Covid-19 Cepiva

19. jul 2007
2.869
1.592
113
What about coronavirus mutations? Will the virus move out from under the vaccine’s targeting?

The SARS-Cov-2 virus has indeed been throwing off mutations, but all viruses do. They replicate quickly, and errors pile up. Fortunately, though, none of these have proven to be a problem so far. There’s been a lot of talk about the D614G mutation being more infectious, but the difficulty of proving that shows that it’s certainly not way more infectious, if it is at all. And it doesn’t seem to have a noticeable effect on disease severity – so far, no mutation has.

The recent news from Denmark about a multi-residue mutant (“Cluster 5”) that might be less susceptible to the antibodies raised by the current vaccines is a real concern, but the news there, thus far, is also reassuring. The vaccine efficacy warning might be true, but it was also based on a small amount of preliminary data. And the Cluster-5 variant has not been detected since September, which suggests that (if anything) this combination of mutations actually might make the virus less likely to spread. From what we’ve been seeing with the Spike protein, evading the current antibodies looks like it’s going to be difficult to do while retaining infectiousness at the same time. We already know from a Pfizer analysis that many of the common mutations are just as susceptible to neutralizing antibodies raised by their vaccine.

I know that many people are wondering about the similarity to influenza, and to the yearly (and not always incredibly effective) flu vaccines. Flu viruses, though, change their proteins far more easily and thoroughly than the coronavirus does, which is why we need a new vaccine every year to start with. SARS-Cov-2 doesn’t have anything like that mix-and-match mechanism, and it’s a damn good thing.

Bottom line: the coronavirus can’t undergo the wholesale changes that we see with the influenza viruses. And the mutations we’re seeing so far appear to still be under the umbrella of the antibody protection we’ll be raising with vaccination, which argues that it’s difficult to escape it.
 
19. jul 2007
2.869
1.592
113
What about efficacy in different groups of people? Where will the vaccines work the best, and where might there be gaps?

This is another area that is definitely going to come into better focus as the current trials go on. For the moment, we know that the results we have seen so far come from participants in a range of ages and ethnic backgrounds. There’s not much expectation that things will vary much (if any at all) across the latter, although it’s always good to know that for sure, and not least so you can point to hard evidence that it’s so. Age, though, can definitely be a factor. Older people are quite likely more susceptible to coronavirus infection in the first place, and are absolutely, positively at higher risk of severe disease or death if they do get infected. The immune response changes with aging, and it is very reasonable to wonder if the response to vaccination changes in a meaningful way, too.

But as mentioned above, we have more data from the Pfizer vaccine effort just this morning. The overall efficacy was 95%, and the efficacy in patients 65 and older was all the way down to 94%. This is excellent news. No numbers yet for people with pre-exisiting conditions and risk factors, but I’m definitely encouraged by what we’re seeing so far.

Bottom line: our first look at efficacy in older patients is very good indeed, and that’s the most significant high-risk patient subgroup taken care of right off the top.
 
19. jul 2007
2.869
1.592
113
How safe are these vaccines? What do we know about side effects?

As mentioned in the Moderna write-up here the other day, that team saw around 10% of their vaccinated cohort come down with noticeable side effects such as muscle and joint pain, fatigue, pain at the injection site, etc. These were Grade 3 events – basically, enough to send you to bed, but definitely not enough to send you to the hospital – but they were short-lived. For reference, those numbers seem to be very close to those for the current Shingrix vaccine against shingles, from GSK (thanks to their butt-kicking adjuvant mixture of a Salmonella lipopolysaccharide and a natural product from a South American tree). It’s a reasonable trade for coronavirus protection, as far as I’m concerned. And my reading of the Pfizer announcement today makes me think that their side effect profile is even a bit milder. They have fatigue in 3.8% of their patients, and all the other side effects come in lower.

What about lower-incidence side effects? Well, 30,000 patients is a pretty big sample, but on the other hand, the immune system is as idiosyncratic as it can be. There may well be people out there who will have much worse reactions to these vaccines. If you have a literal one in a million, you’re simply not going to see that in a trial this size, or actually in any trial at all. These are about as big as clinical trial numbers ever get. At that point, you’d be looking at such a hypothetical bad outcome in about two or three hundred people if we gave the shot to every single person in the US. And the public health calculation that’ss made every time a vaccine is approved is that this is a worthwhile tradeoff. Let’s be honest: if we could instantly vaccinate every person in the country and in doing so killed 200 people on the spot, that is an excellent trade against a disease that has killed off far more Americans than that every single day since the last week of March. Yesterday’s death toll was over 1500 people, and the numbers are climbing.

How about long-term problems, then? These are possible with vaccines, but rare. And unfortunately, there is truly no way to know about them without actually experiencing that long term. We simply don’t know enough immunology to do it any other way. Given the track record over the last century of vaccination, though, this seems to be another deal worth making.

Bottom line: immediate safety looks good so far. Rare side effects and long-term ones are still possible, but based on what we’ve seen with other vaccines, they do not look to be anywhere at all significant compared to the pandemic we have in front of us.
 

AndY1

Guru
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
22.098
4.094
113

Ne glede, ali si prebolel ali pa bos cepljen, dolgotrajna imunost je obetajoca.
 

Spajky

Guru
7. jun 2017
2.749
667
113
Obala
... v cepivo skrit čip, če maš pa čip, si pa gotof, ker te lahko skenirajo!
Ne samo to, takšno cepivo je 110% učinkovito, ker čip komandira možgane in slišiš glasove v glavi zraven 5G oddajnikov : "Buy Huawei, Aliexpress, Banggood, Huawei apps DL, use ChinaBank 4 YourMoneyTransfer, eat ChinaFishMarket produces % fish soup, Vote Biden, ban Taiwan ... etc ... :eek: ...
------------------------------------
" ... " Houston, We Have A Problem" ! ..." :jezen:
 

shift

Guru
20. jul 2007
9.918
2.323
113
za šankom
Ne samo to, takšno cepivo je 110% učinkovito, ker čip komandira možgane in slišiš glasove v glavi zraven 5G oddajnikov : "Buy Huawei, Aliexpress, Banggood, Huawei apps DL, use ChinaBank 4 YourMoneyTransfer, eat ChinaFishMarket produces % fish soup, Vote Biden, ban Taiwan ... etc ... :eek: ...
------------------------------------
" ... " Houston, We Have A Problem" ! ..." :jezen:


tako kot sem rekel že v eni temi, dober diler, ali pa dostop do neta na zaprtem oddelku
 
  • Haha
Reactions: p4pe
2. okt 2007
3.840
2.337
113
madžarska se zraven EU cepiv zanima in napoveduje, da bo uvozila tusi rusko cepivo Sputnik, ter se zanima za kitajska cepiva.

Me zanima, kdaj bomo še mi sledili.... osebno se raje cepim z zahodnim cepivom kot nekim Sputnikom&co
 

McGiver

Guru
14. avg 2009
14.438
4.312
113
madžarska se zraven EU cepiv zanima in napoveduje, da bo uvozila tusi rusko cepivo Sputnik, ter se zanima za kitajska cepiva.

Me zanima, kdaj bomo še mi sledili.... osebno se raje cepim z zahodnim cepivom kot nekim Sputnikom&co
Gantar je napovedal prva cepljenja v decembru - v EU bo prvo cepivo registrirano konec decembra, bolj verjetno januarja, dobave pa januar, februar, tako da očitno nekaj že bo na tem. :evil:
 

AndY1

Guru
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
22.098
4.094
113
Zelo zanimivo, zgleda kar verjetno, da so našli povezavo:


Še povezava na študijo:

Analysis of Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Titers of Recovered COVID-19 Patients | mBio (asm.org)

 

McGiver

Guru
14. avg 2009
14.438
4.312
113
Jaz si predstavljam tako, da boš moral imet dve dozi cepiva - to je že nekak jasno + test na protitelesa, ker v vsakem primeru je sedaj kar nekaj procentov možnosti, da ti cepivo ni prijelo. Pri tazadnjem od včeraj celo "samo" 70% uspešnost, kar zame pomeni - ne hvala.
 

SamSvoj

Majstr
28. okt 2010
2.142
355
83
Nekako kot sem napovedal nekaj dni nazaj. Če bomo doma, nas v cepljenje gotovo ne bo noben silil, če pa bomo želeli kam potovati, pa bo zgodba verjetno drugačna.
https://www.24ur.com/novice/tujina/bomo-za-vkrcanje-na-letalo-potrebovali-potrdilo-o-cepljenju.html

Ja, to si zmogel celo ti; za to ni potrebno bit posebej pameten, ker o tem na veliko govorijo že več kot eno leto, na okrog pa par let (ampak za še vedno dovolj jasno). Tisti, ki je na to opozarjal je pa ravnozemljaš ...

Da je tokriminal, pa ne bo noben od vas pametnih niti zucnil; treba ščititi šibke. Kar. Jaz bom nekje tam zadaj v vrsti ....
 

jest5

Guru
18. avg 2007
26.057
-8.741
113
Pa saj a je to res tak problem? Ti še vsaj eno leto ne boš prišel do svoje doze. Do takrat pa bodo popularnejša cepiva že dobro pretestirana in se bo vedelo za stranske učinke.
(Daj pustimo ob strani stvari, kot so čipi, kontrola populacije in podobne neumnosti ok)
 

MrDaco

Guru
11. sep 2007
11.896
6.057
113
To je pa zato, ker se hoče precepiti vse. Stalno govorimo, potrebno je zaščititi ranljive, da se jih ne okuži, da ne umrejo. In za te delamo vse tole.

Torej naj se cepi ranljive skupine, pa je. Ostale pa naj se pusti, da se prekuži in dobijo naravno imunost. Že če odštejemo tiste, ki so že preboleli virus, jih bo ogromno manj za cepiti, koliko jih bo še, dokler cepiva ne pridejo.

Kako je lahko naravna imunost preko prebolenja virusa slabša kot cepljenje?

Pa sej je tolk simpl. Virusa ne bomo izkoreninili. Zakaj bi se moralo cepiti vse?

Z vsem spoštovanjem, ampak po videnem si ne želim preboleti te bolezni in se prekužiti. Pa nisem ranljiva skupina, oziroma še ne vem da mogoče sem. Vse preveč je trajnih okvar pljuč, ožilja, možganov, da bi hotel brezglavo tvegat. Lahko da bi bil to zame le prehlad, verjetno pa niti ne ampak kaj hujšega. Ne moremo se prekužit. Rešitev je ali zdravilo ali cepivo.
 

SamSvoj

Majstr
28. okt 2010
2.142
355
83
Pa saj a je to res tak problem? Ti še vsaj eno leto ne boš prišel do svoje doze. Do takrat pa bodo popularnejša cepiva že dobro pretestirana in se bo vedelo za stranske učinke.
(Daj pustimo ob strani stvari, kot so čipi, kontrola populacije in podobne neumnosti ok)

Bom vseeno ...

Sicer se strinjam z vsem, ampak tisto v oklepaju je res tako velika neumnost? Če bi ti pred enim letom povedal kaj te čaka čez par mesecev, bi mi rekel kaj? Pa verjel ali ne, to kar se dogaja zdaj je v istem paketu kot vsebina oklepaja (poglej WEF - svetovni ekonomski forum; niso ravnozemljaši, prej obratno). Kako hitro se bo odvijalo je pa odvisno od nas. Če sklepam po rakcijah tukaj na forumu, zelo hitro. Ker smo pač hudo upogljivi. Na srečo marsikateri narod v evropi ni tako ubogljiv. Bomo videli ...

Popravil citat in par malenkosti ... Zdaj grem pa kuhat in upam da me vmes spusti želja po aktivnem udejstvovanju tukaj :fredi: