Riobard

Correction: Probably more variants than can be tracked ... (not ‘that can be tracked ...’)

Aaaawww ... welcome back.

(For some reason I can no longer snip a quote) Re: antiretroviral meds and CoV... Nope. That is absolute bunk.

Sorry, perhaps I have created some confusion. The whole topic is very complex. There is also the problem of varying meanings for vaccine effectiveness; protection from acquiring viral infection and attenuation of degree of disease severity are not interchangeable. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna research briefs data support the idea that vaccination greatly reduces acquiring symptomatic infection irrespective of severity. However, the data do not support efficacy regarding their clinically defined criteria of severe illness. In fact, proportionally across case count the placebo groups had a smaller number of cases meeting the threshold of severity. That reality is lost when the minimal preponderance of severity among those vaccinated is selectively highlighted. The fact is, you need a substantial number of infections in order to produce each single case of disease severity. The concept of antibody-dependent enhancement of viral infection is related but distinct from that of assessing a current vaccine’s ability to deal with new variants. I believe that the evaluation of some products’ effectiveness with (a) new coronavirus variant(s) has been done at the test-tube level but not yet in human efficacy trials. Because such a small handful of vaccine recipients in research caught the novel coronavirus, subsamples cannot be stratified across CoV variants for analysis based on the time frame prior to which the variants became more discerned, even with old blood samples standing by for additional analysis. What the Pfizer, Moderna, etc reports concede is that the jury remains out on whether the actual antibodies generated will lead to more serious illness upon later viral infection exposure as immunity wanes ... ADE. This is related to the idea that some antibodies may give a boost to later degree of illness severity upon exposure to essentially the same virus or a variant of that virus. If that occurs for two or more strains of the virus the problem in vaccine development is that one component may generate those problematic antibodies that exacerbate illness upon exposure to another strain or to another vaccine component that targets an alternative strain. Let’s take the example of Dengue-1, 2, 3, and 4. Inoculating against D-1 generates the same type of antibodies as does exposure to D-1, so the bind is that vaccination for any one sero-type risks more serious illness upon secondary exposures to alternate sero-types as much as natural exposure to infection by any sero-type does. Recall that one dengue exposure is less serious than another different strain exposure at some later point in time. These liabilities are interchangeable, hence, the challenge in creating a vaccine for broadband coverage of D1, D2, D3, D4. The above type of scenario, ADE, would be extremely dangerous in the context of COVID-19. It is more the long range view and less attention is given to it. But the concept is found in the fine-print of recent CoV vaccine study safety analyses, as well as immunology and virology circles contemplating it. However, it is distinct from the idea of renewed vaccination if and when immunity conferred by earlier vaccination wanes, combined with tweaking vaccines for emerging virus’ spike protein variants. What we read about is the sequencing of variants naturally occurring due to genetic drift, population surveillance for their effects, followed by scrambling to assess vaccine efficacy wrt the variants and to ensure that the genetic encoding that triggers human immunogenicity, by tricking our immune systems to behave as if we caught the actual virus, best matches the spike protein mutations that spur variants of concern. This is not unlike seasonal influenza vaccines being altered each year. There are probably more variants that can be tracked, counted, or sequenced. The ones that are identified and highlighted seem to be attributable to shifts or anomalies in contagion as assessed by epidemiological surveillance. In sum, the more and faster community case incidence, the more rapid mutations, the more rapid variants evolving, and so on. As mutations naturally select for viral configurations that escape prior immunity ... the virus evolves as if prior natural infection and vaccination are similar ... ongoing proliferation among the population risks the type of scenario we definitely don’t want. Therefore, it is important that the early cohorts receiving vaccine do not catch the virus even if such a viral challenge to inoculation poses less risk at an individual clinical level. The more iterations of immune response accompanied by antibody production, the greater the chance of either ADE, virus strains that evade vaccination or against which vaccine adjustment cannot keep pace, or both. One other possibility is that other parts of the virus find an entry point into human cells. Currently, the spike-centred receptor-binding domain is the target, blocking its capacity to unlock entry into human cells. But that is not all there is to it. We also have substandard vaccination being introduced into the population, one in particular upcoming in common between Brazil and Dominican Republic, all of which additively promotes the worse case scenario fallouts of greatest worry.

Based on the meaning I understood growing up, I thought at first that ‘clout-chasing’ here meant one of the guys pursued getting smacked around during sex play. Now I grasp the alternate interpretation. FullSizeRender.mov

Correction: 2nd paragraph last line, ADE in bold (not AED)

I am treating my coronavirus vaccination the same as my one previous infection with the flavivirus dengue I experienced in Brazil a few years ago. I am also treating it as if I have had at least one SARS-CoV-2 exposure from which I recovered. As many know, there are at least four dengue sero-types (aka strains) and consecutive exposure to the different strains inflates the possibility of more serious disease, eg systemic hemorrhagic complications. I cannot imagine enduring being sicker than the first time. The general concept behind the phenomenon of one sero-type exposure potentiating more serious illness with another later exposure is called antibody-dependent enhancement (of disease) (AED). If you are wondering why you have not become familiar with ADE from media news cycles, I assure you that it is, nevertheless, a thing and was referenced several times in the detailed Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna FDA briefings preparatory to EUA dispositions two months ago. The general caveat is that antibody generation from natural infection or artificial exposure (ie, inoculation) is such that floating among neutralizing antibodies and non-neutralizing but helper or innocuous antibodies are extraneous antibodies harnessed by viral particles through endless mutation cycles to facilitate capacity to infect human cells for viral replication. It is like an ‘own goal’. Widespread dissemination of this notion will exacerbate vaccine hesitancy. There is pretty much radio silence regarding it. It also essentially provides a legal escape clause for enforced/mandatory vaccination. And to the usual cast of nutters it sounds ‘hoaxy’. However, it is one element of the science-based narrative that underpins the importance of assiduously avoiding a SARS-CoV-2 exposure in spite of personal vaccination and until community vaccination has been successfully accomplished. It is known that, like for flavivirus, evolutionary ADE is plausible and possible for a CoV that proliferates throughout the global population. This phenomenon accounts for why a viable vaccination strategy for a disease as serious as dengue evades human scientific capacity, not for want of years of diligent research. The emergence of ‘escape’ variants should be one of the red flags that alerts us to the eventual possibility that some of our many random CoV or vaxx-generated antibodies may render us vulnerable to more serious illness when exposed to new strains. It is not a guarantee this crisis will develop. It is perhaps even freakishly random that a particular set of antibodies confers Houdini-like capacity to the coronavirus. But it essentially happened with dengue, where each successive strike portends the umpire calling eventual lights out. The idea of vaccination passports is utterly premature hooey until this virus is controlled. Each individual hopeful delusion of robust and enduring protection fuels the potential for antibody-dependent enhanced disease down the line.

Probably worth a look ...

*their own versions (last paragraph line 4-5 above)

Thanks, @Xclay Just so you know, the NYT and WP links have paywalls, though I read the former piece extolling vaccine virtues a while back, cannot remember how accessed. Sometimes one can Google the title and find a ‘pirated’ full version or the print media eventually unblocks it for non-subscribers. At times if it’s not too lengthy I’ll share an article here on the Board by entering a few screenshots that capture the full text. On my smartphone I can pinch the borders in order to reduce the number of files selected from Photos. —— I’m certain as well that I recently received research trial vaccine rather than placebo. —— CommonPass is interesting ... apparently non-profit, has Swiss chocolate neutrality, and seems to be flexible for all modes of cross-border travel. The IATA initiative may be too specific. Yet various countries appear to be developing there own versions and there is the usual bickering about scientific merit and legal legitimacy, so the system may evolve to one of ‘right of passage’ nationalism rather than a single unified global documentation protocol.

Hahaha ... but y’all know by now Imma informal and non-academic in writing style. Yes, I meant semantically “couldn’t”, and I was using the counter-intuitive version. However, “could care less” can also be a bit of a burn and is not necessarily directly antithetical to “couldn’t care less”, as one is implying that one cares on one’s own terms and that it is not the recipient of care that merits or drives the degree of caring allocated.

I don’t think that pharmaceutical companies will be getting into the business of immunity passports per se, but there will be eventually a systematic way of getting access to services or countries using documentation, likely biometric, in which reasonable proof of vaccination, natural immunity, etc are integrated to meet the bar that is set. At this point it would not be surprising to have restrictions, as already set by precedent, based on regional infection incidence and known problematic variants. As there is already chatter about heterologous inoculation it is questionable whether one vaccine one format one company will be the norm down the line. Expect privacy-related pushback as well ... not from me; I could care less what authorities know about my CoV status. I don’t expect that a paper system such as exists for YF will be workable because there are too many variables and a mosquito is (presumably) not needed to bridge coronavirus transmission. Being in a double-blind RCT myself, for which efficacy analysis is a long way off, I am curious about the Moderna (& Pfizer/BioNTech) unblinding protocol. I believe that you were likely notified about a ‘vaccine transition option’. I assume that it included the choice to go the distance of about 12 months total, or to have your study assignment unmasked and receive vaccine currently if so desired. Perhaps there is a subgroup that will stick it out and salvage some degree of longer-term efficacy evaluation. But I am also wondering if there is a ‘blinded crossover’ sub-study on offer in which those vaccinated are given placebo and vice versa, a partial cohort that is followed to the original endpoint, but that makes no assumptions about when they received vaccine (originally versus the crossover design) while enabling a comparison of immunity bio markers between two time frames. Obviously, ongoing efficacy is out the window in such a protocol following the point at which vaccination is uniform. Last but not least, do you have your final Moderna walking papers? Are you completely opted out due to unblinding or will they do follow-up serology for immunogenicity data?

Bad luck for you. You need to treat the 20-day limit the same as any deadline. Perhaps this is occurring more because of general travel instability. What is not missing in online searches is info on the hassles of getting an extension, the fine (about BRL120 per day) for overstaying without formal authorization, the likely requirement to pay it at a bank (not directly to customs) thereby risking missing your departing flight home, the misdemeanour stamp in passport with possible future restrictions etc. If staying longer is completely out of your control they might let it go. Their discretion works both ways. For all my few dozen entries I have had it left blank or marked in as 90 days by the officer.

I found what looks like a paper version, but it might be more detailed than the current online declaration form, and perhaps also aimed at contact tracing. Do you actually need to enter your accommodation addresses? That would suggest you should have them handy at the point of doing the electronic form entry. From what I’ve read written in Portuguese by travel guides, etc, your addresses in Brazil are not required. The version below might, however, have been for the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009. Some of the symptoms are not among the usual signature signs of CoV.

Well now you seem to be providing a different version of the contents of the email that you received. You did not earlier indicate that the email contained your name and passport number! it seems to me that those personal details along with acknowledgement of receiving your declaration ticks all the boxes. And perhaps you did receive two notices. The first one indicating your email was registered to complete the form, along with the link to the declaration form. The second one the confirmation that the completed form was received. The thing is: if there is yet again a follow-up confirmation with more details, then the total email notifications would amount to three. Anyway, do what you think you need to do. I wouldn’t lose sleep over it the night before your flight. Bon voyage.

I have it on very good authority, a personal contact, that you just need to produce the simplistic email that indicates receipt of the declaration. It means you agreed to, and made, the statement, etc. Strange, I know. I too would have expected something more elaborate required to produce to boarding agents, with my name on it, etc. Online materials in Portuguese are ambiguous and do not specify the format, other than printed or digital, but there are some references to needing to produce the “confirmation”. My email address contains my name. If not (eg, if you are babybear at yahoo), it is on your device and I guess that is satisfactory. If you are worried, show up early enough tomorrow, with your negative RT-PCR, for airline assistance.

Yeah, nobody’s clearing the SoCal protocol bar doing the limbo rock.

Never say, at this point in time in my presence, something ‘sucks’ ... unless I can get in on that. lol

It may be the national health minister who is a bit anxious today as he is to give testimony regarding a federal investigation into his dismissive conduct regarding the pandemic. Another of Bozo’s apuppepointments from the military.

... and trained to sniff out ‘low dead space’ syringes.

São Paulo abruptly decided to dial back the weekend restrictions. Starting this weekend it will be the regular Phase 2 Orange, not a hybrid of Phases 1 & 2. Restaurants etc permitted open every day until 20:00 hrs. Alcohol while seated, 40% capacity, blah blah blah.

Weird how certain props and behavioural adjustments are starting to emerge, with barely an explained rationale, all seemingly out of nowhere.

... to Cuba and Dominican Republic for the next full 3 months. We don’t want to export our fairly high levels of novel coronavirus into their vulnerable populations.

That SS surge just west of BKK really jacked up the exposure risk metrics for that area. Any random group of 14 people contains a carrier at a 1% probability level. Still peanuts though.