Stone speaking in character is hardly newsworthy. If he had praised John Lewis or BLM - now that would have been news.
Stone speaking in character is hardly newsworthy. If he had praised John Lewis or BLM - now that would have been news.
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MK
Both vaccines are from the EU. With Trump cornering the world markets with a U.S. made vaccine, to prevent the rest of the world from getting any of it, what are the odds the EU will prevent the U.S. from obtaining any of these two promising drugs?
agip wrote:
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MKhttps://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/20/oxford-universitys-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-positive-immune-response-in-an-early-trial.html
agip wrote:
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MKhttps://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/20/oxford-universitys-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-positive-immune-response-in-an-early-trial.html
This is obviously good news. I was talking with a doctor friend recently who pointed out that vaccines take a long time to produce because the studies need to prove that antibodies are still present in good quantities for a long time after vaccination. A vaccine that keeps you from getting covid for 90 days is great, but that's still a big obstacle to getting back to 'normal'. Also, there are risks involved with injecting your whole country with a vaccine that has only existed for a few months. No way to know what the longer-term effects might be.
low...Europe plays fair, the US and China don't. also, there are so many brilliant people working on vaccines and meds...seems clear that multiple solutions will be found. There will likely be several vaccines and meds, incl no doubt some from US companies. But the core q is a good one...getting the vaccine out to the world will be a very interesting project...unprecedented stuff. Ideally they find someone like Ike, who had the respect of all the allied nations, and got the invasion of normandy done. In a bad situation, the UN has a committee that muddles and can't get it done.
concepts and ideas wrote:
Both vaccines are from the EU. With Trump cornering the world markets with a U.S. made vaccine, to prevent the rest of the world from getting any of it, what are the odds the EU will prevent the U.S. from obtaining any of these two promising drugs?
agip wrote:
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MKhttps://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/20/oxford-universitys-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-positive-immune-response-in-an-early-trial.html
If we can get Tiny out of office then this will be fine. It is in the EU's interest to extinguish the US hotspots. So if we are the ones who need the Oxford vaccine then I'm confident that we will be able to get it.
concepts and ideas wrote:
Both vaccines are from the EU. With Trump cornering the world markets with a U.S. made vaccine, to prevent the rest of the world from getting any of it, what are the odds the EU will prevent the U.S. from obtaining any of these two promising drugs?
agip wrote:
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MKhttps://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/20/oxford-universitys-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-positive-immune-response-in-an-early-trial.html
agip wrote:
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MKhttps://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/20/oxford-universitys-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-positive-immune-response-in-an-early-trial.html
Good news is good.
I do wonder about the chances of an effective vaccine. I keep reading articles about how people who get sick from the virus and recover have zero antibodies a few months later. If this is the case, I wonder how a vaccine can work unless it it administered every few months (which seems impractical).
Quite possible I am missing something.
concepts and ideas wrote:
Both vaccines are from the EU. With Trump cornering the world markets with a U.S. made vaccine, to prevent the rest of the world from getting any of it, what are the odds the EU will prevent the U.S. from obtaining any of these two promising drugs?
agip wrote:
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MKhttps://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/20/oxford-universitys-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-positive-immune-response-in-an-early-trial.html
Rest assured the EU will not prevent the rest of the world from getting it. Here's the deal:
- In the EU, governments negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers. The gov't is going to foot the bill first so they want to pay a fair price, which is of course later indirectly passed on to taxpayers. The benefits of that system are that gov'ts have the upper hand and drugs will be available to those who need them regardless of income level. Also, across the EU, the standards for getting a drug to the market are much more stringent than in the US.
- In the US, there are laws that forbid the gov't from negotiating prices directly with manufacturers. So if Pfizer creates some drug, it can charge whatever it wants, and we see plenty of that happening. That's why the generics market is so big. Supposedly, this is in the spirit of free markets, which for a basic human right is insane, but here we are. The idea is if Pfizer can't sell enough $2,000 viles, then it will simply choose to drop the price to incetivize the buyer, as if it's some luxury good. But this doesn't happen because the insurers pick up the tab and have many ways to screw the insured and get their money back plus a nice profit. This is why drugs cost a fortune in the US relative to the EU. The argument for this setup has been that pharmas need the extra profits to pour into R&D and without that no new significant drugs ever make it to the market. The FDA has a lower bar than the EU for approving drugs.
If a EU company produces a drug first, no doubt the EU governments will have priority by law in getting a reasonable supply. Without a doubt though, that company will be eyeing the US market, which it knows is in more desperate need, the FDA will easily clear it, and it can and will charge a fortune to us.... and of course, we will pay.
Even if an effective drug is produced now, production is an insanely complicated process and there is no way to mass produce easily. We also will not know for a long time about the drug's efficacy, which will also dictate the supply. The drug would probably not be available to the broader market for up to a year after initial production.
Americans are going to pay a fortune for the drug, and will continue to get crushed on the premiums, that is assuming they even have health insurance in the first place.
Trollminator wrote:
concepts and ideas wrote:
Both vaccines are from the EU. With Trump cornering the world markets with a U.S. made vaccine, to prevent the rest of the world from getting any of it, what are the odds the EU will prevent the U.S. from obtaining any of these two promising drugs?
Rest assured the EU will not prevent the rest of the world from getting it. Here's the deal:
- In the EU, governments negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers. The gov't is going to foot the bill first so they want to pay a fair price, which is of course later indirectly passed on to taxpayers. The benefits of that system are that gov'ts have the upper hand and drugs will be available to those who need them regardless of income level. Also, across the EU, the standards for getting a drug to the market are much more stringent than in the US.
- In the US, there are laws that forbid the gov't from negotiating prices directly with manufacturers. So if Pfizer creates some drug, it can charge whatever it wants, and we see plenty of that happening. That's why the generics market is so big. Supposedly, this is in the spirit of free markets, which for a basic human right is insane, but here we are. The idea is if Pfizer can't sell enough $2,000 viles, then it will simply choose to drop the price to incetivize the buyer, as if it's some luxury good. But this doesn't happen because the insurers pick up the tab and have many ways to screw the insured and get their money back plus a nice profit. This is why drugs cost a fortune in the US relative to the EU. The argument for this setup has been that pharmas need the extra profits to pour into R&D and without that no new significant drugs ever make it to the market. The FDA has a lower bar than the EU for approving drugs.
If a EU company produces a drug first, no doubt the EU governments will have priority by law in getting a reasonable supply. Without a doubt though, that company will be eyeing the US market, which it knows is in more desperate need, the FDA will easily clear it, and it can and will charge a fortune to us.... and of course, we will pay.
Even if an effective drug is produced now, production is an insanely complicated process and there is no way to mass produce easily. We also will not know for a long time about the drug's efficacy, which will also dictate the supply. The drug would probably not be available to the broader market for up to a year after initial production.
Americans are going to pay a fortune for the drug, and will continue to get crushed on the premiums, that is assuming they even have health insurance in the first place.
The other interesting point is that there is apparently room for a dozen different manufacturers to make a fortune given the demand. They are all making a run for it and we will likely see at least 5 or 6 vaccines early on.
In the US, some companies have accepted gov't grants to accelerate their research, but the catch is the US can exercise control over price and distribution in those cases. Others, like Pfizer, have chosen to go it alone and it is spending over $1B to try to get there first. They will get to say they saved humanity and will make unbelievable profits.
Fat hurts wrote:
If we can get Tiny out of office then this will be fine.
It is in the EU's interest to extinguish the US hotspots. So if we are the ones who need the Oxford vaccine then I'm confident that we will be able to get it.
concepts and ideas wrote:
Both vaccines are from the EU. With Trump cornering the world markets with a U.S. made vaccine, to prevent the rest of the world from getting any of it, what are the odds the EU will prevent the U.S. from obtaining any of these two promising drugs?
If the first drug comes out in the EU and trump is still potus, he's going to try some tariff nonsense to compel them to give us supplies earlier. We all know how that would end.
1100 wrote:
agip wrote:
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MKhttps://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/20/oxford-universitys-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-positive-immune-response-in-an-early-trial.htmlGood news is good.
I do wonder about the chances of an effective vaccine. I keep reading articles about how people who get sick from the virus and recover have zero antibodies a few months later. If this is the case, I wonder how a vaccine can work unless it it administered every few months (which seems impractical).
Quite possible I am missing something.
I’ll start by saying that this is absolutely not my area of expertise but my GF works in this field and I asked her that question.
Basically if they have an effective vaccine let’s say early next year. While the virus may mutate, they can use that vaccine as a starting point and maybe adjust it slightly going forward. They would not need to start from scratch. I believe they need to do that with the regular flu vaccine from time to time also.
At least I think that’s what she said, but I probably switched off and it was a couple of weeks ago.
1100 wrote:
Good news is good.
I do wonder about the chances of an effective vaccine. I keep reading articles about how people who get sick from the virus and recover have zero antibodies a few months later. If this is the case, I wonder how a vaccine can work unless it it administered every few months (which seems impractical).
Quite possible I am missing something.
T cells. Six months after someone receives the small pox vaccine their antibodies for small pox have dropped by 75% but the person’s T cells provide them with lifelong immunity.
Augusto E. Perez wrote:
1100 wrote:
Good news is good.
I do wonder about the chances of an effective vaccine. I keep reading articles about how people who get sick from the virus and recover have zero antibodies a few months later. If this is the case, I wonder how a vaccine can work unless it it administered every few months (which seems impractical).
Quite possible I am missing something.
T cells. Six months after someone receives the small pox vaccine their antibodies for small pox have dropped by 75% but the person’s T cells provide them with lifelong immunity.
Thanks for the replies. I have no expertise in this area. At any rate, I sure hope there comes available an effective vaccine. Even if not 100% and even if it has to be re-administered every year, that would be fantastic news.
1100 wrote:
Augusto E. Perez wrote:
T cells. Six months after someone receives the small pox vaccine their antibodies for small pox have dropped by 75% but the person’s T cells provide them with lifelong immunity.
Thanks for the replies. I have no expertise in this area. At any rate, I sure hope there comes available an effective vaccine. Even if not 100% and even if it has to be re-administered every year, that would be fantastic news.
New flu vaccines come out every year to deal with new strains of influenza. The same holds true for SARS-like viruses; COVID-20, COVID-21 ... and even multiple new strains in the same infection season; COVID-21a, COVID-21b, COVID-21c ... COVID-19 does not seem to be constrained to certain seasons. If that is the case then you might need a vaccine boost several times a year.
1100 wrote:
agip wrote:
Science roaring to the rescue:
good news from a vaccine trial and from a medicine that cuts deaths from covid:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coroanvirus-synairgen-idUSKCN24L0MKhttps://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/20/oxford-universitys-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-positive-immune-response-in-an-early-trial.htmlGood news is good.
I do wonder about the chances of an effective vaccine. I keep reading articles about how people who get sick from the virus and recover have zero antibodies a few months later. If this is the case, I wonder how a vaccine can work unless it it administered every few months (which seems impractical).
Quite possible I am missing something.
Latest research I saw said that patients who had symptoms were shown to have more antibodies than those who were asymptomatic. And those symptomatic patients were therefore likely to have better immunity than those who are asymptomatic. It makes sense that the level of immune response would depend on the severity of infection. So those with quickly fading antibodies might have had very mild infections.
It is quite possible that some of the vaccines being developed are much better than natural immunity. Sometimes technology is that way. For instance, a pair of Nike Vaporflys might make you faster than you could ever be running barefoot.
Trollminator wrote:
Damn dumb
https://twitter.com/j_mei21/status/1284965744518795264?s=21
The fact is that Trump has answered questions while Biden hasn't "come out from the basement."- Chris Wallace
KAG2020
Trump will resume daily briefings apparently... lol... he's officially trying to lose.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Damn dumb
https://twitter.com/j_mei21/status/1284965744518795264?s=21The fact is that Trump has answered questions while Biden hasn't "come out from the basement."- Chris Wallace
KAG2020
What questions has he answered? And don't say "the one that asks him to identify an elephant".
Trollminator wrote:
Trump will resume daily briefings apparently... lol... he's officially trying to lose.
Apparently because of the ratings according to the boob in charge. These will stray off the "China plague" quickly and become daily campaign rally's.
Trollminator wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The fact is that Trump has answered questions while Biden hasn't "come out from the basement."- Chris Wallace
KAG2020
What questions has he answered? And don't say "the one that asks him to identify an elephant".
Wallace is a conservative and was easy on Trump. I looked through the transcript and there were at least 20 Trump responses that Wallace didn't follow up on. The worst was not asking why Trump believes anyone wants bases named after Sharpton. What makes him think Biden is controlled by the radical left even though he is the nominee because of the moderate vote and has been moderate during all the years he's been a politician? What does, "He doesn't know he's alive" mean? What proof does he have that the Democrats are using the pandemic to win the election.
It would have been an easy interview for Trump if he wasn't so full of crap. People are saying Biden should do an interview with Wallace, but if Trump did one with someone that leans left he would be destroyed.