The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
As mentioned above, it does look like even those countries who have adopted the test & trace strategy are starting to experience its limitations. The main issues appear to be the ease of transmission, incubation time and the proportion of those who display no symptoms for either part of all of the time that they are infected.rjsterry said:
Different data. I agree that more detailed testing would give us a much better idea of how we are doing. Even if we had an absolutely accurate up to the minute number of deaths it would only tell us how well we had done 4 weeks previously. Unfortunately we have missed that boat, I think. It will take months of effort to get back on top of testing.surrey_commuter said:
Well I could suggest doing German levels of testing so we knew how widespread it was it as we can’t figure out a timely way of counting the dead that seems impractical.rjsterry said:
Do you really think the problem is uppity registrars? Or do you think there might be a good reason why you can't just log onto a website to register a death? In any case, what would having a more accurate daily total achieve. The decision to bring in the various stages of lockdown wasn't based on passing some magic number. Deaths is a trailing indicator of demand on services anyway.surrey_commuter said:
Did not mean “you”. I could have written that better. Meant BoJo (and myself)morstar said:
For clarification, I don’t explicitly believe that. I have however tried to debate objectively that delayed deaths are not a particular success.surrey_commuter said:
But if you believe in easing the lockdown as soon as possible to save tens of billions. Why not spend a few tens of millions in getting better data.morstar said:
Which must be a key learning from this.rjsterry said:
More up to date data doesn't currently exist.Jeremy.89 said:
I see potential issues if you're deciding when to stop holding mass horse racing events and your data is two weeks out of whack.rjsterry said:
It's just a result of the process for registering deaths. The important information is in the trend, not the figures for a particular day.Jeremy.89 said:
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.
Antiquated administrative processes are limiting the effectiveness of responses.
It’s a stark contrast to the markets which trade based on data that is milliseconds old whilst we are tackling a pandemic with data that is up to two weeks old. I accept they are not the same but the contrast is startling.
The limitation is resistance to change rather than capability.
But I agree with you, the reporting delay is consistent so the data serves a blunt purpose of measuring broad trends.
Regarding data, I agree this is a sound investment but as somebody who works on business change projects, such upheaval is difficult in any large organisation in normal times.
At a time of national crisis, in a government organisation dealing with civil servants who are probably one of the most change resistant groups in existence...
I don’t see how any such project could be achieved successfully.
If the lazy fvckers won’t do what you want on the day of the week you want then hire somebody else to do it. Money is no object.
All the suggestions are that this Govt uses data for decision making so it is bizarre they have left themselves without proper data.
I would be looking to get the economy moving either through regional easing or changing the messaging to non-essential businesses. Realistically you would not know the impact for over a month.
I suppose we should consider ourselves unlucky in that respect, but on the other hand lucky that COVID-19 does not have the mortality rates of SARS or MERS (which were thankfully less transmissible and possible less asymptomatic which is maybe why they did not spread so widely as C19)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.0 -
I agree about the testing but still think they should keep hurling the kitchen sink at raising the numbers tenfold. I am sure if you offered a £100m contract to measure C19 deaths within 48 hours it could be done and the two week gain on the data would be money well spent.rjsterry said:
Different data. I agree that more detailed testing would give us a much better idea of how we are doing. Even if we had an absolutely accurate up to the minute number of deaths it would only tell us how well we had done 4 weeks previously. Unfortunately we have missed that boat, I think. It will take months of effort to get back on top of testing.surrey_commuter said:
Well I could suggest doing German levels of testing so we knew how widespread it was it as we can’t figure out a timely way of counting the dead that seems impractical.rjsterry said:
Do you really think the problem is uppity registrars? Or do you think there might be a good reason why you can't just log onto a website to register a death? In any case, what would having a more accurate daily total achieve. The decision to bring in the various stages of lockdown wasn't based on passing some magic number. Deaths is a trailing indicator of demand on services anyway.surrey_commuter said:
Did not mean “you”. I could have written that better. Meant BoJo (and myself)morstar said:
For clarification, I don’t explicitly believe that. I have however tried to debate objectively that delayed deaths are not a particular success.surrey_commuter said:
But if you believe in easing the lockdown as soon as possible to save tens of billions. Why not spend a few tens of millions in getting better data.morstar said:
Which must be a key learning from this.rjsterry said:
More up to date data doesn't currently exist.Jeremy.89 said:
I see potential issues if you're deciding when to stop holding mass horse racing events and your data is two weeks out of whack.rjsterry said:
It's just a result of the process for registering deaths. The important information is in the trend, not the figures for a particular day.Jeremy.89 said:
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.
Antiquated administrative processes are limiting the effectiveness of responses.
It’s a stark contrast to the markets which trade based on data that is milliseconds old whilst we are tackling a pandemic with data that is up to two weeks old. I accept they are not the same but the contrast is startling.
The limitation is resistance to change rather than capability.
But I agree with you, the reporting delay is consistent so the data serves a blunt purpose of measuring broad trends.
Regarding data, I agree this is a sound investment but as somebody who works on business change projects, such upheaval is difficult in any large organisation in normal times.
At a time of national crisis, in a government organisation dealing with civil servants who are probably one of the most change resistant groups in existence...
I don’t see how any such project could be achieved successfully.
If the lazy fvckers won’t do what you want on the day of the week you want then hire somebody else to do it. Money is no object.
All the suggestions are that this Govt uses data for decision making so it is bizarre they have left themselves without proper data.
I would be looking to get the economy moving either through regional easing or changing the messaging to non-essential businesses. Realistically you would not know the impact for over a month.
Without coming over all Coopstery we need to get the economy going as soon as possible. I have no faith in the Govt lifeboat for small businesses working0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
There was that group that were turned away from Nice weren't there. I thought right France turned them away but the UK let them turn up to the airport and board the plane for their holiday.mr_goo said:Checking FlightRadar as I do on a daily basis and am seeing quite a number of private jets still operating. Some I am sure are Medical flights, however looking at the type and size of others I'm pretty sure they're being used by the ultra wealthy to still get about in. Are they immune to social distancing and being told to stay at home?
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Well there are already mitigating solutions. Lock downs, track and trace, O2, ventilation. We just don't like them.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
Until there's a vaccine and the means to pump out billions of doses any mitigating solution will always be unpalatable. I do hope you're right about it being closer to the 6 month estimate!- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The good news on that front is that Bill Gates has pumped/is pumping his money into the 8 most promising solutions so any of them can ramp up production, despite reckoning that only 2 will be successful...pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
The bad news is you can't speed up testing for long term side effects, in the same way 9 women can't make 1 baby in 1 month0 -
I believe that exact analogy was used in the interview.Jeremy.89 said:
The good news on that front is that Bill Gates has pumped/is pumping his money into the 8 most promising solutions so any of them can ramp up production, despite reckoning that only 2 will be successful...pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
The bad news is you can't speed up testing for long term side effects, in the same way 9 women can't make 1 baby in 1 monthThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.0 -
If over the next 2-3 years there is no vaccine or effective treatment the only policy decision is how fast each country will get to whatever percentage of the population will not survive.rick_chasey said:
So what is the good news in the U.K. peaking mucher higher than the Italy?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
I mean, f@ck me, thousands more are dying than in other comparable nations and it’s all “you’re a doomonger”.
Strap on a pair and smell the sh!t.
There is an argument, that will become increasingly valid over time,.that the quicker you get there the better because it minimises the collateral damage (including postponent of cancer screenings, people not bothering their gp with minor heart attacks and strokes etc).
Only time will tell, that's my point.
You are correct that it has all gone to shit, but you are possibly incorrect that there is some third way whereby it doesn't all eventually go to shit.
You are right that we were too late regarding testing though. I do agree with you there.0 -
My gut feel is it will be closer to 6 months than 18 months given what is being done globally. But that's pure speculation. Part of the time taken also involves building the manufacturing capability to make the stuff on the required scale and you need to know what you're making - so I'm skeptical about anything too soon if we are measuring time to actually get large numbers of people vaccinated.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
Agree, there could well be mitigating solutions/treatments in the intervening period."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think there will be a lot of pressure build up in many countries to do this in the fairly near future. Much of the debate will be about how they do this while balancing the various considerations involved.surrey_commuter said:
Without coming over all Coopstery we need to get the economy going as soon as possible. I have no faith in the Govt lifeboat for small businesses working"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's not a magic wand of course but it allows you to see the scale of the problem. At the moment we have to make an educated guess based on the number of people turning up at hospital. Not a complete stab in the dark but we've already seen that the first guess was off target.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, it does look like even those countries who have adopted the test & trace strategy are starting to experience its limitations. The main issues appear to be the ease of transmission, incubation time and the proportion of those who display no symptoms for either part of all of the time that they are infected.rjsterry said:
Different data. I agree that more detailed testing would give us a much better idea of how we are doing. Even if we had an absolutely accurate up to the minute number of deaths it would only tell us how well we had done 4 weeks previously. Unfortunately we have missed that boat, I think. It will take months of effort to get back on top of testing.surrey_commuter said:
Well I could suggest doing German levels of testing so we knew how widespread it was it as we can’t figure out a timely way of counting the dead that seems impractical.rjsterry said:
Do you really think the problem is uppity registrars? Or do you think there might be a good reason why you can't just log onto a website to register a death? In any case, what would having a more accurate daily total achieve. The decision to bring in the various stages of lockdown wasn't based on passing some magic number. Deaths is a trailing indicator of demand on services anyway.surrey_commuter said:
Did not mean “you”. I could have written that better. Meant BoJo (and myself)morstar said:
For clarification, I don’t explicitly believe that. I have however tried to debate objectively that delayed deaths are not a particular success.surrey_commuter said:
But if you believe in easing the lockdown as soon as possible to save tens of billions. Why not spend a few tens of millions in getting better data.morstar said:
Which must be a key learning from this.rjsterry said:
More up to date data doesn't currently exist.Jeremy.89 said:
I see potential issues if you're deciding when to stop holding mass horse racing events and your data is two weeks out of whack.rjsterry said:
It's just a result of the process for registering deaths. The important information is in the trend, not the figures for a particular day.Jeremy.89 said:
It does feel like a failing in the modern age, when we have a situation where these numbers are being used to track a pandemic.rjsterry said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot on this point. The daily figures published for most countries are hospital deaths with C19 registered that day. They are not a comprehensive report of all deaths occurring with C19 on that day. It's therefore a crude figure, but the best anyone is going to have. The logistics of collecting this data are such that the real figures are bound to lag behind, and detailed analysis of the numbers of direct fatalities caused by C19 will take weeks if not months to arrive. This is not a failing.rick_chasey said:
This is U.K. specific?surrey_commuter said:Interesting article in the Sunday Times about reported deaths. As behind paywall the summary is;
- Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
- More accurate figures take two weeks and are running at double the original daily reported number
- The real number could be double again
-
Otoh there's no need for us (the general public) to know the precise number of deaths every 24 hours.
Antiquated administrative processes are limiting the effectiveness of responses.
It’s a stark contrast to the markets which trade based on data that is milliseconds old whilst we are tackling a pandemic with data that is up to two weeks old. I accept they are not the same but the contrast is startling.
The limitation is resistance to change rather than capability.
But I agree with you, the reporting delay is consistent so the data serves a blunt purpose of measuring broad trends.
Regarding data, I agree this is a sound investment but as somebody who works on business change projects, such upheaval is difficult in any large organisation in normal times.
At a time of national crisis, in a government organisation dealing with civil servants who are probably one of the most change resistant groups in existence...
I don’t see how any such project could be achieved successfully.
If the lazy fvckers won’t do what you want on the day of the week you want then hire somebody else to do it. Money is no object.
All the suggestions are that this Govt uses data for decision making so it is bizarre they have left themselves without proper data.
I would be looking to get the economy moving either through regional easing or changing the messaging to non-essential businesses. Realistically you would not know the impact for over a month.
I suppose we should consider ourselves unlucky in that respect, but on the other hand lucky that COVID-19 does not have the mortality rates of SARS or MERS (which were thankfully less transmissible and possible less asymptomatic which is maybe why they did not spread so widely as C19).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 - Deaths not reported fully at the weekend
-
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Yep, it's going to be a real balancing act and the pressure / temptation to rush into it without the usual levels of oversight are going to be huge.pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
To the untrained idiot like me it feels like it should be a relatively simple case of swapping out the virus in an existing vaccine for the Covid-19 virus but I assume it can't be as easy as that unfortunately.0 -
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Given the vast economic value (and thus commercial value) of a vaccine to the flu or common cold, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes. Could take a while. Might not be possible. Those economies holding out for one, like NZ, could be the worst off in the end. We just don't know yet.0 -
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Common cold - agree, there isn't one. But 'flu - what are the annual 'flu jabs that we are offered every autumn if not a vaccine?First.Aspect said:
Given the vast economic value (and thus commercial value) of a vaccine to the flu or common cold, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes. Could take a while. Might not be possible. Those economies holding out for one, like NZ, could be the worst off in the end. We just don't know yet.
https://nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Common cold - agree, there isn't one. But flu - what are the annual jabs that we are offered every autumn if not a vaccine?First.Aspect said:
Given the vast economic value (and thus commercial value) of a vaccine to the flu or common cold, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes. Could take a while. Might not be possible. Those economies holding out for one, like NZ, could be the worst off in the end. We just don't know yet.
https://nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/
Totally wild conjecture would be that one of the challenges is that one reason that CV19 is deadly is that the immune system turns on the organs of the body... you'd want to be sure that the vaccine didn't have that unfortunate side-effect.0 -
I saw that certain vaccine programmes have been allowed to skip the animal testing stage and proceed directly to human tests.pangolin said:
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.
https://livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-no-animal-testing.html
However my question remains about what the possible side effects could be: if anyone knows more about it, I'm all ears."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The flu vaccine has side effects. I can't remember how but the production of the last two years' vaccines involved shark meat. Turns out Mrs RJS is fairly strongly allergic to shark meat and hence now cannot take the flu vaccine. Testing ensures that a vaccine achieves the required degree of immunity and doesn't just replace one problem with another.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You guys watched Boris' video?
https://youtu.be/K6oH1cjW1VM
I do wonder if this experience has changed his feelings for the NHS. It's hard to imagine him describing it as "powered by love" a few months ago.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
The common cold is a large range of different viruses (including some coronaviruses) , and probably includes some bacterial infections too I'd guess... which technically probably wouldn't count as a cold if diagnosed properly, but would fall under the banner of cold when self diagnosed.Stevo_666 said:
Common cold - agree, there isn't one. But 'flu - what are the annual 'flu jabs that we are offered every autumn if not a vaccine?First.Aspect said:
Given the vast economic value (and thus commercial value) of a vaccine to the flu or common cold, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes. Could take a while. Might not be possible. Those economies holding out for one, like NZ, could be the worst off in the end. We just don't know yet.
https://nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/
A cold at the worst might put you in bed for a day or two, if you're being particularly sensitive. There would seem very little point in developing a vaccine.0 -
This is interestingStevo_666 said:
I saw that certain vaccine programmes have been allowed to skip the animal testing stage and proceed directly to human tests.pangolin said:
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.
https://livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-no-animal-testing.html
However my question remains about what the possible side effects could be: if anyone knows more about it, I'm all ears.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/cvmp-reflection-paper-risks-should-be-considered-prior-use-unauthorised-vaccines-emergency_en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiV6er8v-PoAhU1QRUIHfEzBNEQFjAJegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw36NMc1hxixsJZesRbxx2GH&cshid=1586715581434
Risk of it remaining virulent
Risk of it re-activating (becoming virulent I guess)
Risk it is not 100% effective (that would be bad, if lots of people thought they were safe and weren't)
Quality control
Uncertainty over shelf life
Etc
Edit: and as rjsterry says, risk of allergens, though I guess this is more of a known quantity as long as you're sure what went into it!- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Yea, its a favourite for describing why throwing more resource at a project is often of limited use.pblakeney said:
I believe that exact analogy was used in the interview.Jeremy.89 said:
The good news on that front is that Bill Gates has pumped/is pumping his money into the 8 most promising solutions so any of them can ramp up production, despite reckoning that only 2 will be successful...pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
The bad news is you can't speed up testing for long term side effects, in the same way 9 women can't make 1 baby in 1 month0 -
I was confused by that as well. I assume the common cold mutates so much and as its effects are fairly mild (no doubt some people get complications such as chest infections and pneumonia but very few) it doesn't justify the cost.Stevo_666 said:
Common cold - agree, there isn't one. But 'flu - what are the annual 'flu jabs that we are offered every autumn if not a vaccine?First.Aspect said:
Given the vast economic value (and thus commercial value) of a vaccine to the flu or common cold, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes. Could take a while. Might not be possible. Those economies holding out for one, like NZ, could be the worst off in the end. We just don't know yet.
https://nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/0
