Hankmoody
Footballguy
You're being unnecessarily combative, there's no such implication at all in his post.culdeus said:It means read the bloody instructions on the test kit. Not that the virus is fake, if that's what you are implying.
You're being unnecessarily combative, there's no such implication at all in his post.culdeus said:It means read the bloody instructions on the test kit. Not that the virus is fake, if that's what you are implying.
Fine, if I see "Gain" "Amplified" "Cycle Counts" with respect to PCR test management I immediately think it's a covid denier. As those are all buzzwords they hardly understood, and used to fan out a lot of misinformation to justify relaxing restrictions right before the 2nd big waves hit, whether they really had a direct impact in the 2nd wave is debatable, but those terms I immediately think of as anti-science.You're being unnecessarily combative, there's no such implication at all in his post.
Yeah, even by the CDC:Yes, I think that is true, as even if you are recovered it doesn't mean your body has physically obliterated the viral particles that were part of the infection. I believe that most places have a recommendation to not undergo routine PCR screening for a time post-recovery because of this.
I'm guessing this is to prevent extra positive results that don't reflect people that can spread.For persons previously diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19 who remain asymptomatic after recovery, retesting is not recommended within 3 months after the date of symptom onset for the initial COVID-19 infection.
A few months back (Aug-Sept 2020), the issue of amplification cycles affecting PCR tests was also being discussed soberly in center-left media. Examples from The New York Times, MIT Medical School, and The Advisory Board (who's 'The Advisory Board?'). Maybe back in the spring, amplification cycles were a big thing for COVID deniers, but that's not universally true anymore.Fine, if I see "Gain" "Amplified" "Cycle Counts" with respect to PCR test management I immediately think it's a covid denier.
There are two references at the bottom of the WHO guidance. One is to a paper from 1994. The other one is to their own diagnostic testing protocol published in September. All this guidance seems to be doing is to remind people of what the WHO has already suggested. I can't find any reputable person on twitter talking about this, only conspiracy nuts.Doug B said:No, it looks like Battersbox is talking about new WHO guidance released yesterday. While the new guidance doesn't specifically refer to "amplification cycles" at all, it does warn about "weak positives":
In the references at the bottom of the link, there is an unlinked cite of another WHO white paper -- perhaps that white paper gives more technical details that suggest a certain number of amplification cycles.
Good explanations from this and your prior post. This is one of the issues with PCR based tests in general, for all the reasons you mention.Yes, I think that is true, as even if you are recovered it doesn't mean your body has physically obliterated the viral particles that were part of the infection. I believe that most places have a recommendation to not undergo routine PCR screening for a time post-recovery because of this.
Here are a couple of links showing results of recent in vitro studies by BioNTech. They seem to focus on the N501Y mutation shared by both UK and SA variants, which appear to be neutralized by their vaccine.
Thanks,beer 30 said:Glad to hear you're back on your feet GB
Not glad to hear about the arthritis issue since I have psoriatic arthritis. You can PM me if you don't want to get into specifics here but what do you take for it? I'm on Enbrel (an injectable) once a week. Wonder how that will interact with this?
Here in Az they scheduled both shots three weeks apart at the same time. When I got there for my second shot we all confirmed Pfizer and away I went. I have no complaints about the system I used and how they had it set up.Courtjester said:My wife is getting her 1st shot today. I asked her to make sure they tell her what brand she is getting and to do all she can to nail down a follow up appointment.
I have seen horror stories on the news about the vast number of people who are overdue for their second dose and I don't want that to happen to her.
I also worry (and maybe this is unfounded) about people getting Pfizer for their first shot and then, because of availability, getting a different brand the 2nd time. I assume there is some quality control going on there.
I always thought I would be the first in the family to get the vaccine, but being in education, she beat me to the punch. I am still on a wait list.
Thank you for the links. The New York Times story I remember quite well, which specifically mentions 40 cycles. I knew I'd seen that before.A few months back (Aug-Sept 2020), the issue of amplification cycles affecting PCR tests was also being discussed soberly in center-left media. Examples from The New York Times, MIT Medical School, and The Advisory Board (who's 'The Advisory Board?'). Maybe back in the spring, amplification cycles were a big thing for COVID deniers, but that's not universally true anymore.
In researching amplification cycles, I did find various links to Twitter pages and such ... most of which were, yeah, about what you expect from social media. So I just rejected all that out of hand and looked for more grounded information from better-rooted sources.
This is obvious. We need an army of volunteers to handle admin tasks while trained folks do the jabbing.I still think that retail pharmacy will play an important role in getting the vaccine out but I think it may take some thinking outside the box. Today we did an ‘in store clinic’ with both pharmacists working. I was able to increase to 60 doses today from the 20 I normally do and I could have probably done double that. I focused completely on giving the shots with one tech focusing on paperwork leaving two people to do normal pharmacy business.
Likewise the next two days a group of 10 immunizers will give out 1000 shot each each day for teachers.
I say use the pharmacies as hubs but bring in immunizers to focus on giving shots. With pharmacy techs able to immunize in many states, if opens up a lot of opportunity to do it better than usual.
iirc the NYT story focused on the non infectious aspect of it, not the false positive aspect.Thank you for the links. The New York Times story I remember quite well, which specifically mentions 40 cycles. I knew I'd seen that before.
From what I've been able to gather, the two aspects in red are related when filtered through a popular understanding of the science by non-scientists.iirc the NYT story focused on the non infectious aspect of it, not the false positive aspect.
Obviously we saw all the false positive data about antibody tests. Did we ever see false positive data for PCR tests?
My question on this is... if you already have their vaccine in you, I assume this means you'd need a third (or more) "update" or booster shot? Or, looking ahead, basically we might be looking at yearly flu-shot-like type deal here, it seems? If so, it seems the single-dose vaccines due to hit the market will be a better long-term solution.Should a vaccine strain change be required to address virus variants in the future, the Companies believe that the flexibility of BioNTech’s proprietary mRNA vaccine platform is well suited to enable such adjustment."
https://biontechse.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/pfizer-and-biontech-publish-results-study-showing-covid-19
https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/vitro-study-shows-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-elicits
One of them is a "current" false positive. Doesnt really bother me if that makes case count stats. They had it at one point. I want to know the false positive % where they never had it and it is a true false positive. Cant seem to find that.From what I've been able to gather, the two aspects in red are related when filtered through a popular understanding of the science by non-scientists.
"False positive", used colloquially, can mean "having no virus or viral fragments whatsoever" ... but it can also mean "having a small number of noninfectious viral fragments still detectable". For the purposes of the layman ... "being virus-free" is equivalent to "no longer having enough virus to infect others".
In the future -- when a sufficient level of herd immunity is reached and maybe a few years past that -- I would expect that even the two-dose vaccines will start being given as single doses. With a possible exception of initial vaccinations for people entering healthcare work, the military, and so on.My question on this is... if you already have their vaccine in you, I assume this means you'd need a third (or more) "update" or booster shot? Or, looking ahead, basically we might be looking at yearly flu-shot-like type deal here, it seems? If so, it seems the single-dose vaccines due to hit the market will be a better long-term solution.
Right, I get that. The 95% rate of COVID vacc was a homerun, and I think made them initially confident it would cover variants well, but I guess as more data becomes available, now they aren't so sure. And my fear is that it will cause many to say "See the shot doesn't even work!!"In the future -- when a sufficient level of herd immunity is reached and maybe a few years past that -- I would expect that even the two-dose vaccines will start being given as single doses. With a possible exception of initial vaccinations for people entering healthcare work, the military, and so on.
Keep in mind that the current flu vaccines don't typically approach 90% effectiveness. My understanding is that flu vaccines' effectiveness regarding infection-prevention are typically ~50% (plus or minus some range, varies year-to-year) but that their effectiveness in preventing severe illness if infected is quite high.
A COVID-19 vaccine, in the future, would be similar. A one-dose effectiveness of 50-80% percent would be just fine for a COVID-19 vaccine in, say, 2029-30 -- presumably in an environment where COVID-19 is largely beaten back (if still endemic).
Even the point in red could be nitpicked, but admittedly it would only be an academic exercise.One of them is a "current" false positive. Doesnt really bother me if that makes case count stats. They had it at one point.
I still think the popular media is making too much of "Variants!" and "New strains!". But we'll know more in the future, and I reserve the right to reconsider if more and better information comes in and scientific consensus is achieved.Right, I get that. The 95% rate of COVID vacc was a homerun, and I think made them initially confident it would cover variants well, but I guess as more data becomes available, now they aren't so sure. And my fear is that it will cause many to say "See the shot doesn't even work!!"
A very long list of items...I still think the popular media is making too much of
I believe this will be a future booster shot situation, and COVID is endemic. I'm also skeptical that the JNJ will end up being 1-shot solution with similar efficacy as the mRNA vaccines, we'll see. I'm guessing that JNJ data will show that 2 shots will be the only way to get in the 90%+ range. Astra Zeneca looks to be moving to a 2 shot solution with the Oxford vaccine because the 1 shot can't compare to the mRNA results. Just a guess, and we'll find out soon.My question on this is... if you already have their vaccine in you, I assume this means you'd need a third (or more) "update" or booster shot? Or, looking ahead, basically we might be looking at yearly flu-shot-like type deal here, it seems? If so, it seems the single-dose vaccines due to hit the market will be a better long-term solution.
I've seen the same data spun different ways in articles; from the "Vaccines aren't working" headlines to "Good news, vaccines work on variants". I do think the efficacy cushion that Fauci was talking about yesterday is a decent way to look at it. 90%+ efficacy to start is really exceptional. Almost unheard of really. There is a lot of cushion there for the current vaccines to be a viable offensive weapon at ending the pandemic, and if efficacy really wanes, the technology allows rapid reformulation. The main thing now is to get what we have in as many arms as fast as we can.I still think the popular media is making too much of "Variants!" and "New strains!". But we'll know more in the future, and I reserve the right to reconsider if more and better information comes in and scientific consensus is achieved.
Here's an up-to-date CDC list of the 10 flu vaccines administered in the United States for the 2020-21 flu season. Four manufacturers collectively make these 10 vaccines -- GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Sanofi Pasteur (France), Seqirus (Australia), and AstraZeneca (UK). All have major holdings in the United States, including manufacturing facilities.Are there multiple regular flu shots or are they all made by one company each year?
We've had internal discussions about this here in Louisiana. Our guidance has been that there isn't enough vaccine coming to begin mass vaccination sites yet.This is obvious. We need an army of volunteers to handle admin tasks while trained folks do the jabbing.
Why can't the US mobilize a workforce like we do for the census?
Companies should give their workers days off to volunteer in this effort. It will shorten the time to "normal", build community, and result in fewer deaths.
I doubt mutations which result in competent but immunologically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants will be frequent enough to warrant yearly re-vaccination. The only virus that applies to is influenza, which changes both by point mutations (single nucleic acid errors during the replication process, which normally occur in non-coding regions of the viral genome) and wholesale exchange of large coding segments for structural proteins between species (typically birds, and to a lesser extent pigs and other critters). The latter mechanism is known as genetic shift, and isn't very common outside of influenza viruses.My question on this is... if you already have their vaccine in you, I assume this means you'd need a third (or more) "update" or booster shot? Or, looking ahead, basically we might be looking at yearly flu-shot-like type deal here, it seems? If so, it seems the single-dose vaccines due to hit the market will be a better long-term solution.
We care dude! Congrats.Not sure if anyone cares or if you are monitoring this stuff but I got round 1 of Moderna today.
It was super random. I was able to get an appointment for Monday but then at like 2:00 today my friend who is also a Spec Ed teacher texted me that the community college by us was giving them until 3:30 for Spec Ed teachers. Word must have got out because it really crowded and it was basically a big gym with 10 tables of 2 nurses just cruising through huge lines of people.We care dude! Congrats.
Thank you for the insight! You mentioned the genetic drift. I had just read an article last night regarding the UK and SA variants. Not terrible, but certainly doesn't give you the warm and fuzzies either:I doubt mutations which result in competent but immunologically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants will be frequent enough to warrant yearly re-vaccination. The only virus that applies to is influenza, which changes both by point mutations (single nucleic acid errors during the replication process, which normally occur in non-coding regions of the viral genome) and wholesale exchange of large coding segments for structural proteins between species (typically birds, and to a lesser extent pigs and other critters). The latter mechanism is known as genetic shift, and isn't very common outside of influenza viruses.
This year is different in that SARS-CoV-2 is new, so huge numbers of people have been infected with commensurate large viral populations. The more any virus replicates, the more likely mutations occur. Eventually one or multiple mutations may lead to structural and functional consequences, as we're seeing with the UK and SA strains. It's unclear if we'll need a booster shot to cover those (especially SA) yet.
So if we beat SARS-CoV-2 down to non-pandemic levels, through some combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity, there will be less opportunity for it to mutate. In concert with its overall slower mutation rate (than influenza) and lack of genetic shift, we shouldn't require short interval revaccination once the pandemic has passed IMO.
DISCLAIMERS:
1. Coronaviruses aren't known to act like flu and swap gene segments between species, but if somehow SARS learns this trick, all bets are off.
2. Immunity to non-SARS coronaviruses isn't believed to be long lasting, but that isn't thought to be the result of mutations. There are other ways coronaviruses (and respiratory viruses in general) evade the immune system, which were described in an article I linked hundreds of pages ago. But revaccination won't likely impact these mechanisms anyway.
Bottom line: The virus is getting smarter. Slowly but surely. This underscores the need to vaccinate as many people as quickly as we can, because these mutations are signals of antigenic drift.
To determine the factor triggering the sudden surge of daily new COVID-19 cases arising in most European countries during the autumn of 2020. The dates of the surge were determined using a fitting of the two last months of reported daily new cases in 18 European countries with latitude ranging from 39° to 62°. The study proves no correlation between the country surge date and the 2 weeks preceding temperature or humidity but shows an impressive linear correlation with latitude. The country surge date corresponds to the time when its sun UV daily dose drops below ≈ 34% of that of 0° latitude. Introducing reported seasonal blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration variation into the reported link between acute respiratory tract infection risk and 25(OH)D concentration quantitatively explains the surge dynamics. Several studies have already substantiated a 25(OH)D concentration impact on COVID-19 severity. However, by comparing different patient populations, discriminating whether a low 25(OH)D concentration is a real factor underlying COVID-19 severity or only a marker of another weakness that is the primary severity factor can be challenging. The date of the surge is an intrapopulation observation and has the benefit of being triggered only by a parameter globally affecting the population, i.e. decreases in the sun UV daily dose. The results indicate that a low 25(OH)D concentration is a contributing factor to COVID-19 severity, which, combined with previous studies, provides a convincing set of evidence.
It was ambitious in December, but there are some headwinds. Some of which are coming from the fact that the supplies the US create are bound for other countries creating a potential diplomatic problem. The J/J coming on board has the potential to put 400k/day which is really 800k/day since it's a one shot deal.Great news on vaccine distribution continues. Four straight days with at least 1.3 million doses administered and the seven day rolling average has topped one million. The new administration's pledge to do a million a day was considered ambitious when announced. They need a new goal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
That is fantastic to see
South Carolina on the lightning pace to have everyone vaccinated by 2049. Assuming a steady supply of 500 shots per day...1st vaccination clinic in the state of SC set to open today. They have 500 doses with another 2,000 on order.
https://www.heraldonline.com/news/coronavirus/article248663715.html
There are 5,024,369 in the state of SC and it’s January 21st
In a major setback, Merck to stop developing its two Covid-19 vaccines and focus on therapies
https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/25/in-a-major-setback-merck-to-stop-developing-its-two-covid-19-vaccines-and-focus-on-therapies/