Coronavirus Vaccine Developed By University of Oxford Appears Safe and Trains the Immune System, Trials Involving More Than 1000 People Showed (bloomberg.com) 229
A coronavirus vaccine the University of Oxford is developing with AstraZeneca showed promising results in early human testing, a sign of progress in the high-stakes pursuit of a shot to defeat the pathogen. From a report: The vaccine increased levels of both protective neutralizing antibodies and immune T-cells that target the virus, according to the study organizers. The results were published Monday in The Lancet medical journal. BBC adds: Trials involving around 1,077 people showed the injection led to them making antibodies and white blood cells that can fight coronavirus. The findings are hugely promising, but it is still too soon to know if this is enough to offer protection and larger trials are under way. The UK has already ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some will be wasted, and protection may not last forever so they will be expecting to give individuals more than one dose over time.
Also if you are 100,000,000 doses you get free shipping.
Re: The UK's population is 67 million. (Score:2)
No, nearly all antibodies disappear after a few months. Thatâ(TM)s why we have T-Cell immunity. Itâ(TM)s difficult to test for though.
Re:The UK's population is 67 million. (Score:5, Informative)
...and protection may not last forever...
Assuming it works at all, there's a good reason to expect that any protection conferred would last no longer than three months.
That's not really true. Yes, antibodies do provide the strongest, most complete protection against reinfection (assuming they're effective). However, the immune system has several tiers of protection precisely because it is not feasible to keep antibodies for every little virus around continuously. Memory T cells, for example, stay around for years, and because they are trained to respond to a given antigen, they stimulate B cells to produce the antibodies that your body needs to stop the associated virus when they see that antigen in the future. This may or may not completely prevent infection, but at a bare minimum, it should considerably reduce the severity of that infection.
In other words, after immunization, it is quite likely that this will literally become another form of the common cold; young kids will get exposed to it early enough that they won't have a severe overreaction that kills them (typically), and will have partial immunity for life, and older folks will be vaccinated against it, and will have that same partial immunity for life.
I mean yes, ostensibly it's possible that this virus will behave completely differently from any other virus in the past with regards to immunization, but the odds aren't in favor of that outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the t-cell reaction was a part of what made corona so deadly in the early stages, acting akin to an autoimmune disease.
So did I get this wrong? Is this no longer current?
Re: (Score:2)
The cytokine storm is deadly at the late stages. It is an overreaction, not an autoimmune response.
I don't know which cells are most involved.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not a biologist, so my understanding could be somewhat inaccurate, but here's my attempt at explaining things:
Helper T cells tell B cells to produce antibodies. Without them, you basically don't have an immune reaction at all. Cytotoxic T cells kill infected cells. That second category is partially responsible for cell damage, but then again, those cells are never going to work correctly again anyway, so killing them is probably good.
However T cells and macrophages also produce inflammatory cytokine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article about this on the BBC stated only 90% of people developed an immune response after 1 dose. To reach 100% they had to give two doses.
I suspect the UK will give 2 doses as standard if the subsequent trial phases succeed and this ends up being used.
We don’t need total protection to be success (Score:2)
If a vaccine could convert it to being the nuisance of a 24 hour virus or a head cold for most people we could declare victory and roll on.
Also protecting half the people is protecting all (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, suppose a vaccine only decreased the rate of transmission by 50%.
Currently, infection rates are roughly staying steady, depending on location. Cutting the rate of transmission in half would mean that the number of new cases is halved every two weeks, until there are no cases.
Face covering + 6 foot distance + weak vaccine = virus eridicated
Re: (Score:2)
We could stop the transmission almost entirely without the vaccine if people put their social responsibilities before their personal rights. When the lock downs started in many places there were groups of people who didn't bother following the rules. They were the ones that didn't want to wear masks because they were "free" people.
Just look at how the people of New Zealand behaved and came together. They realized that they each had a responsibility to protect the others in society and followed the rules of
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I fundamentally disagree with you, but in fairness they were told masks aren't needed. Later, they were told masks don't provide you with VERY MUCH protection.
If you don't understand R, depending on which echo chamber you live, their position could be somewhat reasonable given the information they had.
Re: We don’t need total protection to be suc (Score:2)
Absolutely. I am certain if you said hey I have this vaccine that doesnt actually 100% cure you, but youll never die or get hospitalized, everyone would be just find. Esp since AstraZennica says they wont charge more than a few dollars. So for $10 what have you got to lose? At worst you catch the chimpanzee adenovirus for a few days.
Why placing orders if not yet tested? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in short, they've been creating the vaccine to target an infectious disease ahead of time, but without targeting a specific infectious disease. They therefore had an 80% or so confidence it would w
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of confidence. The researchers are reasonably confident in this candidate, so far it's looked good through phase 1 and phase 2 trials, so they're ramping up the manufacturing in anticipation of phase 3 being successful. If phase 3 fails, they'll have to throw away what has already been produced, but it's not a total loss as they'll have the manufacturing capability in place for whatever replaces this candidate.
But the main reason for ordering now is that they have sufficient quantities on hand
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, not a time for "penny wise, pound foolish."
Spending a billion now on say... a 90% chance of success (pulled out of my ass) to move vaccine availability up 6 months and save 100 billion is just good sense.
Even if it were a 50% chance they would be able to use this vaccine, that would be a good bet as long as it was the best candidate.
Re: Why placing orders if not yet tested? (Score:2)
Read the Bloomberg article from last week. Its a good 15-20min read. This started as a MERS vaccine several years ago. MERS as you know is also a coronavirus. The results have been amazing so far. The doctors 22yr old triplets were all volunteers during the first human trial, if that tells you anything. And time is of the essence. They need to work in parallel otherwise ramping up after a test is approved will add another 9mos to the time people get it, esp if they run into issues scaling up production.
Seri
Re: (Score:2)
Production of vaccine requires significant funding. If you wait for all trials to be complete, it would delay availability of the vaccine for half a year or more. IIRC, negotiations about its production started in May, and if everything goes well, it will be available only in the beginning of the next year.
This vaccine may not be panacea, because even if it works as expected, it may not provide sterilizing immunity, in other words, vaccinated people will not fall seriously ill, but they can spread the virus
Re: (Score:2)
Short-term protection is fine (Score:5, Interesting)
You youngsters just plain don't remember.
The first polio vaccine had to be administered annually. You choose: a shot once a year, or paralysis?
For that matter, DTP and other fully-validated vaccines require updating now & then. If the initial COVID vaccines have to be given 4X per year, so what? Again, you prefer death?
Re: (Score:3)
Cake, please. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The first polio vaccine had to be administered annually. You choose: a shot once a year, or paralysis?
That's how we quickly eliminated polio. Wait, we didn't. [who.int]
Highly developed countries will be able to administer multiple vaccines, but much of the world cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
The first polio vaccine had to be administered annually. You choose: a shot once a year, or paralysis?
Sounds like a pretty grim time. I wonder what the modern: Facemasks are against muh freedoms crowd would think of that.
Re: (Score:2)
They're anti-vaxxers. You see it when they don't take their MMR and Polic vaccinations.
The complications of both polio and measles is not pretty. It's just that modern medicine is able to help avoid most of them. Polio used to cause uneven leg growth so one leg was shorter than the other, requiring the use of crutches permanently or hobbling about (Think Tiny Tim of the Christmas Carol stor
No sterilizing immunity (Score:2)
Based on a previous trial in rhesus macaques, this vaccine has one serious limitation -- vaccinated animals did not develop sterilizing immunity. Though all six vaccinated animals developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, which prevented virus replication in the lungs, "reduction in viral shedding from the nose was not observed."
https://www.biorxiv.org/conten... [biorxiv.org]
So if the vaccine works in the same way in humans as in rhesus macaques, then vaccinated individuals can be asymptomatic spreaders of the virus.
Re: No sterilizing immunity (Score:2)
Ok 2 things. You missed where they said that test could easily been explained by the MASSIVE amounts of virus they squirted in the noses, repeatedly. Massive.
Second, for $10 who the fuck wont get the vaccine? And isnt that their problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Second, for $10 who the fuck wont get the vaccine? And isnt that their problem?
Some people are immunocompromised due to different medical conditions (organ transplant surgery, cancer treatment, etc), so even if they are vaccinated, they may not develop enough antibodies to prevent serious infection. Also, there is age-associated decline in immune function known as immunosenescence. Usually those vulnerable categories rely on herd immunity to avoid infection, but that requires sterilizing immunity among other people.
Re: No sterilizing immunity (Score:3)
So you DIDNT read up on the article. Theyve been using this delivery for more than 3 years now on MERS. Do you know what a vector vaccine is and how it works? Its immunotherapy. They put the genetic code for what they are vaccinating against into a chimpanzee adenovirus, something that does not affect humans very much. Adenovirus is a cold virus. Chimps get them too. Your body sees the infection and learns the additional genetic code inside the virus and starts building up a t-cell long term defense.
If I co
5G (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither. They're added to the drinking water directly and called "fluoride." The actual vaccine shot is just misdirection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The likehood of the coronavirus killing me is much higher than this vaccine being problematic.
That was fast... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How is it that for half a century we were not able to create a vaccine for corona viruses (common cold, SARS, MERS, etc.) but now we can roll one out in under a year?
<sigh> Ok, number one:
Your "half a century" is bullshit:
For the Big Baddies we're only known for 17-18 years: SARS-CoV [wikipedia.org] was unknown before 2003; MERS-CoV [wikipedia.org] not before 2012; and SARS-Cov-2 not before December 27, 2019 [wikipedia.org].
The discovery of the other human coronaviruses [wikipedia.org]:
Human coronavirus OC43 [wikipedia.org]: unable to find a specific date. Based on this paper [nih.gov] ("Before the SARS epidemic in 2003, there were only 19 known coronaviruses, including 2 human...") and deduction, this is the other coronavirus known before 2000.
Hu [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Made In The USA? (Score:2)
I thought not. Watch the administration refuse to order the UK stuff just because our drug companies won't get a say in the pricing, a slice of the pie.
Think I'm kidding? It's happened before.
Re:Not a large enough test (Score:5, Informative)
It says RIGHT IN THE SUMMARY that 'larger trials are underway'.
Re:Not a large enough test (Score:5, Funny)
HE READ THE SUMMARY! GET HIM!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes string him up. I will try to ignore his comment. Don't want to clutter my brain with facts.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So business as usual for you then.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah the internet. Where there are zero nice people. Probably a reason for that though no idea what it might be.
Re: (Score:2)
Was intended to be tongue in cheek. I apologise for coming across otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has difficulty with the idea that you try a new drug in a small number of people first, see if it seems safe, then move to a larger number, repeat. You've got to wonder what their software deployments look like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Y'all are so predictable with your straw men. Conservatives believe in nothing except for power, and can not even imagine someone actually having principles. So they see any discussion of racism as a cynical power play. When they see people whom they disagree with talking about any moral issue, their first and only thought is "These people must care about this issue. I'll accuse them of the very issue they profess to care about!"
You and your whole ideology are simply vile.
Re: (Score:2)
Y'all are so predictable with your straw men. Conservatives believe in nothing except for power, and can not even imagine someone actually having principles. So they see any discussion of racism as a cynical power play.
You people are welcome to our straw men when you stop pulling down our marble men.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the statues of traitors? Who put them up, and more importantly, when. And even more importantly, why were these particular statues put up where they were? They were put up in the Jim Crow era by KKK affiliated assholes for the purpose of scaring black folks, nothing more.
Sorry, losers don't get participation trophies.
Re: (Score:2)
Be specific or shut the fuck up. Stop the nebulous handwaving and vaguely ominous speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you, you ignorant, insincere asshole. Oxford was on the forefront of abolishing slavery. No one in BLM has a problem with Oxford. You don't know shit, nor do you care. You only care about having a laugh and getting one over on "those dirty liberals." But you are too fucking ignorant to do it right.
As for Cecil Rhodes, the guy was a racist imperialist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Trump Better not Say Anything About it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What you're missing is that "....larger trials are underway" according to the summary. You don't start with large scale trials. You start smaller to see if it's even worth pursuing at larger scale, and also so you put fewer people at risk if it turns out to be particularly dangerous. Then you move to a large scale trial.
Re:Not a large enough test (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially when the risk for serious complications is very small for certain populations it is important to make sure the vaccine isn't worse than the disease.
The swine flu vaccine had some possible but very bad negative side effects. See the 1/10,000 category here (and the science stuff underneath, it is not certain the narcolepsy was vaccine related):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If the same was true for a Corona vaccine, it would not be recommended to vaccinate kids since the side effects could be worse than the disease.
Re: Not a large enough test (Score:2)
Sadly comments like the one you just wrote are often dumped into the "vaccine denial" bin. Yes there is a lot of superstition around vaccines, but that doesn't mean there aren't reasonable concerns as well, as with any medical procedure. Some are high risk, some low risk. But if your risk of getting a bad disease is actually quite small, and contagion is less a concern, then we have to face the unknown unknowns of the intervention... it it is against malaria but has low efficiency but I really don't want ma
Re:Not a large enough test (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to start production early, that’s a gamble if they want millions of vaccines they may have to destroy later.
Yep, but it's gambling money against lives which makes it a pretty worthwhile gamble. Bill Gates announced months ago that he plans to spend some billions helping to fund the manufacturing of several different vaccines that were still in the trial phase, knowing that most of them would not pan out. But doing that means that if the vaccine does pan out, you can get it distributed months earlier, saving tens of thousands of lives. Maybe hundreds of thousands.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to start production early, that’s a gamble if they want millions of vaccines they may have to destroy later.
That's exactly the gamble they are (rightfully) taking: that it's better to destroy millions to billions of doses of a vaccine that are worthless than to have people die, have people end up with life-shorting complications, and for economies to be fucked over during the months it would take to manufacture the vaccine after successful trials.
Re: (Score:2)
A larger test is being done. This is the report from the smaller test that precedes it.
Re:Not a large enough test (Score:5, Informative)
The situation is so urgent that they are making the vaccine before the trials are completed so it can be rolled out faster. If the next trails fail the vaccine may have to destroyed, but a billion dollars is a small price to pay even for a chance to end this sooner.
Re: Not a large enough test (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You could even upgrade to the elightenment idea that you should match your observations to hypotheses!
Re: (Score:3)
Human trials are always done very conservatively at first. No amount of testing on other animals, or electronic simulations, can accurately judge a products effectiveness and safety.
So they will start off with a small number of people, So if they find that 20 people had died from this vaccine from that 1000. Then it is 20 people who unfortunately died from this. However, if it was given to 100,000 people or a Million people then you had 2,000 or 20,000 respectively people who died from a dangerous drug.
Be
Re: (Score:2)
The tests are performed in sequence but each test has a different purpose. This test was a stage 1 test, something important that was left out of the summary. The purpose of the stage 1 test is to see if it's safe for people to take. Traditionally university based stage one tests have been biased towards younger people as that is whom is available on campus. I don't know if that's the case for this test but hopefully they have a representation of at least the British public based on ages, gender, races, exi
Re: (Score:2)
Traditionally university based stage one tests have been biased towards younger people as that is whom is available on campus.
It thought the reason for first tests on younger people is that they are generally healthier. If healthy 20-somethings have bad reactions to the test, no way do you proceed to older, less healthy groups.
Re: (Score:2)
'Some vaccines worsen the consequences of infection rather than protect, a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE has been observed in previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines. To add to the concern, antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients. Such concerns are real. As recently as 2016, Dengavxia, intended to protect children from the dengue virus, increased hospitalizations for children who received the vaccine.'
https://www.scientificamerican [scientificamerican.com]
Re: Not a large enough test (Score:3, Insightful)
ROTFLMAO
Maybe saving everyone from a hospitalization will be a big enough case study for him. Ive been following the oxford vaccine for some time now. Its a vector based vaccine. It was already being developed for years now to combat MERS. Changing some inert RNA inside the adenovirus host wont alter physical reactions to the vaccine, only efficacy. Even the monkey test, which was not part of an efficacy trial, showed no monkeys developed pneumonia despite insane amounts of covid-19. We are talking nasal sp
Re:Great News.. But... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are already pre-producing this vaccine before it's even been proven. This seems like a good deal -- you'll save tens/hundreds of billions by advancing manufacturing even a few months. The total projected manufacturing capacity is slated for 2 billion doses worldwide [astrazeneca.com]. So even if the immunity wears off it will be no sweat to keep giving people booster shots.
Re: (Score:2)
So even if the immunity wears off it will be no sweat to keep giving people booster shots.
I think that statement is a stretch. The only vaccine that is given regularly is the influenza vaccine. Only the wealthiest countries in the world can afford to have an effective influenza vaccine program because of this. The issue isn't only with manufacturing the vaccine, but administering it as well. [who.int] This is especially an issue if the vaccine has to be refrigerated and/or has a short shelf life.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a few months, then vaccinate people every few months until something longer lasting is available. As long as it's reasonably safe and not crazy expensive, does it matter? I mean, unless you have a broken health system that effectively discourages people from getting life-saving medical treatments and a population that actively refuses to take on social responsibility, but what country would
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno. But I'm thinking it is one that happens to have a lower death rate from covid-19 than the UK....
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the GP was talking about the death rate — the percentage of known cases that die from it.
There are three theories on that currently:
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it is for a few months, that would be enough to give to people to get back to work. If the country isn't the Current United States, they will probably have a good deployment plan, where enough people will be protected to prevent its spread.
Even just a month of immunity is useful (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to know what nobody knows and nobody can know for months... How long does this increased immunity last?
Even if the vaccine is only effective for only one month, it would still be very useful for medical staffs, bus drivers, airport staffs, and high risk groups. It is absolutely practical for them to take a shot every month.
If we can give everyone in the country a shot within a week, 3 weeks later we could have quarantined all covid patients. Gave everyone another shot and within that 2nd month we would have fully eliminated or contained covid in the country. Then the country can reopen with border, airport and hospital staffs continue taking vaccine shots. Anyone who need to travel to another country can take a shot before departure.
Then the vaccine can be sold to other countries to eliminate covid one country at a time.
Absolutely agree with you that the vaccine would be usable for many months yet, but a vaccine that only provided short immunity is still very useful.
Re: Even just a month of immunity is useful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And get it back as soon as you reopen... We need a one shot vaccine
No, what we need is herd immunity.. A vaccine is just a shortcut to that. We will reach herd immunity soon enough, with our without the vaccine, unless we all go home and sit on our hands for another 9 months, and there is no economic way that's possible.
Re: (Score:2)
A vaccine that only lasts a month is basically useless and will likely be deemed to dangerous, with just the risks associated with a simple injection being more dangerous than COVID-19 if you have to repeat it monthly.
So, Not sure I agree with you here. If the vaccine only works for a month, then forget it, not worth the trouble, just let the herd get sick.
IMHO - Unless you can show it's nominally effective for at least a year, the vaccine is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53... [bbc.com]
Aside from FROM the article, which is surprised there seems to be a clear and lasting T-cell response. You know, like almost every other virus (you can say except HIV, but that's not because the body isn't trying!)
Let's treat this "novel coronavirus" like things we know about first, and stop being surprised when it acts like things we know about, mmk?
The only "new" thing so far about this coronavirus is it doesn't appear to be mutating that fast. However, it would appear w
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear!!
I've been trying to tell people for months that the news media is behaving like the science there is no known science on viruses and other infectious respiratory diseases.
Pretty much all viruses, except for HIV, behave pretty much the same when it comes to immunity.
They seem to ignore that the length of immunity usually isnt some random thing, its pretty much forever.
What happens is that the virus mutates eventually so much that it turns into another strain and our immune system doesnt recognize
Re: (Score:3)
What happens is that the virus mutates eventually so much that it turns into another strain and our immune system doesnt recognize it anymore.
This actually isn't strictly true. For certain viruses, immunity gradually fades over time. This is why you should get a new Tetanus shot every 10 years or so, in order to keep the antibodies up high enough that you don't get seriously infected. The pathogen that causes Tetanus is pretty stable, and doesn't change much, but your immunity degrades over time.
The SARS-CoV2 (which is the virus associated with COVID-19) is mutating over time, but only really enough to be useful for genetic tracing. As of yet, it
Re: (Score:2)
For certain viruses, immunity gradually fades over time. This is why you should get a new Tetanus shot every 10 years or so
Apart from the fact that Tetanus is a bacteria and the mechanisms are totally different, your general idea is right
Re: (Score:2)
Let's treat this "novel coronavirus" like things we know about first, and stop being surprised when it acts like things we know about, mmk?
Keep in mind that we have evidence that SARS and MERS (also coronaviruses) immunity only lasts 2-3 years. It would not be surprising if SARS-CoV2 were similar. It would not be shocking if the duration were even smaller -- nor if it were greater. This is the origin of the concerns about immunity duration.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that just because you can get sick with it again after three years doesn't mean that you necessarily will get as sick. There are multiple levels of immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that just because you can get sick with it again after three years doesn't mean that you necessarily will get as sick. There are multiple levels of immunity.
True, and this is part of the reason that the flu isn't worse. Even without vaccination, and even though the flu mutates, most of us are carrying some level of immunity. Doesn't mean we don't get it, but it does mean that even when we do it's rarely serious.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't correct. Studies of SARS 1 survivors found long lasting immunity and cross-immunity when challenged with another novel coronavirus.
I know I've read multiple articles that contradict your claims. I don't have time to find them again right now, but I'll look them up.
Re: (Score:2)
Testing that is rather simple.
1) Give the vaccine to all the people who think it works and most especially all the politicians and the developers of the vaccine.
2) Put them in a room and deliberately spray in massive amounts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
3) Wait one month.
4) If anyone still alive, Loop back to Step 2
Testing is now complete.
Re: (Score:3)
5) After five loops remove the vaccine developers and general public and spray in massive amounts of Zyklon B.
Re: Great News.. But... (Score:3)
You really need to read the Bloomberg article from a week ago. This vaccine has been in development for years to combat MERS. It was not much of a course correction to fast track it for covid-19. But definitely read the article. Even if you dont have 100% immunity, if it keeps you from dying or being hospitalized, wouldnt you pay the few dollars for that vaccine? Yes, AstriZennica promised to make it not-for-profit. A solid t-cell response for $10? Sign me up. Thats way better than the $4000 for 5 doses of
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the type of vaccine, some vaccine types are able to keep showing the immune system reminders of the virus. For example, a DNA vaccine is a type of vaccine which becomes integrated into certain cells and those cells make fragments of the virus to keep reminding the immune system.
The other thing is that the virus and vaccine are different. The virus may be doing things that cause the immune system to forget it easier.
Re: (Score:2)
It does often feel like there are people extremely motivated to push the narrative that we can't get our way out of this pandemic via vaccines, or even new drugs, and that the only way forward is continuing to regulate human behavior and lock down society. (Or scream at anyone not doing that.)
Whenever there's a positive article about vaccine development, I fully expect someone to find some research paper somewhere that says something negative (even if its not really negative to someone who understands the s
Re: (Score:2)
The lockdown is for more people surviving until the vaccine is ready.
Re: (Score:2)
The lockdown is for more people surviving until the vaccine is ready.
Look, unless you are in one of the identified high risk groups or over 70 years old, the virus is about as serious as a headache. The VAST majority of the "not at risk" folks have nothing to fear from COVID-19 despite what you are hearing in the press. Many of us will get this thing and not know it.
So this "Surviving until the vaccine" thing is really overselling the danger here. Getting COVID-19 is not a death sentence, it's more like a week of sitting at home resting, waiting for the next test to come
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but this is misinformed. More than enough young and perfectly healthy people die from the coronavirus. Other young and healthy people survive, but with lasting damage to their lungs. Some even needing a lung transplant. [aerzteblatt.de]
Headache my arse.
Re: (Score:2)
Another shithead. I get it. You don't want the "pandemic" to be over. You guys love this stuff. Of course nothing you stated is true at all, but you will get the +5 Insightful! Good job!
Truth be told, I DO want this over... And as much as I hate to admit it given your behavior here, we are likely on the same side politically...
Look, this whole thing WOULD be largely over had we not done this crazy shutdown thing. We would have built up herd immunity weeks ago had we not all sat at home on our hands for a couple of weeks. What we really needed to do was to do isolated shutdowns in regions hard hit, but only to keep from over filling out hospitals, let the herd build immunity in other areas
Re: (Score:2)
Right, ask Sweden how the whole herd immunity thing is working out for them.
Saying this in february-march might have been understandable, but saying it now is right out stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be about 15 and don't have much to worry about. I'm 59, if I get infected with the SARS2-COV virus and symptoms progress to COVID19 then there is a pretty good chance that I can die, and a higher chance that I'll be intubated and end up with permanent damage to my lungs and probably lose most of my sense of smell and taste for months if not years. So go fuck yourself with a porcupine.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
You got your talking points mixed up. Remdesivir is the approved [nih.gov] miracle drug because Trump didn't mention it. That and it costs thousands more than alternatives.