10 ms·

What seems to be vague... They didn't contract Covid, but we're they exposed to it in a lab environment, or just set off on their way to be evaluated x months l

What seems to be vague... They didn't contract Covid, but we're they exposed to it in a lab environment, or just set off on their way to be evaluated x months later?

shock 6y ago
The latter. Exposing them willingly would be unethical since they could develop a severe form and possibly die.
- iguy 6y ago
  I don't think they have started yet, but such trials are planned in the UK. There's no easy blanket "unethical" ruling from on high. Obviously this isn't a risk-free thing to volunteer for, but it isn't risk free for nurses to go to work either, and thankfully, they still do.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- thehappypm 6y ago
  Also, you'd possibly be giving an unrealistic dose in the lab. If you give someone 1000x the viral load they'd ever get in the real world, the vaccine might not work. Or might work but send the immune system into a crazy overdrive cytokine storm.
apexalpha 6y ago
In all phase3 trials large groups of people, as similar to each other in all variables as possible, will be either given a placebo or the actual vaccine and then go back to their normal lives. The trials have a set "Covid-19 cases" mark where the stop to evaluate. The Pfizer vaccine has 164 contractions of Covid-19 as their mark to conclude the research. This research seems to aim for 151. The Moderna vaccine, which is based on similar mRNA technology as BioNTech’s, is expected to be assessed by the FDA on a final analysis of 151 Covid cases among trial participants who will be followed on average for more than two months. If both groups are similar enough you can then say how effective the vaccine is in preventing it. This, by the way, is why most phase 3 trials take place in the US and/or Brazil (among other places): the more Covid-19 is around the faster you can get to the set number of contractions and conclude the phase 3.
elif 6y ago
It is fine for it to be vague. It is implied because medical ethics and international humanitarian law preclude exposing subjects to a deadly virus, let alone for testing purposes, let alone in a blind study. Additionally, you can apply common sense that if 15,000 people were exposed to the virus with no protection, more than 90 of them would become infected.
- eli 6y ago
  They are planning to do just that in the UK https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02821-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02821-4
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - elif 6y ago
    Opening paragraph "first-of-its-kind" "if it receives final regulatory and ethical approval" The Nazis did it, and US military does similar kind of shit (I reserve the word science) too.
BurningFrog 6y ago
Deliberately exposing people ("challenge trials") is not allowed. It could have saved a huge number of lives, but that's not how the system works.
- michaelt 6y ago
  And of course: 1. You have to have a control group, so half of test subjects would be exposed to the virus without having received the vaccine. 2. The highest-priority recipients for a vaccine are members of high-risk groups; it'd be pointless to run a challenge trial full of low-risk individuals. So a challenge trial wouldn't just mean giving the virus to a few thousand vaccinated macho 20-year-olds. It'd mean giving the virus to unvaccinated 80-year-old care home residents.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    > it'd be pointless to run a challenge trial full of low-risk individuals. This is binary all-or-nothing thinking. It considers 90% the same as 0%, since both are not 100%. Testing on healthy young people you learn how a normal immune system reacts to a vaccine candidate. High risk groups mostly have similar immune systems. Even if somehow you could only vaccinate everyone under 60, that would do enormous good stopping the spread.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - firethief 6y ago
      > This is binary all-or-nothing thinking. It considers 90% the same as 0%, since both are not 100%. Thinking is not just "binary or not"; there are degrees. If exposing that group of people would be 90% pointless, it's not much less out of the question than if it were 100% pointless.
      - BurningFrog 6y ago
        I like your recursive "degrees of binarity" argument :) You're right about the principle, of course. I just think it would be "10% pointless", and thus well worth doing.
avs733 6y ago
>They didn't contract Covid, but we're they exposed to it in a lab environment, or just set off on their way to be evaluated x months later? This is what is referred to as a 'challenge trial'[0]. It is something the UK is apparently working on but afaik, neither of the current vaccine candidates have used any form of challenge trial. This is one of the difficulties with vaccine testing...if I were to vaccinate everyone in the world against small pox, how do I prove it's effectiveness? [0] https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/a-challenge-trial-for-covid-19-would-not-be-the-first-of-its-kind-68030 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/a-challenge-trial... Edit: for some fun, I figured I should link to the 'COVID challenge trial volunteers advocacy organization'. Yes, an advocacy group for people who want to be infected with COVID. https://1daysooner.org/ https://1daysooner.org/

What seems to be vague... They didn't contract Covid, but we're they exposed to it in a lab environment, or just set off on their way to be evaluated x months later?

shock 6y ago

The latter. Exposing them willingly would be unethical since they could develop a severe form and possibly die.

iguy 6y ago
I don't think they have started yet, but such trials are planned in the UK. There's no easy blanket "unethical" ruling from on high. Obviously this isn't a risk-free thing to volunteer for, but it isn't risk free for nurses to go to work either, and thankfully, they still do.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
thehappypm 6y ago
Also, you'd possibly be giving an unrealistic dose in the lab. If you give someone 1000x the viral load they'd ever get in the real world, the vaccine might not work. Or might work but send the immune system into a crazy overdrive cytokine storm.

apexalpha 6y ago

In all phase3 trials large groups of people, as similar to each other in all variables as possible, will be either given a placebo or the actual vaccine and then go back to their normal lives. The trials have a set "Covid-19 cases" mark where the stop to evaluate. The Pfizer vaccine has 164 contractions of Covid-19 as their mark to conclude the research. This research seems to aim for 151. The Moderna vaccine, which is based on similar mRNA technology as BioNTech’s, is expected to be assessed by the FDA on a final analysis of 151 Covid cases among trial participants who will be followed on average for more than two months. If both groups are similar enough you can then say how effective the vaccine is in preventing it. This, by the way, is why most phase 3 trials take place in the US and/or Brazil (among other places): the more Covid-19 is around the faster you can get to the set number of contractions and conclude the phase 3.

elif 6y ago

It is fine for it to be vague. It is implied because medical ethics and international humanitarian law preclude exposing subjects to a deadly virus, let alone for testing purposes, let alone in a blind study. Additionally, you can apply common sense that if 15,000 people were exposed to the virus with no protection, more than 90 of them would become infected.

eli 6y ago
They are planning to do just that in the UK https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02821-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02821-4
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- elif 6y ago
  Opening paragraph "first-of-its-kind" "if it receives final regulatory and ethical approval" The Nazis did it, and US military does similar kind of shit (I reserve the word science) too.

BurningFrog 6y ago

Deliberately exposing people ("challenge trials") is not allowed. It could have saved a huge number of lives, but that's not how the system works.

michaelt 6y ago
And of course: 1. You have to have a control group, so half of test subjects would be exposed to the virus without having received the vaccine. 2. The highest-priority recipients for a vaccine are members of high-risk groups; it'd be pointless to run a challenge trial full of low-risk individuals. So a challenge trial wouldn't just mean giving the virus to a few thousand vaccinated macho 20-year-olds. It'd mean giving the virus to unvaccinated 80-year-old care home residents.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  > it'd be pointless to run a challenge trial full of low-risk individuals. This is binary all-or-nothing thinking. It considers 90% the same as 0%, since both are not 100%. Testing on healthy young people you learn how a normal immune system reacts to a vaccine candidate. High risk groups mostly have similar immune systems. Even if somehow you could only vaccinate everyone under 60, that would do enormous good stopping the spread.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - firethief 6y ago
    > This is binary all-or-nothing thinking. It considers 90% the same as 0%, since both are not 100%. Thinking is not just "binary or not"; there are degrees. If exposing that group of people would be 90% pointless, it's not much less out of the question than if it were 100% pointless.
    - BurningFrog 6y ago
      I like your recursive "degrees of binarity" argument :) You're right about the principle, of course. I just think it would be "10% pointless", and thus well worth doing.

avs733 6y ago

>They didn't contract Covid, but we're they exposed to it in a lab environment, or just set off on their way to be evaluated x months later? This is what is referred to as a 'challenge trial'[0]. It is something the UK is apparently working on but afaik, neither of the current vaccine candidates have used any form of challenge trial. This is one of the difficulties with vaccine testing...if I were to vaccinate everyone in the world against small pox, how do I prove it's effectiveness? [0] https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/a-challenge-trial-for-covid-19-would-not-be-the-first-of-its-kind-68030 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/a-challenge-trial... Edit: for some fun, I figured I should link to the 'COVID challenge trial volunteers advocacy organization'. Yes, an advocacy group for people who want to be infected with COVID. https://1daysooner.org/ https://1daysooner.org/