JohnInCarolina said:

lousubcap said:

Caught a news feed Sunday regarding a fast track vaccine being worked at Oxford in England.  Being a back-bencher it even sounded promising to me within the calendar year which would be a world record by several years.  Back to the Q entertainment.  

Unlikely to be successful Frank.  But we can and will hope for the best.

Foghorn said:

GATraveller said:

JohnInCarolina said:

JohnInCarolina said:

lousubcap said:

Caught a news feed Sunday regarding a fast track vaccine being worked at Oxford in England.  Being a back-bencher it even sounded promising to me within the calendar year which would be a world record by several years.  Back to the Q entertainment.  

Unlikely to be successful Frank.  But we can and will hope for the best.

To the folks who flagged this - most vaccine trials are unsuccessful, and we have yet to be able to develop a vaccine for *any* coronavirus, never mind covid-19.  Obviously the implications of that have yet to really be absorbed by the general public.

Yea I don't consider myself a pessimist but I'm thinking they will not find a vaccine for COVID-19. 

I am similarly a natural optimist but the facts support your thought @GATraveller.  If Las Vegas were giving odds on a vaccine for COVID-19 they'd probably give you 10-1 or better. 

-This is the 7th known coronavirus and nobody has been able to develop a vaccine against any of the others.

- Making a vaccine against something that isn't a straightforward non-mutating entity is a real challenge.  Some of the best scientists in the world have been trying to make vaccines for TB and HIV for decades without success.

- Multiple people who caught COVID-19 early, who then were "recovered" (asymptomatic and tested negative), went back to work and caught COVID-19 again and died from the 2nd infection.  This does not bode well for creating a successful immune response.

- The most recent official information I received from the infectious disease experts at our medical school (some of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I have ever met) commenting on the potential for antibody testing (in theory, the test that would prove that you have COVID-19 antibodies demonstrating that you have either been exposed/infected - or you have been vaccinated - and either way, you have immunity and should therefore not be able to contract the disease) said something to the effect of "most individuals who have antibodies against the disease have some relative increased resistance to reinfection but they are far from immune" or something to that effect.

So, by my reading of the tea leaves (and I'll fully admit that this is far from definitive science) I've come to several conclusions:

- A vaccine is unlikely.
- If we get a "vaccine" it will probably be more like the flu shot.  It may have 60 or 80% effectiveness but it is unlikely to be like some of the vaccines that can eradicate a disease.
- The antibody testing that everybody is hoping will help us figure out who can work/socialize/etc is not likely to be as helpful as some are suggesting.

There is very little that is black or white about this disease or the policy decisions that need to be made about it.   Everything is grey.  And it is likely to stay that way for a long time.  As more data comes in it still won't be black or white, but we might be able to figure out what shade of grey it is.  I hope I'm wrong.

Perhaps we should just start selecting breeding pairs and bug out for Mars sooner rather than later?

HeavyG said:
Perhaps those folks that were suggesting that we all just live life as we used to and let Nature take its course, as the vast majority of folks that catch the bug never really even have any symptoms, are right (sorry grandma, grandpa).

JohnInCarolina said:

Lots and lots of testing combined with contact tracing and people wearing masks is how some of the more successful countries have managed to beat this thing.  For the life of me I do not understand why we’re not more aggressively pursuing that approach.  

HeavyG said:

Foghorn said:

"So what are the likely public policy implications of all that? Policies that the vast majority of folks can abide by for long periods of time (perhaps forever)?

Since it is likely that herd immunity is not going to be a thing with Covid19 how should we respond? We can't all be isolated or work from home forever."

I'm guessing you're asking me.  I don't make policy, but I'll give you my opinion.

I think this all about probabilities and relative risk and accumulating data to allow us to guesstimate those risks.  We now know that in the winter, in a tightly packed place - like NYC, Wuhan, or Milan, the virus can spread quickly and overwhelm the healthcare system and cause a lot of death.  We're in the process of learning that in warmer weather with various degrees of physical isolation the risk is lower.  What I have not seen published is any thoughtful calculation of the risk of the relative stages of shutdown - meaning how many people will die as the result of the full shut down from poverty, suicides, missed medical care, etc. - vs what is the cost (in lives) of the partial shutdown, etc.

If we could estimate these numbers we could calculate COVID-19 mortality + Shutdown mortality for given conditions/locations and make policy guided toward lowest possible combined mortality.  Because it is likely to be a seasonal virus, these conditions will change based on time of year and that will need to be calculated in as well.  We may find ourselves needing fairly strict distancing for a couple of winters and relaxed rules in the summers for a few years.  

Eventually, my guess is that we'll get to a point of some relative - but not absolute - level of herd immunity such that it is like having a cold, only worse.

Within all of this, many of the policies will allow for individuals to make choices - as they are doing now.  In areas where restaurants CAN open, only about 1/2 are doing so.  That is the choice of the owner.  In those areas, some people are choosing to dine out and others aren't.  That is the choice of the citizens.  The challenge will be minimizing (we can't totally avoid it) how some people's choices could harm/kill others.

In this time when we all want soundbytes and black/white easy things, this issue is forcing us to think in complexity and nuance and relative risks.

 Sorry, I should have prefaced my earlier post by asking what the "herd" here is thinking with what we know now and what you had just shared. Didn't mean to just single you out but thanks for your comments.

My state (VA) plans to hire 1.000 folks to do contact tracing. I'm sure all the other states will hire more such folks also. Since there will soon be a fresh crop of college grads that basically have limited job opportunities this year so hiring a bunch of young, healthy folks and training them for this work is the way to go. With a vigorous contract tracing program perhaps quarantines can be limited to those directly impacted by the virus.

I see some countries are requiring folks use a contact tracing app on their phones. Not sure that will sit well with a lot of folks in the US. We'll see.

An interesting article (for us geeks anyway) on how contact tracing apps work - https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52355028

HeavyG said:

Foghorn said:

"So what are the likely public policy implications of all that? Policies that the vast majority of folks can abide by for long periods of time (perhaps forever)?

Since it is likely that herd immunity is not going to be a thing with Covid19 how should we respond? We can't all be isolated or work from home forever."

I'm guessing you're asking me.  I don't make policy, but I'll give you my opinion.

I think this all about probabilities and relative risk and accumulating data to allow us to guesstimate those risks.  We now know that in the winter, in a tightly packed place - like NYC, Wuhan, or Milan, the virus can spread quickly and overwhelm the healthcare system and cause a lot of death.  We're in the process of learning that in warmer weather with various degrees of physical isolation the risk is lower.  What I have not seen published is any thoughtful calculation of the risk of the relative stages of shutdown - meaning how many people will die as the result of the full shut down from poverty, suicides, missed medical care, etc. - vs what is the cost (in lives) of the partial shutdown, etc.

If we could estimate these numbers we could calculate COVID-19 mortality + Shutdown mortality for given conditions/locations and make policy guided toward lowest possible combined mortality.  Because it is likely to be a seasonal virus, these conditions will change based on time of year and that will need to be calculated in as well.  We may find ourselves needing fairly strict distancing for a couple of winters and relaxed rules in the summers for a few years.  

Eventually, my guess is that we'll get to a point of some relative - but not absolute - level of herd immunity such that it is like having a cold, only worse.

Within all of this, many of the policies will allow for individuals to make choices - as they are doing now.  In areas where restaurants CAN open, only about 1/2 are doing so.  That is the choice of the owner.  In those areas, some people are choosing to dine out and others aren't.  That is the choice of the citizens.  The challenge will be minimizing (we can't totally avoid it) how some people's choices could harm/kill others.

In this time when we all want soundbytes and black/white easy things, this issue is forcing us to think in complexity and nuance and relative risks.

 Sorry, I should have prefaced my earlier post by asking what the "herd" here is thinking with what we know now and what you had just shared. Didn't mean to just single you out but thanks for your comments.

My state (VA) plans to hire 1.000 folks to do contact tracing. I'm sure all the other states will hire more such folks also. Since there will soon be a fresh crop of college grads that basically have limited job opportunities this year so hiring a bunch of young, healthy folks and training them for this work is the way to go. With a vigorous contract tracing program perhaps quarantines can be limited to those directly impacted by the virus.

I see some countries are requiring folks use a contact tracing app on their phones. Not sure that will sit well with a lot of folks in the US. We'll see.

An interesting article (for us geeks anyway) on how contact tracing apps work - https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52355028

No other nation has endured as much death from Covid-19 nor nearly as a high a death rate as has the United States. With 4.25% of the world population, America has the tragic distinction of accounting for about 30% of pandemic deaths so far.

No other nation has loosened lockdowns and other social-distancing measures while deaths are increasing, as the US is now doing.

No other advanced nation was as unprepared for the pandemic as was the US.

We now know Donald Trump and his administration were told by public health experts in mid-January that immediate action was required to stop the spread of Covid-19. But according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, “there was a lot of pushback.” Trump didn’t act until March 16th.

No nation other than the US has left it to subordinate units of government – states and cities – to buy ventilators and personal protective equipment. 

In no other nation have experts in public health and emergency preparedness been pushed aside and replaced by political cronies like Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who in turn has been advised by Trump donors and Fox News celebrities.

In no other advanced nation has Covid-19 forced so many average citizens into poverty so quickly. The Urban Institute reports that more than 30% of American adults have had to reduce their spending on food.

Elsewhere around the world, governments are providing generous income support. Not in the US.

Why is America so different from other advanced nations facing the same coronavirus threat? Why has everything gone so tragically wrong?

Some of it is due to Trump and his hapless and corrupt collection of grifters, buffoons, sycophants, lobbyists and relatives. But there are also deeper roots.

The coronavirus has been especially potent in the US because America is the only industrialized nation lacking universal healthcare. Many families have been reluctant to see doctors or check into emergency rooms for fear of racking up large bills.

America is also the only one of 22 advanced nations failing to give all workers some form of paid sick leave. As a result, many American workers have remained on the job when they should have been home.

Adding to this is the skimpiness of unemployment benefits in America – providing less support in the first year of unemployment than those in any other advanced country.

American workplaces are also more dangerous. Even before Covid-19 ripped through meatpackers and warehouses, fatality rates were higher among American workers than European.

Even before the pandemic robbed Americans of their jobs and incomes, average wage growth in the US had lagged behind average wage growth in most other advanced countries. Since 1980, American workers’ share of total national income has declined more than in any other rich nation.

In other nations, unions have long pushed for safer working conditions and higher wages. But American workers are far less unionized than workers in other advanced economies. 

So who and what’s to blame for the worst avoidable loss of life in American history? Partly, Donald Trump’s malfeasance.

But the calamity is also due to America’s longer-term failure to provide its people the basic support they need.

What do you think?