China Corona Virus Outbreak

[boybi]

Big problem if that's true. Astra was the choice of drug by most LGU because of relative ease for logistics and roll-out ultimately. Kaso if 10% only and efficacy, sayang pera.

As long as it prevents severe symptoms and hospitalization, still better than none.

[uls]

Nerd mode

from Monseratto's post:

ako nag lagay ng red circle




kaya sabi ko problematic variant ang P3 (Philippine variant) coz it has the same important mutations as UK/South Africa/Brazil variants --- N501Y and E484K

those mutations to the receptor binding domain (RBD) are very important coz that's what attaches to our ACE2 receptors

AND the RBD is a target for antibodies

so changes to RBD that make the virus attach stronger to our ACE2 receptors make the virus more infectious

at the same time changes to the RBD can cause antibodies to older variants fail to recognize new variants

kaya di ko na hinihintay magsabi ang authorities natin na variant of concern (VOC) ang P3

sigurado ako VOC yan

[Ry_Tower]

As long as it prevents severe symptoms and hospitalization, still better than none.

But 10% is too low imho. Okay na 50% chance of getting hospitalized pero yung 90%? Sobrang baba niyan. Wala din herd immunity na makakamit.

Astra kasi alam ko pinaka-gusto ng mga LGU's eh.

[boybi]

But 10% is too low imho. Okay na 50% chance of getting hospitalized pero yung 90%? Sobrang baba niyan. Wala din herd immunity na makakamit.

Astra kasi alam ko pinaka-gusto ng mga LGU's eh.

From what I understand, for 10% efficacy, it means you have a 90% chance of getting infected. But even if infected, you still won't get fatally ill and won't need hospitalization.

[Ry_Tower]

From what I understand, for 10% efficacy, it means you have a 90% chance of getting infected. But even if infected, you still won't get fatally ill and won't need hospitalization.

Sana nga ganun. Alam ko naman kasi is efficacy is about fighting the virus, not about immunity from being infected.

[dr. d]

From what I understand, for 10% efficacy, it means you have a 90% chance of getting infected. But even if infected, you still won't get fatally ill and won't need hospitalization.

from what i understand,

it means,
of the 100 people vaccinated,
only 10 will be granted significant immunity.
the remaining 90 are practically un-vaccinated.

[_Cathy_]

from what i understand,

it means,
of the 100 people vaccinated,
only 10 will be granted significant immunity.
the remaining 90 are practically un-vaccinated.

That is so evil of Astra Zeneca. Why would they do that? For profit? I thought the vaccine makers said that they don't intend to profit much from this, it's really out of goodwill? Or am I being too naive?

[dr. d]

That is so evil of Astra Zeneca. Why would they do that? For profit? I thought the vaccine makers said that they don't intend to profit much from this, it's really out of goodwill? Or am I being too naive?

against all variants?
or only against the south african version, which was probably still non-existent during the inception of these vaccines?

some folks believe that vaccines manufactured the traditional way (e.g., sinovac) might stand a better chance against a wider range of these emerging variants.

but let us be truthful,
no pharmaceutical organization will last long on this earth, if it did not keep an eye on the profit margins.

[Lew_Alcindor]

That is so evil of Astra Zeneca. Why would they do that? For profit? I thought the vaccine makers said that they don't intend to profit much from this, it's really out of goodwill? Or am I being too naive?

The variants were not identified yet when the vaccine was being developed.

This is not intentional on their part because really - because no pharma will develop a vaccine that is perceived to be less effective.

[Monseratto]

The pers lady of the republic welcomes the second batch of DONATIONS....

[_Cathy_]

against all variants?
or only against the south african version, which was probably still non-existent during the inception of these vaccines?

some folks believe that vaccines manufactured the traditional way (e.g., sinovac) might stand a better chance against a wider range of these emerging variants.

but let us be truthful,
no pharmaceutical organization will last long on this earth, if they did not keep an eye on the profit margins.

I didn't read kasi doc. So you mean sa isang variant lang pala 10%, I thought all hehe

The variants were not identified yet when the vaccine was being developed.

This is not intentional on their part because really - because no pharma will develop a vaccine that is perceived to be less effective.

oh, thought it was intentional. Thanks for clarifying

[Ry_Tower]

What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated. In other words, vaccinated people in the Pfizer clinical trial were 20 times less likely than the control group to get COVID-19.

All three vaccines were 100% effective at preventing severe disease six weeks after the first dose (for Moderna) or seven weeks after the first dose (for Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, the latter of which requires only one dose). Zero vaccinated people in any of the trials were hospitalized or died of COVID-19 after the vaccines had fully taken effect.

COVID-19 vaccines: What does 95% efficacy actually mean? | Live Science

Mababa nga if 10% lang efficacy. Pero this news is promising, mukhang okay naman Astra.

The two-dose vaccine reduced symptomatic disease by 79%, the company said in a press release, and reduced severe Covid-19 and hospitalization by 100%. AstraZeneca said that the vaccine was equally effective in people over 65, where it had 80% efficacy.
AstraZeneca Vaccine: Everything to Know as New Vaccine Eyes US Approval – NBC Chicago

[boybi]

from what i understand,

it means,
of the 100 people vaccinated,
only 10 will be granted significant immunity.
the remaining 90 are practically un-vaccinated.

But still almost 100% able to prevent severe illness from covid

[uls]

wait wait...

ganito ha...


a vaccine like Oxford's was designed in the earlier part of 2020 when UK/South Africa/Brazil variants didn't exist yet

the spike they used was based on the original Wuhan variant

pag naturokan ka ng bakunang yan at nahawaan ka ng original variant, protektado ka

there's 70 to 80 percent chance you will not get severe covid, 100% di ka mamatay sa covid

PERO

pagnahawaan ka ng variant na meron N501Y and E484K mutation that protection drops

coz the antibodies generated by the vaccine don't recognize the new variants

in the case of South Africa, they say the protection drops to only 10%

that's like you didn't get vaccinated at all

hope that's clear

[shadow]

Sinovac's phase 3 trials were apparently submitted to each country's FDA. I am puzzled on why they don't release it to the public.

Yan nga ang issue bakit maraming ayaw sa sinovac. Wala naman problema kung ilabas nila ay ma peer review then ma confirm na ganun nga efficacy, eh di tahimik na lahat ng buhay at wala na maingay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dr. d]

But still almost 100% able to prevent severe illness from covid

that would depend on how the investigator defines "effective".
covid is a new disease, and "effective" still has to gain universal definition.
if we read around, the various manufacturers employ their own special definition of "effective".

prevent death... prevent severe illness... prevent symptomatic illness... prevent infection... prevent hospitalization... shorten clinical course... shorten hospital stay... lower virus load..., etc.

[uls]

sa Brazil

ung mga nagkacovid last year... supposedly meron na sila antibodies diba?

so dapat di na sila magkakasakit pag nahawaan uli

but those who had covid last got sick again this year

last year's infection didn't protect them this year coz there's a new variant in circulation

[dr. d]

sa Brazil

ung mga nagkacovid last year... supposedly meron na sila antibodies diba?

so dapat di na sila magkakasakit pag nahawaan uli

but those who had covid last got sick again this year

last year's infection didn't protect them this year coz there's a new variant in circulation

some writers say that the antibody level brought about by infection, does not remain elevated for longer periods of time.
some authors say that vaccination may be initiated as early as 90 days after the last infection.
also, there is them new variants... hmmm...

[shadow]

sa Brazil

ung mga nagkacovid last year... supposedly meron na sila antibodies diba?

so dapat di na sila magkakasakit pag nahawaan uli

but those who had covid last got sick again this year

last year's infection didn't protect them this year coz there's a new variant in circulation

Ano ginagamit na vaccine sa Brazil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boybi]

Pfizer begins human trials of new coronavirus pill

Will this be better than getting vaccinated?