NON_POLITICAL China Coronavirus THREAD

[mopardude87]

My small group here in Indianapolis we went through before they were calling it Covid-19. My friend Jim went in the hospital 3rd week of January and had to go on the ventilator for 6 days. The admin at his job came back from Seattle at a convention and she was sick the next day at work. She went to the hospital and put on a Ventilator. They announced her as the first death in the state from Covid-19 on Feb 6th. 5 more people from his job died, one as late as 2 weeks ago. I took a charger and cable to his bedside when he first went in. His wife was sent home and I had to stop at CVS to get her Tamiflu prescription because she was too weak to get out of bed. About a week later I had a fever for a week and felt like crap and tightness in my chest but did not require any hospilization, didn't even go to the doctor. Other friends had various symtoms like the worst case of diareahea ever for a week. So I'm sure we all had it but it wasn't know as the Covid virus yet. Was not fun.

Yeah i got friends who told me they felt very nasty about October or maybe it was November? I don't remember which exactly. I did hear some people talking about perhaps this Covid thing has been around much longer then most suspect. Honestly i don't know , i wasn't that involved till i saw this on the news. Not a fan of the news usually, i feel bad for not knowing sooner but can you blame me? Nothing but Doom and gloom as of lately.

Captain of Aircraft Carrier Pleads for Help as Virus Cases Increase Onboard (Published 2020)

“We are not at war,” the captain of the carrier Theodore Roosevelt wrote. “Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our sailors.”

www.nytimes.com

 

[Brainonska511]

If the phase 3 safety and efficacy data looks good, yes. I'd be at the head of the line.

Even if something is approved in the last few months of the year they've been putting it in arms since the spring so another month or even a few probably isn't going to tell you anything about the safety profile that isn't already known. Most of the time savings is being realized by not pausing between trial phases, manufacturing at risk, and throwing a ton of cash at the effort.

I would also be at the head of the line if the Phase 3 data looks good.

The main reasons for the bigger trials are to two fold: 1) properly measure efficacy (ie, having enough statistical power to differentiate between something working and not working) and 2) look for the very rare safety signals. The latter is why trials for medications for prevention of heart attacks in patients with cardiovascular disease have thousands of people. If you're going to give something to millions of people, you'll want to ensure that something crazy isn't going to pop up. A 1/1000 event becomes a fair number of people when you're giving it to millions.

On a related note, I think vaccines have an inherent advantage in development compared to other medications though. You're giving only a handful of doses per person, and the odds of an adverse event related to the vaccine drops off considerably with time from the last injection, which provides a nice opportunity to condense some of the development time. Obviously, you'll still want some long-term monitoring, particularly for making sure any illnesses that do appear are not worse in the vaccinated arm compared to the placebo, but the long-term risks are likely far lower than something taken continuously.

 

[CZroe]

I had a nasty cold in March but until I see research that says otherwise I have to assume it was just a rhinovirus, endemic coronavirus, or influenza. Saying something visibly spreading in the US even earlier was likely COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 is a stretch according to experts though it's possible they might change their tune with more/better serology testing. I certainly would not be so confident about an illness that was visibly spreading around the US when the disease was still called 2019-nCoV.

 

[Ichinisan]

True if its in a controlled environment, i am more worried if people at home got the idea and go for it . I thought about perhaps offering myself as a test subject for the vaccine, but i intake a particular herb of sorts on the daily for various reasons. It may alter any tests, even if studies suggest this herb can help calm down Covid. Don't even think that study has been confirmed nor denied, its currently being worked on.

Maybe if its confirmed, then perhaps i will give it more consideration. I know a few people who do this herb and donate blood a few times a week. Maybe its not that big of a deal? With science things need to be exact or damn close, i would hate any tampering with results due to what i do.

I don't think that would disqualify you. In fact, it would be a good data point.

https://1daysooner.org/

 

[Ichinisan]

So do you expect a 100% effective vaccine within months?

Only if we are lucky. As with other vaccines, I expect it to be either ineffective or nearly 100% effective.

They're trying new things so it's impossible to say which is more likely.

 

[Ichinisan]

Mutation is the game that is fundamental to the success of viruses. They use host cells and don't have to worry about a mutation being detrimental to cells, since they have none.

It was probably over a month ago that someone released a study which tracked the spread of the virus worldwide. He produced a diagram similar to the tree of life which showed the different "strains" throughout the world. His contention was that there were six identifiable strains. The criticism was whether it was was six or sixty different strains one could identify on the diagram. It is more semantics than anything else.

Identifying mutations is now a precise and computer driven exercise, but implementing vaccines is far more complex. There is tremendous variability among humans, so finding a vaccine that will be effective for them and not harm them is problematic, especially when the virus is a moving target.

Um...yes.


...and?

 

[mopardude87]

I don't think that would disqualify you. In fact, it would be a good data point.

https://1daysooner.org/

Yeah the study was suggesting certain kinds of this herb actually reduces the severity of what Covid does. With that i would LOVE to continue it and perhaps be a study in the future, see if what has been suggested has any merit. I think it prob does, cancer patients and other groups use it. Most i know use it medically myself included even if have some occasional fun with it. I couldn't imagine it doing any more harm then good.

I have mine mainly as edibles, not sure if studies are testing actual smoking of it or not, i like the duration time of a edible. Thing kicks like a mule. I have 30mg every day when i wake up about 1am or so, then its in me all day if i time it with some food. I did switch it to having it 30 mins before bed, that worked out well last night. Clocked a extra hour of sleep!

Thanks for the link sir

 

[CZroe]

I don't think that would disqualify you. In fact, it would be a good data point.

https://1daysooner.org/

Smoking does increase your risk so I wouldn't encourage deliberate infection if you are a smoker.

 

[gill77]

Only if we are lucky. As with other vaccines, I expect it to be either ineffective or nearly 100% effective.

They're trying new things so it's impossible to say which is more likely.

So zero or 100% and God knows when, just don't compare to flu vaccines?

 

[CZroe]

So zero or 100% and God knows when, just don't compare to flu vaccines?

...because the effectiveness of flu vaccines is judged against all circulating influenzas including the ones it wasnt targeting.

Not hard to understand.

Comparing to the effectiveness of a seasonal influenza vaccine is a bit like taking a SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 "coronavirus vaccine" and judging the effectiveness by whether or not people continue getting the common cold... a third of which are caused by other coronaviruses that it was never made to target.

 

[gill77]

Um...yes.


...and?

It is interesting to hear folks predict that any virus will not mutate enough to cause efficacy issues with a vaccine when that is really what viruses are all about.

It is even more interesting since this virus has seemed to fool the top minds in the world working on it. Studies are retracted, results have flip flopped. Never have I seen an issue near the magnitude of the pandemic where there has been so much variance and noise.

 

[mopardude87]

Every time someone talks about Covid mutating, i think Resident Evil. Not sure why.

 

[gill77]

...because the effectiveness of flu vaccines is judged against all circulating influenzas including the ones it wasnt targeting.

Not hard to understand.

Comparing to the effectiveness of a seasonal influenza vaccine is a bit like taking a SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 "coronavirus vaccine" and judging the effectiveness by whether or not people continue getting the common cold... a third of which are caused by other coronaviruses that it was never made to target.

So when they jab that needle into your arm with a coronavirus vaccine, and you still get sick you will call that effective because they had the vaccine right for someone else's strain?

Or is it just that you are that confident that by the time the vaccine rolls there is no way this new virus could have mutated out of the range of efficacy?

 

[Brainonska511]

It is interesting to hear folks predict that any virus will not mutate enough to cause efficacy issues with a vaccine when that is really what viruses are all about.

It's also interesting to hear folks blindly claim that the virus is mutating enough to cause potential efficacy issues, when there is nothing to suggest the virus is mutating in substantial ways as it has spread.

All viruses are not like HIV, mutating very quickly. Some are quite stable over time. We don't have issues with the polio vaccine, or measles, or a dozen other vaccinations currently used.

It is even more interesting since this virus has seemed to fool the top minds in the world working on it. Studies are retracted, results have flip flopped. Never have I seen an issue near the magnitude of the pandemic where there has been so much variance and noise.

There has been a rush to get information out, and some studies have been retracted for a variety of reasons, yes. A downside to wanting information to get out as quickly as possible given how we went from nothing has led to, shall we say, as less than stellar performance of the formal peer review process at some journals. But peer review doesn't just stop at publication - scientists read the papers, evaluate the data presented and the conclusions themselves and either find new experiments to support or refute information currently available (you know, the scientific process).

A rise in the use of pre-print servers has also led to more studies being put out there, some of very dubious quality. But because this stuff is freely available and the public has been thirsting for knowledge, these articles have also been picked up by the media.

I also doubt that there has ever been such a pressing scientific issue in any of our lifetimes of comparable magnitude and urgency. Hard to make apples and bananas comparisons

 

[Ichinisan]

So zero or 100% and God knows when, just don't compare to flu vaccines?

Just stop defending your invalid comparison with pedantry.

Cut it out already.

Testing efficacy of a new vaccine for a particular virus strain is typically closer to 0% or 100%. Not a lot of in-between.

The reason you think "40%" is a valid comparison is because you are comparing the effectiveness of a mix of several vaccines against something that is particularly known to mutate and evolve new strains in nature more quickly than the vaccines can be developed. As I said it's closer to 100% effective for the targeted strains of flu.

All indications are that coronavirus strains in humans aren't very good at doing what flu does.

 

[Ichinisan]

It is interesting to hear folks predict that any virus will not mutate enough to cause efficacy issues with a vaccine when that is really what viruses are all about.

It is even more interesting since this virus has seemed to fool the top minds in the world working on it. Studies are retracted, results have flip flopped. Never have I seen an issue near the magnitude of the pandemic where there has been so much variance and noise.

It's interesting to hear people assume it will be more similar to flu than to previous coronavirus strains that jumped from animals to humans (SARS, MERS).

We don't fight any other viruses the same way we fight seasonal flu. It's more exception than norm.

 

[gill77]

It's also interesting to hear folks blindly claim that the virus is mutating enough to cause potential efficacy issues, when there is nothing to suggest the virus is mutating in substantial ways as it has spread.

All viruses are not like HIV, mutating very quickly. Some are quite stable over time. We don't have issues with the polio vaccine, or measles, or a dozen other vaccinations currently used.


There has been a rush to get information out, and some studies have been retracted for a variety of reasons, yes. A downside to wanting information to get out as quickly as possible given how we went from nothing has led to, shall we say, as less than stellar performance of the formal peer review process at some journals. But peer review doesn't just stop at publication - scientists read the papers, evaluate the data presented and the conclusions themselves and either find new experiments to support or refute information currently available (you know, the scientific process).

A rise in the use of pre-print servers has also led to more studies being put out there, some of very dubious quality. But because this stuff is freely available and the public has been thirsting for knowledge, these articles have also been picked up by the media.

I also doubt that there has ever been such a pressing scientific issue in any of our lifetimes of comparable magnitude and urgency. Hard to make apples and bananas comparisons

There is evidence of mutation, whether it will cause efficacy issues will not be determined until sometime after it is actually deployed. No reason to blindly suggest that mutation will be of no consequence.

You are right, 100%, about the reasons for the uncertainty, but that does not negate the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty. We are a half year into this and no one seems to be able to tell us with any degree of certainty:

Where it came from.
Why some people seem to be immune.
Why some get very sick, others only mildly.
Can you catch it a second time.
Does it reemerge.
Why some countries do much better even with same measures taken.
Sure there are more.

 

[gill77]

Just stop defending your invalid comparison with pedantry.

Cut it out already.

Testing efficacy of a new vaccine for a particular virus strain is typically closer to 0% or 100%. Not a lot of in-between.

The reason you think "40%" is a valid comparison is because you are comparing the effectiveness of a mix of several vaccines against something that is particularly known to mutate and evolve new strains in nature more quickly than the vaccines can be developed. As I said it's closer to 100% effective for the targeted strains of flu.

All indications are that coronavirus strains in humans aren't very good at doing what flu does.

Not your place to tell me what I can or cannot do, Buddy.

People are posting like they know things about the virus that the experts get wrong day in and day out. Then when asked to truly clarify their opinion, it comes down to somewhere between 0 and 100 without any time frame. Then try to tell others what they can or cannot post.

There is a high likelihood that coronavirus will be with us on a yearly basis much like the flu. It would be nice to compare it to the other vaccines available for the other coronaviruses that affect us except there are none.

The first flu vaccines were in the 1930's. We have been at this a good while and only have a success rate of 40%. Not HIV, not coronaviruses, where our success rate is 0% so far.

My point relates more to the big picture, not pedantry. Given the great uncertainty we see with this particular virus, what is a reasonable expectation for a truly effective vaccine being available in time to make a significant difference?

I am hoping for 100% effectiveness next week.

 

[JujuFish]

The governor of my state (Sununu, NH) is encouraging people to get tested as part of their Asymptomatic Spread Assessment Program (ASAP, kudos on making an acronym that was clearly intentional and yet fits so well).

My boss said he'd pay for it if we got a bill, so I got my test at 4 today. Wow, first time getting a nasal swab and boy did that feel weird.

 

[Ajay]

The governor of my state (Sununu, NH) is encouraging people to get tested as part of their Asymptomatic Spread Assessment Program (ASAP, kudos on making an acronym that was clearly intentional and yet fits so well).

My boss said he'd pay for it if we got a bill, so I got my test at 4 today. Wow, first time getting a nasal swab and boy did that feel weird.

Yeah, the state is doing a real good job. My wife got tested today and I will go in the next few days. My BIL works as an epidemiologist for that state (technically on loan from UNH) - so we've been well informed.

 

[K1052]

Moderna RNA vaccine candidate is protective in mice, neutralizing antibodies and CD8 response. No antibody enhanced disease indications. Another good step on the road.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1271438885361516544

 

[Ajay]

The first flu vaccines were in the 1930's. We have been at this a good while and only have a success rate of 40%. Not HIV, not coronaviruses, where our success rate is 0% so far.

You are not getting the point. The success rate of the flu vaccine is between 40-60% each year (according to the CDC). There are multiple strains of the flu and each of those strains have a high probability of mutating every year. The flu vaccine is a prospective vaccine where the targeted variations are based on those expected to be prevalent in well in advance of the actual flu season (so that enough doses can be manufactured in time).

As to coronaviruses, never has there been a world wide effort contributing vast amounts of money, resources and talent towards creating vaccines for against a particular virus. As already pointed out, the mutation rate of SARS-COV-2, thus far, is low and the variations are minimal. There is no apparent selection pressure on the virus at this time that may change that. I do not think it is abnormal to be pessimistic about the time-line for the development of vaccines or therapeutics. The bottom line is that we've never developed a vaccine in less than 5 years - so despite the advances made in genetic and molecular biology, we cannot know the confidence interval for any potential vaccine wrt to time.

 

[gill77]

You are not getting the point. The success rate of the flu vaccine is between 40-60% each year (according to the CDC). There are multiple strains of the flu and each of those strains have a high probability of mutating every year. The flu vaccine is a prospective vaccine where the targeted variations are based on those expected to be prevalent in well in advance of the actual flu season (so that enough doses can be manufactured in time).

As to coronaviruses, never has there been a world wide effort contributing vast amounts of money, resources and talent towards creating vaccines for against a particular virus. As already pointed out, the mutation rate of SARS-COV-2, thus far, is low and the variations are minimal. There is no apparent selection pressure on the virus at this time that may change that. I do not think it is abnormal to be pessimistic about the time-line for the development of vaccines or therapeutics. The bottom line is that we've never developed a vaccine in less than 5 years - so despite the advances made in genetic and molecular biology, we cannot know the confidence interval for any potential vaccine wrt to time.

I get the point. Flu, multiple strains.

I'm sure all of us find sources to help guide us through this mess. The ones I have followed are more than a little concerned about mutation. It probably is good for you that you are not.

The reference to flu was not that it is the perfect analogy to the corona virus. It is just the one that we are urged to have year after year but I doubt most people are aware of the limited effectiveness.

Similarly, the time-line you reference is not what is being widely used as click bait.

 

[mopardude87]

Man, this world has gone so crazy i thought for a while i was going insane. I know this stuff isn't talked about much, but honestly what was your wake up call to the realization of Covid? Mine was when i walked into a drs office and it was mandatory mask usage. I sat with others and i had this dreaded feeling like it was the end of the world. First time really out since like mid March so yeah it was a big deal close to April.

 

[CZroe]

So when they jab that needle into your arm with a coronavirus vaccine, and you still get sick you will call that effective because they had the vaccine right for someone else's strain?

If I got sick with a strain of the endemic human coronavirus that predates SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2, of course it would have no bearing on how effective it is for SARS-CoV-2... no more than if I got a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and then got sick with herpes or HIV or ebola. If we get SARS-CoV-3, SARS-CoV-4, etc before we get a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine then I'd hope we get a general SARS vaccine for all strains we are aware of just like we get a general influenza vaccine every year for the influenza strains we expect to be a problem.

Or is it just that you are that confident that by the time the vaccine rolls there is no way this new virus could have mutated out of the range of efficacy?

So far we don't even have anything we could conclusively call a new strain. Can we distinguish some SARS-CoV-2 lineages from others? Yes, but that isn't what makes it a new strain anymore than you are a different strain of human from your cousins.

There is a high likelihood that coronavirus will be with us on a yearly basis much like the flu. It would be nice to compare it to the other vaccines available for the other coronaviruses that affect us except there are none.

The first flu vaccines were in the 1930's. We have been at this a good while and only have a success rate of 40%. Not HIV, not coronaviruses, where our success rate is 0% so far.

My point relates more to the big picture, not pedantry. Given the great uncertainty we see with this particular virus, what is a reasonable expectation for a truly effective vaccine being available in time to make a significant difference?

I am hoping for 100% effectiveness next week.

The success rate for targeted strains is much higher than 40%. More like 80% to 95%. A vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 may prove unable to eradicate future strains but it will most likely be effective for SARS-CoV-2.

Antigenic drift, the natural mutation between lineages, is all we have seen so far. This is not enough to outpace vaccine development. The reason influenza outpaces it is because of antigenic shift and new jumps for novel zoonotic strains that have been circulating in another species for generations or more.

I still worry that SARS-CoV-2 could have a recombination/reassortment event with other endemic human coronavirus strains to outpace vaccine development but it does not seem to have happened yet. If it does that would be an antigenic shift, but it may even be a good thing since it could make it less novel, less deadly, and slowed by our existing resistance and immunity to the endemic strain that came before it. Getting that instead could confer some resistance/immunity to the more deadly strains, which is exactly why ancestral strains circulating today from past pandemics eventually stopped being so deadly.

The thought that sometimes keeps me up at night is the chance for a reassortment with MERS that imparts the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 with the much more deadly case fatality rate of MERS in a novel coronavirus that few have natural immunity or resistance to. That could be nearly as bad as the fictional MEV-1 virus in the movie Contagion. I thought about this every day when it was still ravaging Iran and China and not so much the rest of the world.