The biology of coronavirus COVID-19 - including research and treatments

Wits_End said:
I think that's still a "may be" rather than a definite "is" at the moment, isn't it?

I'm pleased to see, though, that the UK Government's advisers are taking advice from elsewhere and having a rethink about waiting up to 12 weeks to administer the booster shot: it sounds as though that may be brought down to about half that, which I think I'd be rather happier with.
Click to expand...

"Realistic possibility" they said, while settling in for a long sit on the fence. Presumably they feel duty bound to report adverse findings ASAP.

The three UK analyses appear to based on the same data set which nervtag say has "limitations".

The BBC News article I saw this morning said the variant data was gathered for 8% of known infections, which leaves 92% unknown. We spectators have no way of knowing whether there are any systematic biases in the data gathering. Independent data from other countries about the same variants should help to clarify eventually, might take a while.

The booster shot is being discussed this morning by the BBC in relation to "senior doctors" calling for frontline health workers to get the booster on time to ensure their immunity.

If the UK variant has evolved higher infectivity then it is significant for the delayed booster strategy which, as the "pissed off virologist" discussed, will increase the population of active virus under high selection pressure for vaccine survival, making it more likely that vaccine resistant variants will evolve, along the same lines as antibiotic resistance, by which logic its best to complete the course as it were and knock the virus out with maximum efficacy wherever vaccines are employed.
 
I've read the article, it suggests to me that the consent process was clear. Just because he's been offered the approved vaccine now and refuses it doesn't mean he can't have it later if it turns out the results of the trial he was in are not very good. The results are due next month anyway, so not long to wait. I think he's making more of an issue of this than he needs to.

Edited to correct gender of the author.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
I've read the article, it suggests to me that the consent process was clear. Just because she's been offered the approved vaccine now and refuses it doesn't mean she can't have it later if it turns out the results of the trial she was in are not very good. The results are due next month anyway, so not long to wait. I think she's making more of an issue of this than she needs to.
Click to expand...

I agree that HE is. In fact he's a writer and it's not the first article he has written about the experience of being a trial participant. Maybe having an article accepted has replaced a usual source of income and reflecting on his personal responses informs his writing.

I was just surprised that he did not seem to know the consequences of being involved in a vaccine trial. I would have thought it would have been explained that if a different successful vaccine was found and approved, the MHRA does not advise vaccination with it immediately ie it recommends waiting for the results of the trial in which he is participating because there is no research evidence of the effects of being double vaccinated.

.( "Because of this lack of knowledge, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MRHA) advises those in a vaccine study not to take an approved vaccine.")

I read it as a personal experience story (and the idiosyncrasies of one's reactions) rather than a science based one but did think the MHRA advice would have been explained. Perhaps it was but was then forgotten, or he really wanted to have had the placebo so that he could have the Oxford vaccine and know where he stood.
 
The writer seems to have lost the plot at the end. One can only really sympathise with an attempt to argue through a complex situation if the argument makes sense.

It is interesting that he says that: Because of this lack of knowledge, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MRHA) advises those in a vaccine study not to take an approved vaccine.

This must be unethical. It is completely against the principle that someone in a trial can do whatever they want when they want. IN fact the author's statement does not make sense and betrays a failure of logic. Whatever the MHRA said it was not because of a lack of knowledge. it might have been because of a desire to avoid overuse of vaccines but it is far from clear.



Then at the end he calls a friend who seems to provide the same irrational argument - that he should not have the proven vaccine because there is uncertainty. But there isn't uncertainty about the proven vaccine. It seems to me either that the scientist friend should have. been a bit clearers or that the author simply does not understand his own dilemma. The GP does not seem to help either. Why do they recommend not taking a proven vaccine? To save doses? That is the one thing you are not allowed to advise in the context of trials. The ethics of trials are all about the individual, not about the population at large. That is why we have trial ethics.
 
Moved post

Why Germany did not approve the use of AstraZeneca vaccine for over 65s:



Novavax interim data is good (especially given Australia's vaccine supply issues...), but worse South African variant data is a little concerning:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snow Leopard said:
Why Germany did not approve the use of AstraZeneca vaccine for over 65s:



Novavax interim data is good (especially given Australia's vaccine supply issues...), but worse South African variant data is a little concerning:
Click to expand...


The Astrazenica vaccine started to be used around 4th January [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55525542]

So lets say 11th January for general rollout.
14 days to develop immunity [25th January]
deterioration, requiring hospitalisation, usually occur 10 days after infection [infected 25th - hospitalised 4th February]
so I guess the "real world" evidence of whether 1 shot Astrazenica prevents serious illness (hospitalisation) should be evident from mid-February (14th).

I'm hoping one shot is enough to keep you out of hospital i.e. that the UK can continue with 1 shot vaccination - vulnerable family member (55-60 year old), due to be vaccinated in March.
 
Yessica said:
Oh shoot just realized this may be the wrong thread, thought it might be alright cause it does have to do with the vaccine, though it's the vaccine and going forward questions.

Help pleeease. Speculatively, how does this look going forward as far as when will it be safe for us again (and me in my situation - see below)? Perhaps it's written of here and I missed those post.

When will I have to not be concerned about constant handwashing, disinfecting things, masks and my safety (even after I have the vaccine)?

Once I have the vaccine, what does it mean as far as my safety?

Ha - I sure ask a lot.

I'm severe ME to begin with and I have deteriorated so badly due to the littlest efforts needed to try to stay safe.

My living situation is very dangerous, big single room occupancy building with long halls to get elsewhere in or out of here, shared restrooms, etcs, people in building not distancing or wearing masks covering their nose or mouth,

downtown (college outside my window outdoor classes barely 6 ft from my window, hotels, tourists, youth and homeless no masks), complex food situation I'm struggling with which is going to get worst (details too involved).

Unfortunately set up isn't that I can completely isolate in my little room (cause of restrooms, water needed from kitchen and package deliveries) or avoid the downtown foot traffic because have to move car twice a week, empty trash and get my groceries from person who brings them.

Things are opening up more here even though my state and are area is still hard hit with covid.

I know several in my building and that I share restrooms, etcs with will not be getting the vaccine due to their brand of spiritual and health beliefs.

What's the prospect of how this is probably going to go with opening up of society, the vaccine and needing to do extras to stay safe? And how safe one is going to be after receiving the vaccine?

I need to understand more about all of this so i can at least mentally navigate my complexities and try to survive. Also cause building manager isn't up on things and makes bad decisions. It takes me a too long a time yet I try to inform them of neccessaries so as to try to keep myself and everyone perhaps a little safer.

Thank you if you read all of this and also if you can help me to understand more since I can't research much at this moment. Hope you all are hanging in there. :hug:
Click to expand...

The virus will never go away now so the hope is that vaccines will help stop people getting infected so the likelihood of meeting someone excreting virus will become low.

People with ME are vulnerable to all infections as they carry the risk of the disease becoming worse so it makes sense to carry on with handwashing and so on even if the number of covid cases drop. Viruses need to enter our bodies to replicate so making sure we have no particles on our hands and that we avoid touching the entrance points of mouth nose and eyes would always have been good for us but it was never really spelled out.

One thing the pandemic has done is to make it easier for us to take these precautions. I was never happy about shaking hands but now have an excuse.

Jonathan Edwards has spoken about doctors he knew who did all the handwashing and so on to protect themselves from ebola and carried on with not touching their faces when they returned to the UK and found that they had much fewer colds.

Distancing will be more difficult when other people forget though. It is a strange thought, but when I needed to use a walking stick people gave me more room so that could be something to try.

Making sure you have your own dishes and things and disinfecting the bathroom before you use it may make you feel more secure. personally I think it will be a long time before I go out without a mask and alcohol gel.

Try not to worry too much.
 
More than 50 Long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract
COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, can involve sequelae and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery, which has come to be called Long-COVID or COVID long-haulers.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing long-term effects of COVID-19 and estimates the prevalence of each symptom, sign, or laboratory parameter of patients at a post-COVID-19 stage. LitCOVID (PubMed and Medline) and Embase were searched by two independent researchers.
All articles with original data for detecting long-term COVID-19 published before 1st of January 2021 and with a minimum of 100 patients were included.
For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI.
Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewers and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.
A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria.
The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included.
The follow-up time ranged from 15 to 110 days post-viral infection.
The age of the study participants ranged between 17 and 87 years.
It was estimated that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of the patients that were infected with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms.
The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%).
All meta-analyses showed medium (n=2) to high heterogeneity (n=13).
In order to have a better understanding, future studies need to stratify by sex, age, previous comorbidities, severity of COVID-19 (ranging from asymptomatic to severe), and duration of each symptom.
From the clinical perspective, multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.
Click to expand...
Long term effects of Covid-19.JPG

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250617v1
 
Defining the role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission – a living systematic review

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1198743X21000380

Abstract
Background
Reports suggest that asymptomatic individuals (those with no symptoms at all throughout infection) with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are infectious, but the extent of transmission based on symptom status requires further study.

Purpose
This living review aims to critically appraise available data about secondary attack rates from people with asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Data sources
Medline, EMBASE, China Academic Journals full-text database (CNKI), and pre-print servers were searched from 30 December 2019 to 3 July 2020 using relevant MESH terms.

Study selection Studies that report on contact tracing of index cases with SARS-CoV-2 infection in either English or Chinese were included.

Data extraction Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. We calculated the secondary attack rate as the number of contacts with SARS-CoV-2, divided by the number of contacts tested.

Data synthesis Of 927 studies identified, 80 were included. Summary secondary attack rate estimates were 1% (95% CI: 0%-2%) with a prediction interval of 0-10% for asymptomatic index cases in 10 studies, 7% (95% CI: 3%-11%) with a prediction interval of 1- 40% for pre-symptomatic cases in 11 studies and 6% (95% CI: 5%-8%) with a prediction interval of 5- 38% for symptomatic index cases in 40 studies. The highest secondary attack rates were found in contacts who lived in the same household as the index case. Other activities associated with transmission were group activities such as sharing meals or playing board games with the index case, regardless of the disease status of the index case.

Limitations
We excluded some studies because the index case or number of contacts were unclear.

Conclusion
Asymptomatic patients can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others, but our findings indicate that such individuals are responsible for fewer secondary infections than people with symptoms.
Click to expand...

So (reported) asymptomatic cases are around 85-90% less likely to transmit the virus to someone else given the mean figures. This compares to around 90% less that I mentioned previously in the Wuhan contact tracing study.
 
And yet, despite all this, apparently still 1 In 7 Brits Believe There Is A Huge Coronavirus Cover-Up Involving Politicians, Scientists And Journalists

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ournalists/ar-BB1dfKfc?ocid=ASUDHP&li=AAnZ9Ug

Sorry, I couldn't think where else to put it, but it just shows what people are having to fight against - as well as the virus, obviously. You can have special reports from the "frontline" on the news all week, show care staff desperately begging us to follow the rules so we don't make anyone else sick, show exhausted NHS personnel struggling to hold it together, and so many people still believe it's a con? It makes me REALLY ANGRY :mad::banghead:
 
Trish said:
I read the article. The headline seems a bit exaggerated. The story is that they sometimes end up with 1 or 2 doses left at the end of a batch which dont get used at the centre they work at. From what I've heard most centres manage to get people in at short notice to use the last doses.
Click to expand...
the article says 1-3 doses a day and there are around 1,350 vaccination centres.
I think the point the author is making is that if they can't get people on the official 'list' at short notice then they should be able to 'use up' the leftover doses by giving frontline staff their second shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom