QUESTION: Wouldnt any CV19 vaccine have to be 98% effective vs 50% effective like some Flu vaccines?

[uponit7771]

A 50% effective CV19 vaccine would possible harm a lot of people cause like in 1918 people would think they have immunity from only 50% effective and lower their guards.

The recent news on some natural immunity process for CV19 haven't been exactly positive and neither has the news on some vaccines where they only test 10 non random people and claim success with something.

I'm no way an anti-vaxer I just have a rational skepticism of anything related to the current administration

Thx for your input

edited kill to harm cause neither or outcomes that are welcomed

[beachbumbob]

1. The issue is, as it stands 50% who get Covid have no or

Very mild symptoms. A vaccine that's only 50% effective is pretty useless if beating a pandemic is the desired outcome.

[uponit7771]

3. thx, I was thinking this when I heard the vaccine shenanigans in the British study where they test

... only 10 people who were NOT randomly picked for a second dose

damn

[denem]

2. No.

With an estimated R0 of 3, about 75% immunity in the population will provide 'herd immunity' to CV19.

[uponit7771]

4. CDC says median R0 for CV19 is 6 (link) not three ... does that change anything? tia

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

[denem]

11. R0 is a moving target.

The figure of 6 is an estimate of the infection rate in Wuhan before any public health measure were taken, and indeed before the virus was even known to exist.

The more people follow public health guidelines the lower the figure is. When measures 'flatten the curve', and infections are falling, the r0 is less than 1.

[uponit7771]

18. Looks like they're were figuring for median Ro vs relative Ro that the median Ro is still sky high..

... and set

[beachbumbob]

5. Problem is nothing points to any permanent immunity, matter of

fact, they are seeing only short term which will never allow herd immunity.

[uponit7771]

7. +1, this is what I'm seeing too. There are way too many studies showing immunity doesn't last

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. That is not an established fact

Only hypothesized in some studies that were inconclusive.

There is research that shows patients who were infected late 2019-early 2020 still retain immunity. The more severe the infection, the stronger the immunity. Dr. Ho spoke about this on Rachel last night.

[beachbumbob]

10. Not going to debate this as fact been established on

people who come done with Covid more than once indicates there is a problem with immunity.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Post link to source - I think you are misremembering

The reports I have seen are that people have tested positive, then negative, then positive again, without symptoms on the first test.

This does NOT mean they had COVID twice - much more likely that the first test was a false positive- remember early on when they had to recall the CDC tests because of a faulty component? Some versions of the the approx. 200 tests available around the world have as high a false positive rate as 30%.

[Ms. Toad]

16. No. There are people who have recovered, tested negative, become ill again

some with worse symptoms than the first time.

I'm looking for the article that came out within the last 2 weeks about specific individuals this has happened to.

ETA: Here's one report https://www.vox.com/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twice-reinfection-antibody-herd-immunity

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. That link proves my point- 1 patient, small number of other patients in inconclusive research

That information is anecdotal at best- certainly worth further study, but not definitive evidence.

Last night on Rachel, DR. Ho said he was hopeful there would a vaccine that would both create antibodies as well as boost T cell function.

[Ms. Toad]

22. No it disproves your point.

You said:

The reports I have seen are that people have tested positive, then negative, then positive again, without symptoms on the first test.

This does NOT mean they had COVID twice - much more likely that the first test was a false positive

From the article I linked to:

Two patients in New Jersey, for instance, appear to have contracted Covid-19 a second time almost two months after fully recovering from their first infection. Daniel Griffin, a physician and researcher at Columbia University in New York, recently described a case of presumed reinfection on the This Week in Virology podcast.

It is possible, but unlikely, that my patient had a single infection that lasted three months. Some Covid-19 patients (now dubbed “long haulers”) do appear to suffer persistent infections and symptoms.

My patient, however, cleared his infection — he had two negative PCR tests after his first infection — and felt healthy for nearly six weeks.

First, it was three patients - not one. One patient is specifically discussed, but two more are identified.

For the patient specifically discussed, the second illnesses came nearly two months after the first.

They actually had significant symptoms (not a false positive test without symptoms)

They tested negative between the first and second illness.

They they had worse symptoms and tested positive again (again, not a false positive test without symptoms)

Following the link in the article would have taken you to this description of the two additional patients referenced:

https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/monmouth/news/central-jersey-doctor-reports-patients-reinfected-with-coronavirus/790555/

Ditchek said the first patient had COVID-19 a few months ago, tested negative for months in between, went to a party last weekend, and then tested positive for coronavirus this week. "So that is a reinfection," the doctor said.

. . .

Ditchek said he encountered a second reinfected patient on Wednesday from the same family. This patient had accumulated so many antibodies from his previous COVID-19 infection that he was able to donate plasma to other coronavirus patients two times.

"He'd been negative for seven weeks and sure enough was re-exposed," Ditchek said, and diagnosed positive for COVID-19 this week.

That is not at all the situation you have described. It is the situation you say is not happening.

[uponit7771]

20. No, the Spanish study was 60,000 people who were tested for immunity (link) do NOT retain it

immunity for more than a month

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext

The recent one was from the UK was not more optomistic than that

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. I have never heard of a vaccine that is 50% effective- maybe 50/50 chance of effectiveness?

A vaccine is either effective or it isn’t. With the seasonal flu, they have to approximate which strains to target in the spring for the fall. If the strain mutates significantly, or if an untargeted strain emerges as more prevalent , the vaccine won’t be effective.

Yes, I have heard that some vaccinated people still get mild symptoms, but there are a number of possible variables - previous partial immunity from a similar strain, either by infection or vaccination.

COVID-19 is different from The seasonal flu; although a few mutations have been suggested, scientists are working on vaccines for the same basic genetic material.

[uponit7771]

12. From AAFP: CDC Releases Interim Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Report (link) looks like its even less ...

... than 50% on some strains of flu

CDC Releases Interim Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Report

https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20200226interimfluve.html#:~:text=21%20CDC%20Morbidity%20and%20Mortality%20Weekly%20Report%2C%20the%20current%20influenza,influenza%20A(H1N1)pdm09.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

According to a Feb. 21 CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the current influenza vaccine has been 45% effective overall against 2019-2020 seasonal influenza A and B viruses.

Specifically, the flu vaccine has been 50% effective against influenza B/Victoria viruses and 37% effective against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.

The MMWR also emphasized that this year's vaccine substantially protected children and adolescents ages 6 months to 17 years, with 55% vaccine effectiveness seen in this population.

[mjvpi]

9. Glue vaccine is a guess as to yearly strains.

COVID vaccine should be more specific

[Ms. Toad]

15. Correct. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

14. I am far more likely to take a COVID 19 vaccine that is 50% effective

than I am to get the flu vaccine.

COVID 19 is a deadly illness, which also frequently carries devastating consequences when it is not fatal, and which is contagious before you feel any symptoms (and even if you never experience symptoms). More severe consquences, more contagious, my inability to control passing it on to others by staying home when I'm sick means I don't need it to be as effective before I'll take it.

Influenza doesn't tip the balance for me. Its effectiveness is actually far less than 50% (last year it was about 10%, if I recall correctly, and it has not topped 50% in several years). It can be deadly, but at about 10% of the rate at which COVID 19 is deadly (although we don't have a final answer on COVID 19, it is likely to be more deadly). There are secondary consequences from the flu - but not nearly as many as with COVID 19 (and many of the things we think of as secondary consequences with influenza are actually part and parcel of COVID 19). And while there is a small period of being contagious before becoming symptomatic, it is shorter than that with COVID, and the steps I take to prevent myself from getting colds, flu, or COVID 19(obsessive hand washing, not touching any surfaces, social distancing) 19 also protect others from getting it from me during that brief period.

In short - the more severe the consequences of having/passing on the disease & the more contagious, the more willing I am to vaccinate - even with a less effective vaccine.

That said, if people look at it as absolute protection - you are correct, it could be dangerous. We just have to shift our thinking (generally) about hygiene and disease prevention. I did that more than a decade ago - and have rarely had any illnesses since then. But most people haven't. Thinking of vaccines as magic bullets - without extensive education about continuing disease prevention hygiene - may have the impact you fear.

[uponit7771]

24. Yes, I'm thinking absolute protection seeing this even a little bit of CV19 becomes horrible to ...

... myself or someone else.

I do understand there's a viral load factor but I don't see that being measured among the non symptomatic.

If a little bit of CV19 vaccine helps I'll do it though

[duforsure]

17. I don't know

But I'm 100% sure while trumps in office I won't take it.

[Jirel]

21. It doesn't matter.

The early AIDS drugs were crude and not as effective, but they HELPED. The flu vaccines every year are sometime mistargeted, but HELP. A vaccine that is only 50% effective will HELP while other studies continue.

Not sure why everyone sees this in black and white.

Even shots you have to take every 3 months will HELP.

[beachbumbob]

23. early aids drugs were a cocktail mix to treat the symptoms, not provide immunity

we still have nothing that does that with HIV

[Jirel]

27. Obviously. You've missed the point.

Since I guess I have to spell it out... AIDS drugs, when they eventually got onto the market, were somewhat helpful but not all that effective for every patient - certainly not by today's standards and better drugs. Patients developed resistance, as well. The drugs were basically as stopgap, to give patients more time until a better set of drugs, a cure, or a vaccine could be developed. When they were testing these drugs, there was no hand-wringing that they might not help everyone, or they might have side effects, or they might be inconvenient to administer. AZT got fast-tracked with little work on safety or effectiveness, in just 4 months. The community of patients with AIDS said "Yes, thank you, let's try these and do all we can with them while we keep looking." In the 1990s when HAART was developed and approved, and was much more effective, patients had to take many pills every day, so that some just gave up. Not awesome. But it saved lives, and it was what we had.

Same thing with partially effective vaccines for COVID-19. They'll better than nothing. Yay. If we have to have multiple shots per year, which is a pain just like taking HAART was, it's better than nothing. Yay.

Clear enough?

[uponit7771]

25. Its black and white as far as we know when it comes to transmission, that's an black/white that even

... the non symptomatic can pass it off to other people.

So if it only works to contain symptoms halfway that doesn't mean it can't be transmitted to others.

Also, we don't know if low viral loads gets a person full hospitalizations ... if it helps to lower viral loads so a person can't transmit or get hospitalized then I'd see it more as a positive thing

[Jirel]

28. It's anything but black and white.

With or without a partially successful vaccine, you'll have symptomatic and non-symptomatic people passing around the disease. Fewer people passing it successfully? That's a win.

We do have some evidence that lower viral loads mean lower transmission. The infectious dose of COVID-19 is not known. We need a lot more work on this. The highest viral loads happen while many people are asymptomatic, making them likely the most contagious both due to viral load and behavior. However, once again if there is an IMPROVEMENT by lowering viral load and transmission, that's a win - for now.

[gollygee]

49. 50% effectiveness doesn't mean the same no. of people get it but it contains their symptoms halfway

It means 50% as many people get it.

[Midnight Writer]

26. Is that 50% per capita? It all depends on the per capita. There are many types of per capita.

Most people don't know that, but I've been hearing it from many, many people.

[Aristus]

29. I have a rational skepticism of anyone claiming not to be an anti-vaxxer, but using language like

"A vaccine would kill lots of people."

Vaccines don't kill people. In the past, sure, it happened. But the people who needed to learn from that, learned from that.

If a vaccine is ineffective, one can die from the COVID-19 the vaccine was intended to shield the patient from. But it's not the vaccine that would do the killing.

And the "Only 50% effective" trope is common among anti-vaxxers. While no vaccine is 100% effective, the goal is to reduce morbidity and mortality from infectious disease. The CDC creates a model for a yearly influenza vaccine based on the best available scientific data, to predict which strain of influenza will be the dominant strain in any given flu season. The prediction is not always accurate, and the resulting vaccine may sometimes have only a 25% effectiveness rate.

However, as anyone with medical training and clinical experience can tell you, even a 25% effectiveness rate can be the difference between life and death, since a partial immunity is vastly preferable to no immunity at all.

Arbitrarily assigning a predicted effectiveness rate of 98% is unrealistic, and can alter people's perceptions of the importance of vaccines. It falls along the lines of "making perfect the enemy of the good." If a vaccine is proven to be safe and effective in combating the spread of viral infection, that's the prize. Let's keep our eyes on that, and not on some brainstormed 98% effectiveness expectation.

[uponit7771]

30. "... in the past sure it happened... " WTF? That's the point of my statement you can't dismiss what

... happened in the past as "we've learned" as if the same mistakes can't be made again; they are damn near step for step relative to 1918 where the US dispensed a worthless "vaccine" that gave people a false sense of security.

In this case its walking like a duck, talking like a duck, quacking and laying eggs when it comes to the vaccine mistakes of the past.

Along with the scant details of how we're getting mitigating the time testing issue; nine women in one month don't produce babies and how in the world are we supposed to tell if the vaccine is safe in the human body in less than a year.

rational skepticism based on reality (and that includes actions of the past) isn't being an anti-vaxxer

[Aristus]

31. That's not what I said.

At one time, around a hundred years ago, vaccines killed a number of people, including the daughter of Johnny Gruelle, the creator of Raggedy Ann.

But they don't kill anymore. Or cause autism, or whatever condition anti-vaxxers are hung up on this season.

That was my point, which is why I cautioned against the use of phrases like "a vaccine could kill a lot of people". It's misleading at best, and dangerous misinformation at worst.

If a vaccine for COVID-19 is declared safe and effective by the developers of vaccines, we should all get it. Just what the nature of that vaccine will be is anyone's guess right now, since there has only been limited and temporary success in stimulating the creation of antibodies to COVID-19 in test subjects.

[uponit7771]

32. temp

temp

[uponit7771]

33. I disagree 100%, Abbot labs lack of accuracy in CV19 test has most likely not been a net positive

... in the community.

Same happened with some vaccines in the past; they've harmed some humans.

I'll lower the term from death to harm because neither is wanted among humans so Rushed or politically related vaccines have harmed people in the past per cdc and its been less than 100 yrs ago.


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html


Then ... add Trump into the equation; the fact that he is right now trying to convince people to send their kids to school tells me that NO KIDS should go to school ... he's a fuckin moron and we should shade on doing the opposite of what he does.

That's reality, I can be pro vaccine and very skeptical relative to the facts of the day

[Aristus]

34. There's going to be a huge potential for miscommunication if a vaccine is developed

while he's in office.

On the one hand, Trump is touting all kinds of snake oil as a remedy for COVID in a desperate bid to ramp down the rate of infection and juice his poll numbers at the same time.

If however, in the unlikely event a safe, effective vaccine is developed before the election, and Trump advocates for it rather than the snake oil, there will likely be a huge temptation on the part of those who oppose him to reject the vaccine itself, simply because Trump is pumping it.

Don't get me wrong; it's not very likely that Trump would support established science in this case, since he never has before. But it's the vaccine we need to focus on, not Trump's reaction to it.

[uponit7771]

36. Got it, that's true .. so what would be a safe way to react to a vaccine?

For instance "in the unlikely event a safe, effective vaccine is developed before the election"

How would we know it was safe especially if there's no time related testing that goes along with these vaccines?

The similar virus to CV19 is the common cold and there hasn't been a vaccine for it like there's been vaccines for similar other viruses so how would one know things are safe?

The time related testing seems like the question that gets the least answers or attention

[gollygee]

43. The common cold (rhinovirus) has 160 strains

and they aren't as similar as you keep trying to suggest. Apples/oranges.

[gollygee]

35. I agree

50% immunity would be much better than no vaccine at all.

[uponit7771]

38. Not if its absolute immunity, that does no one good with the Case Fatality Rate is so high and the

... Ro or infection rate is out of this world (median Ro is 6 according to CDC).

This is not a virus were only half the people who get the vaccine can't catch it cause we'll never know who those people are and we're back to square one social distancing and lack of mobility.

[gollygee]

40. You were already told that isn't the R0 number

It's about 2.5. That number you are using is very old. It can help bring that number down below 1.

[uponit7771]

50. That's not the median Ro that's a relative one. The median Ro is 6 is from the CDC and not 2.5

... I can believe the CDC numbers looking at the estimates of 10x spread of what PCR in an area is

[gollygee]

53. It's R-naught (or zero) and not the letter o

and I've looked at several articles and they all say it's between 2 and 2.5. Here are two of them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/world/europe/coronavirus-R0-explainer.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/r0-covid-19-virus-key-metric-opening-plans/story?id=70868997

[uponit7771]

56. The CDC says 6 & was done in July after your two articles, its 6 and

... that matches the 10x estitmate spread in some areas.

also

The small "o" = naught in this font, so Ro = R0 in another font

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

[gollygee]

57. Most scientists, including this week, are saying about 2.5

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/why-r0-is-problematic-for-predicting-covid-19-spread-67690

https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Bay-Area-coronavirus-spread-model-increase-county-15429223.php

http://uknow.uky.edu/research/uk-virologist-shares-what-we-know-about-covid-19

https://www.livescience.com/herd-immunity.html

I'm reading around 2 or so. One article said 2 to 3. One said "about 2, although some researchers think it could be as high as 6." So you've chosen an outlier and said that's the agreed-upon number by the CDC. Most scientists being interviewed, including over the past week, are saying around 2.5.

[uponit7771]

61. I wonder why the CDC declared a 5.7 median Ro then

[gollygee]

59. I looked at your link

and that's an article the CDC is showing about research, not a determination by the CDC, and it's based on early data from Wuhan in December to January.

[BannonsLiver]

37. +1

I sometimes wonder if certain folks here don’t want a vaccine or this pandemic to end.

[uponit7771]

39. ...or people who give Trump too much of the benefit of the doubt that he or his pharma cronies ...

.... (cause that's 80% of the people involved in his US vaccine bullshit) will develop something that's safe for all ages and stages and effective.

I'm blown away that the guy who's bragging about passing a dementia test's administration gets the benefit of the doubt in anyway

[BannonsLiver]

41. I'm operating on the belief those engineering the vaccine aren't exclusively Trump cronies

I don’t believe every scientist (real ones, not those who role play on DU) working on treatments and a vaccine are doing so to boost trump. That’s because I’m not a lunatic.

[uponit7771]

47. Not the engineers but the heads of the pharma companies are too involved with Trump admin on some

... on some level to trust them at face value.

Look at the test they promised to back with 2 billion dollars?!

10 non random people showed positive results with a second shot ?! REALLY !?

Who's positing this bullshit ?!

Also, Red Don doesn't do science so that's not at the center of any vaccine releases when it comes to his decisions.

I think its rational to be skeptical when it comes to anything related to Trumps admin

[gollygee]

42. The scientists working on this vaccine are not Trump cronies

Well educated people like scientists are more likely to vote for Democrats, according to polls.

[uponit7771]

44. ... Trump doesn't do science or scientist IE the reasons I'm rationally skeptical about anything ..

... involved with him

[gollygee]

46. He isn't working on a vaccine

He's just hoping one is found soon because the more people who get sick, the worse it looks for him.

[uponit7771]

54. True, his pharma cronies are involved in working on one though. It sounds like I'll look for an

... oversees vaccine, I'll trust it more than one related in any way to the Trump admin.

[gollygee]

55. They are scientists and not his cronies

I doubt many are voting for him, as I said. They just want people to be healthy.

[uponit7771]

58. They can be both if its the guy who's associated with opperation warp speed and they sold their

... stocks after spikes days after being appointed by Trump.

This is facts, the US vaccine scene associated with Red Don hasn't been on the up and up financially there are way too many pump and dumps and or retractions related to vaccine news in the US.

[gollygee]

60. There's pretty much no chance of a vaccine before the election

He's just trying to get people's hope up because he wants them to vote for him. The vaccine will be tested and we'll get the data about that when it comes.

[uponit7771]

62. 👍

[hunter]

45. Don't get your hopes up. This is not going to be an easy vaccine.

I suspect this virus is going to be the leading cause of death in the U.S.A. for the next year or two at least.

Trump cultists will be denying they killed their own parents and grandparents to the bitter end.

[fescuerescue]

48. It wouldn't kill anyone

It would SAVE alot of people who would otherwise die.

[gollygee]

51. And it would reduce the transmission rate

the more people who get the shot, the fewer people who can get sick and transmit it. Add masks until the numbers are under control and things will get better. We need to bring the r0 number down below 1.

[fescuerescue]

52. Exactly.

The numbers of deaths and infections would fall far below 50%.

Right now we having political wars over masks which provide a 20% reduction of risk. Few people are saying that masks are killing people.

a 50% vaccine + mask at around 20% would go a LONG LONG way.