Jump to content

Thai study finds 2 doses of Sinovac can’t beat Delta variant, AstraZeneca can


Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, sucit said:

Let’s have a little lesson here. 
 

Virus variants infecting hosts with an effective vaccine get weeded out of the genome. In short, we eliminate the genomes the virus works against. Ok, great! 
 

Due to variation within the virus, some variants are resistant to the vaccines, maybe all of them. Result, these variants propagate. 
 

If you are following, we now have a situation where time has past and all we have left are the variants that are resistant to the vaccines. There will always be some of these variants who are resistant to any vaccine we produce, and since this all started with one infected individual… (deduce deduce deduce). 

You forgot the important part, nature means viruses that are subject to variants always become less deadly at the expense of better transmission.  Without fail all become less deadly not more and eventually virtually harmless. We know this is the case throughout history...now that dosnt mean a variant wont be existing jabs resistant but it does mean its highly likely to be much less  dangerous, like the Delta variation,more transmissible but much much less deadly than the original. 

 

Trust in nature, shes had more experience keeping balance than all humans that have ever lived combined.

Posted
7 minutes ago, englishoak said:

You forgot the important part, nature means viruses that are subject to variants always become less deadly at the expense of better transmission.  Without fail all become less deadly not more and eventually virtually harmless. We know this is the case throughout history...now that dosnt mean a variant wont be existing jabs resistant but it does mean its highly likely to be much less  dangerous, like the Delta variation,more transmissible but much much less deadly than the original. 

 

Trust in nature, shes had more experience keeping balance than all humans that have ever lived combined.

Not necessarily

https://theconversation.com/will-coronavirus-really-evolve-to-become-less-deadly-153817

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)

What a mess, I feel for the Thai people. Before the Covid-19 out break the air pollution alone was killing thousands of people a year. Now with covid-19?  It's like playing Russian roulette. 

Edited by garyk
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

That article  if you read it properly as I have  is just an opinion scare piece could be,maybe,possibility... I see no factual examples or confirmed data only possibilities... its possible ill win the lottery  but seeing as i dont buy lottery tickets,highly unlikely.  

 

Viruses that are stable like TB  or smallpox are just as deadly as they ever were, dont spread easily thus allowing for very effective vaccines over time and thats great. However viruses that mutate ( are unstable ) do so in order to thrive and spread easier, there is a payoff for that however,keeping its host alive. Dead hosts dont help a virus to thrive and spread. To date without fail and that i can see even with your linked article there is no proven  exception so far... thankfully  ????  

 

Unless some biolab gets in the way and tweaks things again. Ill side with nature thx.

Edited by englishoak
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, englishoak said:

That article  if you read it properly as I have  is just an opinion scare piece could be,maybe,possibility... I see no factual examples or confirmed data only possibilities... its possible ill win the lottery  but seeing as i dont buy lottery tickets,highly unlikely.  

 

From the article:

"There is little or no direct evidence that virulence decreases over time. While newly emerged pathogens, such as HIV and Mers, are often highly virulent, the converse is not true. There are plenty of ancient diseases, such as tuberculosis and gonorrhoea, that are probably just as virulent today as they ever were."

In addition, as the author pointed out, the decline in virulence of the myxoma virus from 95- to 90 percent was taken as proof of the  validity of the theorem. But as the author points out:

"There was little subsequent decline in virulence after Fenner’s early reports, and it may even have risen slightly."

It should also be pointed out the even if the theorem is true in the long run, Covid 19 hasn't been on the scene for even 2 years. And more virulent forms have developed. Particularly, it seems,  the Lambda variant.

  • Thanks 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

From the article:

"There is little or no direct evidence that virulence decreases over time. While newly emerged pathogens, such as HIV and Mers, are often highly virulent, the converse is not true. There are plenty of ancient diseases, such as tuberculosis and gonorrhoea, that are probably just as virulent today as they ever were."

In addition, as the author pointed out, the decline in virulence of the myxoma virus from 95- to 90 percent was taken as proof of the  validity of the theorem. But as the author points out:

"There was little subsequent decline in virulence after Fenner’s early reports, and it may even have risen slightly."

It should also be pointed out the even if the theorem is true in the long run, Covid 19 hasn't been on the scene for even 2 years. And more virulent forms have developed. Particularly, it seems,  the Lambda variant.

Sorry but i dont see anything proving anything to be concerned about there... Virulence isnt an issue and thats all I see the article pushing... we have lots of viruses constantly mutating and doing the rounds all the time, some seasons they can take quite a toll,  im not going to fret about the possibilities of another one...

 

Dont you get tired of being scared ?

  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, englishoak said:

Sorry but i dont see anything proving anything to be concerned about there... Virulence isnt an issue and thats all I see the article pushing... we have lots of viruses constantly mutating and doing the rounds all the time, some seasons they can take quite a toll,  im not going to fret about the possibilities of another one...

 

Dont you get tired of being scared ?

Virulence isn't an issue? Virulence is the issue. Here's the definition of virulence from Oxford Languages:

"the severity or harmfulness of a disease or poison.

"the proportion of birds which die depends on the virulence of the virus"

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=virulence+definition&oq=virulence+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.4302j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

As for being tired of being scared...

I do get tired of people making irrelevant personal comments. It typically means they're flummoxed and resort to personal comments as a deflection.

Edited by placeholder
Posted

The chinese who have been inoculated with nothing but their own stuff will be fully ready to travel again for tourism in about 5-10 years.  

 

Did anyone catch that one?  

Posted
9 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Good news that AZN vaccine is effective, but worrying that the  Chinese version doesn’t overcome the Indian variant. I receive my second AZN jab on Monday. Once the western countries have vaccinated their populations I hope that all surplus vaccines are quickly handed over to countries in need. This problem isn’t over until the World is safe.

 

 

Surpluses will go to WHO via Covax.. Thailand turned down Covax in order to do a superior job themselves. 

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

I will not be vaccinated with ANYTHING made in China. Phizer, Johnson and Johnson, Moderna or Astra Zeneca for me.

Wow another Anti-vaxxer, tell us why please, you left out all the details and then just wanted to put your personal feeling out there without explaining why and having a dialogue.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted

It would seem wise to rapidly shift to AZ and dump the Sinovac..... and get some Pfizer, Moderna etc. Puts us Expats further down the line .....

Posted
12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The study reveals that two doses of Sinovac, plus a booster dose of AstraZeneca, can prevent the Delta infection better than two doses of Sinovac, but still less than two doses of AstraZeneca, the doctor said.

are 3 doses of Sinovac better than 2? probably, yes. Great study, doc!

Posted
6 hours ago, englishoak said:

That article  if you read it properly as I have  is just an opinion scare piece could be,maybe,possibility... I see no factual examples or confirmed data only possibilities... its possible ill win the lottery  but seeing as i dont buy lottery tickets,highly unlikely.  

 

Viruses that are stable like TB  or smallpox are just as deadly as they ever were, dont spread easily thus allowing for very effective vaccines over time and thats great. However viruses that mutate ( are unstable ) do so in order to thrive and spread easier, there is a payoff for that however,keeping its host alive. Dead hosts dont help a virus to thrive and spread. To date without fail and that i can see even with your linked article there is no proven  exception so far... thankfully  ????  

 

Unless some biolab gets in the way and tweaks things again. Ill side with nature thx.

Viruses that are stable like TB (above) ...

 

The disease TB (tuberculosis) is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis which is bacteria not virus ...

  • Like 2
Posted
13 hours ago, sucit said:

Predicting this would be a pattern for a while…

 

Vaccinated individuals allowed to travel and such. Vaccine loses effectiveness. The vaccines must now get new, better vaccinations. And the story goes…

With thanks to the Chinese Communist Party and Dr. Fauci’s organization that gave money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Canada’s Trudeau who gave money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 
     Millions of deaths on their hands, and a bleak future for everyone. 

Posted
13 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Wonder how just the one jab of AZ does versus the 2 Sinovac jabs, and if the one AZ jab gives one a fighting chance.  Would like to see a study on that.

This may not apply to the Delta Covid

 

The primary analysis of the Phase III clinical trials from the UK, Brazil and South Africa, published as a preprint in The Lancet confirmed COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19, with no severe cases and no hospitalisations, more than 22 days after the first dose.

 

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html

  • Like 1
Posted
13 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Inoculation with two doses of China’s Sinovac vaccine can boost the neutralizing antibody level to 80-90% and provide immunity to the Alpha variant of the COVID-19 virus to some extent, but cannot fend off the highly contagious Delta variant, which is becoming dominant in Thailand and many other parts of the world, said a prominent Thai doctor today (Friday).

That's about all Prayut has in his arsenal.

Posted
4 hours ago, misterjames said:

It's a lot easier to control outbreaks when you weld people inside their own homes during an outbreak.

 

It's also impossible to know what the real situation is when there is no freedom of press or speech.

 

The point is they have only had the chinese vaccine which is basically useless against the new variants.  

Chinese aren't going to Thailand or anywhere else for such a long time it's not even funny.

  • Like 1
Posted
14 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Yet how many who have had the first dose of the AstraZenica vaccine are still waiting for the 2nd one.  12 weeks apart is what they have been going with.  Wonder how just the one jab of AZ does versus the 2 Sinovac jabs, and if the one AZ jab gives one a fighting chance.  Would like to see a study on that.

I believe that the 12 weeks period between shots has been reduced to 8 weeks .

based on the fact that getting the second shot administered quicker will halt the progress of the Virus .

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sametboy2019 said:

On a thread here by JP Morgan on economies under threat by the Delta strain this was said.

 

Even if the Delta variant is shown to result in lower hospitalization and death rates, the report said, pressure on healthcare systems and a higher absolute number of deaths could occur, likely raising pressure on some governments to extend or re-impose mobility restrictions.

 

So who cares if the  Sinovac vaccine does not protect against the Delta variant if hospitalization and death rates are lower.

There is a interview with a Doctor on the link below with him actually saying that these new variants are basically the same and they are getting weaker although more contagious and that what's viruses do. Their mission is to spread not kill. The more deadly a virus is the more unsuccessful it will be as the host has less time to infect others.

https://rumble.com/viwq25-the-truth-about-covid-19-lockdowns-and-mrna-vaccines-steve-deace-show.html?fbclid=IwAR2jNosohKbwnNdB9sLtpzLGFTP8zjDbLl9u-SOs3xuDuhK_x8-0N-9M4E4

But Delta hospitalizations are much higher, not lower. Delta results in 85% more hospitalizations than Alpha. Alpha had 52% more hospitalizations than Wuhan and 59% higher mortality. reference

 

Edited by rabas
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Cake Monster said:

I believe that the 12 weeks period between shots has been reduced to 8 weeks .

based on the fact that getting the second shot administered quicker will halt the progress of the Virus .

well i had mine 5 weeks ago ,still 16 weeks according to my mor phrom app . although my sister in law in BKK has just got a message putting it down to 12 weeks

Posted
19 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

well i had mine 5 weeks ago ,still 16 weeks according to my mor phrom app . although my sister in law in BKK has just got a message putting it down to 12 weeks

Maybe I got it wrong.

Is it 8 weeks for the AZ vaccine. Or am I getting Old.

Posted
16 hours ago, worgeordie said:

The majority of jabs here have been with the Sinovac , 

regards worgeordie

Exactly!!

Posted
13 hours ago, placeholder said:

We don't really know how Sinovac is going to perform against the Delta virus. I don't think any clinical or large scale studies have been published. While statistics for the real number of cases is clearly unreliable, it's a lot harder to fudge critical care bed occupancy rates and mortality.

As much as it pains me to be supportive of placeholder, on this issue he is correct. This is the fundamental question that needs to be answered. 

  • Confused 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...