silversand
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/12/2004
View Profile
|
BCSnob wrote:I'm not saying the use of 222nm for sterilization should be avoided; I am suggesting that implementation of this in public spaces should be carefully thought out so as to avoid unintended consequences. A good example of its use might be interior of the HVAC air return ducts.
Agreed. Thank you for the links; I will read through every one of them. Thanks.
Also, halogen, incandescent and fluorescent lighting all give off varying intensities of UV. These are ubiquitous, found in every building and space installed over the past ~90+ years.
BCSnob wrote:Drastic decrease of carbonyl group after the loss of ether in PADC exposed to 222nm UV photons
Radiation Physics and Chemistry Volume 157, April 2019, Pages 60-64
On edit: ....this RPC article was interesting. However, PADC (thermoset plastic used for eye glasses lenses) is an extremely effective UV-C blocker, especially at 254nm to 280nm and lower. It seems to be almost unaffected by UVC (even at 102uJ/cm2 for long duration PADC is quite impressively stable).
....on to next article....
Quote:Degradation of Bisphenol A in an Aqueous Solution by a Photo-Fenton-Like Process Using a UV KrCl Excilamp
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(3), 1152
....interesting. Especially in the realms of BPA profusion and toxicity to marine environment!
"Direct UV irradiation without persulfate (direct photolysis) showed a relatively low BPA degradation rate so that it was converted by 84% after 60 min treatment whereas the DOC removal reached only 13% after 4 h of exposure. No degradation was observed in the presence of persulfate without any UV exposure (data not shown)."
....however, without a photoreactor (KrCl excilamp) and persulfate, there was little degradation of BPA bombarded by UVC (at the rate published). This is really bad news for any natural degradation of BPA floating out in the oceans (forget about toxic byproducts cutting loose from degrading BPA out in the marine environment!)....
But I'm still with you vis ongoing research into 222nm as a sterilization agent and negative issues oxidizing the myriad plastics in the sterilization "space"....
* This post was
last
edited 02/04/21 09:24am by silversand *
View edit history
Silver
2004 Chevy Silverado 2500HD 4x4 6.0L Ext/LB Tow Package 4L80E Michelin AT2s| Outfitter Caribou
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
Scientists Test a New Covid-19 Vaccine Question: Mixing Different Doses
I wonder how the FDA would deal with:
Using vaccines outside of the EAU (mixing vaccines, not following dose timings, etc)
Providing an EAU for mixing vaccines
Adverse reactions when 2 pharmaceutical companies are involved
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
J/cm2 is a total dose not a flux (intensity). A long time in low light can still exceed a threshold low dose (mJ/cm2). Some photochemical processes require the irradiance (flux per area) to exceed a certain level to be initiated; others proceed at all irradiance levels but a rates that are correlated with irradiance.
I like this subject. My dissertation was on photochemistry and photophysics; post-doc research was on photochemistry.
* This post was
last
edited 02/04/21 10:41am by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
silversand
Montreal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/12/2004
View Profile
|
BCSnob wrote:I wonder how the FDA would deal with:
Using vaccines outside of the EAU (mixing vaccines, not following dose timings, etc)
Providing an EAU for mixing vaccines
Adverse reactions when 2 pharmaceutical companies are involved
....didn't the Hep B "boost" prove to be a successful heterologous endeavor? Also, more recently the Sputnik vaccine uses heterologous boosting.
AstraZeneca's prime boost interval was recently bumped to 3 months. That one is interesting, as it turns out that the efficacy of AstraZeneca's single dose is remarkably high, completely unpredicted.
|
dturm
Lake County, IN
Moderator
Joined: 01/29/2001
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
 Offline
|
As far as booster timing, it isn't like a booster fails to work if it's given 22 days (or 29 days) after the first shot. Most of the vaccines I've administered through my career have recommended a 2-4 week booster after the first shot. It has been shown that up to 6 weeks the same efficacy exists. After that some decrease in efficacy, but still some booster effect.
I have no experience or knowledge about these current types of vaccines, but suspect similar efficacy with delayed boosters. I'm sure we'll get information concerning delayed boosters or mixed types of vaccine.
Doug & Sandy
Kaylee (16-year-old Terrier of some sort)
Winnie 4 1/2 year old golden
Sasha and many others at the Rainbow Bridge
2008 Southwind
2009 Honda CRV
Check out blog.rv.net
|
|
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
Your examples seem to be a prime of one amount of antigen and a boost of a different amount of antigen but both the prime and boost are from the same pharmaceutical company.
The linked report is about a prime of one antigen (vaccine 1 from pharmaceutical co 1) followed by a boost of a different antigen (vaccine 2 from pharmaceutical co 2). Which company would submit for FDA approval and which one would be responsible for the effectiveness and safety of this vaccination protocol?
Quote:Researchers are beginning human trials in which volunteers will receive an initial dose of one vaccine and a booster shot from another made by a different manufacturer. The goal is to see if such a strategy—known as heterologous prime-boost vaccination—could produce a more effective immune response against the virus that causes Covid-19 than using two shots...
Prime from Moderna and boost from AstraZeneca
Prime from Pfizer and boost from Moderna
Prime from Sputnik V and boost from Johnson & Johnson
etc
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
As far as boost timing, I understand the effectiveness of more time between the two shots. The question was more about one part of the government (cdc) saying it’s okay to not follow the fda approved protocol on a drug that is under EAU.
|
MEXICOWANDERER
las peñas, michoacan, mexico
Senior Member
Joined: 06/01/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
Interesting fact...
The Russian SPUTNIK vaccine is virtually a clone of the Oxford AZ
My eyebrows raised when it was reported the "FDA reported the Sputnik vaccine Safe and Effective"
Can someone please verify this? There is so much bogus news out there and Mexico is going to use the Sputnik vaccine.
Should I hold off until the San Diego area notifies me of the Pfizer or Moderna jab?
|
Geo*Boy
Unknown
Senior Member
Joined: 04/27/2020
View Profile
|
silversand wrote:Geo*Boy wrote:It was my understanding that Canada does not have the ability to manufacture a vaccine at the present time and must rely on other countries for the vaccine.
Correct. Montreal has a facility called the Royalmount. It is a Canadian Federal Government facility for experimentation and not a vaccine manufacturing facility, and run by the Canadian National Research Council (NRC). Retrofits are being done to upgrade the facility to vaccine production capability. The Royalmount presently does cell culturing, microbial fermentation, molecular modeling, and antibody production (bioprocesses engineering). And, primarily human health therapeutics (pure) research. So, it made sense to rapidly convert this facility to vaccine manufacturing.
the Royalmount-->
Silver, it will be great if Canada makes the move to produce vaccines, it is really in Canada’s national interest to be able to do this.
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: an interim analysis of a randomised controlled phase 3 trial in Russia
The Lancet Published:February 02, 2021
Quote:Findings
Between Sept 7 and Nov 24, 2020, 21?977 adults were randomly assigned to the vaccine group (n=16?501) or the placebo group (n=5476). 19?866 received two doses of vaccine or placebo and were included in the primary outcome analysis. From 21 days after the first dose of vaccine (the day of dose 2), 16 (0·1%) of 14?964 participants in the vaccine group and 62 (1·3%) of 4902 in the placebo group were confirmed to have COVID-19; vaccine efficacy was 91·6% (95% CI 85·6–95·2). Most reported adverse events were grade 1 (7485,94·0%, of 7966 total events). 45 (0·3%) of 16?427 participants in the vaccine group and 23 (0·4%) of 5435 participants in the placebo group had serious adverse events; none were considered associated with vaccination, with confirmation from the independent data monitoring committee. Four deaths were reported during the study (three ,<0·1%, of 16 427 participants in the vaccine group and one (<0·1%) of 5435 participants in the placebo group), none of which were considered related to the vaccine.
Interpretation
This interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of Gam-COVID-Vac showed 91·6% efficacy against COVID-19 and was well tolerated in a large cohort.
|
|
|
