411–420 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pfizer stated it's intention to delay release of findings until after the election. This is not a surprise.
Do you have a source for this? I am curious if this is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Screw the media for pushing this and lockdown as the only possible solution. This will still take ages to be rolled out.
No, it won't. they are projecting 50 million doses to be ready in 2020 and 1.1 billion next year. That means that mom and dad and grandma are likely to get it within the next few months and that by mid next year, you'll probably have access to it if you are a healthy thirty year old.
So grandma might need to wait, and the grandkids going to school might get it first, then healthy 20/30-somethings working in public facing jobs etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have there historically been issues with vaccines causing problems for the long term that didn't show initially? I've never heard of such a thing, but then again I have only a surface understanding of vaccines.
I have no idea, that's why I am asking. I'm hoping someone could clarify with decent knowledge on the matter. I vaguely remember this story (from years ago) about a drug or vaccine during the 70s, where apparently everything was fine but then kids (or kids of kids, can't remember) ended up with birth defects.
The name of the drug was "Contergan" in german which german-speaking readers might recognize more easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The variations are enough to have differences in infectiousness and to allow us to trace the spread a bit, but as far as we know immunity to any of them is immunity to all of them.
I think someone should clarify the strands vs. genetic variations here. Because the reports from Denmarks Mink fiasco indicated that antibodies were not as effective on the mutation that appeared there short time ago. This would contradict the one-fits-all immunity argument.
I don't think that argument is being made at all.
In fact, you only need to consider that the max efficiency that's advertised is 90% to acknowledge that this vaccine is not a silver bullet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The markets seem to wildly yo-yo with every piece of negative and positive news. Case in point: Zoom is currently down 10% but I’ll bet it will have rallied by the end of the day.
It's more than zoom, everything that's gone up from the pandemic is dropping: amzn, meli, jmia, se, shop, sq. The markets had them valued at a premium due to their monopolies in the pandemic but retail stocks are now trending up premarket: bbby, etc.
A friend of mine (who is a nutjob), said a few months ago that even if the vaccine doesn't work, they can say it would work 80-90%, because that's the amount of people who don't show symptoms anyway. I don't know anything about this, but now it happened in a way he said, so what do professional here think about this?
To be clear, these trials work by giving the vaccine to a bunch of people and seeing how many catch COVID. They're not challenge trials, where people are deliberately infected; your friend's conspiracy theory could kind of work with those (assuming that for some reason not everyone in the group was being regularly tested).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we can eradicate it by contact tracing. With 90% efficiency it will be extremely tough for the virus to spread. For any new cases you simply test everyone in the vicinity of the infected person. But I don't think even that will be necessary. 90% efficiency reduces R so much, it will probably die out on its own. The real problem is mutations that are not covered by the vaccine. If it mutates as efficiently as…
Contract tracing hasn't worked at scale anywhere. It's a nice idea conceptually, but the problem is psychological. People stop caring about tracing when 98% of all trace connections are false positives. If a person is infectious for a week and the r0 is around 1 then only 1 person of all the people they've been in contact with will actually contract the virus on average. The other 50+ people, assuming they can even b…
But yes, it does require having few enough infected people to make it feasible, and places like the US and most of Europe are waaaaay beyond that point now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is great and all, and I'm not against vaccinations, but is this safe long term? Am I the only one here who doesn't want to get inoculated in basically the first batch?
Have there historically been issues with vaccines causing problems for the long term that didn't show initially? I've never heard of such a thing, but then again I have only a surface understanding of vaccines.
Good: + ~90% of individuals achieve immunity. + no significant side-effects. Not so good: - two doses needed, 3 weeks apart, immunity after one month from first dose. Slow rollout. - -80C storage and transport needed. Challenging, but doable in developed countries, but still may slow down mass rollout. Not feasible in many developing countries. I still wonder about long-term immunity. Anyone can share any insight?
I believe that temperature is achievable with fairly simply-insulated dry ice containers, in situations where mechanical cooling is not feasible. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/business/coronavirus-covi... I guess you should invest in dry ice manufacturing companies!
Do You mean the Co2 supply chain? We make a lot of carbonated beverages; there will likely be no shortage.