[cardcrimson]

Saw a reference on the Chronicle's virus tracker that a UK scientist believes there is an 80% probability that a vaccine will be ready by September; trials starting in a fortnight. 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-v...t-11971804

[cardcrimson]

Saw a reference on the Chronicle's virus tracker that a UK scientist believes there is an 80% probability that a vaccine will be ready by September; trials starting in a fortnight. 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-v...t-11971804

[Griffins78]

That would be great news. They’re hoping to simultaneously ramp production to be ready for distribution should the trials prove successful.

[Griffins78]

That would be great news. They’re hoping to simultaneously ramp production to be ready for distribution should the trials prove successful.

[Snorlax94]

The article says a team in the UK will begin (begin!) human trials within a few weeks and that they are “80% certain” their as-of-yet untested vaccine will work.

The hope is that one of the very first vaccines attempted works. In fact, Bill Gates and others are providing billions of dollars to invest in the early production of promising candidates (yay!). I’ve read about an example where the early investment in production could mean 3 millions doses could come in months early (so, they know they are wasting billons of dollars in most, if not all, cases). So even if by luck, one of the first candidates works, don’t expect the world to re-open anytime soon via vaccination.

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

[Snorlax94]

The article says a team in the UK will begin (begin!) human trials within a few weeks and that they are “80% certain” their as-of-yet untested vaccine will work.

The hope is that one of the very first vaccines attempted works. In fact, Bill Gates and others are providing billions of dollars to invest in the early production of promising candidates (yay!). I’ve read about an example where the early investment in production could mean 3 millions doses could come in months early (so, they know they are wasting billons of dollars in most, if not all, cases). So even if by luck, one of the first candidates works, don’t expect the world to re-open anytime soon via vaccination.

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

[BostonCard]

Saw a reference on the Chronicle's virus tracker that a UK scientist believes there is an 80% probability that a vaccine will be ready by September; trials starting in a fortnight. 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-v...t-11971804

Not sure how you establish efficacy in that period. You can certainly establish broad safety (though you will still not be able to exclude rare events), and you can establish immunogenicity (that the vaccine can lead to antibody production).  However, to establish efficacy you would need to give it (or a placebo) to thousands of patients and watch them for a period of usually at least a year (though you might be able to accelerate it in this case) and compare how many in each arm develop Covid-19.  Simply establishing immunogenicity is not good enough, since there is not always a translation between producing antibodies against a virus and lower risk of infection.  Plus, in rare cases, you can get something called antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), in which the presence of antibodies actually helps the virus become more infectious.

BC

[BostonCard]

Saw a reference on the Chronicle's virus tracker that a UK scientist believes there is an 80% probability that a vaccine will be ready by September; trials starting in a fortnight. 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-v...t-11971804

Not sure how you establish efficacy in that period. You can certainly establish broad safety (though you will still not be able to exclude rare events), and you can establish immunogenicity (that the vaccine can lead to antibody production).  However, to establish efficacy you would need to give it (or a placebo) to thousands of patients and watch them for a period of usually at least a year (though you might be able to accelerate it in this case) and compare how many in each arm develop Covid-19.  Simply establishing immunogenicity is not good enough, since there is not always a translation between producing antibodies against a virus and lower risk of infection.  Plus, in rare cases, you can get something called antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), in which the presence of antibodies actually helps the virus become more infectious.

BC

[dabigv13]

Right. We could have multiple vaccines by September, but we wouldn't know by then if they actually work or if they actually are harmful.

[dabigv13]

Right. We could have multiple vaccines by September, but we wouldn't know by then if they actually work or if they actually are harmful.

[BostonCard]

Just to put things into perspective:

There are now more than 70 vaccine candidates for SARS-Cov-2.  So far, five have entered the clinic.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/nu...e-expected

I wouldn't put too much faith on any one of the vaccine efforts, but as the article makes clear:

The more “shots on goal,” the better chances one will succeed, Jim Mayne, vice president of science and regulatory advocacy at PhRMA, said in a recent virtual panel hosted by FiercePharma.

So, there is reason to be optimistic that at least one of the efforts will succeed.  And hopefully, several of them will emerge from clinical trials, so that there will be higher vaccine making capability.

BC

[BostonCard]

Just to put things into perspective:

There are now more than 70 vaccine candidates for SARS-Cov-2.  So far, five have entered the clinic.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/nu...e-expected

I wouldn't put too much faith on any one of the vaccine efforts, but as the article makes clear:

The more “shots on goal,” the better chances one will succeed, Jim Mayne, vice president of science and regulatory advocacy at PhRMA, said in a recent virtual panel hosted by FiercePharma.

So, there is reason to be optimistic that at least one of the efforts will succeed.  And hopefully, several of them will emerge from clinical trials, so that there will be higher vaccine making capability.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

Just to put things into perspective:

There are now more than 70 vaccine candidates for SARS-Cov-2.  So far, five have entered the clinic.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/nu...e-expected

I wouldn't put too much faith on any one of the vaccine efforts, but as the article makes clear:

The more “shots on goal,” the better chances one will succeed, Jim Mayne, vice president of science and regulatory advocacy at PhRMA, said in a recent virtual panel hosted by FiercePharma.

So, there is reason to be optimistic that at least one of the efforts will succeed.  And hopefully, several of them will emerge from clinical trials, so that there will be higher vaccine making capability.

BC

I wonder if the time required for clinical trials can be shortened at all by computer simulation.

[Genuine Realist]

Just to put things into perspective:

There are now more than 70 vaccine candidates for SARS-Cov-2.  So far, five have entered the clinic.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/nu...e-expected

I wouldn't put too much faith on any one of the vaccine efforts, but as the article makes clear:

The more “shots on goal,” the better chances one will succeed, Jim Mayne, vice president of science and regulatory advocacy at PhRMA, said in a recent virtual panel hosted by FiercePharma.

So, there is reason to be optimistic that at least one of the efforts will succeed.  And hopefully, several of them will emerge from clinical trials, so that there will be higher vaccine making capability.

BC

I wonder if the time required for clinical trials can be shortened at all by computer simulation.

[teejers1]

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

A hardened cynic might think that some folks are so virulently anti-Trump, that they'd rather "good news" be put off till after early November.  I'm merely a cynic; thus, I don't believe that.  That's likely because I think there is already more than enough ammo for election-time change.  I'd rather limit the misery in the meantime (and assume that's the case for all, n/w/s any "shoot downs" of even potentially good news).

[teejers1]

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

A hardened cynic might think that some folks are so virulently anti-Trump, that they'd rather "good news" be put off till after early November.  I'm merely a cynic; thus, I don't believe that.  That's likely because I think there is already more than enough ammo for election-time change.  I'd rather limit the misery in the meantime (and assume that's the case for all, n/w/s any "shoot downs" of even potentially good news).

[pefloresjr]

I haven't seen much discussion about this, but it feels like scientists and governments around the world are putting a great many resources toward finding treatments and a vaccine for COVID19.  I have seen some stories about instances of more rapid sharing among scientists across private companies and international borders.  (I know there were delays by China and other instances where sharing hasn't happened as well.)  The efforts and cooperation that are happening give me at least some hope that a solution or at least some meaningful mitigation could happen sooner rather than later.  I think any treatments and vaccines still need to be properly tested because rolling out a supposed miracle treatment that turns out to be ineffective, or to be more harmful than helpful, would be a disaster that would inhibit implementation of an actual treatment or vaccine.  I also think it is harmful for the President or anyone else to overhype any treatment before knowing whether or not it will really work.  People need to have confidence that the solution isn't just another round of baseless cheerleading. 

Hope for improved treatments and development of a vaccine is one of the main reasons the scientists have been pushing for the social distancing measures.  Avoiding the potential of extremely high death rates along with extreme social and economic costs is the reason for slowing down the progression of the disease around the world.  I am really happy that there are plans to gear up production of the most likely vaccines before the testing is completed because that will make a big difference in getting our lives and the world's economy closer to normal.  I appreciate the information about any progress toward a vaccine or treatment as long as it is fact based and not just snake oil or cheerleading; the cited article is perhaps overly hopeful but is mostly fact based.  As noted by others, it doesn't seem like proper testing for the vaccine could be ready by September, but it could be moving along to next phase testing and progressing more quickly than normal if everyone is focused on the effort.   

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I haven't seen much discussion about this, but it feels like scientists and governments around the world are putting a great many resources toward finding treatments and a vaccine for COVID19.  I have seen some stories about instances of more rapid sharing among scientists across private companies and international borders.  (I know there were delays by China and other instances where sharing hasn't happened as well.)  The efforts and cooperation that are happening give me at least some hope that a solution or at least some meaningful mitigation could happen sooner rather than later.  I think any treatments and vaccines still need to be properly tested because rolling out a supposed miracle treatment that turns out to be ineffective, or to be more harmful than helpful, would be a disaster that would inhibit implementation of an actual treatment or vaccine.  I also think it is harmful for the President or anyone else to overhype any treatment before knowing whether or not it will really work.  People need to have confidence that the solution isn't just another round of baseless cheerleading. 

Hope for improved treatments and development of a vaccine is one of the main reasons the scientists have been pushing for the social distancing measures.  Avoiding the potential of extremely high death rates along with extreme social and economic costs is the reason for slowing down the progression of the disease around the world.  I am really happy that there are plans to gear up production of the most likely vaccines before the testing is completed because that will make a big difference in getting our lives and the world's economy closer to normal.  I appreciate the information about any progress toward a vaccine or treatment as long as it is fact based and not just snake oil or cheerleading; the cited article is perhaps overly hopeful but is mostly fact based.  As noted by others, it doesn't seem like proper testing for the vaccine could be ready by September, but it could be moving along to next phase testing and progressing more quickly than normal if everyone is focused on the effort.   

Cheers,
Pete F.

[BostonCard]

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

A hardened cynic might think that some folks are so virulently anti-Trump, that they'd rather "good news" be put off till after early November.  I'm merely a cynic; thus, I don't believe that.  That's likely because I think there is already more than enough ammo for election-time change.  I'd rather not have limit the misery in the meantime (and assume that's the case for all, n/w/s any "shoot downs" of even potentially good news).

As much as I dislike Trump, I think it would take a truly cynical (and despicable) person to wish that the crisis were worse just to lessen the likelihood he would get elected.

BC

[BostonCard]

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

A hardened cynic might think that some folks are so virulently anti-Trump, that they'd rather "good news" be put off till after early November.  I'm merely a cynic; thus, I don't believe that.  That's likely because I think there is already more than enough ammo for election-time change.  I'd rather not have limit the misery in the meantime (and assume that's the case for all, n/w/s any "shoot downs" of even potentially good news).

As much as I dislike Trump, I think it would take a truly cynical (and despicable) person to wish that the crisis were worse just to lessen the likelihood he would get elected.

BC

[82 Card]

This thread prompted a trip down memory lane to my college days when the students at Penn were lined up in Houston Hall for shots from jet injectors. This was part of a national vaccination program that was cancelled after getting to 25% of the population. The swine flue that prompted the program had not proven to be as deadly as feared and the vaccinations had some casualties. The Wikipedia article on the episode explains what happened better than I can. The current situation is much different because the SARS-COV-2 is far deadlier. However, it is important to remember that rushing a vaccination program carries risks.

[82 Card]

This thread prompted a trip down memory lane to my college days when the students at Penn were lined up in Houston Hall for shots from jet injectors. This was part of a national vaccination program that was cancelled after getting to 25% of the population. The swine flue that prompted the program had not proven to be as deadly as feared and the vaccinations had some casualties. The Wikipedia article on the episode explains what happened better than I can. The current situation is much different because the SARS-COV-2 is far deadlier. However, it is important to remember that rushing a vaccination program carries risks.

[magnus]

For a vaccine to be acceptable, are there metrics for success (works) or failures (not just doesn't work, but causes damage to the recipient?)

[magnus]

For a vaccine to be acceptable, are there metrics for success (works) or failures (not just doesn't work, but causes damage to the recipient?)

[BostonCard]

For a vaccine to be acceptable, are there metrics for success (works) or failures (not just doesn't work, but causes damage to the recipient?)

Yes, the metric you use is efficacy.  This is a simplification, but gives you an idea.  Basically, take 2000 volunteers who have never had the disease.  Give half the new vaccine and half a placebo.  Then follow them for a year and figure out how many in each arm develop the disease.  The efficacy is as follows:

(PBO% - VAC%)/PBO%

Where PBO% is the percentage of patients on placebo who develop the illness, and VAC% is the percentage of patients who got the active vaccine who developed the illness.  As an example, if 20% of the patients on placebo get the vaccine and 5% of the patients who got the vaccine develop the illness, the efficacy of the vaccine is 75%.

(20% - 5%)/20% = 75%

That has to be balanced against any excess of adverse events in the vaccinated group, which tells you about safety.  Note that the lower the baseline rate of infection, and the milder the infection, the higher the safety bar will be.

BC

[BostonCard]

For a vaccine to be acceptable, are there metrics for success (works) or failures (not just doesn't work, but causes damage to the recipient?)

Yes, the metric you use is efficacy.  This is a simplification, but gives you an idea.  Basically, take 2000 volunteers who have never had the disease.  Give half the new vaccine and half a placebo.  Then follow them for a year and figure out how many in each arm develop the disease.  The efficacy is as follows:

(PBO% - VAC%)/PBO%

Where PBO% is the percentage of patients on placebo who develop the illness, and VAC% is the percentage of patients who got the active vaccine who developed the illness.  As an example, if 20% of the patients on placebo get the vaccine and 5% of the patients who got the vaccine develop the illness, the efficacy of the vaccine is 75%.

(20% - 5%)/20% = 75%

That has to be balanced against any excess of adverse events in the vaccinated group, which tells you about safety.  Note that the lower the baseline rate of infection, and the milder the infection, the higher the safety bar will be.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

A hardened cynic might think that some folks are so virulently anti-Trump, that they'd rather "good news" be put off till after early November.  I'm merely a cynic; thus, I don't believe that.  That's likely because I think there is already more than enough ammo for election-time change.  I'd rather not have limit the misery in the meantime (and assume that's the case for all, n/w/s any "shoot downs" of even potentially good news).

As much as I dislike Trump, I think it would take a truly cynical (and despicable) person to wish that the crisis were worse just to lessen the likelihood he would get elected.

BC

Amen to that. There are some political figures whom I despise, but none I think who would deliberately do harm for political gain. That includes Trump and his most implacable enemies. 

The lesser danger is that the most hostile in each Party will obstruct the formation of good, and maybe necessary, political coalitions. That is a worry.

[Genuine Realist]

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

A hardened cynic might think that some folks are so virulently anti-Trump, that they'd rather "good news" be put off till after early November.  I'm merely a cynic; thus, I don't believe that.  That's likely because I think there is already more than enough ammo for election-time change.  I'd rather not have limit the misery in the meantime (and assume that's the case for all, n/w/s any "shoot downs" of even potentially good news).

As much as I dislike Trump, I think it would take a truly cynical (and despicable) person to wish that the crisis were worse just to lessen the likelihood he would get elected.

BC

Amen to that. There are some political figures whom I despise, but none I think who would deliberately do harm for political gain. That includes Trump and his most implacable enemies. 

The lesser danger is that the most hostile in each Party will obstruct the formation of good, and maybe necessary, political coalitions. That is a worry.

[Goose]

The lesser danger is that the most hostile in each Party will obstruct the formation of good, and maybe necessary, political coalitions. That is a worry.

A related problem is public loss of confidence in the leaders of both parties and an attendant loss of confidence in our political system. It drives good people away from politics and less good people toward extreme solutions. The former has been a problem for quite a few years, and the latter is becoming more of a problem by the day. It also makes it very difficult for anybody who is trying to be reasonable and make things work to form any coalition or even to be heard.

[Goose]

The lesser danger is that the most hostile in each Party will obstruct the formation of good, and maybe necessary, political coalitions. That is a worry.

A related problem is public loss of confidence in the leaders of both parties and an attendant loss of confidence in our political system. It drives good people away from politics and less good people toward extreme solutions. The former has been a problem for quite a few years, and the latter is becoming more of a problem by the day. It also makes it very difficult for anybody who is trying to be reasonable and make things work to form any coalition or even to be heard.

[Genuine Realist]

The lesser danger is that the most hostile in each Party will obstruct the formation of good, and maybe necessary, political coalitions. That is a worry.

A related problem is public loss of confidence in the leaders of both parties and an attendant loss of confidence in our political system. It drives good people away from politics and less good people toward extreme solutions. The former has been a problem for quite a few years, and the latter is becoming more of a problem by the day. It also makes it very difficult for anybody who is trying to be reasonable and make things work to form any coalition or even to be heard.

Oh, the media has been doing that for two generations now, and particularly during GOP administrations.

The good news is that the people of the United States have been deeply cynical about their government since 1789. But for some reasons we trust our nation. I have enormous faith in the public, way beyond superficial identity politics.

[Genuine Realist]

The lesser danger is that the most hostile in each Party will obstruct the formation of good, and maybe necessary, political coalitions. That is a worry.

A related problem is public loss of confidence in the leaders of both parties and an attendant loss of confidence in our political system. It drives good people away from politics and less good people toward extreme solutions. The former has been a problem for quite a few years, and the latter is becoming more of a problem by the day. It also makes it very difficult for anybody who is trying to be reasonable and make things work to form any coalition or even to be heard.

Oh, the media has been doing that for two generations now, and particularly during GOP administrations.

The good news is that the people of the United States have been deeply cynical about their government since 1789. But for some reasons we trust our nation. I have enormous faith in the public, way beyond superficial identity politics.

[BostonCard]

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

A hardened cynic might think that some folks are so virulently anti-Trump, that they'd rather "good news" be put off till after early November.  I'm merely a cynic; thus, I don't believe that.  That's likely because I think there is already more than enough ammo for election-time change.  I'd rather not have limit the misery in the meantime (and assume that's the case for all, n/w/s any "shoot downs" of even potentially good news).

As much as I dislike Trump, I think it would take a truly cynical (and despicable) person to wish that the crisis were worse just to lessen the likelihood he would get elected.

BC

Amen to that. There are some political figures whom I despise, but none I think who would deliberately do harm for political gain. That includes Trump and his most implacable enemies. 

The lesser danger is that the most hostile in each Party will obstruct the formation of good, and maybe necessary, political coalitions. That is a worry.

So far they’ve passed three bills totaling more than $2 billion in near record time.  The parties may be highly polarized, but it’s amazing how much a crisis can focus the mind.  I’m fairly confident that another bill will be passed soon to shore up the small business loans, and some other things Democrats are holding out for.

BC

[BostonCard]

And I don’t expect one of the first 3 million, or even one of the first 30M, doses would get to me. If a non-American team is first, it could push Americans even further back in line, but don’t worry, because the current President has created such a stable genius framework for mature cooperation between nations, has treated every global leader with so much respect, and has championed a philosophy that puts the good of all humankind — and not just one country, “first”, that I’m sure things will be perfect, a “10”, if a different nation develops a vaccine first.

A hardened cynic might think that some folks are so virulently anti-Trump, that they'd rather "good news" be put off till after early November.  I'm merely a cynic; thus, I don't believe that.  That's likely because I think there is already more than enough ammo for election-time change.  I'd rather not have limit the misery in the meantime (and assume that's the case for all, n/w/s any "shoot downs" of even potentially good news).

As much as I dislike Trump, I think it would take a truly cynical (and despicable) person to wish that the crisis were worse just to lessen the likelihood he would get elected.

BC

Amen to that. There are some political figures whom I despise, but none I think who would deliberately do harm for political gain. That includes Trump and his most implacable enemies. 

The lesser danger is that the most hostile in each Party will obstruct the formation of good, and maybe necessary, political coalitions. That is a worry.

So far they’ve passed three bills totaling more than $2 billion in near record time.  The parties may be highly polarized, but it’s amazing how much a crisis can focus the mind.  I’m fairly confident that another bill will be passed soon to shore up the small business loans, and some other things Democrats are holding out for.

BC

[g1313]

Back to topic, I am curious on whether scientists think that is it only a matter of time before we find an effective vaccine. If so, why don't we have one for other coronaviruses like the original SARS, 18 years later? Is it because those outbreaks were largely contained, so the incentive to do expensive trials was low? Or that these vaccines require more fundamental scientific breakthroughs that are hard to put timelines on?

[g1313]

Back to topic, I am curious on whether scientists think that is it only a matter of time before we find an effective vaccine. If so, why don't we have one for other coronaviruses like the original SARS, 18 years later? Is it because those outbreaks were largely contained, so the incentive to do expensive trials was low? Or that these vaccines require more fundamental scientific breakthroughs that are hard to put timelines on?

[dabigv13]

I think it's an open question. Never has a vaccine had so much scientific muscle behind it, so that means something. SARS vaccines were developed, but none were tested because the outbreak was contained.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ca...d-n1150091

But there are lots of diseases we have tried to develop vaccines for and failed. AIDS has killed millions and we still don't have a vaccine despite years and lots of research dollars and focus. We can make effective vaccines for flu (If you get a flu shot and still get the flu it's likely a strain that wasn't well covered in that year's vaccine. COVID won't have that problem, at least not initially), so it's not like we can't make a vaccine for a respiratory virus. I don't think there is a big scientific breakthrough that needs to happen, but it's possible that in spite of the best scientific efforts, we may not be able to make a good vaccine for this particular virus because of issues intrinsic to the virus.

[dabigv13]

I think it's an open question. Never has a vaccine had so much scientific muscle behind it, so that means something. SARS vaccines were developed, but none were tested because the outbreak was contained.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ca...d-n1150091

But there are lots of diseases we have tried to develop vaccines for and failed. AIDS has killed millions and we still don't have a vaccine despite years and lots of research dollars and focus. We can make effective vaccines for flu (If you get a flu shot and still get the flu it's likely a strain that wasn't well covered in that year's vaccine. COVID won't have that problem, at least not initially), so it's not like we can't make a vaccine for a respiratory virus. I don't think there is a big scientific breakthrough that needs to happen, but it's possible that in spite of the best scientific efforts, we may not be able to make a good vaccine for this particular virus because of issues intrinsic to the virus.

[Mick]

So far they’ve passed three bills totaling more than $2 billion in near record time.  The parties may be highly polarized, but it’s amazing how much a crisis can focus the mind.  I’m fairly confident that another bill will be passed soon to shore up the small business loans, and some other things Democrats are holding out for.

BC

$2 billion? Seems meager... ;)

[Mick]

So far they’ve passed three bills totaling more than $2 billion in near record time.  The parties may be highly polarized, but it’s amazing how much a crisis can focus the mind.  I’m fairly confident that another bill will be passed soon to shore up the small business loans, and some other things Democrats are holding out for.

BC

$2 billion? Seems meager... ;)