Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Randy Butternubs]

Just bought a round trip flight to Denver for around $270. It's for a wedding at the start of October. Hopefully it happens.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Moderna also claimed it would take "several quarters" to upscale their production to produce their goal of 1 billion vaccines per year. Assuming there aren't any serious side effects with this vaccine (I don't see why there would be), I think this vaccine could be done in late 2020 or early 2021 and be widely available in mid 2021.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Moderna also claimed it would take "several quarters" to upscale their production to produce their goal of 1 billion vaccines per year. Assuming there aren't any serious side effects with this vaccine (I don't see why there would be), I think this vaccine could be done in late 2020 or early 2021 and be widely available in mid 2021.

To be honest common sense would have predicted this.

First the science has advanced. They had the genetic map of the virus a week into the pandemic, on January 11th. A myriad of other advances already in place added speed to the process. One is not needing to grow the vaccine in eggs. And predictably this being the sole important thing in the world with trillions of dollars thrown at it would naturally speed developments.

I would have been shocked if there weren't significant advances in treatment and toward a vaccine by fall to be honest. It is the most logical outcome and serious scientists have been saying that they were optimistic about that kind of time frame, while cautioning about no guarantees.

 

[Empoleon8771]

To be honest common sense would have predicted this.

First the science has advanced. They had the genetic map of the virus a week into the pandemic, on January 11th. A myriad of other advances already in place added speed to the process. One is not needing to grow the vaccine in eggs. And predictably this being the sole important thing in the world with trillions of dollars thrown at it would naturally speed developments.

I would have been shocked if there weren't significant advances in treatment and toward a vaccine by fall to be honest. It is the most logical outcome and serious scientists have been saying that they were optimistic about that kind of time frame, while cautioning about no guarantees.

I agree with this, I think the entire argument against a vaccine being found that quickly was that old FDA requirements meant that a vaccine wouldn't be available for the public for 12-18 months. I just kept hearing that point repeated over and over again, it didn't make any sense to me. The world is facing a pandemic right now, are you really going to tell me with a straight face that we're not going to get a vaccine for a year and a half because the FDA is normally super cautious with these vaccines?

I've actually been fairly pissed at how the media has covered COVID-19 so far and how people are repeating what the media has said. Although I guess that's to be expected with the outrage culture of today, people want to look for bad news to get mad about.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

Well part of that is making sure there aren’t any long term side effects of the vaccine. So I get that.

 

[Sideline]

I agree with this, I think the entire argument against a vaccine being found that quickly was that old FDA requirements meant that a vaccine wouldn't be available for the public for 12-18 months. I just kept hearing that point repeated over and over again, it didn't make any sense to me. The world is facing a pandemic right now, are you really going to tell me with a straight face that we're not going to get a vaccine for a year and a half because the FDA is normally super cautious with these vaccines?

I've actually been fairly pissed at how the media has covered COVID-19 so far and how people are repeating what the media has said. Although I guess that's to be expected with the outrage culture of today, people want to look for bad news to get mad about.

One of the reasons they are super cautious with vaccines is that an ineffective vaccine can make the disease worse. You would end up killing more people than doing nothing.

There are ways around the length of time it takes to prove population safety with challenge trials, but ethics boards would be a nightmare to get through.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Well part of that is making sure there aren’t any long term side effects of the vaccine. So I get that.

You can also argue that now isn't the time for over-conservatism, and trying to argue that something can't be done because of arbitrary rules we made up doesn't make any sense.

In my field, this relates to something called probabilistic risk assessment. My company doesn't use this because they're archaic, they instead analyze all worst case scenarios to absurd levels. It's extremely inefficient.

One of the reasons they are super cautious with vaccines is that an ineffective vaccine can make the disease worse. You would end up killing more people than doing nothing.

There are ways around the length of time it takes to prove population safety with challenge trials, but ethics boards would be a nightmare to get through.

The likelihood of that happening, especially with a mRNA vaccine, is borderline zero. That's the over-conservatism I'm referring to.

You're better off going for a vaccine that has a 95% confidence won't cause serious side effects than waiting to guarantee there aren't any major side effects.

 

[HandshakeLine]

A bigger risk with a vaccine is invariably going to be the anti-vax lunatics.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

You can also argue that now isn't the time for over-conservatism, and trying to argue that something can't be done because of arbitrary rules we made up doesn't make any sense.

In my field, this relates to something called probabilistic risk assessment. My company doesn't use this because they're archaic, they instead analyze all worst case scenarios to absurd levels. It's extremely inefficient.



The likelihood of that happening, especially with a mRNA vaccine, is borderline zero. That's the over-conservatism I'm referring to.

You're better off going for a vaccine that has a 95% confidence won't cause serious side effects than waiting to guarantee there aren't any major side effects.

Yes. I get the concerns.

But in this pandemic every day delay costs lives.

Not ten lives. Not a hundred. Not even tens of thousands of lives when you are looking world wide.

At some point the cost of waiting vastly outweighs the cost of taking a small chance going forward. And that point is not very far from the fall.

And that does not even factor in the financial ruin of many with each delayed day.

 

[Empoleon8771]

More good news from today:

 

[Ugene Magic]

A bigger risk with a vaccine is invariably going to be the anti-vax lunatics.

I generally don't get Flu vacs. But I'm also pretty isolated as a whole, who is a germaphobe who washes his hands frequently and gets sick once a year and it's not always bad. I back that up with my Mom got put into the hospital from it. Almost killed her.

So I see it as/treat it as like staying away from hospitals and such and anyone who's sick as best I can. Kind of like now.

Oh, just because you get a vaccine doesn't mean you'll be fine right away, or that'll reduce the effects if you get sick the very next day/week because, it takes two weeks for vaccines to be effective.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

In my field, this relates to something called probabilistic risk assessment. My company doesn't use this because they're archaic, they instead analyze all worst case scenarios to absurd levels. It's extremely inefficient.

I didn't realize we were co workers?

 

[HandshakeLine]

I generally don't get Flu vacs. But I'm also pretty isolated as a whole, who is a germaphobe who washes his hands frequently and gets sick once a year and it's not always bad. I back that up with my Mom got put into the hospital from it. Almost killed her.

So I see it as/treat it as like staying away from hospitals and such and anyone who's sick as best I can. Kind of like now.

Oh, just because you get a vaccine doesn't mean you'll be fine right away, or that'll reduce the effects if you get sick the very next day/week because, it takes two weeks for vaccines to be effective.

I get flu vacs mostly because my parents are old and before the pandemic, I travel a lot during the academic year to conferences, etc. Plus, although being in a university isn't as bad as a nursery or elementary school, I get exposed a lot to whatever is going round, so I might as well.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I didn't realize we were co workers?

Idk, do you also work at Bettis? I know @Ogrezilla plays ultimate with a bunch of people from here

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

Idk, do you also work at Bettis? I know @Ogrezilla plays ultimate with a bunch of people from here

Sorry that was sarcasm, I don't work for them lol
Your phrasing hit too close to home...

 

[billybudd]

The likelihood of that happening, especially with a mRNA vaccine, is borderline zero. That's the over-conservatism I'm referring to.

You're better off going for a vaccine that has a 95% confidence won't cause serious side effects than waiting to guarantee there aren't any major side effects.

When you're talking about dosing 325 million people with the same thing at the same time, you do have to be cognizant of even small possibilities of negative side effects. I don't know if that specific concern (making the disease worse) is realistic or not, but you need to be aware of possible negative patient reactions ahead of time and take them seriously due to how many people you're talking about giving this thing to. Any weird interaction is going to affect a ton of people.

 

[Empoleon8771]

When you're talking about dosing 325 million people with the same thing at the same time, you do have to be cognizant of even small possibilities of negative side effects. I don't know if that specific concern (making the disease worse) is realistic or not, but you need to be aware of possible negative patient reactions ahead of time and take them seriously due to how many people you're talking about giving this thing to.

This is true, but you don't need a 12-18 month period of evaluation to verify the worst responses are a mild fever or something. You have to go through the initial phases to be able to say that there won't be any negative consequences to a high confidence level, which is what Moderna is doing right now with their vaccine. However, I just don't think you need to wait the normal 18 months to see if there are any long-term consequences. I can't imagine long-term complications 6-18 months after a vaccine are common at all.

Sorry that was sarcasm, I don't work for them lol
Your phrasing hit too close to home...

I wanted to be sure, I shit talk my company a fair amount on here so I wanted to make sure no one else worked here

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

THis isn't about Covid but just a general bitching about the government/Census

Our mayor today basically pleaded with people to fill out the census. I did mine weeks ago because I'm a nice citizen
But then I got to thinking: the government already knows who I am: they have my SS#, they know where I live, they know where I work, etc. So why in this day and age do we need to do something that was popular in Jesus' time?

Theoretically. the only people they can't track are individuals here illegally.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Idk, do you also work at Bettis? I know @Ogrezilla plays ultimate with a bunch of people from here

It's a ridiculous amount of people from there who play. It's strange how many science and engineering folks play ultimate honestly.

Sorry that was sarcasm, I don't work for them lol
Your phrasing hit too close to home...

You can tell he's still young / in his early career because he doesn't realize that everywhere is run that badly

 

[Jaded-Fan]

To help understand a small part of the mosaic of efforts and advances which have made a much quicker than year to year and a half vaccine not only possible, but likely.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

THis isn't about Covid but just a general bitching about the government/Census

Our mayor today basically pleaded with people to fill out the census. I did mine weeks ago because I'm a nice citizen
But then I got to thinking: the government already knows who I am: they have my SS#, they know where I live, they know where I work, etc. So why in this day and age do we need to do something that was popular in Jesus' time?

Theoretically. the only people they can't track are individuals here illegally.

Because the tax arm of the government (who does know about most people here illegally) is separate from the organization doing the census.

 

[Andy99]

Governments lying with the effect of killIng more people...isn’t much worse than that...ridiculous

Georgia's coronavirus data made reopening look safe. The numbers were a lie

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

Because the tax arm of the government (who does know about most people here illegally) is separate from the organization doing the census.

That's highly inefficient

Like I said, the government knows my SS#, my kids' SS#'s too (they've never worked)
They also know who is here on different visas and such.

Seems like a situation where we just do something because it's "always been done that way"

Edit- also applies to taxes. Government knows my employer, my bank account (can't open it without a SS#), they know if I sold or bought a house, they know of any stocks I own, etc
There is literally nothing they don't have access to if they wanted it
Yet we do this odd calculation every year to see what our "bill" is. Flat tax would be so much simpler

 

[Empoleon8771]

Not that it excuses what Georgia did there, but just reporting cases to say whether a state is getting better or worse is really dumb. An increase in testing will result in an increase of positives, but that doesn't mean that there's a breakout happening or anything like that. They're just actually detecting cases that were previously going undetected.

That's why positive rate is a much better stat to look at.

 

[Andy99]

Not that it excuses what Georgia did there, but just reporting cases to say whether a state is getting better or worse is really dumb. An increase in testing will result in an increase of positives, but that doesn't mean that there's a breakout happening or anything like that. They're just actually detecting cases that were previously going undetected.

That's why positive rate is a much better stat to look at.

agree...testing more will reflect more cases...that’s not what happened in Georgia...

the numbers to look at are really hospitalizations....