Turn on the english cc:
Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]
- Thread starter RDGoodla
- Start date
digitalwanderer
Legend
Were you aware before you posted the video that I happen to own not only a black jeep but now TWO black jeeps? :|
(Although tbh I sort of agree with the guy, they're both my wife's Jeeps. SHHHHH, big seeekret!
)
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Doctors are not allowed to prescribe Ivermectin. If found to prescribe, they can lose their medical license.
https://www.news24.com/news24/south...commend-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19-20210721
Coincidence. I swear!!!111onesoneoneWere you aware before you posted the video that I happen to own not only a black jeep but now TWO black jeeps? :|
View attachment 5749
(Although tbh I sort of agree with the guy, they're both my wife's Jeeps. SHHHHH, big seeekret!
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant | NEJM
Nice!
Last edited:
Ivermectin is the new HCQ.
Read an account of some of the mild cases of breakthroughs. One reporter said he had fever and muscle ache for about one and a half days. But these mild breakthrough cases can last several days. So maybe the antibodies aren't as effective and B and T cells take several days to fight off and clear the virus?
That might bolster the case of Pfizer and others advocating for boosters 6 months out. Maybe higher antibody levels prevent replication earlier so that B and T cells don't even get engaged.
Delta is said to produce 1000x viral loads in infections so it maybe be that antibody titers are not high enough, several months out after vaccination, to prevent some of these "mild" breakthroughs.
In particular maybe not enough neutralizing antibodies in the nasopharyngeal linings where the virus would land first. There was a lot of talk last year about developing vaccines or antivirals (such as nano antibodies or other small molecule agents) directly to nasopharyngeal linings through inhalers.
I don't know if those development efforts have been dropped because of relative success of vaccines.
Here's the most recent thing I could find about UCSF Aeronabs, though it's a magazine article touting the technology more than anything else.
https://magazine.ucsf.edu/two-billion-nanobodies-one-global-pandemic-go
But it alludes to difficulties finding industry partners to commercialize:
The case for nano antibodies is that they're cheaper to manufacture, transport and store, not to mention an inhaler makes it possible to self-administer, compared to vaccines or monoclonal antibodies which require infusion in a hospital or some specific facility.
Yet UCSF is struggling to find takers:
Read an account of some of the mild cases of breakthroughs. One reporter said he had fever and muscle ache for about one and a half days. But these mild breakthrough cases can last several days. So maybe the antibodies aren't as effective and B and T cells take several days to fight off and clear the virus?
That might bolster the case of Pfizer and others advocating for boosters 6 months out. Maybe higher antibody levels prevent replication earlier so that B and T cells don't even get engaged.
Delta is said to produce 1000x viral loads in infections so it maybe be that antibody titers are not high enough, several months out after vaccination, to prevent some of these "mild" breakthroughs.
In particular maybe not enough neutralizing antibodies in the nasopharyngeal linings where the virus would land first. There was a lot of talk last year about developing vaccines or antivirals (such as nano antibodies or other small molecule agents) directly to nasopharyngeal linings through inhalers.
I don't know if those development efforts have been dropped because of relative success of vaccines.
Here's the most recent thing I could find about UCSF Aeronabs, though it's a magazine article touting the technology more than anything else.
https://magazine.ucsf.edu/two-billion-nanobodies-one-global-pandemic-go
But it alludes to difficulties finding industry partners to commercialize:
The case for nano antibodies is that they're cheaper to manufacture, transport and store, not to mention an inhaler makes it possible to self-administer, compared to vaccines or monoclonal antibodies which require infusion in a hospital or some specific facility.
Yet UCSF is struggling to find takers:
digitalwanderer
Legend
I figured, but it was too funny not to mention. It cracked me up pretty hard, so thank you.
I'm awaiting my test results, 1-2 days of being lazy with an excuse! (I'm not as worried if I test positive since I've been vaccinated since May, might be stupid but it is what it is)
Thanks for the link to the article about Aeronabs. I read about them last year but assumed the tech was still under development. From what I've previously read, the nanobodies would be very effective as a short-term prophylactic against infection, but the article seems to indicate they would also be useful as an early treatment. If this is the case, it beggars belief that none of the big pharma companies have taken an interest. Heck, you'd be guaranteed to sell hundreds of millions of doses per year for the foreseeable future if everybody (in wealthier countries, at least), were to be given a dose upon receipt of a positive test. Would obviously depend upon efficacy. I wonder if there is some part of the story which we've not yet heard. Even if it was only a prophylactic effect, it would be a great way to squash outbreaks - give everybody in a town a nanobody inhaler to use for a week and you'd see outbreaks squashed extremely quickly.
If Big Pharma won't touch it, this is the sort of research that the likes of Bill Gates or other billionaire philanthropists should be funding.
If Big Pharma won't touch it, this is the sort of research that the likes of Bill Gates or other billionaire philanthropists should be funding.
There's likely to be some variation in the proteins generally being targeted, since it's less likely a variant would become a variant of concern if it could be just as easily targeted with existing antibodies. The spike protein is more restricted in terms of how it can change before it ceases to effectively target its receptor, which may explain why mRNA vaccines seem retain their effectiveness better, and why vaccines that present additional proteins or natural infection may provide less reliable responses to variants.
There was some indication that health experts didn't see this as being a good investment of resources versus vaccinating more people, however in places like the US where there's a pathological political element capping vaccination rates, fighting for every percentage point of effectiveness may make what some call a profit-seeking method the best of a range of non-ideal choices for protecting the population that doesn't have a choice.
Antibody counts do drop over time, it's something of a question of how persistent the memory T-cells are as well. It seems as if this category of threat is one the immune system does not prioritize for long-term immunity, possibly because they generally tend to be highly variable nuisances. If Delta is that more prolific, then the lag between when the relevant cells detect and then replicate to large-enough numbers to handle orders of magnitude more viruses makes sense to me.
Could be conservative decision makers at companies, or maybe some kind of risk-reward calculation for an unproven technology or unclear patent/license costs.
Inhaled treatments could go under additional scrutiny, as how the lungs react to otherwise safe substances can be surprising and potentially devastating. For example, the rash of deaths related to vitamin E acetate being used to cut THC vaping solutions a while back.
Pandemic-control methods like vaccines are not particularly profitable. Big Pharma partnered with smaller companies that had techniques they weren't pursuing in the absence of a pandemic and the largess of national governments. mRNA vaccines as a concept were lacking uptake after Ebola or SARS/MERS outbreaks flamed out, and I recall I had some reservations of some of the smaller players (including Moderna I think) because their limited records for that kind of vaccine were very poor.
Perhaps if much more time had passed at that rate, even the small pool of proponents would have been gone.
I can see the why a vaccine would be preferable versus an inhaled prophylactic, since the former is like having a prophylactic where the patient automatically knows they need to administer, and dosing would be more reliable versus trying to get a whole population to hold to a dosing schedule. Even potentially life-saving mediations can see missed or improperly timed doses even among the limited number of people who should be the most motivated to take them. A more nebulous threat and an even greater time imposition than one or two injections would likely see poor uptake or maintenance of a schedule over even short durations.
It's also possible that there are more risks to widespread inhalant use versus vaccines.
One example I can think of is nasal allergy treatments or zinc, which can have long-term effects such as worsening baseline symptoms in the absence of allergy medication or nasal damage in the case of zinc. Widespread application of protein solutions to the lungs as a preventative measure may bring out side-effects on a broad scale.
Smoking and vaping are the inhalants I can think of that have more consistent application by their users, but people want or are compelled to take them despite often more devastating and likely long-term effects.
WARNING: Horrible cynical statements follow.
Tragically, the most effective way of dealing with that is letting it play out with possibly an even more effective variant. On a long enough timeline that should sort itself out. There simply won't be anyone left alive who follows such pathological political elements.
If the consequences could be restricted to just those that willingly chose such a path, perhaps. I am concerned for the portion of the population that cannot be vaccinated or may be unable to mount a strong enough immune response.
There is also the matter of those whose health is in the power of those who are part of that pathological element such as children, relatives being cared for, etc.
There are also a dwindling number of those hesitant who might be reachable, but not if those in power block such efforts. Since there is a marked disparity in outcomes among poor and minority populations, potentially due to other inequities, the disproportionate outcome can be politically profitable even if one's own base will suffer somewhat as well.
Any institutional population, given the vagaries of oversight between jurisdictions and the more general level of cost-cutting or retribution/cruelty: prisons, jails, immigration centers, elderly, hospitals, shelters, camps, etc.
While I think there's an expectation that most medical centers will mandate vaccination, despite a vocal minority that have lost lawsuits to prevent this, outlier sites or home care companies seem to be willing to hire and use the unvaccinated despite their supplying care to those most imperiled by the disease.
Also, it seems most likely that the most successful variant is one that is contagious among the unvaccinated but also reliably breaks through existing immunity. One of the challenges for controlling certain pandemic diseases is the existence of an infectious reservoir, such as another species. Perhaps overly cynical, but there hasn't been much planning for a swath of the population to purposefully make themselves a reservoir.
A possible endgame is that there will be some super-contagious variant of COVID19, but hopefully one that is more of a nuisance like most other coronaviruses. If that virus happens to provide decent immunity to more deadly strains, then for most of the population except the immunocompromised or elderly, the virus becomes a lesser concern as the more contagious one crowds out other viruses. I'm not sure if a virus that targets the systems it does can become that innocuous, though.
digitalwanderer
Legend
Just a happy update, I think I just got the flu.
digitalwanderer
Legend
OMG WHAT ABOUT HIPPA REGULATIONS?!?!?
Well Pfizer may prefer to tout boosters for rich countries because they already have the infrastructure in place to make billions of doses a year. So it doesn't require that much more investment from them but they could yield more return on what they've already invested if they could convince nations with relatively high vaccination rates to go for boosters.
Certainly it would require big investment to fund going through trials with nano antibodies, which aren't a sure thing because they may cause adverse reactions, even if they were as effective as advertised.
And they'd have to build up new infrastructure to manufacture them.
But I think there was always a question whether these intramuscular vaccines would produce enough antibodies for the nasopharyngeal linings, which is Ground Zero for when respiratory infections take hold. That is why a complement to vaccines might be effective, to fight the virus at the landing spot, before it can establish a beachhead and infect other parts, like the lungs and then other organs.
A booster would also have a much shorter regulatory and safety path versus a novel treatment method or a new vaccine. It's a relatively low-risk source of additional revenue, but it may become more important if the threshold for herd immunity keeps rising and the anti-vaccination contingent remains numerous.
They might not, or at least not to catch an initial wave of viral reproduction. However, the main goal for vaccination is the avoidance of serious illness/death resulting from broader spread, which intramuscular vaccines seem to handle well.
Having a complement for treatment, assuming exposure/infection are caught soon enough for the timing window to not be missed, would be good. The overall benefit is sort of at the margins of what a vaccine would handle, which cuts into the overall market for it, unfortunately.
Yesterday I got the THIRD shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
It is a unique continuation of the trial to see how effective the third shot is.
I think this trial is ten times smaller (number of people) than the previous one.
It will go up to 2023.
My guess is I received the placebo (50% chance) since I had absolut no reaction this time.
No problem for me, and in the future, I will have it if I want.
It is a unique continuation of the trial to see how effective the third shot is.
I think this trial is ten times smaller (number of people) than the previous one.
It will go up to 2023.
My guess is I received the placebo (50% chance) since I had absolut no reaction this time.
No problem for me, and in the future, I will have it if I want.
That's kind of the narrative now, avoid serious disease or worse.
But I don't recall it that way last year, while the vaccines were in development. It was more like "well if vaccines reduce covid to a cold, with little or no possibility of anything more serious, I'll take that deal."
That implied they were hoping for total protection.
Covid vaccine: Eight-week gap seen as sweet spot for Pfizer jab antibodies
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57929953
Surely they could of tested this very early on, eg december last year
vaccinate 100k ppl dose 1
2 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
3 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
4 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
5 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
6 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
etc
in 3/4/5/6 etc months test how many antibodies exist
instead of going yeah 3 weeks thats cool for everyone(*) , perhaps now most ppl (like myself) will have to have a 3rd dose cause the first 2 were to close together
(*)I assume they were thinking the short term goal, trying to limit the spread as soon as possible and not thinking of the long term
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57929953
Surely they could of tested this very early on, eg december last year
vaccinate 100k ppl dose 1
2 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
3 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
4 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
5 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
6 weeks later vaccinate 10k ppl dose 2
etc
in 3/4/5/6 etc months test how many antibodies exist
instead of going yeah 3 weeks thats cool for everyone(*) , perhaps now most ppl (like myself) will have to have a 3rd dose cause the first 2 were to close together
(*)I assume they were thinking the short term goal, trying to limit the spread as soon as possible and not thinking of the long term
Fair enuf, but this was known months ago,
now of course in the west theres plenty of vaccines so its not so relative
On a positive piece of news the olympics have now officially started,
as the topless vaseline tongan man has entered the stadium
fuck the lighting of the cauldron, the olympics only really starts when he enters carrying the flag oiled up
Sure there has been a lot of balls ups along the way, but in the future when they study it, I expect they will find when they computer model it that a lot more lives could of been saved if they tried to get everyone dosed with a single shot ASAP before they started on the second dose (front line staff excepted) get the R0 number lower = less ppl getting infected
now of course in the west theres plenty of vaccines so its not so relative
On a positive piece of news the olympics have now officially started,
as the topless vaseline tongan man has entered the stadium
fuck the lighting of the cauldron, the olympics only really starts when he enters carrying the flag oiled up
I'm not sure how what you have in quotes contradicts the position that vaccines primarily focus on avoiding serious illness and death?
If the "broader spread" in my statement is unclear, I my intended meaning was that broader spread in the body beyond the nasal tissues is what leads to serious illness and death, meaning that even if the initial point of infection is not optimally protected, the subsequent damage beyond is mitigated well enough.
I'm not sure where the total protection narrative would be derived from. The initial trials showed results that where the vaccines were significantly more effective than some expected, given examples like the influenza vaccine. However, they had non-zero infection rates and symptomatic cases. Some early test groups did have no deaths, but that wasn't expected to be the case generally.