COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Ygggdrasil]

The FDA has made an emergency use authorization for a new saliva-based COVID-19 test:

The new test, which is called SalivaDirect and was developed by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health, allows saliva samples to be collected in any sterile container. It is a much less invasive process than the nasal swabs currently used to test for the virus that causes Covid-19, but one that has so far yielded highly sensitive and similar results. The test, which also avoids a key step that has caused shortages of chemical reagents used in other tests, can run approximately 90 samples in fewer than three hours in a lab, although the number can be greater in big labs with automation.

Moreover, Yale intends to provide its “open source” testing protocol to laboratories around the country. Other labs can now adopt the method while using a variety of commercially available testing components that can reduce costs, speed turnaround times and increase testing frequency, according to the FDA. And because the reagents for the test cost less than $5, the Yale researchers estimated labs should charge about $10 per sample, although that remains to be seen. The testing method is available immediately, but the researchers added it can be scaled up quickly for use in the coming weeks.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/15...t-for-covid-19-opening-door-to-wider-testing/

Here is a non-peer-reviewed pre-print describing the method: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.03.20167791v1

The NBA helped provide samples to study the efficacy of their test: https://news.yale.edu/2020/06/22/yale-and-nba-partner-study-efficacy-new-covid-19-test

 

[Keith_McClary]

Russia just going phase 1 trials then releasing the vaccine

Most of the media got this wrong . This is what is happening:

Post-registration studies of a Russian vaccine against a new type of Coronavirus may begin in 7-10 days, reports TASS with reference to the director of the National Research Center (SIC) of Epidemiology and Microbiology named after N.F. Gamaleya of the Ministry of Health Alexander Gintsburg.

Several tens of thousands of people will take part in the post-registration studies, Gunzburg noted. He added that research will be carried out on the territory of the Moscow region.

Already on August 17, the Ministry of Health will receive the first version of the research protocol, Gunzburg said. According to him, the protocol can be approved within a week, which will allow starting research in 7-10 days.

On August 11, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia was the first in the world to register a Coronavirus vaccine. It was named Sputnik V.

Google translate of
https://www.gazeta.ru/science/news/2020/08/16/n_14805607.shtml

 

[mfb]

So what exactly is this "registration" then? If it's the first in the world it can't be just a larger test phase.

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds to me like Russia created a meaningless status for the purpose of being first to achieve it. Whooptey-doo.

 

[Keith_McClary]

So what exactly is this "registration" then?

Similar to "emergency use authorization" by the US FDA?
Russia’s approval of a COVID-19 vaccine is less than meets the press release

 

[Astronuc]

Long-haulers with COVID-19 are those who have persistent symptoms after months. I heard one who has had symptoms for 97 days and counting.

https://www.technologyreview.com/20...rs-are-organizing-online-to-study-themselves/

When I spoke to her 135 days after she initially fell ill, Davis was still sick, with daily fevers, joint pain, cognitive issues, and more. But she feels a renewed sense of purpose thanks to the Patient-Led Research team.

Seemingly healthy persons in their 30s and 40s have problems for months. Perhaps, the most serious is blood clots in lungs, organs and brain.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/8...19-count-in-2-months-drop-in-hospitalizations

CDC assessment - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm?s_cid=mm6930e1_w

 

[bhobba]

We all will soon be facing a hard dilemma:
https://1daysooner.org/

I of course have an opinion, but really we each must make up our own mind on this.

Thanks
Bill

 

[mfb]

Yet another church-induced outbreak in South Korea

The health ministry and Seoul’s city government have filed two separate criminal complaints against Jun for allegedly disrupting official efforts to contain the virus by ignoring orders to self-isolate, discouraging worshipers from getting tested and under-reporting the church’s membership to avoid broader quarantines.

 

[DrClaude]

Some American universities have now decided not to re-open in the fall:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-college-classess-campus-211709998.html

 

[Astronuc]

'Silent spreaders' of COVID-19: Kids who seem healthy may be more contagious than sick adults, study says
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ptoms-more-contagious-than-adults/3392088001/

A new study adds to growing evidence that children are not immune to COVID-19 and may even play a larger role in community spread than previously thought.

Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Mass General Hospital for Children found that among 192 children, 49 tested positive for the Coronavirus and had significantly higher levels of virus in their airways than hospitalized adults in intensive care units, according to the study published Thursday in the Journal of Pediatrics.

“Kids are not immune from this infection, and their symptoms don’t correlate with exposure and infection,” said Dr. Alessio Fasano, senior author and director of the Mucosal Immunology and Biology Researcher Center at Massachusetts General Hospital.

 

[nsaspook]

https://apnews.com/489bac2e4af8ddc0ea1a745dbf3529db

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea is banning large gatherings, closing beaches, shutting nightspots and churches and removing fans from professional sports in strict new measures announced Saturday as it battles the spread of the coronavirus.
...
KCDC Director Jeong Eun-kyeong has endorsed even stronger restrictions. If there’s no sign that the virus spread is slowing after the weekend, she said the country should consider elevating social distancing measures to “Level 3,” which includes prohibiting gatherings of more than 10 people, shutting schools, halting professional sports and advising private companies to have employees work from home.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Some American universities have now decided not to re-open in the fall:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-college-classess-campus-211709998.html

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign invented and got an FDA EUA for a new saliva-based COVID-19 test and conducted >30k tests last week. This allowed them to quickly quarantine ~100 students who arrived to campus with the virus: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0200821-amrmeeuhfbcnld5bic2mqia6be-story.html

For perspective, the state of Illinois conducted ~170k tests and the US conducted ~2.6M tests over the same time period, according to the COVID tracking project. So, one single university accounts for nearly 20% of tests in Illinois and ~1% of tests in the US (pretty good given that UIUC has only ~62k faculty, students and staff versus populations of 13M and 330M for IL and the USA, respectively).

If they are successful at stopping community transmission through massive scale testing, isolating and contact tracing, perhaps they could serve as a good model for other universities to proceed.

 

[Haborix]

Duke University has also had some of their undergraduates return to campus recently. They appear to be keeping a weekly log of testing and results, available on this site. It appears they will be using pooled testing throughout the semester to monitor the spread of the virus.

 

[Rive]

Kind of fits with the expectations, I think...

The information technology worker didn’t develop any symptoms from his second infection, which might indicate “subsequent infections may be milder,” the researchers said.

One case is not statistics, but I think there will be more - soon.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Faye Flam has an interesting piece on Bloomberg. (Disclaimer: I have met Ms. Flam and dislike her intensely. She is not on my Christmas card list) It's titled: "Covid Spread Can’t Only Be Explained by Who’s Being ‘Bad’" and subtitled "Seeing disease in moral terms seems to be the American way. But scientists still have a lot of questions."

The mainstream narrative is that it’s all about good behavior when cases go down — mask wearing and giving up our social lives for the greater good. And conversely, bad behavior must be what makes them go up. We talk about certain regions having the virus “under control,” as if falling cases are purely a matter of will-power. A sort of moral reasoning is filling in for evidence.

But why, then, have cases plummeted in Sweden, where mask wearing is a rarity?

This is the time to use scientific methods to understand what’s happening.

One point she brings up is the issue of masks. (The following is my view) The evidence that masks are helpful on top over everything else is quite weak. Mask-wearing falls into the "it stands to reason" category - especially since the cost is low. I have also seen people jammed into buses, but it's all OK because "the mask will protect them". So the net impact may actually be negative.

 

[bhobba]

The evidence that masks are helpful on top over everything else is quite weak. Mask-wearing falls into the "it stands to reason" category - especially since the cost is low.

That is definitely not what is being said where I live in Brisbane. It's considered 3rd on the list which is - hand washing, social distancing, then masks. And only then if you are close indoors. It was considered optional here until recently because we now have our first local outbreak. Now it's required when close to others. It recommends if going into a venue, on a train etc, that is not social distancing, you leave. If you must go put on a mask - but it is preferable to leave. The reason is we now know it is possible for aerosol 'emissions' containing the coronovirus can hang around for up to 30 hours. But one has to ask can ordinary masks keep out aerosol size particles? I think it would only be partially effective.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

It took five seconds with Google to find this:

But at least they are wearing masks!

 

[Ygggdrasil]

UCSF has a nice page discussing some of the studies supporting the efficacy of masks. In addition to pointing to lab studies and some of the observational studies, it also points to some compelling anecdotes:

What evidence do we have that wearing a mask is effective in preventing COVID-19?
There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.

One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.

But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Association_of_country-wide_coronavirus_mortality_with_demographics_testing_lockdowns_and_public_wearing_of_masks_Update_June_15_2020 looked at Coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.

Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Of course, it is difficult to interpret results from observational studies (if governments are implementing masking mandates at the same time as other social distancing measures, it is difficult to disentangle their effects), but this is the data we have to go with for the time being. As @Vanadium 50 mentioned, it is a relatively low cost method to implement, so even if it is not very effective, it's not a terrible idea to require masks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As you say, one problem with before-and-after studies is that seldom do you have data with only the mask-wearing changing. Another is that you have substantial and variable mask-wearing before a mandate. In the Flam article, she points out that data that looks conclusive at the state level looks a lot messier at the county level.

The problem I see is the perception that a mask is the primary method of prevention. Wear a mask, and a crowded subway is suddenly OK.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The problem I see is the perception that a mask is the primary method of prevention. Wear a mask, and a crowded subway is suddenly OK.

Agreed. Back before the CDC was recommending masks for everyone, once concern they cited against recommending mask usage (esp. non-medical masks) was that it would give people a false sense of security. There is a non-peer-reviewed pre-print study suggesting this is the case ("American in states that have face mask mandates spent 20-30 minutes less time at home, and increase visits to a number of commercial locations, following the mandate").

However, if subways are going to be crowded anyway (e.g. in NYC where many people do not have cars and need the subway to get around), then a crowded subway with masks is better than a crowded subway with no masks. Ideally, however, masking would be combined with other measures, such as limits on capacity (though this may not always be practical).

 

[Buzz Bloom]

UCSF has a nice page discussing some of the studies supporting the efficacy of masks.
...
a crowded subway with masks is better than a crowded subway with no masks.

Hi Yggg:

My general impression I get from what I read in this thread is that (most?) participants believe that the role of the mask is to somewhat protect the wearer from catching the disease. I have discussed this concept with my primary care doctor, and my daughter who is also an MD. Both agree that the role of the mask is to protect others in the vacinity of a wearer from catching the discease from a possible carrier (with the mask) who does not know they are a carrier.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Ygggdrasil]

My general impression I get from what I read in this thread is that (most?) participants believe that the role of the mask is to somewhat protect the wearer from catching the disease. I have discussed this concept with my primary care doctor, and my daughter who is also an MD. Both agree that the role of the mask is to protect others in the vacinity of a wearer from catching the discease from a possible carrier (with the mask) who does not know they are a carrier.

From the UCSF article:

Do masks protect the people wearing them or the people around them?
“I think there’s enough evidence to say that the best benefit is for people who have COVID-19 to protect them from giving COVID-19 to other people, but you’re still going to get a benefit from wearing a mask if you don’t have COVID-19,” said Chin-Hong.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Masks (esp non-medical masks) are more effective at preventing infected individuals (esp asymptomatic ones) from spreading the virus to others. Masks may provide some benefit by protecting their wearers from becoming infected, but the bigger benefit is from preventing infected individuals from infecting others.

The rationale for requiring everybody to wear masks in public is because infected individuals are most contagious before symptoms of the disease begin, so it is very difficult to know who might be spreading the disease.

 

[bhobba]

But at least they are wearing masks!

I would heed the rules from where I am, and not go on that train. If I had to, rules or no rules, I would wear a mask - it does provide some protection against you infecting others, and you catching it from others. And indeed compulsory mask wearing has been shown to lead to a lowering of transmission when combined with hand washing and social distancing. Although I think the best advice of all, and what I try to do as much as possible, is stay home. Personally I tend to go with the advice of experts like Peter Doherty, Nobel Laureate in Immunology (possibly because he went to the same HS I did and my GP knows him - his brother works with him):

'Early advice on masks was unclear, but a lot of work has been done since then. The WHO and the US CDC have been recommending masks since June. They provide both a physical and a psychological barrier.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-n...ntists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html'

Please ignore my very early posts on mask wearing - as Peter says - we have learned a lot since then. I was wrong.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

My general impression I get from what I read in this thread is that (most?) participants believe that the role of the mask is to somewhat protect the wearer from catching the disease. I have discussed this concept with my primary care doctor, and my daughter who is also an MD. Both agree that the role of the mask is to protect others in the vacinity of a wearer from catching the discease from a possible carrier (with the mask) who does not know they are a carrier.

I know Yggg and Vanadium from long experience on this forum. If that was the impression you got then it was unintentional. Indeed it goes both ways and combined with social distancing makes it difficult to catch or transmit to another person. Not impossible mind you - even the very good N95 mask is only 95% effective - but the risk is definitely reduced. Masks other than the N95 help, but their effectiveness varies.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

A question for the group. On discussion panels here in Aus, we are hearing more frequently - what is the exit strategy. I thought it was obvious - when we get a vaccine and/or effective treatment. But they retort - we may not get a vaccine for years or perhaps ever and a treatment - who knows when that will happen (again if ever). As Bohr famously said ,'It is very hard to predict, especially the future', so of course it is possible we will be faced with no vaccine or treatment. But really - how likely is this? My view is western countries, other than Sweden, are in a sense using a high stakes strategy based on faith in modern medicine and biotechnology. I believe, and I think those advising government like Dr Fauchi, who I have a lot of respect for - our Chief Medical Officers (CMO's) here in Aus is another matter - think it is a battle we are 'up for', as do I. But exactly how valid is it. If not maybe Sweden did take the right course, regardless of how distasteful I find it.

As an aside I am getting increasingly frustrated with the rubbish being promulgated by our CMO's such that doctors can not prescribe drugs 'off label'. I take drugs off label. My doctor even had a patient come in saying she read that metformin extends life expectancy and wanted a script. He thought it hooey but still gave it to her because it is a safe drug. The interesting thing is there is some evidence it could be true from the University of Warwick, and a well designed study is underway to investigate it. Of course that study will take some time.

Thanks
Bill

 

[mfb]

Letting it run through the population is not even guaranteed to work. We don't know how long immunity lasts. If immunity is long-lasting and for some reason no vaccine is approved ever then we'll all get it eventually. But what if immunity just lasts a year? You probably don't get the whole population infected within a year without overwhelming hospitals - and even if you would, that would just make another wave later worse.

We have vaccines candidates that seem to be better than getting the disease. Their adverse effects all seem to be short-term and I'm not aware of any critical condition as result of existing trials. That's already better than "everyone gets the disease once", and much, much better than "disease forever".

We had "disease forever" situations in the past. It's not a good strategy.

 

[atyy]

A question for the group. On discussion panels here in Aus, we are hearing more frequently - what is the exit strategy. I thought it was obvious - when we get a vaccine and/or effective treatment. But they retort - we may not get a vaccine for years or perhaps ever and a treatment - who knows when that will happen (again if ever).

Good discussion to have. One does have to plan for a worst case scenario of no vaccine/pharmaceutical treatment. Can medical masks be made widely available? If they are widely available, how much can we undo the social distancing restrictions?

 

[atyy]

'Early advice on masks was unclear, but a lot of work has been done since then. The WHO and the US CDC have been recommending masks since June. They provide both a physical and a psychological barrier.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-n...ntists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html'

The article says "Previously, the organization had recommended that only those with symptoms of COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus, or those caring for them, wear cloth masks over the nose and mouth." That is not correct, the WHO recommended medical masks in that situation.

Also, the addition of the advice to wear cloth masks does not contradict earlier advice, where social distancing was advised rather than medical mask wearing, to reserve medical masks for healthcare workers. The new advice for cloth masks is for situations when safe distancing is not possible, and the recommendation is still to maintain safe distancing as much as possible.

There was inaccuracy in the WHO's earlier public communications, eg. we heard that wearing masks is not effective - whereas it should have been said that wearing masks is not effective in previous studies for the general public, whereas they had been effective for medical workers, with the difference likely due to compliance and wearing technique.

 

[bhobba]

We have vaccines candidates that seem to be better than getting the disease. Their adverse effects all seem to be short-term and I'm not aware of any critical condition as result of existing trials. That's already better than "everyone gets the disease once", and much, much better than "disease forever".

Great reply. I would summarise it as - realistically what is the alternative?

For me though I get frustrated at some of the bureaucratic ineptitude reported in the media. Check this one out (my precis):

'A 94-year-old nursing home resident (probably government run - but the article did not say) has won a fight to get access to a treatment that could help her fight COVID. Katharina Lica’s desperate family pleaded with her nursing home’s doctors to prescribe her the triple therapy of Professor Borody. Daughter Monika Kloszynski said she feared she would never get to see her mother again if she was not given the treatment. Mrs Kloszynski told News Corp “heaps of “ Melbourne-based doctors had contacted Professor Borody offering to prescribe the treatment for her mother after hearing a radio report on the issue. A Sunshine-based (Sunshine is a Melbourne suburb) GP will visit Mrs Lica tomorrow and the treatment is currently being couriered to Melbourne. Mrs Lica’s cough had got worse as the virus progressed but she was still reasonably well her daughter said. At least one patient at the nursing home, has died from COVID-19 and many more are battling the virus. Mrs Kloszynski has power of attorney and was prepared to sign a waiver if doctors wished her to take full responsibility for giving her mother the treatment.'

My eyes bulged when I read it. We all know what happens when it gets in a nursing home - the death rate is something like 37% - and the women is 94 years old - what chance has she got? These are freely available prescription medicines, yet the doctors in the nursing home will not prescribe it. This is bureaucracy gone mad. They are acting like some of the public servants I once worked with - blow the consequences - we are not willing to take even the slightest risk - or maybe they were told from above not to do it. All people in the home should be given the treatment - of course after examination by a doctor and their consent. There is no harm and a tragedy may be averted. Shaking head in frustration.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

The governor of Vermont began today's COVID press conference with an anecdote. He said there is a man in Vermont who was hospitalized with COVID four months ago. Now he recovered and was released, but a new test shows him to be positive again. But in the second time, the DNA of the man's virus was "genetically distinct" from the first time.

That's ominous. It brings attention to how broad these vaccines in test are. If they are too narrow, the protection afforded may be inadequate.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The governor of Vermont began today's COVID press conference with an anecdote. He said there is a man in Vermont who was hospitalized with COVID four months ago. Now he recovered and was released, but a new test shows him to be positive again. But in the second time, the DNA of the man's virus was "genetically distinct" from the first time.

That's ominous. It brings attention to how broad these vaccines in test are. If they are too narrow, the protection afforded may be inadequate.

Do you have a source for this? It was recently reported that a man in Hong Kong was confirmed to be re-infected with the coronavirus, but I have not seen any reports from Vermont.

The re-infection news has been discussed on this physics forum thread. It is unlikely that the man was re-infected because immunity from the original strain did not protect from the second strain that infected him (the differences between the two strains are very minor). Rather, it is more likely that the initial infection did not produce a long lasting antibody response in the individual (e.g. researchers have found that ~ 1/3 people infected have low levels of antibodies after infection. Though we don't know the levels of antibodies needed to prevent re-infection, it is possible that some individuals don't develop antibody responses long lasting enough to prevent reinfection in the short term). Studies of coronaviruses that cause common colds also suggests that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time to allow re-infection after as little as 6 months.

However, it is also worth noting that the second infection was essentially asymptomatic, which suggests that while previous infection may not be able to generate a sterilizing immune response capable of preventing re-infection, it can likely lessen the symptoms of the second infection. This is consistent with data showing that nearly all previously infected people show signs of a T-cell response against the coronavirus, even those that don't show detectable antibody response. While T-cells (which help clear infected cells from the body) may not be able to prevent re-infection as well as an antibody response, it may still be able to slow the progression of the infection and prevent major symptoms from arising before the immune system can kick into control the infection.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Regarding the future prospects for vaccines and exiting from the pandemic, here are two good reads:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we-might-develop-immunity-to-covid-19/
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/08/25/preparing-for-the-vaccine-results

The first link discusses possibilities for what immunity to the Coronavirus might look like. While most experts believe that long lasting sterilizing immunity to the virus is unlikely, they also believe that it is unlikely that COVID-19 would continue to be as deadly through various cycles of re-infection:

Lost immunity describes a scenario in which people who have been infected would lose all their immune munitions against the virus within some time frame. A reinfection after that point would be like a first infection — carrying all the same risk of severe disease now seen with Covid-19.

None of the experts who spoke to STAT felt this was a possibility.

The second link discusses what we might expect to see when we begin to see the results from phase III trials of the various vaccine candidates. The author is fairly confident that we'll eventually find some vaccine that will at least provide some partial protection from the virus:

But even if the first results aren’t great, it doesn’t mean that we’re (necessarily) hosed. That’s the good thing about having several different vaccines going, with different platform technologies. We are really going to have to wait and see what the various approaches are going to produce, even though “wait and see” is not exactly the zeitgeist right now. We have the different adenoviruses (and other vectors, which will come later), the inactivated-virus vaccines, the mRNA candidates, the recombinant proteins – there’s no reason to think that these are all going to come out the same, and that’s going to be important to keep in mind.

The available evidence suggests that infection with the virus is capable of generating sterilizing immunity capable of preventing infection through neutralizing antibodies in some people and protective immunity capable of lessening symptoms through T-cell responses in most people (see my post here). Thus, it should be possible to make an effective vaccine that is at least protective in the short term. Although there is a chance that individual vaccines or individual approaches may fail, we have researchers attempting to build vaccines on at least four fundamentally different technologies (with many different versions using each different technology), so I think that there is a good chance that we'll come across at least one version of the vaccine that is effective.

 

[anorlunda]

Do you have a source for this?

Sorry, I saw it on TV, not the Internet.

 

[bhobba]

Thus, it should be possible to make an effective vaccine that is at least protective in the short term.

Could the adjuvants that many of the vaccines are using change this?

Thanks
Bill

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Could the adjuvants that many of the vaccines are using change this?

Thanks
Bill

I don't know. Adjuvants are certainly used to strengthen immune responses to vaccines, but I don't have enough expertise in this area to know whether they can make immune responses significantly more longer lasting.