There are more worrying developments at the moment with the virus evolving rapidly. We have heard about the Kent variant -now the dominant culprit in some countries (e.g. UK, Ireland, Portugal,....)- mainly characterized by a high R, i.e. it spreads much faster. Then there is the SA variant where in particular the E484K mutation (but possible others required too) helps in evading/reducing the antibody response. Now there have been some cases in which the Kent variant has acquired the E484K mutation, so this is a variant that potentially spreads very fast AND reduces the effectiveness of the immune response. So far this new variant seems limited with 11 detected in 214,000 sequenced samples https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55900625. These are identified cases, no doubt there will be quite a few more that were not detected. It is also not feasible to sequence every single sample.

      As noted above, AZ vaccine was largely ineffective in a (very small) SA trial when it came to preventing mild to moderate disease. Whether it still works against severe disease it not yet known. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/south-africa-suspends-use-astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-after-it-fails-clearly-stop. Meanwhile Pfizer-BioNTech claims that their vaccine will be effective against the SA variant, but this is based on in vitro (lab) tests. You can read the details here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01270-4

3 hours ago, cormanr7 said:

There are more worrying developments at the moment with the virus evolving rapidly. We have heard about the Kent variant -now the dominant culprit in some countries (e.g. UK, Ireland, Portugal,....)- mainly characterized by a high R, i.e. it spreads much faster. Then there is the SA variant where in particular the E484K mutation (but possible others required too) helps in evading/reducing the antibody response. Now there have been some cases in which the Kent variant has acquired the E484K mutation, so this is a variant that potentially spreads very fast AND reduces the effectiveness of the immune response. So far this new variant seems limited with 11 detected in 214,000 sequenced samples https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55900625. These are identified cases, no doubt there will be quite a few more that were not detected. It is also not feasible to sequence every single sample.

      As noted above, AZ vaccine was largely ineffective in a (very small) SA trial when it came to preventing mild to moderate disease. Whether it still works against severe disease it not yet known. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/south-africa-suspends-use-astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-after-it-fails-clearly-stop. Meanwhile Pfizer-BioNTech claims that their vaccine will be effective against the SA variant, but this is based on in vitro (lab) tests. You can read the details here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01270-4

 

As it stands, I think the advice would be to suspend roll outs of AZ where it is not currently being used, anywhere other than UK, and India and a few other countries.

 

Oxford are nimble.  I expect they'll have a tweaked version quickly.

 

It's a problem all vaccines will face.

 

There could be dozens of mutations we don't yet know about which will wipe any one vaccine out.

4 hours ago, Cobra666 said:

Pay attention to the could-word. They have no idea what they are talking about because they have not even been able to isolate the virus yet...

 

Bless all the lab-rats

Absolutely absurd misstatement. It is utterly baffling how people can post instantly disprovable  nonsense, without any checking or care for the truth of what they post.

The virus has in fact been isolated and grown in dozens of labs world wide.

 

One of the most encouraging new vaccines in development is the UK's Valneva vaccine which is based on

 

1. isolating the virus

2. Inactivating it so it can't cause disease

3. injecting it as the antigen into humans

(that is exactly the same principle as the smallpox vaccine, which eradicated the disease completely.)

https://valneva.com/research-development/covid-19-vla2001/

FAQ about VLA2001

What is VLA2001 and how is it different from other approaches?

• VLA2001 is a Vero-cell based, highly-purified inactivated whole virus vaccine candidate.
• VLA2001 is the first inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in clinical development in Europe.
• The inactivated vaccine is a proven approach that has been used for decades.[1]
• An inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine would be suitable for wide deployment including particularly vulnerable populations.
• Processes and infrastructures for the inactivated approach are well established.
• Valneva’s vaccine candidate is based on the same manufacturing platform the Company already uses to produce its FDA/EMA/MHRA approved JE vaccine.
• VLA2001 combined with Alum and Dynavax’s FDA-approved adjuvant CpG 1018 is expected to induce a strong immune response and has the potential to generate high titers of neutralizing antibodies.
• Valneva’s inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is expected to have a two-dose regimen.
• VLA2001 is expected to conform with standard cold chain requirements (2 degrees to 8 degrees centigrade).

 

The Chinese Sinovac vaccine being used to immunise the Chinese population NOW is made of isolated viruses!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55212787

"The Beijing-based biopharmaceutical company Sinovac is behind the CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine. 

It works by using killed viral particles to expose the body's immune system to the virus without risking a serious disease response."

On 2/7/2021 at 5:42 PM, brianp0803 said:

Excellent point.

 

Giving as many people the first shot (by delaying the second shot) and getting 67% protection from developing symptoms may create a resistant variant version of the virus.

interesting where do u get that info?in regards to anti biotic treatment id agree 100% but this is a vaccine acting against a virus not a bacteria.so how would that work with a conventional type vaccine such as most of them with the exception of MRNA type vaccs?it works by basically giving the patient a shot in low levels of the bug we are trying to stop killing us and letting antibodies and the immune system create a defence,t cells are stimulated in the same way.how can a resistance take shape in this form?there can be mutations in a virus but thats not a resistance  and thats across the board against the different vaccs,some mutations react differently to different vaccs.its very much a lottery in that respect.

1 hour ago, Cobra666 said:

Learn how to read.

 

The thread is about the AstraZeneca vaccine, but this goes for all companies developing the mRNA vaccines. None of them have isolated the virus.

 

As for the Chinese, I would not trust them to give the world a vaccine. As we know, this virus came out of China, and a long with it pictures of people falling over in the streets that was pushed through media. I wonder why nobody is falling over in the streets in the west like that? Could it be that this is an information warfare? Because that is exactly what it is, and like I have mentioned before I work in healthcare and nothing about the media spin to this is linked with real life.

Still utter nonsense I'm afraid.

 

All the companies developing both mRNA and adenovirus (AstraZeneca) vaccines must of course have isolated the virus,  because the way they test the antibodies produced by subjects in phase 1/2 studies for neutralisation activity (prevention of infection)  is to add plasma from vaccinated people together with isolated virus to dishes of cells in culture, and measure how much infection is inhibited.

 

It is essential to check this before you embark on a huge trial involving tens of thousands of people.  Stores of the isolated virus are in fact now available from central biological repositories for researchers to use.

 

Here is the link to the paper published on the AstraZeneca phase1/2 trials detailing this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445431/#sec1

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial    Lancet. 2020 15-21 August; 396(10249): 467–478.

 

and here is the extract describing the neutralisation test from the appendix of that paper:

 

"SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity of human sera was investigated based on a previously published protocol for MERS-CoV 2,3. Briefly, samples were heat-inactivated for 30 min at 56°C and serially diluted in 96-well plates starting from a dilution of 1:8. Samples were incubated for 1 h at 37°C together with 100 50% tissue culture infective doses (TCID50) SARS-CoV-2 (BavPat1/2020 isolate, European Virus Archive Global # 026V-03883). Cytopathic effect (CPE) on VeroE6 cells (Vero C1008, ATCC, Cat#CRL-1586, RRID: CVCL_0574) was analyzed 4 days post-infection. Neutralization was defined as absence of CPE compared to virus controls. 

 

For the Pfizer mRNA vaccine neutralisation test they actually inserted code for a fluorescent protein to the genome of the isolated SARS CoV-2 virus, so they can directly measure infection of cells by measuring fluorescence inside the cell. So not only have they isolated the virus but they have made their own different versions of it!  This is detailed for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine phase 1/2 study here:

 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2639-4

Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults   Nature volume 586, pages589–593(2020)

On 2/7/2021 at 5:12 AM, Boomer6969 said:

Nope I am here, and I want one of the better vaccines, not the AZ, pushed on the market  after an amateurish validation process and reputed unsuitable for elderly patients.

Not amateurish validation. It was first to  service making it tested earlier and for longer than other vaccines. The release of data and subsequent  feeding frenzy like hyenas to a wounded gazelle on the African Savannah, give impression of disorganization.   You rely on what  some social media and news media interpret. The position of actual health specialists is different.  

 

The comments on age suitability is driven by political motivation from Belgium and Germany. Belgium and Germany have vested interest in promoting Pfizer version since Germany company  helped develop and supplies ingredients and Pfizer EU production is in Belgium. Few if any health specialists say the same thing. They are responsible and say, please to wait for the data before assuming not effective.  

 

It is impossible that  the vaccine would not work on older subjects if it works on younger subjects.  The immune system does not  go on retirement at age 65. What happens is that immune response may not be as strong and that is nothing new. We see already with flu vaccines which is why a stronger version is used for older people. However, some countries do nto see statistical benefit to use the more potent  flu vaccine and I think we will see same with the Oxfod Astra Zeneca vaccine.

 

Instead of thinking bad about the Oxford vaccine, ask the Germans and Belgian collaborators why they are so anti Oxford Astra Zeneca. maybe they don't like the idea of public non profit and small Swedish company taking business away?

23 minutes ago, Cobra666 said:

All European studies have failed to isolate any viruses and are instead relying on matching materials to the computer generated genomic sequence from the original Chinese experiments.

 

Now since China is the country of origin for this virus, they might have the original genomic sequence, but I don`t believe one word coming out of China these days since they are controlling information and censoring any critical thinking.

 

 

 

Why do you say this?  Not true. Every country with science R&D capability sequenced the genome. A quick google search will show you this. UK is the leader in genome sequencing and this is why  it is identifying all the variants. it was the only country with a strategy to look for variant though testing. There only reason we call it UK variant is because UK identified it first. if the USA and EU had been testing like UK and looking, we would have Italia or USA variant and not UK.

 

The Chinese  work was a first out of the box result, but everyone developing vaccine verified and no one accepted China data just like that because no one trusts the Chinese. Do you really think they would invest billions of Euro at Pfizer or Moderna or Oxford without benefit of  knowing what they were dealing with?

 

 

 

 

'Single dose of AstraZeneca vaccine could cut COVID-19 transmission by 67%'.........

 

or...just as easy to say it could not..

 

 

3 hours ago, Cobra666 said:

All European studies have failed to isolate any viruses and are instead relying on matching materials to the computer generated genomic sequence from the original Chinese experiments.

 

Now since China is the country of origin for this virus, they might have the original genomic sequence, but I don`t believe one word coming out of China these days since they are controlling information and censoring any critical thinking.

 

 

I'm not going on with this.  Your response shows you clearly have zero understanding of the topic or anything I posted.

 

I point out that the way AstraZeneca tested their vaccine early in development was using isolated virus and give you the reference stating this, and you repeat your nonsensical claim.

 

For the sake of other, more rational, readers a group has just preprinted a paper showing the Pfizer mRNA vaccine creates good immune responses against the well-publicised other variants of the virus that have arisen in other countries, like South Africa and the UK, and that they have used these virus variants isolated separately in those countries for the studies.

 

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-226857/v1

Vaccine-induced immunity provides more robust heterotypic immunity than natural infection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

 

Here is the extract from that paper stating that isolated UK and South African variants of the virus were used in those studies:

 

"Virus isolates

Prototype isolate (PANGO lineage B) was Victoria/01/202022 (B VIC01), received at P3 from PHE Porton Down (after being supplied by the Doherty Centre Melbourne) in April 2020, passaged in VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells, used here at P5, and confirmed identical to GenBank MT007544.1

 

B1.1.7[3] (20I/501Y.V1.HMPP1) isolate, H204820430, 2/UK/VUI/1/2020, received in Oxford at P1 from PHE Porton Down in December 2020, passaged in VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells (NIBSC reference 100978), used here at P4. [This is the UK variant first identified in Kent-my addition]

 

B1.351 (20I/501.V2.HV001) isolate23 was received at P3 from the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), Durban, in Oxford in January 2021, passaged in VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells (NIBSC reference 100978), used here at P4.[This is the South African variant in the news-my addition]

 

For all isolates, identity was confirmed by deep sequencing at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford."

 

I would just like to warn others here that your opinions don't make any rational sense, and you clearly have no understanding of the science at all.

4 hours ago, partington said:

All European studies have failed to isolate any viruses and are instead relying on matching materials to the computer generated genomic sequence from the original Chinese experiments.

The claim that no virus has been isolated outside China is utter drivel. On Jan 20th, 2020 the CDC received a sample from an infected patient and managed to grow it in the lab. Feb 2nd, 2020 they had produced sufficient virus for further studies and two days later it was deposited in a repository. It is even available for research  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html. The first attempt to grow it successfully in cell culture outside China is apparently from Australia, announced on Jan 29th, 2020 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/australian-lab-cultures-new-coronavirus-as-infections-climb-67031. There are numerous other places, including in Europe, where cell culture of the virus is/was performed.

About covid deniers, from the current edition of the Economist

6 minutes ago, Cobra666 said:

They love to create divide by labeling people who are asking questions "anti-vaxxers". I am not an anti vaxxer since I have taken several vaccines over the years. But they have one thing in common, they have been developed over a timespan of more than 10 years, and it was my free choice.

 

You`d think they would listen to the questions asked and given it a platform on main stream media to be scrutinized if they wanted to build public trust. But that does not matter to them, because if critical science was brought in the narrative would fail horribly. Even the Thai Visa forum does not allow questions/arguments backed with links.

 

The less of a critical voice they allow, the less I will take any vaccine. In fact, that train has left the station already.

 

 

Well I am not an anti vaccer my self I take my flu shot every year but I am worried about having a covid 19 shot at the same time when I suppose to take my flu shot

 

 

26 minutes ago, Cobra666 said:

Even the Thai Visa forum does not allow questions/arguments backed with links.

What are you talking about almost every post on page 3 thay I looked had arguments backed up by links . You replied to one yourself that had arguments backed up by three links. 

 

1 minute ago, Cobra666 said:

I have never been able to add links because they are labeled as misinformation.

 

Don`t try to play that game like you don`t know. They remove links that backs an argument that raises questions about mortality rates and why the whole world are kept from basic human rights, to name a few.

 

I have also had DMs sent to me by other people whos links have been removed.

I guess it all depends what you are quoting, If you are quoting the Enquirer or Tinfoil weekly, obviously you will get some push back from the moderators,

as you can see they allow links from others,

so  unless you think they have something personal about you, I would reconsider the sources you link too.  

7 hours ago, Cobra666 said:

They love to create divide by labeling people who are asking questions "anti-vaxxers". I am not an anti vaxxer since I have taken several vaccines over the years. But they have one thing in common, they have been developed over a timespan of more than 10 years, and it was my free choice.

 

You`d think they would listen to the questions asked and given it a platform on main stream media to be scrutinized if they wanted to build public trust. But that does not matter to them, because if critical science was brought in the narrative would fail horribly. Even the Thai Visa forum does not allow questions/arguments backed with links.

 

The less of a critical voice they allow, the less I will take any vaccine. In fact, that train has left the station already.

 

 

 

Ok your choice. 

 

Wrong imo.