Earlier quoted context omitted.
The astrozenecca vaccine does!
I'm interested in unpopular opinions here. Do you have a source or details on this?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
301–310 of 436 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The astrozenecca vaccine does!
I'm interested in unpopular opinions here. Do you have a source or details on this?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an additional question that opens the door to all sorts of hidden exclusions: Were study participants given medical advice prior to participation? If I ask my doctor whether it is a "good idea" for me to participate in an investigational study like this, there are all number of reasons he may advise against. Those reasons form a defacto hidden list of exclusions. Would a doctor advise a patient with diabetes…
Isn't this why the results are compared against the control group?
Wonder what the trial exclusion criteria was...it’s not referenced in this article.
Are the trial participants exposed to the virus purposefully or is the result that none of participants developed covid just from regular daily living?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, vaccines can't really help immunocompromised people, as their immune system is simply unable to fight off any infection, regardless of whether it recognizes the infection or not (of course, this may be a matter of degrees). That is why, for example, people with advanced AIDS can die from essentially any pathogen.
They do help indirectly - by innoculating the 90% who can take a vaccine, the 10% who can't (for example babies when it comes to measles vaccines) are unlikely to actually catch the disease.
But basically no one gets severe Covid-19. I don't know anyone who has even tested positive.
How do they know that participants were exposed to Covid-19? Just simply through statistics?
https://twitter.com/tmprowell/status/1333442134553325569
I agree more testing could have been interesting, but this was a large trial with very clear results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think (from my parents and in-laws) that immunosuppression is normally associated with current cancer treatment. So, for example, it looks like this protocol would exclude people getting chemotherapy. Happy to be proven wrong on this by someone with more information.
And autoimmune conditions, robbing a list from wikipedia: celiac disease, diabetes mellitus type 1, Graves' disease, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. I don't know how many people with conditions take immunosuppression medication. I take it for arthritis and alopecia and have come across many people on similar meds for diabetes or other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's highly debatable. Also, obviously 'most' begs the question 'most by what?' if it's just by number, then that seems unlikely but possible. But most by weight, volume, or, more importantly, functionality - not really, that's definitely human cells.
Interestingly, you're right in that the "most of your cells are bacteria" point is a myth. I'm not a specialist, and fell for the pop-sci BS. Apparently the real ratio is closer to 1:1 ( https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bo... ), if we can trust Nature's summary of several recent articles. With regard to functionality, that's a very open question. We're constantly finding that features that di…
Still, related to the importance of bacteria, while I don't doubt that, as we learn more, we will discover that they have a bigger role than even dreamed 50 years ago, you still can't compare it to the basic roles of human organs. We have actually created microorganism-free mice and other organisms, and while they are not very healthy, they are fully functional (with bad digestion and big immune problems): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ-free_animal
FDA says Dec 17 meeting to discuss. This contradicts some earlier opinions that the reason the FDA was taking so long to review Pfizer (Dec 10 scheduled date) was that they were planning to review 2-3 candidates together. For context, scheduling the meeting to review the candidates is running at 5-10% of the development time for these vaccines. 20M vaccines represent about 1/3 the elderly population in the US, there…
This virus could have been much, much worse. Not to be insensitive, we (as a species) got off easy with the transmissibility of this virus and its mortality rate. Viruses such as the measles transmit so readily that a shedding individual breathing into a room will infect people who walk through that room up-to hours later (COVID-19's r-value is somewhere around 3; measles' is closer to 15). Viruses like the smallpox, thank god now thought to be eradicated, exhibit a mortality rate higher than 30% (versus COVID's ~0.5-3%). Viruses are genetically and physically capable of extraordinary destruction, and its impossible to predict when one will make that single mutation necessary to wipe out ten percent of the human population, just due to a genetic accident.
Moderna, at least, was able to develop this COVID vaccine in literally days; the rest was testing and regulation, which was certainly sped up comparative to the severity (or relative lack-there-of) of COVID. My fear is the next one. Let's say one day we get an actual super-virus which rampages through the population. More or less, we've got some amazing development platforms out there, production is difficult but solvable, but then we hit testing and regulation. Either the government stays the course with traditional testing, and tens of millions definitely die, or they expedite traditional testing even more than we did with COVID and hundreds of millions maybe die due to an unproven vaccine.
I'm not fooled for a second by the safety claims behind these COVID vaccines. To be clear: I will still get one the moment I'm able to. But I'm going in fully aware that these companies have little idea what this vaccine is going to do to the human body in four years, in N% of patients, or how it will react with the millions of different medications people take, in different combinations, or how some weird little genetic abnormality in 0.5% of the population may affect its efficacy. There's no new safety & testing processes which enabled them to productionize this vaccine in ten months; they're just forgoing long-term studies (and getting liability waivers in the process).
Its 2020; we launch rockets to outer space every day then recover and reuse them, half the population carries in their pocket a computer capable of accessing all the world's information instantly and performing trillions of calculations per second on it, and our best-in-class state-of-the-art method of testing vaccine interactions on the human body is still "hey, uh, do you wanna come in and we're going to inject you with this thing and you tell us if you get covid, ok? we'll pay you a hundred bucks."
I believe three things very strongly: (1) the medical research community should be proud of the incredible results they've achieved in vaccine research; the speed at which Moderna and others were able to produce the first iteration of this thing is right on the money, but (2) they should also be critically ashamed of the lack of progress we've made in being able to expedite testing despite the insane and incomprehensible technology every sector around them has provided to help. (3) Fixing this needs to be humanity's number 1 priority. This is life or death for our species. Our goal should be from viral sequencing to a reasonably safe production-ready vaccine in two weeks.