Coronavirus (OLD)

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

What happens if a university or public health body finds a vaccine first, do they tend to freely share the info or do they usually make any money from it?

I imagine the data is published into the "public domain", but since the university won't have the facilities to mass produce it, a private company could then manufacture it at profit. But since it is public domain, anyone can compete in manufacture.

That is what usually happens in public science. Although maybe there are special considerations for vaccine research.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

All this rushing to get a vaccine sends a chill down my spine,i won't be trying it till it's a few years old and i know the side effects,come to think of it i just won't be trying it

As long as you don't reach 70 years of age, don't have (or develop) any health problems that would help the virus rake your life, I think this is a viable option.

I've heard a doctor say (on Channel 5) that a healthy over 70 year old is more at risk than an unhealthy younger person. She also said that people over 50 are more at risk, but this rockets once a person is over 70.

What are the side effects of a vaccine, surely we won't know until it's found?? Could they be any worse than what it feels like to catch the virus for a mature person?? Don't forget that for some people it doesn't just go away, it leaves permanent damage to the body.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

What are the side effects of a vaccine, surely we won't know until it's found?? Could they be any worse than what it feels like to catch the virus for a mature person?? Don't forget that for some people it doesn't just go away, it leaves permanent damage to the body.

Yes each vaccine will need to be tested thoroughly. Unfortunately our biological knowledge just isn't good enough to predict exactly how everything will work.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I imagine the data is published into the "public domain", but since the university won't have the facilities to mass produce it, a private company could then manufacture it at profit. But since it is public domain, anyone can compete in manufacture.

That is what usually happens in public science.

It's a shame we can't exploit it to our financial advantage, after all, this will be done if another country/private company finds it first. This would help our finances too.

To counter the moral argument we could use some of the money to pay for supplying the third world, or even better, insist that any manufacturers supply the third world at no cost as part of any agreement.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's a shame we can't exploit it to our financial advantage, after all, this will be done if another country/private company finds it first. This would help our finances too.

To counter the moral argument we could use some of the money to pay for supplying the third world, or even better, insist that any manufacturers supply the third world at no cost as part of any agreement.

Well done you’ve just created the biggest black market for drugs in human history.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Yes each vaccine will need to be tested thoroughly. Unfortunately our biological knowledge just isn't good enough to predict exactly how everything will work.

I read somewhere that a lot of these vaccines are being based of existing ones and therefore won't need the usual roll-out.

Now I have no idea how you 'build a vaccine' and how you can have parts of it 'be the same' only with a different virus but I guess a vaccine is a lot more complicated than just a nerfed version of the virus. Maybe they need to adapt the stuff in it and that combination of stuff is what's being tested.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's a shame we can't exploit it to our financial advantage, after all, this will be done if another country/private company finds it first. This would help our finances too.

To counter the moral argument we could use some of the money to pay for supplying the third world, or even better, insist that any manufacturers supply the third world at no cost as part of any agreement.

Normally, Universities have spin-off companies, which the Universities have shareholdings in, and gain revenue from licensing their discoveries to others who then produce them - an example would be the Oxford University Innovation Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of Oxford Uni.

https://eship.ox.ac.uk/organiser/oxf...ty-innovation/

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Normally, Universities have spin-off companies, which the Universities have shareholdings in, and gain revenue from licensing their discoveries to others who then produce them - an example would be the Oxford University Innovation Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of Oxford Uni.

https://eship.ox.ac.uk/organiser/oxf...ty-innovation/

That's good to know. I imagine that the revenue is then used to fund other research.

[jfman]

More evidence against the discredited herd immunity theory.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/h...&utm_term=link

Well not against herd immunity as such, as long as you are willing to let a lot of people die to get there, over a sustained period of time. It’s really just Darwinism at that point, you aren’t “achieving” anything.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

More evidence against the discredited herd immunity theory.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/h...&utm_term=link

Well not against herd immunity as such, as long as you are willing to let a lot of people die to get there, over a sustained period of time. It’s really just Darwinism at that point, you aren’t “achieving” anything.

Well in that case ours and other governmentS will have to tread an even finer line, of letting as many people get infected without overwhelming the NHS in the process, because I doubt there is very much an appetite to go backwards.

I doubt Spain, Greece, France, Italy etc will want to cancel summer. Likewise our tourism and hospitality sector, having just opened. Will not want to see a further lockdown.

Difficult times ahead.

[jfman]

Shows that if they don’t tread carefully a further lockdown is inevitable - some optimistically hoped all these asymptomatic carriers would mean that a significant portion of the population would have immunity helping slow the spread and keep R below 1. The evidence is now not there. There’s no miracles out there other than to have an effective public health response.

While some countries would like to keep the holiday sectors open it’s not really their choice if the figures get out of control. Even if they keep borders open, will significant numbers want to travel to resorts affected by the virus, only to quarantine for two weeks when they get home? Will countries want to accept foreign visitors from more affected areas to risk the health of their own population?

Burying their head in the sand and hoping for the best does not make for a prosperous economy. A few months of summer tourism won’t fund a long hard winter of a medical emergency and internal lockdown for countries who have a significant tourism sector.

“Herd immunity” is going to take two years, or more, of treading carefully at this rate. Two years of recession minimum and probably just as long to get out of it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Shows that if they don’t tread carefully a further lockdown is inevitable - some optimistically hoped all these asymptomatic carriers would mean that a significant portion of the population would have immunity helping slow the spread and keep R below 1. The evidence is now not there. There’s no miracles out there other than to have an effective public health response.

While some countries would like to keep the holiday sectors open it’s not really their choice if the figures get out of control. Even if they keep borders open, will significant numbers want to travel to resorts affected by the virus, only to quarantine for two weeks when they get home? Will countries want to accept foreign visitors from more affected areas to risk the health of their own population?

Burying their head in the sand and hoping for the best does not make for a prosperous economy. A few months of summer tourism won’t fund a long hard winter of a medical emergency and internal lockdown for countries who have a significant tourism sector.

“Herd immunity” is going to take two years, or more, of treading carefully at this rate. Two years of recession minimum and probably just as long to get out of it.

A fair assessment.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

A fair assessment.

Cheers Seph

Originally Posted by jfman

More evidence against the discredited herd immunity theory.

Herd immunity is not "discredited", nor is it a theory.

If you lock down everyone for 3+ months then of course not many people are going to get immune, you cannot develop immunity unless you are exposed in the first place.

Herd immunity is a fact, and works, but only if the "herd" is exposed in the first place, which we are not prepared to do.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

Herd immunity is not "discredited", nor is it a theory.

If you lock down everyone for 3+ months then of course not many people are going to get immune, you cannot develop immunity unless you are exposed in the first place.

Herd immunity is a fact, and works, but only if the "herd" is exposed in the first place, which we are not prepared to do.

Well that’s my point - we aren’t prepared to do it given the human cost. It’s not a viable (and has been discredited as a) solution previously with modelling, but now that stance is supported by antibody testing. Antibody testing that, of course, was once hailed as the solution for opening back up - certifying those who have had the virus and proving we were further on in the epidemic than we actually are.

We have locked everyone down for 3+ months to stop the NHS being overrun. Exposing significant numbers to the virus quickly results in this happening.

It was only a solution if the number of people that get serious complications is small. The last hope for that idea was those clinging to the notion that there’s a disproportionately significant number of asymptomatic infections. Which is not the case.

Herd immunity by letting the virus loose is tantamount to euthanising AIDS sufferers (101,600 estimated sufferers) and claiming the UK has eradicated AIDS. Again, not something I’d view as genuinely credible.

Achieving herd immunity by vaccination of course is realistic, and scientifically proven.