The Vaccine Thread

[Machiavelli]

On what have you based your statement that "A vaccine will not get rid of CV19 once and for all...."

Maybe you are too young to remember smallpox; a deadly disease for many (30% fatality in some groups) that was totally eradicated through vaccination and was declared as such by WHO in 1980.

Let's not start talking down a vaccine before it has even been produced eh? You are just playing into the hands of the flat earth antivax loons.

I am 51 so, yes, I'm aware of multiple diseases that have been eradicated thanks to medical science.

In answer to your question, a few things:
-- the world is complex, and humanity's complexities makes it even more so
-- the fact that epidemiologists, biochemists, etc have indicated that, especially in the short- to medium-term, a vaccine won't get rid of CV19 once and for all
-- and this, in turn, relates to the fact that other similar viruses remain with us, such as influenza, which informs their caution
-- and this, in turn, is because similar viruses mutate and develop new leases of life, and the scientists anticipate that this is likely to happen with CV19 (although to the best of my limited knowledge on this, so far, there has been little mutation with CV19)
-- probably all sorts of other reasons that I can't think of at the moment
-- and all sorts of further reasons that materialise as the scientists studying CV19 identify in due course

 

[GT49er]

HIV would immediately spring to mind.

HIV didn't close down whole industries*, cost thousands of people their jobs*, keep millions more confined to their homes, make us wear face masks, not gather in groups or go to football matches, or keep grandparents and grandchildren separated. Nor was it such a huge financial disaster to the economy of the whole country.

*Except tattoo parlours and tattooists.

 

[GT49er]

Haven't read the full thread, will probably do so later, but if there's one thing our leadership needs to get right in this whole pandemic, it's the message around immunisation once we have a viable vaccine at our disposal.

I'm personally of the opinion that I will readily receive the vaccine, once it meets the OP's important criteria and whilst it isn't my decision alone I'd endorse my wife and children doing the same. Does the fast-tracking of a vaccine make me nervous? Ever so slightly, but if you look into the detail the unprecedented pace of vaccine development is due to an unprecedented financial backing, borne out of unprecedented need (at least since the emergence of robust vaccine science). I also take comfort in the notion that whilst the vaccine will be new, the technology and approach in developing it is tried and tested - I believe this to be true of all those currently in phase 3 trials.

However, I completely understand the nervousness and scepticism which may prevail in certain quarters of society. If I'm 21 and healthy, why would I want to take the perceived risk of a new vaccine to protect me from a virus which to all intents and purposes poses me virtually no risk whatsoever?

The answer of course, is that this is not about protecting individuals, it's about protecting society. Young people, old people, healthy people, unhealthy people, slim people, fat people - everyone. It's fundamentally about stopping the virus' ability to spread, infect people and make people ill in large numbers. Then, and only then, can we return to the life we all remember and miss so badly.

The smaller the number of people who receive the vaccine, the longer that will take. And the longer it takes, the bleaker the economic situation gets. And that is something that all of us, but especially young people, are vulnerable to.

It may be considered a societal duty to get yourself vaccinated, but the benefit to you, the individual is real and tangible no matter how impervious you may be to Covid-19.

Well said!

 

[middletoenail]

Brazil just brought a load of the Chinese vaccine

China? The country that has all but eradicated the virus amongst it's population of 1.4bn population. The country with the worlds most advanced telecoms, automative, nuclear power and technical capabilities?

The same country that has the contract to supply the premier league with the virus test kits?


Don't tell NSC? China locked down for 3 months and now they have the world's fastest growing economy.

Maybe the citizens of Wuhan could have a word with those in Manchester, nah they have their human rights to contend with. And we question whether we would take the Chinese vaccine? Lol.

 

[e77]

China? The country that has all but eradicated the virus amongst it's population of 1.4bn population. The country with the worlds most advanced telecoms, automative, nuclear power and technical capabilities?

The same country that has the contract to supply the premier league with the virus test kits?


Don't tell NSC? China locked down for 3 months and now they have the world's fastest growing economy.

Maybe the citizens of Wuhan could have a word with those in Manchester, nah they have their human rights to contend with. And we question whether we would take the Chinese vaccine? Lol.

You are aware of China’s questionable human rights record? I imagine it probably came in quite handy during an enforced lockdown.

Also I doubt Chinese leaders appear on TV to have journalists challenge figures.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

China? The country that has all but eradicated the virus amongst it's population of 1.4bn population. The country with the worlds most advanced telecoms, automative, nuclear power and technical capabilities?

The same country that has the contract to supply the premier league with the virus test kits?


Don't tell NSC? China locked down for 3 months and now they have the world's fastest growing economy.

Maybe the citizens of Wuhan could have a word with those in Manchester, nah they have their human rights to contend with. And we question whether we would take the Chinese vaccine? Lol.

Are China still only counting those with symptoms as a case?

I am up for that, so let’s follow China and watch out cases drop.

 

[middletoenail]

You are aware of China’s questionable human rights record? I imagine it probably came in quite handy during an enforced lockdown.

Also I doubt Chinese leaders appear on TV to have journalists challenge figures.

What is the human rights record you refer to?

 

[middletoenail]

Are China still only counting those with symptoms as a case?

I am up for that, so let’s follow China and watch out cases drop.

Yes, they only count this with symptoms, which I don't agree with. I agree less with this countries that import cases that are included as local cases. That's insane.

But to your question, it won't happen. Too many wet blankets that will complain about their mental health and civil liberties.

 

[The Spanish]

Death yes, but not the economic devastation.

That’s quite a western position to take. It has caused untold economic disruption in Africa.

 

[The Spanish]

HIV didn't close down whole industries*, cost thousands of people their jobs*, keep millions more confined to their homes, make us wear face masks, not gather in groups or go to football matches, or keep grandparents and grandchildren separated. Nor was it such a huge financial disaster to the economy of the whole country.

*Except tattoo parlours and tattooists.

We were looking for comparables not absolutely identical situations.

I would expect that if this was HIV in 1982 but today, with today’s social media and political pressures, and we were in the early stages of finding out about HIV, the reactions would be more similar to now than how it rolled out then.

 

[daveinplzen]

Came out of lockdown too soon here. Re-entering it tomorrow

 

[e77]

What is the human rights record you refer to?

Let me Google that for you.

 

[middletoenail]

Let me Google that for you.

Lol. So you have no comment of your own?

You've likely never been to Asia, let alone China.

 

[peterward]

That’s quite a western position to take. It has caused untold economic disruption in Africa.

Its not at all!.............

the original post I made, I said I didn't think there had been anything that had caused both so much death and so much economic destruction on a GLOBAL scale since WW2.

You answered HIV, I merely pointed out that it hadnt caused so much economic destruction (on a global scale).

I don't doubt HIV has caused much economic issues in Africa, but its not my 'western position' when the basis of the original point was there being nothing truly global (causing both death and massive economic damage everywhere), since WW2.

I fully accept there are many many more localised issues causing both.

 

[The Spanish]

Its not at all!.............

the original post I made, I said I didn't think there had been anything that had caused both so much death and so much economic destruction on a GLOBAL scale since WW2.

You answered HIV, I merely pointed out that it hadnt caused so much economic destruction (on a global scale).

I don't doubt HIV has caused much economic issues in Africa, but its not my 'western position' when the basis of the original point was there being nothing truly global (causing both death and massive economic damage everywhere), since WW2.

I fully accept there are many many more localised issues causing both.

Perhaps the economic damage is localized in Covid as well, and more extreme in western economies - be interesting to see what the relative economic damage is in developing nations compared to the complete destabilization of western (or developed) economies. Admittedly crashing of the developed economies is bad news globally, but you see my point?

A reverse of HIV perhaps?

 

[GT49er]

We were looking for comparables not absolutely identical situations.

I would expect that if this was HIV in 1982 but today, with today’s social media and political pressures, and we were in the early stages of finding out about HIV, the reactions would be more similar to now than how it rolled out then.

True, there wasn't social media around then, but the whole HIV thing rolled out more slowly. At first, it was just a disease among homosexual men - everybody else was unaffected; then a spread to women and heterosexual males was identified as needle sharing - again, no threat to everybody else who wasn't gay or sharing needles, although it was then spread further by both of those groups.
By which time, everybody knew to use condoms and not to share needles; a tragedy for those who had already unwittingly contracted the disease, but the barriers for new infections (condoms and needle exchanges) were quickly in place. No lockdowns, no people dying of cancer, or other life-threatening diseases because it wasn't diagnosed soon enough because hospitals and surgeries were closed for normal business.

 

[The Spanish]

True, there wasn't social media around then, but the whole HIV thing rolled out more slowly. At first, it was just a disease among homosexual men - everybody else was unaffected; then a spread to women and heterosexual males was identified as needle sharing - again, no threat to everybody else who wasn't gay or sharing needles, although it was then spread further by both of those groups.
By which time, everybody knew to use condoms and not to share needles; a tragedy for those who had already unwittingly contracted the disease, but the barriers for new infections (condoms and needle exchanges) were quickly in place. No lockdowns, no people dying of cancer, or other life-threatening diseases because it wasn't diagnosed soon enough because hospitals and surgeries were closed for normal business.

That’s my point though - it’s not a great comparison for many reasons but its worth pondering - until a test was developed (testing took a few years to develop after the initial eruptions of cases in San Fran LA and New York) would they have locked down hot spots (as a silly example, but rationality is In thin supply in panic situations) ? Until the methods of transmission were fully understood (that took a long time to completely understand, we are viewing this with massive amounts of hindsight) would we have seen far more stringent restrictions in human interaction have been put in place due to public pressure.

My point isn’t about it’s real threat or ease of transmission - more with modern communication and the immense pressure on governments to act decisively and immediately through social media, would there have been a more similar reaction to what we are seeing now?

 

[GT49er]

That’s my point though - it’s not a great comparison for many reasons but its worth pondering - until a test was developed (testing took a few years to develop after the initial eruptions of cases in San Fran LA and New York) would they have locked down hot spots (as a silly example, but rationality is In thin supply in panic situations) ? Until the methods of transmission were fully understood (that took a long time to completely understand, we are viewing this with massive amounts of hindsight) would we have seen far more stringent restrictions in human interaction have been put in place due to public pressure.

My point isn’t about it’s real threat or ease of transmission - more with modern communication and the immense pressure on governments to act decisively and immediately through social media, would there have been a more similar reaction to what we are seeing now?

Well, as the news developed, the first obvious step would have been to ban males having sex with other males .................................



.........but wait a minute .... many governments dd that already ....

 

[Mellotron]

Well, this thread lasted for a couple of pages at least, eh?

 

[Bozza]

Really sad news that a 28-year-old Brazilian doctor who was volunteering on the Oxford vaccine trial has died of Covid-19.

He was given the placebo and not the actual vaccine. You'd imagine if the coin toss had landed differently, he would have received the vaccine and still be alive today.

It's also a chastening reminder that no one has no risk from this virus.