Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

Vaccines can trigger an immune response where the body wasn't naturally doing that.. . .

That's not how vaccines work. The "trigger" of a vaccine is the same as the "trigger" of having the disease -- namely the virus itself, or the virus' antigens. A vaccine cannot work if the body has no natural immune response to the virus. And with no natural immune response, you would just die. This natural immune response is how your body fights off an infection.



Vaccines against viruses are mostly just injections of the virus itself, in a less virulent form. The vaccine gmakes you sick, but in a very mild form. The immunity you get is precisely the same as you would get from having been sick naturally, except that it's easier to deal with because the virus you get injected with has been "engineered" to make it less harmful.



So if one doesn't work, the other won't either. If you don't believe me, just ask a doctor. This is basic stuff.


"Active immunity results when exposure to a disease organism triggers the immune system to produce antibodies to that disease. Exposure to the disease organism can occur through infection with the actual disease (resulting in natural immunity), or introduction of a killed or weakened form of the disease organism through vaccination (vaccine-induced immunity). Either way, if an immune person comes into contact with that disease in the future, their immune system will recognize it and immediately produce the antibodies needed to fight it."


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's not how vaccines work. The "trigger" of a vaccine is the same as the "trigger" of having the disease -- namely the virus itself, or the virus' antigens. A vaccine cannot work if the body has no natural immune response to the virus. And with no natural immune response, you would just die. This natural immune response is how your body fights off an infection.



Vaccines against viruses are mostly just injections of the virus itself, in a less virulent form. The vaccine gmakes you sick, but in a very mild form. The immunity you get is precisely the same as you would get from having been sick naturally, except that it's easier to deal with because the virus you get injected with has been "engineered" to make it less harmful.



So if one doesn't work, the other won't either. If you don't believe me, just ask a doctor. This is basic stuff.


"Active immunity results when exposure to a disease organism triggers the immune system to produce antibodies to that disease. Exposure to the disease organism can occur through infection with the actual disease (resulting in natural immunity), or introduction of a killed or weakened form of the disease organism through vaccination (vaccine-induced immunity). Either way, if an immune person comes into contact with that disease in the future, their immune system will recognize it and immediately produce the antibodies needed to fight it."


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm

This isn't as black and white as you're portraying. If it was the people who have already been infected and have recovered wouldn't be able to be reinfected because, according to you, they've already developed the anti-bodies. The reality is we are seeing that and in short timeframes.



Vaccines come in different types from live to dead to part virus/bacteria and different ways of being applied, including multiple doses. It is very true to say that a coronavirus vaccine can be developed to be effective against a virus where the immune response has been insufficient - I should have been more accurate in my original wording. However, your statement that if there's no herd immunity there's no vaccine is incorrect.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

This isn't as black and white as you're portraying. If it was the people who have already been infected and have recovered wouldn't be able to be reinfected because, according to you, they've already developed the anti-bodies. The reality is we are seeing that and in short timeframes.

Those are things I never said. Whether your acquired immunity comes naturally, from having the disease, or from having your immune system stimulated by a vaccine, the effectiveness and duration of immunity varies according to the disease and according to the individual. That's basic stuff.


So just because you got your immunity naturally, doesn't guaranty that you can't get reinfected, or that you can't get reinfected for life. But neither does a vaccine.


And immunity from a vaccine is almost always shorter in duration and weaker than natural immunity.


"It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after several doses. However, the difference between vaccination and natural infection is the price paid for immunity." https://www.chop.edu/centers-program...tem-and-health


Studies also show that even when the antibody response wanes, immunity from a natural infection tends to last longer than that from a vaccine.

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/...an-a-flu-shot/


Now that's nothing against vaccination. Vaccination is awesome because you can get your immunity without getting sick, risking death, etc. Of course everyone would prefer get get their immunity from a vaccine, IF we have such a choice, even if the immunity is less effective.

Originally Posted by tp12

Vaccines come in different types from live to dead to part virus/bacteria and different ways of being applied, including multiple doses. It is very true to say that a coronavirus vaccine can be developed to be effective against a virus where the immune response has been insufficient

This is not true. I'm not a specialist in this, but according to my friend who IS an epidemiologist, there has never been a single case of a vaccine working where natural immunity does not. Because the mechanism is the same. All a vaccine does is stimulate the body's natural immune response, giving the body a head start when an infection begins. Normally it can take a week after exposure to a new virus for the body to figure out how to make the appropriate antibodies. Meanwhile during this week you can get very sick. After vaccination, your body has the ability to make those same antibodies immediately, so can respond immediately, often stopping the infection before it gets going.

Originally Posted by tp12

. . .- I should have been more accurate in my original wording. However, your statement that if there's no herd immunity there's no vaccine is incorrect.

My statement was correct. More precisely what I said is that if there is no natural immunity, then a vaccine won't work either. And no herd immunity then in either case. If you have some source to the contrary, other than your own opinion, I would be glad to read it.


A perfect example of this is HIV. HIV is an exceptional case of a virus against which natural immunity doesn't work, or almost never works. Almost no one who is infected with HIV ever gets rid of the infection. As a result of that, development of a vaccine has been impossible.



"Classic vaccines mimic natural immunity against reinfection as seen in individuals recovered from infection; there are almost no recovered AIDS patients."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_va...in_development.



Let's hope that the novel coronavirus is not like this. But I think we are pretty sure now that it is not. By now hundreds of thousands of people have fought off the virus using their natural immune response. There are a few possible cases of refinfection but that is true of many diseases and doesn't show that there is no acquired immunity at all; just that it's not perfect, which is not surprising.


As Dr. Fauci said:


"I would think that it is more likely than not that we will [develop a vaccine]. Because this is a virus that induces an immune response that people recover, the overwhelming majority of people recover from this virus. [T]he very fact that the body is capable of spontaneously clearing the virus tells me that at least from a conceptual standpoint, we can stimulate the body with a vaccine that would induce a similar response."

Dr. Fauci testifies TRANSCRIPT: 5/12/20, The Last Word w/ Lawrence O'Donnell | MSNBC

[tp12]

Yeah, ok Dockhead. It gets pretty boring pointing out things that you won't accept. Remembering that you're the guy who wouldn't accept that he made up stuff like 'vaccines are at least 18 mths away' etc.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

Yeah, ok Dockhead. It gets pretty boring pointing out things that you won't accept. Remembering that you're the guy who wouldn't accept that he made up stuff like 'vaccines are at least 18 mths away' etc.

I just "made up" that vaccines are at least 18 months away? Weird. Don't you read the news?


"The World Health Organisation has admitted a vaccine for the coronavirus won't be ready for 18 months, as it renames the disease Covid-19." https://www.theaustralian.com.au/wor...510df63c7692d4




"French President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday the earliest a vaccine against the coronavirus can be expected is at the end of 2021.
"'No one is telling me we'll be able to get a vaccine before winter '21,' Macron said while visiting the Pasteur Institute in Paris, where researchers developed a test for the coronavirus and are working on developing treatment and a vaccine.

"'I’m saying this because in times like these it’s important to have a time horizon so I can't tell you we’re going to find a miracle vaccine that will allow us to stop the epidemic this summer, it’s not true,'Macron added."
https://www.politico.eu/article/macr...e-end-of-2021/

"'It will take at least a year to a year in a half to have a vaccine we can use,' said National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Anthony Fauci, MD."
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ises-9-seattle


Shall I go on? Of course we all HOPE it might be faster, but even 18 months to widely distributing a new vaccine from the start of development would be a world record.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I just "made up" that vaccines are at least 18 months away? Weird. Don't you read the news?

Yes, you did. And yes, I do. Which is how I know you did.


What are the odds of you being correct 100% of the time versus being in denial? Hint, they're not in your favour.

[tp12]

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...ll-it-be-ready


https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51665497


There's two sources quoting 12-18 months proving that you cherry pick your articles that feed your bias. There's many more, as well. Claiming that a vaccine is 'at least 18 mths away' is bollocks. But that's how you have conducted yourself on this subject.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Shall I go on? Of course we all HOPE it might be faster, but even 18 months to widely distributing a new vaccine from the start of development would be a world record.

I notice you edited this part of your original post to add everything after 'Shall I go on'. Which, I might add, I've already provided links debunking and I could go on ... but, I digress.

Let's look at your new made up claim - 'even 18 months to widely distribute a new vaccine from the start of development would be a world record'

1 - Please show us this list of world records for vaccine development that you've used to derive this comment.

2 - I note you've now added 'start of development' and 'widely distribute' to your original claim of 'a vaccine is at least 18 mths away' - moving the goal posts. Firstly, as the virus is similar to SARS some researchers feel they've got a start on Covid-19 vaccine development. Let's stick with your original, made up, statement and leave the extra qualifications out.

In any case. I've already countered the 'at least 18 mths' bit. The reality is you've cherry picked that because it supported your biased opinion towards opening the economy and getting your building back to work.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

I notice you edited this part of your original post to add everything after 'Shall I go on'. Which, I might add, I've already provided links debunking and I could go on ... but, I digress.

Let's look at your new made up claim - 'even 18 months to widely distribute a new vaccine from the start of development would be a world record'

1 - Please show us this list of world records for vaccine development that you've used to derive this comment.

2 - I note you've now added 'start of development' and 'widely distribute' to your original claim of 'a vaccine is at least 18 mths away' - moving the goal posts. Firstly, as the virus is similar to SARS some researchers feel they've got a start on Covid-19 vaccine development. Let's stick with your original, made up, statement and leave the extra qualifications out.

In any case. I've already countered the 'at least 18 mths' bit. The reality is you've cherry picked that because it supported your biased opinion towards opening the economy and getting your building back to work.

I've "cherry picked" quotes showing that it is likely to take at least 18 months to get a vaccine deployed? So the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, and Dr. Fauci are "cherries"? Again, this is just weird.


The only person I've seen claiming it will be faster is the president of one North American country, whom I shall not name.


A more typical expert opinion is the following:


"Eighteen months might sound like a long time, but in vaccine years, it's a blink. That's the long end of the Trump administration's time window for developing a coronavirus vaccine, and some leaders in the field say this is too fast -- and could come at the expense of safety.


"Ever since, that estimate of 12-18 months has become gospel, its appearance in media stories ubiquitous. But medical experts and scientists with firsthand experience developing vaccines are skeptical.

"'Tony Fauci is saying a year to 18 months -- I think that's optimistic,' said Dr. Peter Hotez, a leading expert on infectious disease and vaccine development at Baylor College of Medicine. 'Maybe if all the stars align, but probably longer.'

Dr. Paul Offit, the co-inventor of the successful rotavirus vaccine, put it more bluntly.

"'When Dr. Fauci said 12 to 18 months, I thought that was ridiculously optimistic,' he told CNN. 'And I'm sure he did, too.'"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/oth...al/ar-BB11Yzjh


The "world record" for vaccine development and deployment was the mumps:


"The mumps vaccine—considered the fastest ever approved—took four years to go from collecting viral samples to licensing a drug in 1967.


"A year to 18 months would be absolutely unprecedented,” says Peter Hotez, dean at Baylor University’s National School of Tropical Medicine. 'Maybe with the new technology, maybe with throwing enough money on it, that'll happen. But we have to be really careful about those time estimates.'”


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...r-than-a-year/


Note that you have to develop a vaccine first, one that works. You might get lucky, but it might take years, or it might never happen at all. THEN, you have go through THREE PHASES of testing, to be sure it works and be sure it doesn't do more harm than good. Then once a vaccine is tested and certified, THEN you have to manufacture and distribute it.



Assuming we are incredibly lucky and come up with an effective vaccine in a year, we still have to manufacture and deploy billions of doses of it, in order to stop the pandemic:


"As the world searches for a way to end the coronavirus pandemic, the race is on to find and produce a vaccine. Some optimistic forecasts suggest that one could be available in 12–18 months — but researchers are already warning that it might not be physically possible to make enough vaccine for everyone. . .


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01063-8

It is hard to imagine that from the time the vaccine is ready, until enough of it has been produced and distributed and administered to people, to stop the pandemic, will take less than a year. So I think end of 2021 is really optimistic, and that is what the experts believe.



As do the Harvard University researchers who recently came out with the most extensive model yet of the pandemic:


https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...e.abb5793.full


This is REALLY worth reading for anyone actually interested in the nuts and bolts of the pandemic.



The study assumes as a base case:


1. Vaccine will not be deployed enough to make a difference in the next two years, if at all.
2. There is cross-immunity between the two main strains of the virus.

3. Natural immunity from an infection lasts for two years.


And concludes that:

1. Frequent social distancing interventions will be required to prevent the pandemic from overwhelming health care systems.
2. If there is less than two years of natural immunity, the pandemic will continue indefinitely.
3. Even if natural immunity is permanent, the pandemic will reappear in five years.
4. This occurence will last until about the middle of 2022.



On the more optimistic side:



1. "A vaccine would accelerate the accumulation of immunity in the population, reducing the overall length of the epidemic and averting infections that might have resulted in a need for critical care."
2. "If there have been many undocumented immunizing infections, the herd immunity threshold may be reached sooner than our models suggest."

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...ll-it-be-ready

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51665497

There's two sources quoting 12-18 months proving that you cherry pick your articles that feed your bias. There's many more, as well. Claiming that a vaccine is 'at least 18 mths away' is bollocks. But that's how you have conducted yourself on this subject.

That's two sources quoting 12 to 18 months to DEVELOP the vaccine. Just developing it doesn't stop the pandemic. Herd immunity requires probably 70% of everyone to get immunized one way or another. That's 5 billion people. At least 5 billion doses, and probably 10 billion or 15 billion. How long will it take to manufacture that, and inject 5 billion people? A year? Two years? 5 years?


We will not see a vaccine having any measurable impact on the pandemic before the end of 2021, and even that is ridiculously optimistic. We can hope of course.

[Quebramar]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's two sources quoting 12 to 18 months to DEVELOP the vaccine. Just developing it doesn't stop the pandemic. Herd immunity requires probably 70% of everyone to get immunized one way or another. That's 5 billion people. At least 5 billion doses, and probably 10 billion or 15 billion. How long will it take to manufacture that, and inject 5 billion people? A year? Two years? 5 years?


We will not see a vaccine having any measurable impact on the pandemic before the end of 2021, and even that is ridiculously optimistic. We can hope of course.

2021 indeed sounds still optimistic to have a significant impact worlwide.

Re. timelines, the approach taken may differ for each company/organisation that is researching at the moment and may enhance timelines compared to a business-as-usual situation.

There are many steps to get through before the products can be available to people. In short, the main steps are: safety and efficacy clinical trials to assess the product, then regulatory approval (different parts of the world have different processes) and production. Succeeding in shortening every step is crucial, and if possible run some in parallel (like starting production before approval, which is a risk that could be taken).

Late update on CNN claiming the first 2 steps (ie confirming the vaccine works) could be achieved before year-end:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/20...t-ebof-vpx.cnn

The reason for this is that the approach taken by Pfizer is that it is a synthetic vaccine, not a reproduction of the virus (dead or attenuated) which requires incumbation. That cuts the time significantly. Vulgarisation here:
https://www.breakthroughs.com/health...tional-vaccine

There potentially may come many vaccines and this is great, because contrary to some other diseases, it seems as though individual reactions to the infection are very different from one another, thus requiring different mechanisms.

There are at the moment so many unknowns esp. on level and duration of immunity, as well as mutation probability. I think the regular cold (another coronavirus) has more than 160 strains and has rather minor impacts "generally" that a vaccine is almost impossible to make (low coverage and probability of success, vs low benefit).

[Dockhead]

Dr. Fauci's Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy, commenting on the new Harvard study:



"They found that, although one-time physical distancing measures lowered the epidemic peak, infections resurged when they were lifted. And longer and stricter physical distancing didn't always correlate with greater peak flattening.
"For example, given 20 weeks of physical distancing achieving a 60% reduction in R0 and no seasonal variation, the resurgence peak was nearly as high as the peak of the uncontrolled epidemic.
"The social distancing was so effective that virtually no population immunity was built," the authors wrote. "The greatest reductions in peak size come from social distancing intensity and duration that divide cases approximately equally between peaks."
"But if seasonal variations occurred, simulations showed that the peak of a resurgence when physical distancing measures were lifted could be even higher than the one of an uncontrolled pandemic.
"Strong social distancing maintained a high proportion of susceptible individuals in the population, leading to an intense epidemic when R0 rises in the late autumn and winter," they said. "None of the one-time interventions was effective in maintaining the prevalence of critical cases below the critical care capacity."


https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...19-study-finds



This is very interesting. If not happy news!


It means:


1. A single episode of strict social distancing will not by itself get the epidemic under control and might even make it worse in the next wave. This is really important. This supports the Swedish epidemiologists' assertion, and what the head of the Finnish public health agency said, that it is dangerous to lock down too hard, maintaining too low a level of infection, because you will slow down the development of population immunity.


2. It also means that we are in for a long period of needing effective, sustainable measures for slowing down the rate of infection to keep the pandemic under control. One tough lockdown does not solve it.



3. We are just at the beginning of this thing. We are going to be dealing with this for most likely at least a couple of years. According to the Harvard study, at least through the middle of 2022.


4. It's way too early to say this or that country has been successful with its measures. The most you can say is that this or that country succeeded in limiting the number of infections so far, but we know that infections will flare up again once the measures are lifted. How sustainable are the measures? Looking at a couple of years of them, this will be THE critical question.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
2. "If there have been many undocumented immunizing infections, the herd immunity threshold may be reached sooner than our models suggest."

The previously mentioned study, I think it was from France, had methodology that would seem to under count how many people have had the virus. Since the start of this, I kept reading that there could be 5-10 times more infections than is known. Then the guy from Stanford said the number could be 50-85 times what is known.

The 10 time number drastically lower the death rate in many countries, and anything above 10, really drives down the death rate. Course, if the Stanford guy is right, even at the low end of his guestimate, we may be much farther along to herd immunity that one would expect. If herd immunity is possible with this virus.

For months, countries around the world have been trying to increase virus testing but testing does not seem to have improved that much. Not even talking about tests that are reliable. Just this week, my county, which has some of the highest infections per population, finally got ONE testing facility. BUT, you can only get tested if you have symptoms. That is minimally useful. Our infections and high death rates is because the virus got into at least one nursing home. Last time I looked, they are up to almost 100 patients and staff being infected, and the number of deaths doubled in the last couple of days.

My family had a flu back in January. Twas not bad, twas not good, it was the flu. They have had worse. I did not get sick but was I a carrier? One family member was tested and did not have flu A or B. So what flu did they have? It kept one person out of work for a week or two. Could it have been The Virus? Seems early but was it?

The person tested had a job, since laid off, that exposed them to large numbers of people, many of whom traveled.

I work with many people who travel. We had people traveling to Europe in late November and early December. At the end of November, one person went to Taiwan and another went to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Another coworker has family in Taiwan, and I THINK, may have had a family member traveling to Taiwan in the November time frame. One of the coworker's has family in Taiwan with business in China. Two of the people who went to Taiwan attended a event with something like 200 people...

At work, we sit crammed together with less space than sewing machine operators in a sweat shop in China....

Could my family already had the virus? Did I bring it home and never had symptoms? It sure is possible. If it did happen, we have not been counted and there is no way to count us. Nor does it seem likely that there will be enough testing any time soon to see if the one person who had the flu, but not flu A or B, had Corona.

Later,
Dan

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by dannc

The previously mentioned study, I think it was from France, had methodology that would seem to under count how many people have had the virus. Since the start of this, I kept reading that there could be 5-10 times more infections than is known. Then the guy from Stanford said the number could be 50-85 times what is known.

The 10 time number drastically lower the death rate in many countries, and anything above 10, really drives down the death rate. Course, if the Stanford guy is right, even at the low end of his guestimate, we may be much farther along to herd immunity that one would expect. If herd immunity is possible with this virus.

For months, countries around the world have been trying to increase virus testing but testing does not seem to have improved that much. Not even talking about tests that are reliable. Just this week, my county, which has some of the highest infections per population, finally got ONE testing facility. BUT, you can only get tested if you have symptoms. That is minimally useful. Our infections and high death rates is because the virus got into at least one nursing home. Last time I looked, they are up to almost 100 patients and staff being infected, and the number of deaths doubled in the last couple of days.

My family had a flu back in January. Twas not bad, twas not good, it was the flu. They have had worse. I did not get sick but was I a carrier? One family member was tested and did not have flu A or B. So what flu did they have? It kept one person out of work for a week or two. Could it have been The Virus? Seems early but was it?

The person tested had a job, since laid off, that exposed them to large numbers of people, many of whom traveled.

I work with many people who travel. We had people traveling to Europe in late November and early December. At the end of November, one person went to Taiwan and another went to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Another coworker has family in Taiwan, and I THINK, may have had a family member traveling to Taiwan in the November time frame. One of the coworker's has family in Taiwan with business in China. Two of the people who went to Taiwan attended a event with something like 200 people...

At work, we sit crammed together with less space than sewing machine operators in a sweat shop in China....

Could my family already had the virus? Did I bring it home and never had symptoms? It sure is possible. If it did happen, we have not been counted and there is no way to count us.

Later,
Dan

One of the biggest problems we have today is that there is too little testing for us to understand this stuff. It makes it harder to make good policy.


There were some studies which showed that undercounting could even be on the level of 50x or 100x. That would be encouraging -- it would mean that the virus is much less deadly than we had previously thought, and that a much greater percentage of the population has already had it, so that we might expect to be already starting to gain population immunity (herd immunity).


But some new studies look different (I think Montanan linked to them above), with a lesser degree of underreporting. If these are correct, then populations even in Spain and France are still quite vulnerable, and the virus is more deadly.



What's the truth of it? We can't know without more testing. It's frustrating that it takes so long to ramp up testing -- I completely agree with what you wrote about that above.



You wrote "If herd immunity is possible with this virus." If any immunity from this virus is possible, then herd immunity is possible. If there's no immunity, then it will be like HIV. But that can hardly be true considering the fact that hundreds of thousands have recovered from infections -- no one just gets over HIV. Let's hope, anyway.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Conversely, populations with very few immune people are most vulnerable, as every person then is a potential vector of further infection. Such populations can have more explosive outbreaks, than populations in which there is already a certain amount of immunity. ...

According to all we know, the above is what we KNOW.


For further entertainment:



" ... A year later, Columbus built his first town on the nearby island of Hispaniola, where the Taino numbered at least 60,000 and possibly as many as 8 million, according to some estimates. But by 1548, the Taino population there had plummeted to less than 500. Lacking immunity to Old World pathogens carried by the Spanish, Hispaniola’s indigenous inhabitants fell victim to terrible plagues of smallpox, influenza, and other viruses...."


source: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...ess-new-world#


It never stops amusing that five centuries later and in populations that consider themselves educated, there are still people that BELIEVE vaccines are devil's inventions and 5G networks will make our daughters pregnant. So help me God.


Sure, if they spend all days on SnapChat, anything can happen. Just stop blaming the technology ;-)


believe vs know
believe vs know ...


barnakiel