China
I can’t believe we are not trusting the WHO. They are the best when it comes to medical advice on new pathogens especially man created viruses.
OT: COVID Science - Pfizer/Moderna vaccines >90% effective; Regeneron antibody cocktail looks very promising in phase II/III trial and more
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
yes , that is remdesivir from what i believe. Had a dinner with 8 friends, all had masks going into event, i was first one diagnosed. they all went back home, got tested negative, felt fine. one by one 6 of 8 came down covid positive. not as bad as I had it though. I had never been been afraid of it, we went out to dinners as soon as the restaurants opened. no issues ever!
Lots of questions have emerged on the Astra-Zeneca/Oxford vaccine over the past couple of days. Dosing errors, reporting errors, pooling data from different trials without letting people know - not a good look. My guess is the vaccine will still be shown to be quite effective at the end of all this, but these kinds of issues shouldn't be happening.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.html
During all this I have been to Vegas, down to Florida numerous times, haven’t missed a day at the office otherwise. Have not taken a sick day in 22 years.
Been back in Jersey a month now and finally got the Wuhan virus. No real symptoms other than (TMI) stomach issues if you will. Lasted 2 days. Back in the mix and back to work! Had not been anywhere in the Jersey other than grocery shopping and nothing from traveling given it came on a month later. Oh well. Is what it is. Just gotta keep on keepin on.
Been back in Jersey a month now and finally got the Wuhan virus. No real symptoms other than (TMI) stomach issues if you will. Lasted 2 days. Back in the mix and back to work! Had not been anywhere in the Jersey other than grocery shopping and nothing from traveling given it came on a month later. Oh well. Is what it is. Just gotta keep on keepin on.
Maybe this was missed in posts above? Sorry if it was posted. AstraZeneca's data called into question. Haste makes waste.
"But since unveiling the preliminary results, AstraZeneca has acknowledged a key mistake in the vaccine dosage received by some study participants, adding to questions about whether the vaccine’s apparently spectacular efficacy will hold up under additional testing."
"Depending on the strength at which the doses were given, the vaccine appeared to be either 90 percent or 62 percent effective. The average efficacy, the developers said, was 70 percent.
Almost immediately, though, there were doubts about the data.
The regimen that appeared to be 90 percent effective was based on participants receiving a half dose of the vaccine followed a month later by a full dose; the less effective version involved a pair of full doses. AstraZeneca disclosed in its initial announcement that fewer than 2,800 participants received the smaller dosing regimen, compared with nearly 8,900 participants who received two full doses."
www.nytimes.com
"But since unveiling the preliminary results, AstraZeneca has acknowledged a key mistake in the vaccine dosage received by some study participants, adding to questions about whether the vaccine’s apparently spectacular efficacy will hold up under additional testing."
"Depending on the strength at which the doses were given, the vaccine appeared to be either 90 percent or 62 percent effective. The average efficacy, the developers said, was 70 percent.
Almost immediately, though, there were doubts about the data.
The regimen that appeared to be 90 percent effective was based on participants receiving a half dose of the vaccine followed a month later by a full dose; the less effective version involved a pair of full doses. AstraZeneca disclosed in its initial announcement that fewer than 2,800 participants received the smaller dosing regimen, compared with nearly 8,900 participants who received two full doses."
After Admitting Mistake, AstraZeneca Faces Difficult Questions About Its Vaccine (Published 2020)
Some trial participants only got a partial dose of AstraZeneca’s vaccine. Experts said the company’s spotty disclosures have eroded confidence.
EDIT- some data had been posted on Johns Hopkins' website from a webinar given by a program director at Johns Hopkins. It has been called into question
Last edited:
Glad you are doing better now, but having a dinner event with friends is the #1 way that the virus is passed. No masks while eating, talking and laughing, likely facing each other less than 6 feet away, etc. Seems to be clear that private events with food and sports activities are the drivers of the recent spike in cases.
I had a buddy at work that was super careful for months and months, but then said screw it and went on vacation with 11 other friends and family members. One of the ding-bats was getting tested due to prolonged exposure to someone that had it, but decided to go on the trip anyway (because she was feeling fine). Of course, she had it and 9 of the other 11 vacationers got it as well. Groups are only as strong as their weakest link.
FDA won't be happy about this. I'm sure the vaccine is fine, but it definitely sounds like they messed up the trial protocol in a few ways. I read some speculation that this vaccine won't get approved in the US, but can still be valuable for other countries. No biggie if this turns out to be true. Pfizer and Moderna focus on the US and other developed countries, AZ/Oxford is used elsewhere.
J&J data coming soon! Sanofi (the world leader in vaccines) coming in a few months (batting clean-up!!!)
Some people are speculating about that. Perhaps not ever, but maybe a significant delay? The data is more messy than Pfizer and Moderna.
Does the FDA consider what happens in other countries that allow a drug to be used? If a drug or vaccine is used in Europe and the results show no unreasonable side effects does the FDA still require some process specific to the US?
SIAP, but a couple of days ago Novavax (small Maryland company biotech company with no products on the market yet) published some very encouraging results in macaques with their recombinant protein vaccine, doped onto adjuvant nanoparticles to increase bioavailability.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20313736?via=ihub
https://www.biospace.com/article/no...n-monkeys-but-does-this-translate-to-humans-/
The bottom line is the immune response seen for this vaccine is greater than the other vaccines in phase III and this one appears to be the only one achieving full "sterilizing immunity" in monkeys, where no infection, at all, is seen after exposure to the virus - the others often see minor infections in the upper respiratory system (nose/mouth/throat).
That's not a guarantee this vaccine will provide full human sterilizing immunity, but it's a good sign. Phase III results are still expected by the end of this year or early in January - crossing fingers. Given this company's financial issues, Operation Warp Speed was critical to Novavax being able to complete development and clinical trials for this vaccine.
For background, below is my 9/25 post with links to scientific articles on the Novavax vaccine (one can't link to posts from locked threads).
MD-based Novavax announced the start of their phase III vaccine trial in the UK today. This 2-shot vaccine could be ready by January and many think it's a front-runner for high efficacy because of strong immunity responses in animals and humans in early clinical trials. The vaccine uses proteins doped onto adjuvant nanoparticles (the adjuvant is a saponin-based adjuvant to enhance the immune response by improving transport of the antigens to active areas like lymph nodes), a technology which is about to be approved for an influenza vaccine. Supposedly a US phase III study is starting in October. The think they can have 100MM doses by 1Q21 and 2 billion by the end of 2021.
http://ir.novavax.com/news-releases...hase-3-efficacy-trial-covid-19-vaccine-united
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/ot-daily-covid-thread-9-22.201353/post-4705817
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20313736?via=ihub
https://www.biospace.com/article/no...n-monkeys-but-does-this-translate-to-humans-/
The bottom line is the immune response seen for this vaccine is greater than the other vaccines in phase III and this one appears to be the only one achieving full "sterilizing immunity" in monkeys, where no infection, at all, is seen after exposure to the virus - the others often see minor infections in the upper respiratory system (nose/mouth/throat).
That's not a guarantee this vaccine will provide full human sterilizing immunity, but it's a good sign. Phase III results are still expected by the end of this year or early in January - crossing fingers. Given this company's financial issues, Operation Warp Speed was critical to Novavax being able to complete development and clinical trials for this vaccine.
For background, below is my 9/25 post with links to scientific articles on the Novavax vaccine (one can't link to posts from locked threads).
MD-based Novavax announced the start of their phase III vaccine trial in the UK today. This 2-shot vaccine could be ready by January and many think it's a front-runner for high efficacy because of strong immunity responses in animals and humans in early clinical trials. The vaccine uses proteins doped onto adjuvant nanoparticles (the adjuvant is a saponin-based adjuvant to enhance the immune response by improving transport of the antigens to active areas like lymph nodes), a technology which is about to be approved for an influenza vaccine. Supposedly a US phase III study is starting in October. The think they can have 100MM doses by 1Q21 and 2 billion by the end of 2021.
http://ir.novavax.com/news-releases...hase-3-efficacy-trial-covid-19-vaccine-united
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/ot-daily-covid-thread-9-22.201353/post-4705817
No, not directly. The FDA does not adopt any decisions by foreign regulatory agencies. There are plenty of approved drugs in the EU and Japan that are not approved here. However, the FDA does accept clinical trials that including foreign patients and sites. Sometimes, the FDA would use a solely global study (i.e., no US patients) for approval as long as the trial conforms to FDA requirements.
We follow Novavax pretty closely at our firm as we took a position in it back in April. Man what a run this one has had. Hope they can continue on this positive path with their vaccine as it is quite encouraging.
been talking about this since April, gee the media finally reports on it 9 months after ignoring it.... amazing.
That can’t possibly be... how can being isolated , alone and shuttered inside cause physical affects ? It’s only the virus that kills people ... how can MSM allow that misinformation to be spread.
its so sad that the msm had to take a political bent and not cover the virus by informing a broad section of stories that didnt include constant fear mongering and shaming. The ridiculous finger wagging about superspreading events and people not wearing masks the same while totally ignoring that yes people are dying off other things and the elderly are actually at more risk from dying of isolation and ramping of their dementia. But again we have posters here including medical professionals who want to highlight the unfortunate death of a younger person. We have nurses telling fake stories on cnn. Yes the virus is real no one is saying its not. Facts matter when presenting who is at risk. Everyday life is a risk on a normal day in 2018. Meanwhile there are real stories to be told about nursing homes, not only the ones where they were sent to die and spread covid but the non covid deaths occuring there because of the pandemic
Excellent article in Nature Medicine on the level and duration of immunity from a variety of vaccines for many diseases vs. what is seen for unvaccinated people who get infected with these diseases. Sometimes the vaccines offer far better immunity than "natural" infection and sometimes not. The article also includes some optimistic commentary on where we may end up on this with regard to COVID, below.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01180-x
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑙𝑖𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑐𝑦? 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠; 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑏𝑦 𝑃𝑓𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟/𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑁𝑇𝑒𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑅𝑁𝐴 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝐴𝑅-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 95% 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔7. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠. 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒-𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦-𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠8. 𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑚 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑠, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑠𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛9. 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠10 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟-𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦-𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑠 𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟-𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦-𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒. 𝐼𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠, 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦. 𝐴𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒. 𝐴 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦11, 𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑦𝑒𝑡 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟. 𝐴 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠. 𝑂𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠. 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑂𝑉𝐼𝐷-19 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒, 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 ‘𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙-𝑜𝑓𝑓’. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 ‘𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒’ 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠. 𝐼𝑛 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙, 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑏𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01180-x
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑙𝑖𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑐𝑦? 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠; 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑏𝑦 𝑃𝑓𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟/𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑁𝑇𝑒𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑅𝑁𝐴 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝐴𝑅-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 95% 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔7. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠. 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒-𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦-𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠8. 𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑚 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑠, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑠𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛9. 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠10 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟-𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦-𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑠 𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟-𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦-𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒. 𝐼𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠, 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦. 𝐴𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒-𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒. 𝐴 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦11, 𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑦𝑒𝑡 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟. 𝐴 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠. 𝑂𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠. 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑂𝑉𝐼𝐷-19 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒, 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 ‘𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙-𝑜𝑓𝑓’. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 ‘𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒’ 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠. 𝐼𝑛 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙, 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝐴𝑅𝑆-𝐶𝑜𝑉-2 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑏𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠.
It has been far more than "called into question." Why even post crap like that? It was published in a student paper at JHU from a seminar by someone in their economics department who has no public health/medical cred and has since been retracted. It is filled with inaccuracies.
https://web.archive.org/web/2020112...1/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
End of the year is a good guess, unless they have any more adverse events that delay them...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/health/covid-vaccine-astrazeneca-johnson-and-johnson.html
The virus is their horse to ride and they want to squeeze everything that can from it. Li-Meng Yan defected and told us the virus wasn't an accident but a weapon. That's totally in line with the way China rolls. They weren't going to let US stop grabbing its ankles and rise-up. Twitter (China's ho) kicked Yan off in hours.
Of course there was the obvious hit on a 60 yr old drug that gets proven effective again and again by legit studies (not Lancet). A lot of people are very very cool with corruption these days
The Mother of HCQ reviews
HCQ is effective for COVID-19 when used early: analysis of 150 studies
https://hcqmeta.com/
I had planned on posting that, but did not want to get shouted down by the "science" crowd. This is not meant for a particular poster. As a professional who works in the field that is a 50/50 mix of law and science, I have seen the nose of science twisted multiple ways to arrive at different conclusions. HCQ has been horribly and inappropriately maligned--most likely because it will do little to increase profits for the pharma cartel.
Seriously? These "scientists" won't even put their names on the "studies" and would be laughed out of the scientific community if they tried to publish this kind of crap, so they resort to just posting it on the internet hoping trolls will share it broadly and you've complied. HCQ has been shown to be ineffective for COVID in the vast majority of RCTs and even non-RCTs with the best study being the Spanish one by Mitja et al, which was an RCT unequivocally showing that HCQ was ineffective for post-exposure prophylaxis.
And while China has lied and obfuscated from the beginning, there's still no serious scientific evidence that the virus was "engineered" by anyone.
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...es-interventions-and-more.198855/post-4644449
If it was all about profits and the "pharma cartel" was so powerful, why has the generic steroid, dexamethasone, which is even cheaper than HCQ been shown to be so effective in treating COVID patients and become part of standard care, still being the only drug I know of that is approved for seriously ill patients? Because it works and HCQ does not.
Will respectfully disagree here. For some odd reason, certain people either purposefully because of bias, unwittingly or stupidly did not properly analyze data and understand the benefits of HCQ in certain situations. Very surprised at how closed-minded you are about this, and this will be my last post debating you on this.
perhaps it is due to them being corrupt as all hell and covering up the virus when China requested them to despite Taiwan advising them in early December about it? Taking bribes from China? They are worse than the UN and Olympic Committee are.
It is terribly sad what has happened to science. Professor Gøtzsche nails it, and this behavior is on full display in this thread.
www.scientificamerican.com
"The net effect of academic bullying and ad hominem attacks has been the creation and maintenance of “groupthink”—a problem that carries its own deadly consequences."
"Only by entertaining a broader, scientifically informed view of what might work will the next phase of COVID-19 control be acceptable to a deeply divided public."
^^^Yeah, good luck with that last part.
www.scientificamerican.com
Shame on Rutgers Prof. Richard Ebright, who should be more capable of a reasoned and "scientific" response to a position he disagrees with.
The COVID Science Wars
Shutting down scientific debate is hurting the public health
"Only by entertaining a broader, scientifically informed view of what might work will the next phase of COVID-19 control be acceptable to a deeply divided public."
^^^Yeah, good luck with that last part.
The Ioannidis Affair: A Tale of Major Scientific Overreaction
It is terribly sad what has happened to science. Professor Gøtzsche nails it, and this behavior is on full display in this thread.
"The net effect of academic bullying and ad hominem attacks has been the creation and maintenance of “groupthink”—a problem that carries its own deadly consequences."The COVID Science Wars
Shutting down scientific debate is hurting the public health
"Only by entertaining a broader, scientifically informed view of what might work will the next phase of COVID-19 control be acceptable to a deeply divided public."
^^^Yeah, good luck with that last part.
Shame on Rutgers Prof. Richard Ebright, who should be more capable of a reasoned and "scientific" response to a position he disagrees with.The Ioannidis Affair: A Tale of Major Scientific Overreaction
Well, his essay was rightfully criticized. It was illogical and rambling. In essence, his point was that we don’t have enough of a sample to make any judgements. So, he would have recommended waiting until the virus spread to obtain a large enough sample? Problem is we already knew how contagious the virus was at the time he wrote that piece. We had data from South Korea, Italy and France, Among other countries, let alone China. Perhaps an administration viewed as more cooperative with the rest of the world would have been able to obtain better data from these places. But sitting on your hands until you have a large enough American sample size to take any action is unhelpful at best, and in retrospect would have been extremely dangerous.
The HCQ debate never ends and here's a study Rutgers is involved with.
www.rutgers.edu
Rutgers Leading Coronavirus Therapeutic Clinical Trial
What does the Rutgers involvement in the vaccine trial have to do with HCQ?The HCQ debate never ends and here's a study Rutgers is involved with.
Rutgers Leading Coronavirus Therapeutic Clinical Trial
Forget Wuhan, Covid-19 May Have Appeared in Italy 5 Months Before February, Finds Shocking Study
The study says that novel coronavirus may have been present in Italy five months before the first official case was recorded in the European country
www.ibtimes.sg
US cases were earlier than thought too.Forget Wuhan, Covid-19 May Have Appeared in Italy 5 Months Before February, Finds Shocking Study
The study says that novel coronavirus may have been present in Italy five months before the first official case was recorded in the European country
- Status
