Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

It's like I was saying earlier in the thread, it can be rushed simply by removing the whitespace. All of the time it sits on someone's desk for a month can be removed. All of the bureaucracy can be removed. When you look at each step and just strip down to actual actions then it can be very quick without compromising safety in any way.

I fully agree they need to create educational material for the general public which shows the exact steps that vaccine developments and trials go through and show that all UK purchased items have done the exact same steps. The narrative at the moment is that it's been rushed and idiots like Farage have another cause they can grift money with.

Excellent point. 

I can just imagine for example a phase of a test being completed, then the data being submitted and joining a queue miles long to be considered by a committee which only sits quarterly, then questions are thrown back by the committee which is then responded to but the response joins a queue miles long to be considered by a committee which only sits quarterly. 

They then authorise the next phase which takes time to put together because of a lack of funds, businesses case must be put to the backers on the basis of the last set of results and the judgements made by the committee. 

So the next phase is completed and joins a queue miles long to be considered by a committee which only sits quarterly etc etc etc. 

I'm sure anything with unlimited funds, no blockages from backers questioning the value for money and straight to the top of the queue at every stage could save years in development. 

This is also tried and tested technology (Oxford). There is no real reason why it should go wrong, it's not massively different from the flu Vaccine. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2020 at 12:26, Genie said:

You’re now making irrelevant comments to try and muddy the water. Classic.

That's really comical. 'Classic', indeed. :rolleyes:

I was actually trying to help you out a bit with the part that you quoted but that you didn't get this and saw the comments as irrelevant speaks volumes.

On 24/11/2020 at 12:26, Genie said:

Be honest, the tweet you posted was a dig at the government

I'm being thoroughly honest by saying I have no idea whether the person meant it as a dig or not.

If you're 'being honest', neither do you.

You may have taken it as such, I didn't.

It seems obvious, given the comment I have quoted here, just why your response was such a confused load of dross.

On 24/11/2020 at 12:26, Genie said:

it’s a silly comparison

As pointed out a number of times, it's not a comparison in the way in which you are and have been trying to make out and that you are still pursuing this line of discussion clearly indicates that there is no getting through to you on the matter.

On 24/11/2020 at 12:26, Genie said:

I’ll look forward to your reply in 8 hours time followed by you declaring to “leave it there” :D 

Unsurprisingly, replying to the rubbish that you'vee posting on this matter only held my attention for so long so, yes, after having been away from home and the PC since yesterday, Ihaven't replied until now, i.e. the first opportunity I've had to do so.

It may have previously been the case that I largely lived on VT but it is no longer so - I have other things to do.

I do want to leave it there because you're posting utter nonsense on this and failing to either read my posts or respond to them. It's definitely boring for me, I can only imagine it's boring for everyone else. If it isn't for you then that's your problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2020 at 14:02, sidcow said:

I think people are massively overestimating peoples reluctance to go back to how we were.  I think most are gagging to get back to normal.

It's not whether people want to go back to 'how we were' or whether they are reluctant or not but whether the world allows them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2020 at 14:07, sidcow said:

Politically I can't see any way this will happen. 

Remember the objections to identity cards. Anything which tracks and records movements will have massive objections. (yet bizzairely 99% of the population are perfectly happy to have Apple and Google track their movements, no problem there at all) 

At a centralised Government ID level, perhaps - though I think the objections to ID cards would be less than they were a decade ago (not from me, I'd add).

But in an incentive-led way (discounts such as shopping clubcards and loyalty cards) and a 'looking after our staff' way (if you're showing a temperature when there's a flu bug going around we won't let you in), then I do think it's possible if not quite probably.

We'll probably have the QR code stuff in pubs and restaurants and elsewhere until at least the spring, maybe longer. That willl have then been around for over six months and a lot of people will be inured to it by then.

Where that may end up afterwards, one can only guess - just like I am doing here, btw. It's not a prediction on my behalf, it's just something that I see as a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Genie said:

Sister in law said the other day “I’m worried about the vaccine because it’s been rushed through too quickly”... I said oh right, how long does it normally take? “I don’t know” she replied.

Getting medical advice from Facebook again.

I read an article the other day that one of the main reasons it's been done so quickly has been because governments around the world have thrown vast sums of money at it. For many of the scientists and companies they work for spend years doing research into how cost effective a vaccine is, lobbying for money in the form of grants etc. They've never experienced a situation where governments are lining up to fund the research and pre-ordering vast quantities of a vaccine that isn't even finished.

Like a lot of projects in a lot of industries it's amazing what can be done when money is no object.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
7 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I read an article the other day that one of the main reasons it's been done so quickly has been because governments around the world have thrown vast sums of money at it. For many of the scientists and companies they work for spend years doing research into how cost effective a vaccine is, lobbying for money in the form of grants etc. They've never experienced a situation where governments are lining up to fund the research and pre-ordering vast quantities of a vaccine that isn't even finished.

Like a lot of projects in a lot of industries it's amazing what can be done when money is no object.

Yes, it’s a real success story and has shown that people can do the impossible with the right amount of motivation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
9 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I read an article the other day that one of the main reasons it's been done so quickly has been because governments around the world have thrown vast sums of money at it. For many of the scientists and companies they work for spend years doing research into how cost effective a vaccine is, lobbying for money in the form of grants etc. They've never experienced a situation where governments are lining up to fund the research and pre-ordering vast quantities of a vaccine that isn't even finished.

Like a lot of projects in a lot of industries it's amazing what can be done when money is no object.

Imagine what could be cured/solved/achieved if we just took this approach as BAU for all medical research going forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Imagine what could be cured/solved/achieved if we just took this approach as BAU for all medical research going forward.

Cancer is the one that springs to mind and I don’t want to start a conspiracy but I expect the business case for a cancer cure would be quite tricky for the drug companies to justify given how much they make already from the illness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mRNA technology has been ready to go for a number of years, but there was no use case where the cost of demonstrating safety could be satisfied  on a profitable timeline. Hence, it was there lying around on the shelf.

Fortunately, long term safety is rather moot right now, so let's just charge ahead because the end of the world is nigh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Xela said:

Got to pay for furlough somehow.

It was too much to hope that 2008, the years afterwards and policy decisions made with this as the underlying thought, especially given the consequences of those policies in these years (and quite possibly with regard to the economic impacts of Covid, lockdowns, furloughs, &c.), had been consigned to a bin, .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't think anyone has put this on here yet, but faith in the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is collapsing, and there are suggestions it will never get regulatory approval in the US:

Not read it yet (I will) but the missus was telling me what she'd read this morning. Essentially the double dose thing was discovered by accident, in that they didn't realise that they'd only given half a dose the first time but they continued with that trial and this got 63% efficacy but this group contained people over 55. The second single dose trial had no-one over 55 in the group so it hasn't been tested on the most crucial age groups and those whose immune systems are naturally less efficient.

I may have that wrong as in my head it's still a little confused

The only positive was that no one in either group that contracted COVID after the vaccine was hospitalised. (small potatoes)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter

My Mrs had a test (referred by dr) yesterday, and got the result late last night. She's been called by the police and the entity that enforces quarantine telling her she's has to stay home, even though she's negative. No idea whether it's just that their records aren't updated very quickly or what. So annoying. 

So we managed to speak with them in the end, they update their records once a day.

Basterds

Edited by StefanAVFC
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
28 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not read it yet (I will) but the missus was telling me what she'd read this morning. Essentially the double dose thing was discovered by accident, in that they didn't realise that they'd only given half a dose the first time but they continued with that trial and this got 63% efficacy but this group contained people over 55. The second single dose trial had no-one over 55 in the group so it hasn't been tested on the most crucial age groups and those whose immune systems are naturally less efficient.

I may have that wrong as in my head it's still a little confused

The only positive was that no one in either group that contracted COVID after the vaccine was hospitalised. (small potatoes)

That's largely right, but only a subset of the problems with the vaccine results. In summary, they are:

  • They did not do 'a' trial, but combined data from at least two trials; this does not meet FDA standards for emergency vaccine approval;
  • The two studies that are combined are very different from each other, without standardised dosing or the same 'control' injections;
  • They reported on the results for only subsets of participants, leaving out up to 50% of participants in the Brazilian trial;
  • As you said, the half-dose/full-dose option emerged as a mistake;
  • We don't know how many analyses they have done, and on which data; a document attached as an appendix in one paper suggests they were planning to carry out four trials, but they have only published results from two;
  • The dosing regime that led to claims of 90% efficiency was not only a mistake, but as you say above, was carried out on a group containing nobody over the age of 55;
  • There were few people over 55 in any of the trials, and a high number of 'adverse events'.

Frankly, this looks like a disaster, which if it is as bad as it appears, risks damaging faith in vaccines more broadly, strengthening the hand of vaccine skeptics and covid denialists, reducing take-up for the more effective Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and trashing the reputation of British science and academia.

So I guess what I'm saying is, good job lads, well done.

  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

That's largely right, but only a subset of the problems with the vaccine results. In summary, they are:

  • They did not do 'a' trial, but combined data from at least two trials; this does not meet FDA standards for emergency vaccine approval;
  • The two studies that are combined are very different from each other, without standardised dosing or the same 'control' injections;
  • They reported on the results for only subsets of participants, leaving out up to 50% of participants in the Brazilian trial;
  • As you said, the half-dose/full-dose option emerged as a mistake;
  • We don't know how many analyses they have done, and on which data; a document attached as an appendix in one paper suggests they were planning to carry out four trials, but they have only published results from two;
  • The dosing regime that led to claims of 90% efficiency was not only a mistake, but as you say above, was carried out on a group containing nobody over the age of 55;
  • There were few people over 55 in any of the trials, and a high number of 'adverse events'.

Frankly, this looks like a disaster, which if it is as bad as it appears, risks damaging faith in vaccines more broadly, strengthening the hand of vaccine skeptics and covid denialists, reducing take-up for the more effective Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and trashing the reputation of British science and academia.

So I guess what I'm saying is, good job lads, well done.

Yes, read it now and I concur. I read in tweets that they are still doing a large scale trial in the US (or plan to) that will meet FDA requirements but obviously that isn't available yet

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â