6 ms·

“But one thing that you do notice as you look over the data was that day 43 was the best – there was a further evaluation at day 57, and all three groups had go

“But one thing that you do notice as you look over the data was that day 43 was the best – there was a further evaluation at day 57, and all three groups had gone down a bit in just those two weeks.“ Interesting that it was slightly weaker at day 57. If people don’t gain permanent immunity once they get covid, will this sort of drug still work?

sp332 6y ago
That will partly depend on how it's rolled out. If we coordinate and get lots of people the vaccine in a short amount of time, then it will help a lot because we'll get the effect of herd immunity. If it only gets to a few people at a time, it will help less.
- bluGill 6y ago
  It also depends on the efficiency of the second round. If it works great the first time you get the shots, but when it wears off and you get a second round it doesn't work as well that is bad.
  - OkGoDoIt 6y ago
    From the original article, it sounds like the first round is only minimally effective, and the major boost comes from the second round.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      This is a confusing area. The two shots are part of round one. When that wears off and you get more (which might be 2 more shots) that is the next round. If english has a good way to say this I'm not aware of it.
creaghpatr 6y ago
If enough people take the vaccine with that expected length of protection, it would certainly tamp down the spread at minimum. So it might still 'work' by collective standards.
- nugget 6y ago
  40% of vaccine recipients experienced fever after administration. I'm not sure people would rush to take the vaccine with those odds, if only a few months of immunity is conveyed. There's a psychological element to this beyond whatever the science shows.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Vaccines aren't completely harmless, but this would be expected. You can do a self test with a flu vaccine. Your doctor probably will recommend no exhausting activities for a few days after taking the shot. If you, for science, ignore that advice, you might feel quite horrible.
    - geerlingguy 6y ago
      Every time I get the flu shot it feels like someone punched me hard on the shoulder where it was administered for a couple days, and I feel generally unwell (but not 'bad' per-se). But the alternative is I could end up in the ICU with pneumonia without it (and have, in the past, from the flu), so the risk/annoyance is worth it.
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        Perhaps I should rephrase it, didn't want to make it sound like getting vaccinated is a bad idea. It does activate your immune system though and that can make you feel really unwell. Fever is not a disease, it is an immune response. But those can still induce complications. Doctors won't administer a shot if you already have pneumonia for these reasons.
      - amyjess 6y ago
        My experience with DTP shots is that one of my arms is a useless-but-painful dead weight for a week or so. I'd still take that over getting tetanus.
      - biolurker1 6y ago
        I felt absolutely nothing.
acdha 6y ago
A big question is how long it’ll last: if you got a yearly shot like the flu, that might be enough to prevent widespread outbreaks even if it doesn’t go away and people who are immune compromised still have to worry. The other would be whether it helps with partial immunity: it doesn’t need to be lifelong immunity to be worth using if, say, it shifted the serious case rate down by a fair margin.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Given that Coronavirus mutation rates are orders of magnitude lower than influenza viruses, a yearly shot is unlikely.
  - acdha 6y ago
    I wasn’t referring to that but simply the concern that immunity might be relatively short lived: given how well this spreads even a vaccine which only gave, say, 10-12 months might be worthwhile if it meant that we could have schools, transit, restaurants, bars, churches, etc. able to operate normally.
  - Bnshsysjab 6y ago
    How did you come to this conclusion? I’ve been curious about it for some time but haven’t seen anything concrete which could explain this at a level I understand.
  - lps41 6y ago
    Mutation is not the only factor determining how often a vaccine would be given. If antibodies only last a year from the vaccine dose, it should still be given yearly, even if the virus has not mutated.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lambdasquirrel 6y ago
It won’t be optimal, but if you stockpile enough and then administer it all at once, it effectively grants herd immunity for about two months, and the virus isn’t able to transmit during that time. Two months is longer than the incubation period of the virus. So you see where this is going. Now if it isn’t close to 100% effective then you’ll probably still need people to quarantine, so, good luck with that.
tunesmith 6y ago
I thought immunity wasn't a perfect correlation with presence of antibodies.

sp332 6y ago

That will partly depend on how it's rolled out. If we coordinate and get lots of people the vaccine in a short amount of time, then it will help a lot because we'll get the effect of herd immunity. If it only gets to a few people at a time, it will help less.

bluGill 6y ago
It also depends on the efficiency of the second round. If it works great the first time you get the shots, but when it wears off and you get a second round it doesn't work as well that is bad.
- OkGoDoIt 6y ago
  From the original article, it sounds like the first round is only minimally effective, and the major boost comes from the second round.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    This is a confusing area. The two shots are part of round one. When that wears off and you get more (which might be 2 more shots) that is the next round. If english has a good way to say this I'm not aware of it.

creaghpatr 6y ago

If enough people take the vaccine with that expected length of protection, it would certainly tamp down the spread at minimum. So it might still 'work' by collective standards.

nugget 6y ago
40% of vaccine recipients experienced fever after administration. I'm not sure people would rush to take the vaccine with those odds, if only a few months of immunity is conveyed. There's a psychological element to this beyond whatever the science shows.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Vaccines aren't completely harmless, but this would be expected. You can do a self test with a flu vaccine. Your doctor probably will recommend no exhausting activities for a few days after taking the shot. If you, for science, ignore that advice, you might feel quite horrible.
  - geerlingguy 6y ago
    Every time I get the flu shot it feels like someone punched me hard on the shoulder where it was administered for a couple days, and I feel generally unwell (but not 'bad' per-se). But the alternative is I could end up in the ICU with pneumonia without it (and have, in the past, from the flu), so the risk/annoyance is worth it.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Perhaps I should rephrase it, didn't want to make it sound like getting vaccinated is a bad idea. It does activate your immune system though and that can make you feel really unwell. Fever is not a disease, it is an immune response. But those can still induce complications. Doctors won't administer a shot if you already have pneumonia for these reasons.
    - amyjess 6y ago
      My experience with DTP shots is that one of my arms is a useless-but-painful dead weight for a week or so. I'd still take that over getting tetanus.
    - biolurker1 6y ago
      I felt absolutely nothing.

acdha 6y ago

A big question is how long it’ll last: if you got a yearly shot like the flu, that might be enough to prevent widespread outbreaks even if it doesn’t go away and people who are immune compromised still have to worry. The other would be whether it helps with partial immunity: it doesn’t need to be lifelong immunity to be worth using if, say, it shifted the serious case rate down by a fair margin.

koheripbal 6y ago
Given that Coronavirus mutation rates are orders of magnitude lower than influenza viruses, a yearly shot is unlikely.
- acdha 6y ago
  I wasn’t referring to that but simply the concern that immunity might be relatively short lived: given how well this spreads even a vaccine which only gave, say, 10-12 months might be worthwhile if it meant that we could have schools, transit, restaurants, bars, churches, etc. able to operate normally.
- Bnshsysjab 6y ago
  How did you come to this conclusion? I’ve been curious about it for some time but haven’t seen anything concrete which could explain this at a level I understand.
- lps41 6y ago
  Mutation is not the only factor determining how often a vaccine would be given. If antibodies only last a year from the vaccine dose, it should still be given yearly, even if the virus has not mutated.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lambdasquirrel 6y ago

It won’t be optimal, but if you stockpile enough and then administer it all at once, it effectively grants herd immunity for about two months, and the virus isn’t able to transmit during that time. Two months is longer than the incubation period of the virus. So you see where this is going. Now if it isn’t close to 100% effective then you’ll probably still need people to quarantine, so, good luck with that.

tunesmith 6y ago

I thought immunity wasn't a perfect correlation with presence of antibodies.