hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 15, 2020 11:33:18 GMT -5
The problem is, the CDC makes "health policies" as you point out. But re-opening is not a health policy, it's a balance of health and economic policy. As such, we should fully expect that any re-opening will be against CDC recommendations. And we should expect it will be after economic recommendations to do so. It's a compromise and a balance. They are differing agendas based on their stated goals which do not align...and that's where we run into issues. We should open somewhere between the time economic policy says we should and healthcare policy says we should...but that's likely quite a long spectrum (and it's not as if either policy is done by robots...so even when trying to provide those recommendations there's likely some "leakage" of other factors into those dates). But would add that a very specific third agenda is an incumbent President running for re-election. His agenda is to make the decisions which will result in people voting him in for a second term. That is not inherently bad. In fact, I see the positive side being he has a huge incentive to get his part right. Time will tell how successful he was. Maybe not inherently bad, but in most cases is bad. Generally speaking, you don't want a CEO concerned with the short-term results at the expense of the long-term results...and that's essentially his motivation at this point. The problem is, getting his part "right" might mean doing something horribly unpopular with his likely voters.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,258
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 15, 2020 11:33:40 GMT -5
I think if we had done an immediate shut down like New Zealand did or aggressive contact tracing/testing like SK did we would be ahead of the game. But we chose not to. There is just no way I can see people being willing to do this again come flu season. It would have been one thing if this time had been spent by government officials from the top on down to get a plan in place but to have watched them piss away the last two months. .. yeah. When the message being sent is you are expendable then what point is there in cooperating?
I'd like to think I am wrong on all of it and not only that it'll go *poof* like SARS did. But that's a complete pipe dream and doesn't do my family any good to have me living in la la land.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 15, 2020 11:59:05 GMT -5
But would add that a very specific third agenda is an incumbent President running for re-election. His agenda is to make the decisions which will result in people voting him in for a second term. That is not inherently bad. In fact, I see the positive side being he has a huge incentive to get his part right. Time will tell how successful he was. Maybe not inherently bad, but in most cases is bad. Generally speaking, you don't want a CEO concerned with the short-term results at the expense of the long-term results...and that's essentially his motivation at this point. The problem is, getting his part "right" might mean doing something horribly unpopular with his likely voters. If the stockholders aren't happy with the actions of the CEO, they can voice that disapproval and work to remove if there is no change. As you indicated earlier, there is a balancing that must be done. I suppose if we have a million plus die AND have a "Great" depression, we could call what was done wrong. Short of that, how do we make the call?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 19:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 12:12:15 GMT -5
And now I'm thinking of Bill Murray in Caddyshack and the pool scene. I feel like we've let the genie out of the bottle and no amount of effort is going to get her to go back in at this point. There are things we can try to do but I think we're going to be headed the herd immunity route whether we want to or not at this point. I would prefer we not go that route and would like to think I'm wrong but if we're going to keep doing this piece meal and react instead of doing as much as we can to proactive I think that's where we're going to end up.
For me I want to see an effective treatment that will either keep people out of the ICU or reduce the amount of time spent in it and deaths. I think that's far more likely to happen and happen faster than a vaccine. There ARE diseases we have not been able to develop one for and this could be one of them. We can't base things on our assumptions that science can solve anything/everything. Science is fallible which is what makes it science instead of dogma. So that's where I'd like to see things go and I believe could be done in a reasonable/faster time line than a vaccine likely will. We can't tell everyone stay home till there is a vaccine then say "Ooops our bad we can't make one" and not expect revolution to happen. I keep hearing people talk about new lockdowns in outbreak areas, but I don't honestly see that happening. I think we are going for herd immunity and while it's a horrible plan, it is what it is, since we don't actually have a plan. What I find interesting is apparently a bunch of kids are going to die from this. Wonder if that will change people's selfishness as they keep dropping dead? Probably not. Not my kid, most will be fine, they must have "underlying conditions", etc... is already the sentiment.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 15, 2020 12:17:26 GMT -5
"We're mobilizing our military and other forces but we're mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it's a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we're going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly," the president said.
"We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it," he added. "And unless you're mobilized and ready, you're not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we're starting now."
link Wish he would have addressed the issue of manufactoring the vaccine in mass quantities. Seems important to me.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,385
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2020 12:21:19 GMT -5
"We're mobilizing our military and other forces but we're mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it's a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we're going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly," the president said.
"We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it," he added. "And unless you're mobilized and ready, you're not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we're starting now."
link Wish he would have addressed the issue of manufactoring the vaccine in mass quantities. Seems important to me. Details, details
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 19:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 12:23:44 GMT -5
"We're mobilizing our military and other forces but we're mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it's a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we're going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly," the president said.
"We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it," he added. "And unless you're mobilized and ready, you're not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we're starting now."
link Wish he would have addressed the issue of manufactoring the vaccine in mass quantities. Seems important to me. Yeah, wonder how many people want to volunteer for the rushed vaccine that could actually make you more susceptible to dying from it if they get it wrong. Clinical trials exist for a reason.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,258
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 15, 2020 12:25:46 GMT -5
I'm waiting to see if I get into a clinical trial. I missed getting into the one going on right now but there are several more going on this summer. They said they will keep me on file because I am ideal candidate for drug studies. I am hoping they call me back I really want to participate and do my part. I can't donate blood because I am significantly under the weight limit cut off so this is something I can do medically to give back.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 19:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 12:26:58 GMT -5
And now I'm thinking of Bill Murray in Caddyshack and the pool scene. I feel like we've let the genie out of the bottle and no amount of effort is going to get her to go back in at this point. There are things we can try to do but I think we're going to be headed the herd immunity route whether we want to or not at this point. I would prefer we not go that route and would like to think I'm wrong but if we're going to keep doing this piece meal and react instead of doing as much as we can to proactive I think that's where we're going to end up.
For me I want to see an effective treatment that will either keep people out of the ICU or reduce the amount of time spent in it and deaths. I think that's far more likely to happen and happen faster than a vaccine. There ARE diseases we have not been able to develop one for and this could be one of them. We can't base things on our assumptions that science can solve anything/everything. Science is fallible which is what makes it science instead of dogma. So that's where I'd like to see things go and I believe could be done in a reasonable/faster time line than a vaccine likely will. We can't tell everyone stay home till there is a vaccine then say "Ooops our bad we can't make one" and not expect revolution to happen. I keep hearing people talk about new lockdowns in outbreak areas, but I don't honestly see that happening. I think we are going for herd immunity and while it's a horrible plan, it is what it is, since we don't actually have a plan. What I find interesting is apparently a bunch of kids are going to die from this. Wonder if that will change people's selfishness as they keep dropping dead? Probably not. Not my kid, most will be fine, they must have "underlying conditions", etc... is already the sentiment. What about all the kids forced to live 24/7 in households with domestic violence without the reprieve that school/daycare provided? How many kids will die at the hands of their own stressed out, unemployed parents? It's really hard to get a count there. Or my neighbor that died in the nursing home basically of a broken heart thinking his family had abandoned him there? So many are feeling depressed and hopeless, will suicides climb? I guess we can just say they had underlying mental health problems. I'm getting really sick of being called selfish and ok with people dying.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 15, 2020 12:34:00 GMT -5
"We're mobilizing our military and other forces but we're mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it's a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we're going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly," the president said.
"We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it," he added. "And unless you're mobilized and ready, you're not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we're starting now."
link Wish he would have addressed the issue of manufactoring the vaccine in mass quantities. Seems important to me. Details, details This makes no sense. Why would he immunize those in nursing homes first? Sad as it may seem, when you get older you become less capable of mounting an immune response. It takes more antigen (vaccine) and more frequent dosing in order to kick their immune system into gear in order to protect them (if you can, I could never get an immune response in elderly animals to even approach that found in an adult animal). If grandma needs 6 doses for partial protection but a physician needs 2 for full protection, what is more logical? Logic would say that the first people to receive the vaccine should be healthcare providers. Next, logic would be to immunize those who would be most likely to get infected in dealing with a lot of people - like bus drivers, teachers and store clerks. These are the people who would most likely be vectors of infection to the public. These are people who immunizing would be best to get the economy rolling.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 15, 2020 12:34:56 GMT -5
"We're mobilizing our military and other forces but we're mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it's a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we're going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly," the president said.
"We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it," he added. "And unless you're mobilized and ready, you're not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we're starting now."
link Wish he would have addressed the issue of manufactoring the vaccine in mass quantities. Seems important to me. Yeah, wonder how many people want to volunteer for the rushed vaccine that could actually make you more susceptible to dying from it if they get it wrong. Clinical trials exist for a reason. This isn't a "yeah" with how you followed up. I am talking about a different issue. No matter if there is a "rushed" or reasonable development process, there will be a need to manufacture a very large quantity of vaccine doses. I appreciate that a plan is being developed to administer the vaccine but what is the plan to create doses to administer?
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,304
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 15, 2020 12:39:02 GMT -5
A few minutes ago I was sitting at a red light outside the CDC. There was a man with multiple signs and the one he held up to my car read:
"The mandatory vaccine that Gates and Fauci want you to have will let the government track your every move".
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,385
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2020 12:39:21 GMT -5
This makes no sense. Why would he immunize those in nursing homes first? Sad as it may seem, when you get older you become less capable of mounting an immune response. It takes more antigen (vaccine) and more frequent dosing in order to kick their immune system into gear in order to protect them (if you can, I could never get an immune response in elderly animals to even approach that found in an adult animal). If grandma needs 6 doses for partial protection but a physician needs 2 for full protection, what is more logical? Logic would say that the first people to receive the vaccine should be healthcare providers. Next, logic would be to immunize those who would be most likely to get infected in dealing with a lot of people - like bus drivers, teachers and store clerks. These are the people who would most likely be vectors of infection to the public. These are people who immunizing would be best to get the economy rolling. Every pandemic response has first responders getting dosed first. For a very simple reason. They are getting exposed, so 1 you need them to not get sick so they can continue to treat those who do, and 2 you want them to not transmit the disease in the asymptomatic stage. In addition, if you immunize healthcare workers in nursing homes, and you continue to limit access there, those people are protected. But like with most of what he has to say on this subject, it is nonsensical.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,385
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2020 12:42:21 GMT -5
Yeah, wonder how many people want to volunteer for the rushed vaccine that could actually make you more susceptible to dying from it if they get it wrong. Clinical trials exist for a reason. This isn't a "yeah" with how you followed up. I am talking about a different issue. No matter if there is a "rushed" or reasonable development process, there will be a need to manufacture a very large quantity of vaccine doses. I appreciate that a plan is being developed to administer the vaccine but what is the plan to create doses to administer? One of the european drug companies, AstraZeneca, I think has committed to ramping up production of the a promising vaccine during testing to speed up the time frame. Risky financially, but makes sense. Just wonder how Trump would think the US would get the first 300 million doses that are manufactured if this is the most effective one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 19:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 12:44:32 GMT -5
A few minutes ago I was sitting at a red light outside the CDC. There was a man with multiple signs and the one he held up to my car read: "The mandatory vaccine that Gates and Fauci want you to have will let the government track your every move". Yes, the conspiracy freaks have decided it will contain a chip, as in the "mark of the beast" to track everyone's movement... Perhaps a Darwin example...
|
|
anciana
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 20, 2011 11:34:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,071
|
Post by anciana on May 15, 2020 13:06:51 GMT -5
California biopharmaceutical company claims coronavirus antibody breakthroughI would like this to be the last piece of news to read for the day. It gives me hope that we are getting closer to differnt kinds of cure/therapy/prophylaxis that will help us, little by little, get to a more evened field with this disease. Is it possible? Is this real? More tests and investigations need to be done but the hope is there if we can just hang on and keep trying our best until then.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 15, 2020 13:12:59 GMT -5
Maybe not inherently bad, but in most cases is bad. Generally speaking, you don't want a CEO concerned with the short-term results at the expense of the long-term results...and that's essentially his motivation at this point. The problem is, getting his part "right" might mean doing something horribly unpopular with his likely voters. If the stockholders aren't happy with the actions of the CEO, they can voice that disapproval and work to remove if there is no change.As you indicated earlier, there is a balancing that must be done. I suppose if we have a million plus die AND have a "Great" depression, we could call what was done wrong. Short of that, how do we make the call? That's the heart of the problem though. To keep people happy, you keep their short-term outlook nice. And sometimes you do that to the sacrifice of the company's long term health. The after-the-fact judgement is the problem, and precisely where the problem lies. If I'm the CEO, I can take option A which short term will be great and I can continue to get a paycheck (or re-elected), or I can take option B which short term is nasty and will get me fired...but which long term would be in the company's best interest. Your point about "how do we make the call" is accurate, but also what CEOs making intentionally damaging decisions rely on. "Save my short term ass, hope to explain it away later". Because if they don't save their ass short-term, they aren't in the long term picture. So it's not INHERENTLY bad...but it's bad if you don't think the person in charge is willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. So then the question becomes, do you think Trump is willing to sacrifice his re-election to do the right thing? Not that he HAS to, there's always the chance the right thing turns out to be the popular thing as well...but if someone isn't WILLING..then you have a misalignment of goals (for most folks, I think most folks care more about the long term outlook of their lives than the short term when it comes to political decisions).
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,258
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 15, 2020 13:18:57 GMT -5
A few minutes ago I was sitting at a red light outside the CDC. There was a man with multiple signs and the one he held up to my car read: "The mandatory vaccine that Gates and Fauci want you to have will let the government track your every move". Did you roll down your window, look up and say "The satellite over head is already doing that for them"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 19:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 13:22:51 GMT -5
A few minutes ago I was sitting at a red light outside the CDC. There was a man with multiple signs and the one he held up to my car read: "The mandatory vaccine that Gates and Fauci want you to have will let the government track your every move". Did you roll down your window, look up and say "The satellite over head is already doing that for them"? OMG, that's fantastic and totally something I would do. lol
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 15, 2020 13:28:36 GMT -5
California biopharmaceutical company claims coronavirus antibody breakthroughI would like this to be the last piece of news to read for the day. It gives me hope that we are getting closer to differnt kinds of cure/therapy/prophylaxis that will help us, little by little, get to a more evened field with this disease. Is it possible? Is this real? More tests and investigations need to be done but the hope is there if we can just hang on and keep trying our best until then. Sorry. This is not in replacement of a vaccine, but a way of making a specific antibody that will (possibly) neutralize an infection. This will not protect you from subsequent infection unless you receive a dose of it every 2-3 months or so. Neutralizing antibodies do not last in the human blood that long. Your own immune system will not be making this. They know the epitope of the protein that is effective, if they make a monoclonal antibody to it they can possible crank out lots and it become an effective treatment though. I do have to wonder how they tested billions of antibodies over the last decade against a spike protein on a virus that did not exist until 4-5 months ago.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,304
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 15, 2020 13:29:18 GMT -5
A few minutes ago I was sitting at a red light outside the CDC. There was a man with multiple signs and the one he held up to my car read: "The mandatory vaccine that Gates and Fauci want you to have will let the government track your every move". Did you roll down your window, look up and say "The satellite over head is already doing that for them"? No, he wasn't wearing a mask...
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,304
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 15, 2020 13:30:04 GMT -5
I have to drive back that way in a couple of hours. If he's still there I'll see if he shows me one of his other signs!
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,385
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2020 13:31:29 GMT -5
California biopharmaceutical company claims coronavirus antibody breakthroughI would like this to be the last piece of news to read for the day. It gives me hope that we are getting closer to differnt kinds of cure/therapy/prophylaxis that will help us, little by little, get to a more evened field with this disease. Is it possible? Is this real? More tests and investigations need to be done but the hope is there if we can just hang on and keep trying our best until then. How frequently will it need to be dosed? How effective is it? Is it intravenous or intramuscular injections? How much does it cost? The advantage of a vaccine is that you manufacture the same molecule, if that is what is effective, and your body then produces it. Administration of an antibody will eventually have a decreasing efficacy due to metabolism, and will become less effective. If they can ramp up production, it is helpful, and if it works, it is proof of concept for a vaccine. Helpful, but I don't see how that gets us to a long term solution.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on May 15, 2020 13:46:57 GMT -5
And now I'm thinking of Bill Murray in Caddyshack and the pool scene. I feel like we've let the genie out of the bottle and no amount of effort is going to get her to go back in at this point. There are things we can try to do but I think we're going to be headed the herd immunity route whether we want to or not at this point. I would prefer we not go that route and would like to think I'm wrong but if we're going to keep doing this piece meal and react instead of doing as much as we can to proactive I think that's where we're going to end up.
For me I want to see an effective treatment that will either keep people out of the ICU or reduce the amount of time spent in it and deaths. I think that's far more likely to happen and happen faster than a vaccine. There ARE diseases we have not been able to develop one for and this could be one of them. We can't base things on our assumptions that science can solve anything/everything. Science is fallible which is what makes it science instead of dogma. So that's where I'd like to see things go and I believe could be done in a reasonable/faster time line than a vaccine likely will. We can't tell everyone stay home till there is a vaccine then say "Ooops our bad we can't make one" and not expect revolution to happen. I keep hearing people talk about new lockdowns in outbreak areas, but I don't honestly see that happening. I think we are going for herd immunity and while it's a horrible plan, it is what it is, since we don't actually have a plan. What I find interesting is apparently a bunch of kids are going to die from this. Wonder if that will change people's selfishness as they keep dropping dead? Probably not. Not my kid, most will be fine, they must have "underlying conditions", etc... is already the sentiment. A bunch? I'm pretty sure we don't have enough evidence yet to support that statement and "a bunch" is vague at best.
Nobody WANTS anyone to die, especially kids, but lets not jump the shark yet...
|
|
anciana
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 20, 2011 11:34:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,071
|
Post by anciana on May 15, 2020 14:28:35 GMT -5
California biopharmaceutical company claims coronavirus antibody breakthroughI would like this to be the last piece of news to read for the day. It gives me hope that we are getting closer to differnt kinds of cure/therapy/prophylaxis that will help us, little by little, get to a more evened field with this disease. Is it possible? Is this real? More tests and investigations need to be done but the hope is there if we can just hang on and keep trying our best until then. Sorry. This is not in replacement of a vaccine, but a way of making a specific antibody that will (possibly) neutralize an infection. This will not protect you from subsequent infection unless you receive a dose of it every 2-3 months or so. Neutralizing antibodies do not last in the human blood that long. Your own immune system will not be making this. They know the epitope of the protein that is effective, if they make a monoclonal antibody to it they can possible crank out lots and it become an effective treatment though. I do have to wonder how they tested billions of antibodies over the last decade against a spike protein on a virus that did not exist until 4-5 months ago. The Walk of the Penguin Mich, no need to be sorry. Vaccine might be many months or years away and the more we know about the disease and the more different treatment options get developed, the better we are equipped to deal with it in the meantime. I will take new development as a reason for hope.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 15, 2020 14:33:48 GMT -5
Sorry. This is not in replacement of a vaccine, but a way of making a specific antibody that will (possibly) neutralize an infection. This will not protect you from subsequent infection unless you receive a dose of it every 2-3 months or so. Neutralizing antibodies do not last in the human blood that long. Your own immune system will not be making this. They know the epitope of the protein that is effective, if they make a monoclonal antibody to it they can possible crank out lots and it become an effective treatment though. I do have to wonder how they tested billions of antibodies over the last decade against a spike protein on a virus that did not exist until 4-5 months ago. The Walk of the Penguin Mich , no need to be sorry. Vaccine might be many months or years away and the more we know about the disease and the more different treatment options get developed, the better we are equipped to deal with it in the meantime. I will take new development as a reason for hope. It is articles like this that get me soooooo frustrated. Right now, it sounds like they have found something that has potential. I imagine a lot of other people have as well. The problem is that when you go from what works on a western blot or in a culture dish and translating it from the lab into the real world. Believe me, things do not go near as smoothly! At this point, the potential for this to be effective in a clinical setting is as many months away as a vaccine.
|
|
bookkeeper
Well-Known Member
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 13:40:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,697
Member is Online
|
Post by bookkeeper on May 15, 2020 14:34:03 GMT -5
Did you roll down your window, look up and say "The satellite over head is already doing that for them"? OMG, that's fantastic and totally something I would do. lol ....looking for tinfoil hat.....
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,385
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2020 14:37:25 GMT -5
Sorry. This is not in replacement of a vaccine, but a way of making a specific antibody that will (possibly) neutralize an infection. This will not protect you from subsequent infection unless you receive a dose of it every 2-3 months or so. Neutralizing antibodies do not last in the human blood that long. Your own immune system will not be making this. They know the epitope of the protein that is effective, if they make a monoclonal antibody to it they can possible crank out lots and it become an effective treatment though. I do have to wonder how they tested billions of antibodies over the last decade against a spike protein on a virus that did not exist until 4-5 months ago. The Walk of the Penguin Mich , no need to be sorry. Vaccine might be many months or years away and the more we know about the disease and the more different treatment options get developed, the better we are equipped to deal with it in the meantime. I will take new development as a reason for hope. See the problem with every single one of the statements that get made is that they over promise and underdeliver. Very few medications are actual game changers. Medicine advances incrementally. Every so often a good black swan appears, and we have a major breakthrough. I'm sure that Walk agrees with me in that this is a nice idea with merit. But it is just that, an idea. Biologic systems have a way of acting in unpredictable ways. Until this is tested, it remains a nice idea. So it is premature to get your hopes up. It may not work, work only marginally, or have a serious side effect. All of those options are more likely than it will be wonderful. When a major breakthrough occurs, you will know, because everyone will agree. I am not even sure this idea is practical; how many people need to be treated before it has a major effect on the pandemic?
|
|
anciana
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 20, 2011 11:34:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,071
|
Post by anciana on May 15, 2020 14:58:12 GMT -5
The Walk of the Penguin Mich , no need to be sorry. Vaccine might be many months or years away and the more we know about the disease and the more different treatment options get developed, the better we are equipped to deal with it in the meantime. I will take new development as a reason for hope. See the problem with every single one of the statements that get made is that they over promise and underdeliver. Very few medications are actual game changers. Medicine advances incrementally. Every so often a good black swan appears, and we have a major breakthrough. I'm sure that Walk agrees with me in that this is a nice idea with merit. But it is just that, an idea. Biologic systems have a way of acting in unpredictable ways. Until this is tested, it remains a nice idea. So it is premature to get your hopes up. It may not work, work only marginally, or have a serious side effect. All of those options are more likely than it will be wonderful. When a major breakthrough occurs, you will know, because everyone will agree. I am not even sure this idea is practical; how many people need to be treated before it has a major effect on the pandemic? I personally need some good news amidst the gloom and stress that worrying about keeping myself and my family healthy and prepared bring. Not to lower my current precautions, but to have hope for any kind of meaningful future. Distressing news from all over the world are too difficult to hear without any hope that many are working on ways to make it better. Once I put forward plans and measures to do the best I can for now, I need to look for ways everyone else is trying to do their part. And looking for treatment is one of them. If we can cobble together many different ways to make this disease affect us less, why not. I am not pinning my hopes on this or any particular one development to be the one personally, I guess the title of that article does not reflect my views accurately
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 19:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 15:00:27 GMT -5
I love the point about what will it cost.
You can cure your hepatitis now, but only if you can afford the $100K or whatever the stupid drug costs.
|
|