The COVID-19 Science and Medicine Question Thread

If you get the vaccine and then get a covid 19 test will it be positive?

The vaccine doesnt make you positive. Having Covid makes you positive.

If you get the vaccine and then get a covid 19 test will it be positive?

The vaccine doesnt make you positive. Having Covid makes you positive.

Depends on the test...

PCR - Diagnostic Test: NO, there's no chance of getting a positive test, unless a person was infected PRIOR to receiving the vaccine.

Rapid Antigen Test: NO, same as above IF the test was done with a nose swab sample. HOWEVER when and if there are Antigen Blood Tests made and used, they would become positive post-vaccination because the vaccines either cause you body to make, or inject the virus' spike protein to stimulate your immune system.

Antibody Blood Test: YES, but depends on the timing. This test looks for antibodies against COVID-19 in your blood, which is exactly what the vaccine has your body making. It takes some time for antibodies to get produced, so this test may be negative for up to a few days after your first vaccine dose, but suffice it too say, one week post-vaccination, you should become positive for this test.

Is it true the vaccination works up to six months? If so does everyone have to get the shots again?

We just don't have enough time to figure out how long these immune responses last for these vaccines,” Smith said. The New England Journal of Medicine published a report on Tuesday about Moderna's vaccine, saying it should offer protection from COVID-19 for at least six months

Is it true the vaccination works up to six months? If so does everyone have to get the shots again?

We just don't have enough time to figure out how long these immune responses last for these vaccines,” Smith said. The New England Journal of Medicine published a report on Tuesday about Moderna's vaccine, saying it should offer protection from COVID-19 for at least

Unfortunately, a work in progress; to be determined. The jabs are the best alternative.

Is it true the vaccination works up to six months? If so does everyone have to get the shots again?

We just don't have enough time to figure out how long these immune responses last for these vaccines,” Smith said. The New England Journal of Medicine published a report on Tuesday about Moderna's vaccine, saying it should offer protection from COVID-19 for at least six months

This is an example of what those of us in the business call, "Real time studies", it just takes time. If you think about it, the Clinical Trials for Moderna and Pfizer ended around 6 months ago, and at this point, there hasn't been any noticeable drop in efficacy, ergo the "at least 6 months" effectivity comment. Next month it will be 7 months, and so and so forth until a drop in efficacy is noted.

When will that occur? Damned if anyone knows. I have a gut feeling that the primary drive for a booster anytime in 2021 will be more likely to address aggressive variants, as opposed to the original vaccine losing it's oomph.

The misunderstanding of "real time studies" is very common. I had an exchange with a corporate VP once, "So we only have 6 months dating on that product?"

"Yes sir, 6 months, but we're continuing our studies and should get the desired 12 month stability data in 6 months."

"How many people are working on that study?"

"One"

"So if I let you hire another person, we'll have that study completed in 3 months instead of 6?"

"No, to get 6 months more dating, we need 6 months to pass."

Wanted to add, but didn't for the sake of my career, "...unless we can hire someone that can alter the space/time continuum."

Wanted to add, but didn't for the sake of my career, "...unless we can hire someone that can alter the space/time continuum."

You should have found Mr. Tripton from My Cousin Vinny. Water soaks into a grit faster in his kitchen than any place on the face of the earth!

You should have found Mr. Tripton from My Cousin Vinny. Water soaks into a grit faster in his kitchen than any place on the face of the earth!

Water boils on this mans stove faster...

Interesting, the noise of convalescent plasma has disappeared as of late. I assumed it was because of the vaccine, but it turned out to be pretty much of a dud. Don't get me wrong, IMO it was money well-spent, as it furthered what we know about COVID-19, especially at the beginning when we didn't know squat!!

[HEADING=2]The Covid-19 Plasma Boom Is Over. What Did We Learn From It?[/HEADING]
The U.S. government invested $800 million in plasma when the country was desperate for Covid-19 treatments. A year later, the program has fizzled.

Scott Cohen was on a ventilator struggling for his life with Covid-19 last April when his brothers pleaded with Plainview Hospital on Long Island to infuse him with the blood plasma of a recovered patient.

The experimental treatment was hard to get but was gaining attention at a time when doctors had little else. After an [online petition drew 18,000 signatures]('https://www.change.org/p/northwell-hospital-save-my-dad-and-brother-s-life-we-have-only-a-few-days'), the hospital gave Mr. Cohen, a retired Nassau County medic, an infusion of the pale yellow stuff that some called “liquid gold.”

In those terrifying early months of the pandemic, the idea that antibody-rich plasma could save lives took on a life of its own before there was evidence that it worked. The Trump administration, buoyed by proponents at elite medical institutions, seized on plasma as a good-news story at a time when there weren’t many others. It awarded more than $800 million to entities involved in its collection and administration, and put Dr. Anthony S. Fauci’s face on billboards promoting the treatment.

A coalition of companies and nonprofit groups, including the Mayo Clinic, Red Cross and Microsoft, mobilized to urge donations from people who had recovered from Covid-19, enlisting celebrities [like Samuel L. Jackson]('https://twitter.com/samuelljackson/status/1273370164092760064?lang=en') and Dwayne Johnson, the actor known as the Rock. Volunteers, some dressed in superhero capes, showed up to blood banks in droves.

Mr. Cohen, who later recovered, was one of them. He went on to donate his own plasma 11 times.

But by the end of the year, good evidence for convalescent plasma had not materialized, prompting many prestigious medical centers to quietly abandon it. By February, with cases and hospitalizations dropping, demand dipped below what blood banks had stockpiled. In March, the New York Blood Center called Mr. Cohen to cancel his 12th appointment. It didn’t need any more plasma.

A year ago, when Americans were dying of Covid at an alarming rate, the federal government made a big bet on plasma. No one knew if the treatment would work, but it seemed biologically plausible and safe, and there wasn’t much else to try. All told, more than 722,000 units of plasma were distributed to hospitals thanks to the federal program, which ends this month.

The government’s bet did not result in a blockbuster treatment for Covid-19, or even a decent one. But it did give the country a real-time education in the pitfalls of testing a medical treatment in the middle of an emergency. Medical science is messy and slow. And when a treatment fails, which is often, it can be difficult for its strongest proponents to let it go.

Because the government gave plasma to so many patients outside of a controlled clinical trial, it [took a long time]('https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/health/trump-plasma.html') to measure its effectiveness. Eventually, studies did emerge to suggest that under the right conditions, plasma might help. But enough evidence has now accumulated to show that the country’s broad, costly plasma campaign had little effect, especially in people whose disease was advanced enough to land them in the hospital.

In interviews, three federal health officials — Dr. Stephen M. Hahn, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Dr. Peter Marks, a top F.D.A. regulator; and Dr. H. Clifford Lane, a clinical director at the National Institutes of Health — acknowledged that the evidence for plasma was limited.

“The data are just not that strong, and it makes it makes it hard, I think, to be enthusiastic about seeing it continue to be used,” Dr. Lane said. The [N.I.H. recently halted]('https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-trial-covid-19-convalescent-plasma-emergency-department-patients-mild-symptoms') an outpatient trial of plasma because of a lack of benefit.

[HEADING=1]Plasma promotions[/HEADING]
Doctors have used the antibodies of recovered patients as treatments for more than a century, for diseases including diphtheria, the 1918 flu and Ebola.

So when patients began falling ill with the new coronavirus last year, doctors around the world turned to the old standby.

In the United States, two hospitals — [Mount Sinai in New York City]('https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/health/plasma-coronavirus-treatment.html?searchResultPosition=1') and Houston Methodist in Texas — administered the first plasma units to Covid-19 patients within hours of each other on March 28.
Dr. Nicole M. Bouvier, an infectious-disease doctor who helped set up Mount Sinai’s plasma program, said the hospital had tried the experimental treatment because blood transfusions carry a relatively low risk of harm. With a new virus spreading quickly, and no approved treatments, “nature is a much better manufacturer than we are,” she said.

That investment turned out to be significant. According to contract records, the U.S. government has paid $647 million to the [American Red Cross]('https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_75A50120C00045_7505_-NONE-_-NONE-') and [America’s Blood Centers]('https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_75A50120C00094_7505_-NONE-_-NONE-') since last April.

“The convalescent plasma program was intended to meet an urgent need for a potential therapy early in the pandemic,” a health department spokeswoman said in a statement. “When these contracts began, treatments weren’t available for hospitalized Covid-19 patients.”

[HEADING=1]Lack of evidence[/HEADING]
In August, the F.D.A. authorized plasma for emergency use under pressure from President Donald J. Trump, who had chastised federal scientists for moving too slowly.

At a news conference, Dr. Hahn, the agency’s commissioner, substantially exaggerated the data, [although he later corrected his remarks]('https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/24/health/fda-blood-plasma.html') following criticism from the scientific community.

In a recent interview, he said that Mr. Trump’s involvement in the plasma authorization had made the topic polarizing.

“Any discussion one could have about the science and medicine behind it didn’t happen, because it became a political issue as opposed to a medical and scientific one,” Dr. Hahn said.

The authorization did away with the Mayo Clinic system and opened access to even more hospitals. As Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths skyrocketed in the fall and winter, use of plasma did, too, according to national usage data provided by the Blood Centers of America. By January of this year, when the United States was averaging more than 130,000 hospitalizations a day, hospitals were administering 25,000 units of plasma per week.

Many community hospitals serving lower-income patients, with few other options and plasma readily available, embraced the treatment. At the Integris Health system in Oklahoma, giving patients two units of plasma became standard practice between November and January.

Dr. David Chansolme, the system’s medical director of infection prevention, acknowledged that studies of plasma had showed it was “more miss than hit,” but he said his hospitals last year lacked the resources of bigger institutions, including access to the antiviral drug remdesivir. Doctors with a flood of patients — many of them Hispanic and from rural communities — were desperate to treat them with anything they could that was safe, Dr. Chansolme said.

By the fall, accumulating evidence was showing that plasma was not the miracle that some early boosters had believed it to be. In September, [the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommended]('https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-treatment-and-management/') that plasma not be used in hospitalized patients outside of a clinical trial. (On Wednesday, the society restricted its advice further, saying plasma should not be used at all in hospitalized patients.) In January, a highly anticipated trial in Britain [was halted early]('https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-recovery-trial-chief-investigators-15-january-2021-recovery-trial-closes-recruitment-to-convalescent-plasma-treatment-for-patients-hospitalised-with-covid-19') because there was not strong evidence of a benefit in hospitalized patients.

In February, the F.D.A. [narrowed the authorization]('https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-brief/fda-brief-fda-updates-emergency-use-authorization-covid-19-convalescent-plasma-reflect-new-data') for plasma so that it applied only to people who were early in the course of their disease or who couldn’t make their own antibodies.

Dr. Marks, the F.D.A. regulator, said that in retrospect, scientists had been too slow to adapt to those recommendations. They had known from previous disease outbreaks that plasma treatment is likely to work best when given early, and when it contained high levels of antibodies, he said.

“Somehow we didn’t really take that as seriously as perhaps we should have,” he said. “If there was a lesson in this, it’s that history actually can teach you something.”

Today, several medical centers have largely stopped giving plasma to patients. At Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, researchers found that many hospitalized patients were already producing their own antibodies, so plasma treatments would be superfluous. The Cleveland Clinic no longer routinely administers plasma because of a “lack of convincing evidence of efficacy,” according to Dr. Simon Mucha, a critical care physician.

And earlier this year, Mount Sinai stopped giving plasma to patients outside of a clinical trial. Dr. Bouvier said that she had tracked the scientific literature and that there had been a “sort of piling on” of studies that showed no benefit.

“That’s what science is — it’s a process of abandoning your old hypotheses in favor of a better hypothesis,” she said. Many initially promising drugs fail in clinical trials. “That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.”

A clinical trial in Argentina [found that giving plasma]('https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2033700') early to older people reduced the progression of Covid-19. And [an analysis of the Mayo Clinic program]('https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2031893?articleTools=true') found that patients who were given plasma with a high concentration of antibodies fared better than those who did not receive the treatment. Still, in March, the N.I.H. halted a trial of plasma in people who were not yet severely ill with Covid-19 because [the agency said]('https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-trial-covid-19-convalescent-plasma-emergency-department-patients-mild-symptoms') it was unlikely to help.

With most of the medical community acknowledging plasma’s limited benefit, even the Fight Is In Us has begun to shift its focus. For months, a “clinical research” page about convalescent plasma was dominated by favorable studies and news releases, omitting major articles concluding that plasma showed little benefit.

Now, [the website]('https://www.thefightisinus.org/') has been redesigned to more broadly promote not only plasma, but also testing, vaccines and other treatments like monoclonal antibodies, which are synthesized in a lab and thought to be a more potent version of plasma. Its clinical research page also includes more negative studies about plasma.

Nevertheless, the Fight Is In Us is still running [=desc&sort_data[mode]=relevancy_monthly_grouped&search_type=page']Facebook ads]('https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=US&view_all_page_id=111093693939953&sort_data[direction), paid for by the federal government, telling Covid-19 survivors that “There’s a hero inside you” and “Keep up the fight.” The ads urge them to donate their plasma, even though most blood banks have stopped collecting it.

Two of plasma’s early boosters, Mr. Lebovits and Ms. Berrent, have also turned their attention to monoclonal antibodies. As he had done with plasma last spring, Mr. Lebovits helped increase acceptance of monoclonals in the Orthodox Jewish community, setting up an informational hotline, running ads in Orthodox newspapers, and creating rapid testing sites that doubled as infusion centers. Coordinating with federal officials, Mr. Lebovits has since shared his strategies with leaders in the Hispanic community in El Paso and San Diego.

And Ms. Berrent has been working with a division of the insurer UnitedHealth to [match the right patients]('https://www.survivorcorps.com/c19positive') — people with underlying health conditions or who are over 65 — to that treatment.

“I’m a believer in plasma for a lot of substantive reasons, but if word came back tomorrow that jelly beans worked better, we’d be promoting jelly beans,” she said. “We are here to save lives.”

This is a little disturbing.

How does the vaccine not use the same protein, and if not how does our immune system recognize it?

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/[/URL]

This is a little disturbing.

How does the vaccine not use the same protein, and if not how does our immune system recognize it?

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/[/URL]

Great question, but something we need not worry about.

The vaccine-generated "spike protein" isn't there "real deal. That's what the line in the article that says (which are very different from those safely encoded by vaccines) means. The vaccine encodes only the portion of the spike protein that has the maximum antibody-generating properties, not the entire, biologically active spike protein.

This may have been asked earlier in the thread but I'm wondering why people with Covid are not being treated at all? Everyone I know that got it was sent home with no meds and no treatment. Right now a close friend is at home dealing with Covid pneumonia and he was just told that if it doesn't subside he will need to be hospitalized.

You would think by now there would be some type of protocol to treat people that have it.

This may have been asked earlier in the thread but I'm wondering why people with Covid are not being treated at all? Everyone I know that got it was sent home with no meds and no treatment. Right now a close friend is at home dealing with Covid pneumonia and he was just told that if it doesn't subside he will need to be hospitalized.

You would think by now there would be some type of protocol to treat people that have it.

One has to be in bad shape to get treatment, in that Remdesivir or preparations of synthesized antibodies, are only authorized for hospitalized patients in whose next step is a ventilator.

Here's the recommended in home treatment protocol...

[LIST]
[*]Stay home except to get medical care.
[*]Monitor your symptoms carefully. If your symptoms get worse, call your healthcare provider immediately.
[*]Get rest and stay hydrated. Take over-the-counter medicines, such as acetaminophen, to help you feel better.
[*]If you have a medical appointment, notify your healthcare provider ahead of time that you have or may have COVID-19.
[*]Stay in a specific room and away from other people in your home. If possible, use a separate bathroom. If you must be around others, wear a mask.
[/LIST]

sounds like a regimen for common influenza ( ? )

sounds like a regimen for common influenza ( ? )

With the exception of 4 approved antivirals that can be administered on the onset of flu, Tamiflu, Xofluza, Rapavab, and Relenza...

One has to be in bad shape to get treatment, in that Remdesivir or preparations of synthesized antibodies, are only authorized for hospitalized patients in whose next step is a ventilator.

Here's the recommended in home treatment protocol...

[LIST]
[*]Stay home except to get medical care.
[*]Monitor your symptoms carefully. If your symptoms get worse, call your healthcare provider immediately.
[*]Get rest and stay hydrated. Take over-the-counter medicines, such as acetaminophen, to help you feel better.
[*]If you have a medical appointment, notify your healthcare provider ahead of time that you have or may have COVID-19.
[*]Stay in a specific room and away from other people in your home. If possible, use a separate bathroom. If you must be around others, wear a mask.
[/LIST]

Let's wait until he's on the brink of death before we do anything?

A year and 1/2 in and that's the best they can come up with? I'm sorry but I'm not buying that's the best they can do.

Its not so easy to dignose when we dont have all the facts:

Does your friend have any underlying conditions?
Has he been treated with any meds before and had no response?

Steroids and monoclonal antibodies have been standard protocol UNLESS there are underlying factors. If his pulse Oxygen levels are stable, he should ride it out.

Once again, underlying conditions are the big X factor with treatment. (ie., overweight, smoker, diabetic, asthmatic....etc)

He's on no meds with no underlying conditions. He's a bit overweight but never a smoker and he keeps up on annual checkups. Sadly it was his never getting sick in the past leading him to believe that he had natural immunity.

I just got a text from him and he said they just prescribed some meds today. I'll find out what they are after his wife gets home. He can barely text.

Let's wait until he's on the brink of death before we do anything?

A year and 1/2 in and that's the best they can come up with? I'm sorry but I'm not buying that's the best they can do.

Antivirals by nature are tough nuts to crack. Vaccines are best and that’s where the researchers focused. Antivirals will ensue, but it’s better to avoid getting sick with a potentially fatal disease then going for a treatment.

Antivirals by nature are tough nuts to crack. Vaccines are best and that’s where the researchers focused. Antivirals will ensue, but it’s better to avoid getting sick with a potentially fatal disease then going for a treatment.

Just wanted to expand on the above, as I wrote it on my cell phone and my fat fingers aren't very agile...

Why are antivirals difficult to make? Well you have to think about exactly what a virus is and what it does. It's actually debatable whether or not a virus is actually a "live" organism. It's the ultimate parasite, as it cannot thrive without a host cell, but does it "live"? That's one of my favorite 5 beer debates with fellow colleagues...

When a virus infects a cell, it releases it's nucleic code and this code gets incorporated into the host's DNA. The code from the virus then takes over the host cell's cellular processes to make more virus; it makes the cell it's virus' slave factory.

And there's the rub. The virus doesn't change the cell's cellular processes, it just hijacks them. So finding a compound that prevents a virus from hijacking a cell is a very demanding, and difficult process. To stop the virus by just "shutdowning" the new "factory", you would be shutting down that cell, along with all the cells of the same type in the infected host, whether or not they're infected, which isn't good for the infected person as an entire organ may be killed. So an antiviral drug is a much "finer" target than getting an antibiotic that works on a bacterium. Bacteria are living organisms that have, and use their own cellular processes to live and reproduce, offering biochemists a much wider choice of weapons to kill the bacterium without killing the infected person.

COVID-19 offered scientists a huge Achilles Heel, the spike protein, which is quite immunogenic and pretty-well conserved across variants. This gave a perfect target for vaccine development, and it was exploited by many companies. This was the best, and quickest, avenue for disease control research, as the "warp speed" development of multiple safe and effective vaccines can attest to!!