second dose after 12 weeks instead of 3, but since there’s one procedure that’s proven to work and one that’s basically “maybe, maybe not, nobody knows” it’s basically playing a double or nothing lottery.
Yeah, all that is what I figured. I just hate the language used by the news people. Murray Gell-Mann could not be reached for comment.
The idea at least seems reasonable on the surface. It could be anything from idiotic to strongly advisable if we had further insight on how likely the effect of the first dose is to wear off until the second. I assume they don’t know either but do have more educated guesses than we do.
The more I think about it the more I think that it should have been part of the testing. This isn't a "normal" vaccine. It's much more time sensitive than normal with potentially huge ramifications for being able to vaccinate more people quickly.
Basically the difference between depth vs breadth first. There must be some marginal improvement by second dose that makes the strategies fairly equal in terms of deaths or cases or whatever, and it's probably different for all of those, but it exists.
The idea (like so many) seems obvious once it's there but I don't recall hearing anything about that sort of tradeoff.
Then there was the Oxford (?...might be another group's but I'll assume it was them for this post at least) vaccine that uses two doses of an adenovirus based vaccine, somewhat like the Russian vaccine. Except the Oxford guys used the same host for both doses but the Russians used different ones, and it turns out the Oxford vaccine is a bit more effective if one of the doses is actually a half dose. Which they only learned because of a mistake! The explanation I've heard is that people's immune systems target the host more than the COVID stuff.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The more I think about it the more I think that it should have been part of the testing.
Usually the testing phase for a vaccine is much longer, so I assume they only could run the most fundamental tests.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The more I think about it the more I think that it should have been part of the testing.
Usually the testing phase for a vaccine is much longer, so I assume they only could run the most fundamental tests.
Well, it amounts to giving a group the first real dose and then a placebo second dose. But yes, it occurred to me that they might not have thought they'd be able to get proper sample sizes with another treatment to deal with.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The other question is how long the vaccine provides protection (with two doses).
By default, several years (because that's the average lifespan of the relevant immune cells). That'll be modified by how quickly the virus mutates in the areas that the immune cells detect; in some diseases this is the dominant factor. The 21 days inter-dose interval for Pfizer's treatment plan is largely determined by the biology of B lymphocytes in humans.
-
-
@Zerosquare I didn't look too far into that Twitter thread () but assuming that cases just means positive tests then they're testing more kids here than they were whether they're symptomatic or not.
-
The Oxford/AstraZeneca was actually tested with an interval of up to 12 weeks.
EDIT: the link to which came from this Twitter thread...
-
@loopback0 linked to:
- Short term vaccine efficacy from the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is calculated at around 90%, short term vaccine efficacy from the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine is calculated at around 70% (efficacy estimates are not directly comparable between the two vaccines)
- Given the high level of protection afforded by the first dose, models suggest that initially vaccinating a greater number of people with a single dose will prevent more deaths and hospitalisations than vaccinating a smaller number of people with two doses
- The second dose is still important to provide longer lasting protection and is expected to be as or more effective when delivered at an interval of 12 weeks from the first dose
The last point seems to be the key unknown here, considering it says “is expected to be”. Haven’t read beyond the abstract yet to see what their reasoning is based on.
If they’re correct with that assumption, which wasn’t tested for the BioNTech vaccine, then it does seem to optimize the vaccination benefits.
-
Maybe they're right, but at this point I'd trust the (limited) real-world testing more than the "models suggest" and "is expected to" hypotheses.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
If they’re correct with that assumption, which wasn’t tested for the BioNTech vaccine, then it does seem to optimize the vaccination benefits.
The twitter thread linked to another one, which catches onto the point I was hitting:
U.S. is now considering idea of a single vaccination shot, delaying shot #2 until months later. Last wk, I thought that was a bad idea – the trials that found 95% efficacy were 2 shots; why add extra complexity & a new curveball. But facts on the ground demand a rethink. (1/7)
The two main changes are the slower-than-expected vaccine rollout and the new variant virus being found in the U.S. Both demand that we turbocharge the process of getting a large chunk of the population at least partly protected. (2/7)
Here's my back-of-the-envelope math:
-
Single shot seems to be about 80% protective after a month
-
2nd shot adds some efficacy (up to 95% protective), and maybe (tho not yet proven) some durability.
-
New variant is here, and undoubtedly far more widespread than we know. (3/7)
-
Variant is ~55% more infectious than old one. Even though it's not more deadly, this means that if we engage in same behaviors, many more will get Covid & thus far more will die. UK shows that once here, it spreads fast.
-
We seem incapable of changing behavior very much. (4/7)
-
As has been widely reported, the roll-out is going far slower than we hoped.
-
According to most vaccine experts, delaying shot #2 by a few months is unlikely to materially diminish the ultimate effectiveness of two shots (critical point; we should be testing to be sure). (5/7)
Taken together, if we have vaccine doses to distribute in Jan-Apr, it seems increasingly evident that a strategy of getting as many people (particularly high-risk) their first shot ASAP will save far more lives than sticking with the two shot plan. (6/7)
Far better to have 100M people who are 80% protected than 50M people who are 95% protected, particularly as we are facing a foe that is getting smarter and nastier. Or at least it seems that way to me. You? (7/7)
-
-
@boomzilla 80% is quite a lot. I think I read in the initial responses to 95% that they were only hoping for 60%.
-
@PleegWat Fauci had previously said that he'd be in favor of approval if he got a vaccine with 50%. That's a lot better than 0% after all.
-
@boomzilla True. But unfortunately recent history has cause me to develop a knee-jerk reaction, "If Fauci says it, it must be wrong."
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
By default, several years (because that's the average lifespan of the relevant immune cells).
Antiviral response should be T-lymphocyte based, no?
T-lymphocytes are the ones that terminate cells that replicate a virus. Since they are selected in thymus, and that only exists during childhood, their average lifespan must be (and is) the rest of person's life. B-lymphocytes are the ones that release specific antibodies, and my understanding is that while essential against extra-celular parasites (bacteria), they are not particularly effective against viruses.
Also, I believe all antiviral vaccines are indeed good for the rest of life (possibly requiring two initial shots due to the complexity of the T-cell activation mechanism). This is true even for the flu vaccine; the problem there is simply that flu mutates fast enough that next year's flu is no longer recognized as the same intruder, but if the same strain made rounds many years later, the old vaccine shot should still work against it.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Antiviral response should be T-lymphocyte based, no?
I couldn't be bothered to check, so maybe?
Filed under: I'll let someone else be the expert
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Also, I believe all antiviral vaccines are indeed good for the rest of life
At least for Hepatitis the vaccination should be refreshed after 10 years.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Also, I believe all antiviral vaccines are indeed good for the rest of life
At least for Hepatitis the vaccination should be refreshed after 10 years.
In Germany, all vaccines must be refreshed (except tuberculosis, but apparently tuberculosis vaccination is not being done at all ).
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
apparently tuberculosis vaccination is not being done at all
I just checked, the offical reasoning (Google translate):
Tuberculosis vaccination in Germany? What options are there if the vaccination is required for a stay abroad?
The BCG-Vaccination against tuberculosis has not been recommended by the Standing Vaccination Commission (STIKO) at the Robert Koch Institute since 1998. Reasons: favorable epidemiological situation in Germany with a low risk of infection in the population, a protective effectiveness of 50-80% depending on age and the type of illness, and not infrequently undesirable side effects (attenuated live vaccine). This corresponds to the recommendations of the WHO, which has suggested that no general BCG vaccination should be carried out in populations whose risk of infection for tuberculosis is below 0.1%. A vaccine is no longer approved for this indication in Germany; Vaccine is available internationally.Due to different epidemiological circumstances, this situation is to be assessed differently in other countries and so a number of countries require this vaccination for long-term stays, e.g. in schools or universities.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Also, I believe all antiviral vaccines are indeed good for the rest of life
At least for Hepatitis the vaccination should be refreshed after 10 years.
In Germany, all vaccines must be refreshed (except tuberculosis, but apparently tuberculosis vaccination is not being done at all ).
Does not seem to be the case here. Turberculosis is refreshed once after I think 10 years and then the only other thing the doctor offered me to refresh was tetanus, which is bacterial. Which means also not the hepatitis, which has been more than 10 years too (I had two shots one year apart, but then wasn't asked if I want to refresh it after 10 years).
-
@topspin quoted in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
low risk of infection in the population
Maybe it's just my ignorance of medical sciences, but this sounds to me like the dumbest fucking reason ever to stop vaccination. You don't disable unit tests just because all tests passed.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Also, I believe all antiviral vaccines are indeed good for the rest of life
At least for Hepatitis the vaccination should be refreshed after 10 years.
In Germany, all vaccines must be refreshed (except tuberculosis, but apparently tuberculosis vaccination is not being done at all ).
Does not seem to be the case here. Turberculosis is refreshed once after I think 10 years and then the only other thing the doctor offered me to refresh was tetanus, which is bacterial. Which means also not the hepatitis, which has been more than 10 years too (I had two shots one year apart, but then wasn't asked if I want to refresh it after 10 years).
Yeah, most of these vaccines were supposed to be life-long (in 1970s).
Btw as @topspin already wrote, tuberculosis is now not considered "necessary". My sister still wanted to get her daughter vaccinated (2012 I think), but apparently she would have to get some special permission from Epidemiology Department of Central Public Health Office, so
Maybe it's time to found new crackpot group: Pro-Vaxxers
-
@Gąska it's a cost-benefit analysis, I assume. Consider the other points about efficacy (50%-80%) and frequent side effects (live vaccine).
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin quoted in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
low risk of infection in the population
Maybe it's just my ignorance of medical sciences, but this sounds to me like the dumbest fucking reason ever to stop vaccination. You don't disable unit tests just because all tests passed.
No. All medical interventions come with a chance of side-effects, in contrast to unit tests.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin quoted in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
low risk of infection in the population
Maybe it's just my ignorance of medical sciences, but this sounds to me like the dumbest fucking reason ever to stop vaccination. You don't disable unit tests just because all tests passed.
Unit tests cost almost nothing (to keep around once developed), but the cost of a vaccine for everybody is considerable (plus the already mentioned risk of side-effects). If the disease has almost disappeared, it becomes cheaper to cure the few that do get it with antibiotics—which do work against turberculosis—than keeping everybody vaccinated.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin quoted in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
low risk of infection in the population
Maybe it's just my ignorance of medical sciences, but this sounds to me like the dumbest fucking reason ever to stop vaccination.
Once the rate of infection of the disease is low enough in a population, the probability of dangerous side effects from the vaccine exceeds the protection benefits. At that point, it really doesn't make sense to keep vaccinating; you're doing more harm than good. And with any medical intervention (especially including anything injected or prescription-only drugs) side effects are a real concern. More targeted vaccinations may well still be useful, of course.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
anything injected
... and see the side effects in the placebo group of the BioNTech vaccine - they got some saline injected:
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Also, I believe all antiviral vaccines are indeed good for the rest of life
At least for Hepatitis the vaccination should be refreshed after 10 years.
I don't think that is standard in the US. Maybe because of a different method since they give them to children. So there may be multiple shots. Once my pediatrician explained why kids get the hepatitis vaccine I largely just follow the pediatrician's schedule (which probably comes from the CDC).
I'm pretty sure the only one we commonly get every 10 years is the DTap (Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis-whooping cough). I got one at 8 months pregnant (which may have been less than 10 years since my last one), the child get some protection after birth.