With or without a vaccine, I see the shrinking of the 'tourism' industry which is such a part of the United States and the world today. Air travel returning to a 1960's or early 1970's model. Significantly reduced flight, much higher air fares. Social distancing simply is not a viable option for airline operation. Cutting available seats by 1/3 - few airlines would survive.

Cruises much less opportunity, fewer ships, greatly increased prices. The 'holiday' travel industry of Europe decimated. Asia - domestic holidays, not flights to the islands and other nations.

I don't think back to the Middle Ages. Say 1950's, early 60's. cut out over 1/2 of franchise chain restaurants. 3/4 of privately owned restaurants. 'Big Box' stores close 1/2 of their locations. Might even go to something like WWII rationing in some cases.

Shopping malls in the United States, at least in the south, had become deserted across much of the nation before this. Strip centers so prevalent will become even more empty, etc.

The people will adapt. If will be massive disruption of a planned lifestyle for many/ most. The most at risk groups to the disease will die off. Few to no 100th birthday news stories. 80 might be the new 'rare' birthday.

The most impacted group will be senior citizens such as myself. The wide range of moderate priced senior assisted semi-independent living options in most of the country will become very limited to rare. The market will dry up as the life expectancy drops to near or below 70. On the plus side if this goes on for three years, you probably won't have to put up with me on these forums.

People will adapt, and the country become a bit less crowded.

I've seen tremendous changes in the way of living since the late 1950's. Most have been 'bigger' and 'more'. I've also seen tremendous shifts in the way the economy of the nation runs. If any thing, change to a new 'abnormal' will happen with or without the virus. It has at least twice in my lifetime. And the shifts have been beneficial for some, and very devastating for many. That will happen again.

'Smaller' and 'less' will be interesting and likely unpleasant.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The assumption now appears to have moved from “flatten the curve” to “not unlocking until no one dies”. A ridiculous standard.

Nobody from the task force, CDC, NIH, the multiple epidemiologists posting regularly on Twitter - nobody has said anything like that. Ridiculous to believe online lies so easily.

Yes, it was and is a mild exaggeration, but two weeks has become months. Get over it.

Just one example.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4 ... r-in-Place

Key takeaway from that piece:

Unless there's a dramatic increase in the rate of testing, there's no alternative but to "shelter-in-place." In the meantime, we can use the test kits we receive to test potential Covid-19 cases and to create safe zones.

Medical professionals have been saying this since early March, when noting South Korea and Taiwan's approach. Still couldn't see anything about staying in until 'nobody dies'.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

We had a personal supply of 95 masks used for household work plus boxes of vinyl gloves. The vinyl gloves were for cleaning and reloading. Be prepared.

Keyword there: HAD!

Just like I HAD rolls of toilet paper since December (way before the pandemic was declared); just like I HAD a small supply of hand sanitizer in my possession (not enough to get me through the pandemic, but enough to ration it for certain outings); just like I HAD some disinfectants on hand.

That does not address how people can stock up or resupply when shelves are empty. You suggest that we should start wearing masks and gloves in public (a sensible approach which I agree with). But again, I asked you WHERE to find these items currently. Your reply was that you had some on hand; good for you! How does that help others who didn't have them? How does it help you when you run out?

Aaron747 wrote:

Nobody from the task force, CDC, NIH, the multiple epidemiologists posting regularly on Twitter - nobody has said anything like that. Ridiculous to believe online lies so easily.

Throw in a WHO and we'll have a full pack...of what is the question?

acavpics wrote:

We've all heard that life can't return to normal for another 12 -18 months, which is the predicted time frame for a COVID-19 vaccine. But what if they don't find a vaccine by the end of this period? After all, this is just a prediction, NOT a guarantee.

Every country in the world will need to decide what is the acceptible amount of deaths caused by the virus.
The price for freedom can be expressed in human lives.

If there are countries that aim for 0 deaths, then measures will remain very strict.
If the line is drawn at, say, 50% of hospital capacity, then this nation will need to search for a balancing point where a certain amount of freedom results in the virus spreading at a speed which results in 50% of hospital capacity used.
Countries could also choose to follow a "die quietly at home" policy and let the virus go its way.

In every scenario, amount of freedom can increase if more people get immunity. And if that immunity lasts for longer than a few months.
Also, more freedom can be gained if better treatments for the sick become available. Imagine there is no vaccine, but a decent medicine is developed. That would also render the virus harmless.
Finally, evolutionary speaking, the virus should gradually become less harmfull. After all, a virus that kills its host has an evolutionary disadvantage over a virus that doesn't. Milder strains will eliminate the more dangerous ones.

So even if a vaccine is never found, I'm quite confident that in a certain period of time, covid will no longer play a significant role in our lives.

People will soon enough be cramped together on a Ryanair flight again to cheer for their favourite football team in a 60.000 capacity stadium in some Southern European country. And soon enough the politicans will be back to blaming muslims for everything.

Well the task of every business for the past 50 years or so has been how to pack more people into less time or space, to improve the efficiency of the capital and items and workforce being employed to service those people.

That is something that at least short term will change.

Tugg

Francoflier wrote:

I can't really see why a vaccine or effective treatment could not be developed.
The more a disease upsets society, the more society will devote resources to fight it, and this is one of the most disrupting disease in human society since the invention of modern medicine. You can bet that massive investments and efforts are being expended to find medical solutions to it.

Uhm... have you heard of cancer?

winginit wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

I can't really see why a vaccine or effective treatment could not be developed.
The more a disease upsets society, the more society will devote resources to fight it, and this is one of the most disrupting disease in human society since the invention of modern medicine. You can bet that massive investments and efforts are being expended to find medical solutions to it.

Uhm... have you heard of cancer?

This is a virus with a few strains, not a cellular malady with literally thousands of combinations of genetic and environmental causes and predispositions.

Aaron747 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

I can't really see why a vaccine or effective treatment could not be developed.
The more a disease upsets society, the more society will devote resources to fight it, and this is one of the most disrupting disease in human society since the invention of modern medicine. You can bet that massive investments and efforts are being expended to find medical solutions to it.

Uhm... have you heard of cancer?

This is a virus with a few strains, not a cellular malady with literally thousands of combinations of genetic and environmental causes and predispositions.

I mean yes obviously but hopefully you get my point - which is that just because something is disruptive and upsets society in a big way doesn't mean that an effective treatment is imminent. Having said that, I fully believe that we'll have effective treatment and/or a vaccine for COVID. As for the timeline? I'm less optimistic. An additional year minimum.

Francoflier wrote:

I can't really see why a vaccine or effective treatment could not be developed.
The more a disease upsets society, the more society will devote resources to fight it, and this is one of the most disrupting disease in human society since the invention of modern medicine. You can bet that massive investments and efforts are being expended to find medical solutions to it.

No matter how much effort is put into making a vaccine, it is NOT guaranteed. We need to consider all possibilities here.

winginit wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Uhm... have you heard of cancer?

This is a virus with a few strains, not a cellular malady with literally thousands of combinations of genetic and environmental causes and predispositions.

I mean yes obviously but hopefully you get my point - which is that just because something is disruptive and upsets society in a big way doesn't mean that an effective treatment is imminent. Having said that, I fully believe that we'll have effective treatment and/or a vaccine for COVID. As for the timeline? I'm less optimistic. An additional year minimum.

Even a year is a bit too long for most. Just take a moment to think about living like this for such a period of time. As I stated earlier, governments do not have enough money to adequately support those out of work. Families and social networks spread out across the globe will disintegrate.

And plus, how much longer will most people tolerate being unable to do the things that they love? I'm guessing after a few months time, they will have had enough.

Anybody saying anything in a definitive manner about COVID-19 in times that proved that we simply don't know what we don't know needs to change his/her views.
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst.

acavpics wrote:

winginit wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

This is a virus with a few strains, not a cellular malady with literally thousands of combinations of genetic and environmental causes and predispositions.

I mean yes obviously but hopefully you get my point - which is that just because something is disruptive and upsets society in a big way doesn't mean that an effective treatment is imminent. Having said that, I fully believe that we'll have effective treatment and/or a vaccine for COVID. As for the timeline? I'm less optimistic. An additional year minimum.

Even a year is a bit too long for most. Just take a moment to think about living like this for such a period of time. As I stated earlier, governments do not have enough money to adequately support those out of work. Families and social networks spread out across the globe will disintegrate.

And plus, how much longer will most people tolerate being unable to do the things that they love? I'm guessing after a few months time, they will have had enough.

No one is saying that shelter in place orders are going to last for months, but fundamentally changing traditionally congested areas of commerce may require semi-permanent changes.

Even dense cities in California and New York have expressed optimism in opening things up in near future.

Again though, even if everything were to open up tomorrow, comprehensive polling shows that the demand still isn't there. There are still widespread concerns about going to restaurants or movie theaters of boarding aircraft. You can open everything up, but that won't manufacture demand that isn't there.

winginit wrote:

acavpics wrote:

winginit wrote:

I mean yes obviously but hopefully you get my point - which is that just because something is disruptive and upsets society in a big way doesn't mean that an effective treatment is imminent. Having said that, I fully believe that we'll have effective treatment and/or a vaccine for COVID. As for the timeline? I'm less optimistic. An additional year minimum.

Even a year is a bit too long for most. Just take a moment to think about living like this for such a period of time. As I stated earlier, governments do not have enough money to adequately support those out of work. Families and social networks spread out across the globe will disintegrate.

And plus, how much longer will most people tolerate being unable to do the things that they love? I'm guessing after a few months time, they will have had enough.

No one is saying that shelter in place orders are going to last for months, but fundamentally changing traditionally congested areas of commerce may require semi-permanent changes.

Some people actually are, either implicitly or explicitly. As some others have said, we need to be prepared for anything at this point...including the fact that we may not have the capacity to ramp up adequate testing within a month. The amount and types of testing, contact tracing protocols that everyone would like to see implemented stat may ultimately take months ramp up and put in place...and months in lockdown we don't have. So we also should be prepared to look at phased approaches for reopening the economy as safely as possible without those ideal protocols/testing in place.

flyguy89 wrote:

winginit wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Even a year is a bit too long for most. Just take a moment to think about living like this for such a period of time. As I stated earlier, governments do not have enough money to adequately support those out of work. Families and social networks spread out across the globe will disintegrate.

And plus, how much longer will most people tolerate being unable to do the things that they love? I'm guessing after a few months time, they will have had enough.

No one is saying that shelter in place orders are going to last for months, but fundamentally changing traditionally congested areas of commerce may require semi-permanent changes.

Some people actually are, either implicitly or explicitly. As some others have said, we need to be prepared for anything at this point...including the fact that we may not have the capacity to ramp up adequate testing within a month. The amount and types of testing, contact tracing protocols that everyone would like to see implemented stat may ultimately take months ramp up and put in place...and months in lockdown we don't have. So we also should be prepared to look at phased approaches for reopening the economy as safely as possible without those ideal protocols/testing in place.

I should have clarified, no public official that I've seen or heard at least with any sort of power or meaningful influence (governor, mayor) is saying that shelter in place is going to last for several months (say, into July). It's their opinions, and those of the federal medical professionals who advise them, that matter.

winginit wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

winginit wrote:

No one is saying that shelter in place orders are going to last for months, but fundamentally changing traditionally congested areas of commerce may require semi-permanent changes.

Some people actually are, either implicitly or explicitly. As some others have said, we need to be prepared for anything at this point...including the fact that we may not have the capacity to ramp up adequate testing within a month. The amount and types of testing, contact tracing protocols that everyone would like to see implemented stat may ultimately take months ramp up and put in place...and months in lockdown we don't have. So we also should be prepared to look at phased approaches for reopening the economy as safely as possible without those ideal protocols/testing in place.

I should have clarified, no public official that I've seen or heard at least with any sort of power or meaningful influence (governor, mayor) is saying that shelter in place is going to last for several months (say, into July). It's their opinions, and those of the federal medical professionals who advise them, that matter.

Well, I mean you have several governors that have already announced the extension of lockdowns until June or later...the governor of Nevada just had a press conference where he basically said the lockdown will continue indefinitely. We're thumping up against 2.5-3 months by mid-June. And the parameters that have been outlined...the 14-day decline, the massive ramp-up in testing, the intricate contact tracing systems, while I agree all are totally necessary, it's highly unlikely those will be achieved in about a month, we're more likely than not looking at several months to achieve some of those measures. I'm saying we need to be prepared to move forward without some of those ...remain flexible, of course, in adjusting timelines where there are flare-ups, etc., but we really don't have months to wait on all of those items.

winginit wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

I can't really see why a vaccine or effective treatment could not be developed.
The more a disease upsets society, the more society will devote resources to fight it, and this is one of the most disrupting disease in human society since the invention of modern medicine. You can bet that massive investments and efforts are being expended to find medical solutions to it.

Uhm... have you heard of cancer?

Cancer treatment has improved tremendously in the past decade. Survival rates are much better now than they were a decade ago, and they should be much better a decade from now.

As for COVID, I have never seen such resources and attention focused into solving a medical problem like we are seeing now. This could be really different.

winginit wrote:

Again though, even if everything were to open up tomorrow, comprehensive polling shows that the demand still isn't there. There are still widespread concerns about going to restaurants or movie theaters of boarding aircraft. You can open everything up, but that won't manufacture demand that isn't there.

I agree that demand will be almost nonexistent if we open up all those things immediately. But as the months go on, people will gradually want to go back to such venues.

I know that we can't say anything for sure, but what do you think will be the scene lets say during Christmas/Holiday season of this year?
By then, do you think that a good chunk fo folks will be confident enough to catch movies, flights, go out to eat etc? (I just want to know what you predict)

acavpics wrote:

Even a year is a bit too long for most. Just take a moment to think about living like this for such a period of time. As I stated earlier, governments do not have enough money to adequately support those out of work. Families and social networks spread out across the globe will disintegrate

Again, knowing these economic outcomes are inevitable from this level of response, it behooves the G20 governments to come up with a broad based solution - credit relief/rent & utility freezes, whatever. There is plenty of money to prop up what remains of the economy if businesses don’t have to pay down debt and consumers don’t have to pay monthly bills - the two are intimately linked.

Aaron747 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Even a year is a bit too long for most. Just take a moment to think about living like this for such a period of time. As I stated earlier, governments do not have enough money to adequately support those out of work. Families and social networks spread out across the globe will disintegrate

Again, knowing these economic outcomes are inevitable from this level of response, it behooves the G20 governments to come up with a broad based solution - credit relief/rent & utility freezes, whatever. There is plenty of money to prop up what remains of the economy if businesses don’t have to pay down debt and consumers don’t have to pay monthly bills - the two are intimately linked.

Even if that were a fiscally viable policy, a lockdown of that length would not be possible from a human/social perspective. A disease with a 0.4 or 0.5% fatality rate does not necessitate that kind of intervention.

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Even a year is a bit too long for most. Just take a moment to think about living like this for such a period of time. As I stated earlier, governments do not have enough money to adequately support those out of work. Families and social networks spread out across the globe will disintegrate

Again, knowing these economic outcomes are inevitable from this level of response, it behooves the G20 governments to come up with a broad based solution - credit relief/rent & utility freezes, whatever. There is plenty of money to prop up what remains of the economy if businesses don’t have to pay down debt and consumers don’t have to pay monthly bills - the two are intimately linked.

Even if that were a fiscally viable policy, a lockdown of that length would not be possible from a human/social perspective. A disease with a 0.4 or 0.5% fatality rate does not necessitate that kind of intervention.

Fatality rates seem to range from 0.3 to 4% depending on the strain according to the latest papers on the virus. The latter is no joke if the R0 is 1.5 or above. They still aren’t certain what we’re dealing with and where, so the measures are deemed epidemiologically prudent.

acavpics wrote:

winginit wrote:

Again though, even if everything were to open up tomorrow, comprehensive polling shows that the demand still isn't there. There are still widespread concerns about going to restaurants or movie theaters of boarding aircraft. You can open everything up, but that won't manufacture demand that isn't there.

I agree that demand will be almost nonexistent if we open up all those things immediately. But as the months go on, people will gradually want to go back to such venues.

I know that we can't say anything for sure, but what do you think will be the scene lets say during Christmas/Holiday season of this year?
By then, do you think that a good chunk fo folks will be confident enough to catch movies, flights, go out to eat etc? (I just want to know what you predict)

I'm anticipating let's call it 70% 'normalcy' by the holiday season assuming there isn't a massive virus resurgence in the fall, so for the sake of simplicity let's say restaurants, malls, movie theaters, etc are, on average, 70% back to normal but likely with elements of social distancing with the exception being ways of life that are congested by nature, so sporting events and the like having some sort of spacing in place. The exception is, unfortunately, I think air travel. I expect air travel demand for the holiday season will be half or less of what it was this past year. 40%-50%.

Note I'm not an expert and have no data to back that. Just my personal view and should be taken as such.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Again, knowing these economic outcomes are inevitable from this level of response, it behooves the G20 governments to come up with a broad based solution - credit relief/rent & utility freezes, whatever. There is plenty of money to prop up what remains of the economy if businesses don’t have to pay down debt and consumers don’t have to pay monthly bills - the two are intimately linked.

Even if that were a fiscally viable policy, a lockdown of that length would not be possible from a human/social perspective. A disease with a 0.4 or 0.5% fatality rate does not necessitate that kind of intervention.

Fatality rates seem to range from 0.3 to 4% depending on the strain according to the latest papers on the virus. The latter is no joke if the R0 is 1.5 or above. They still aren’t certain what we’re dealing with and where, so the measures are deemed epidemiologically prudent.

Epidemioligically prudent at the moment, yes. The thrust of expert opinion is that the fatality rate is 1% or lower but, of course, yes more testing and more research needs to be done. In any case however, it is not going be possible to lockdown hundreds of millions of people for anything approaching a year.

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Even if that were a fiscally viable policy, a lockdown of that length would not be possible from a human/social perspective. A disease with a 0.4 or 0.5% fatality rate does not necessitate that kind of intervention.

Fatality rates seem to range from 0.3 to 4% depending on the strain according to the latest papers on the virus. The latter is no joke if the R0 is 1.5 or above. They still aren’t certain what we’re dealing with and where, so the measures are deemed epidemiologically prudent.

Epidemioligically prudent at the moment, yes. The thrust of expert opinion is that the fatality rate is 1% or lower but, of course, yes more testing and more research needs to be done. In any case however, it is not going be possible to lockdown hundreds of millions of people for anything approaching a year.

Precisely why the administration needs to get its ass in gear and LEAD on test and trace infrastructure.

I figured I'd chime in. At this point, I need to do a fair amount of advanced technical reading.

Dr. Gilbert's candidate uses an adenovirus vector. Adenovirus is a well-known DNA Virus that causes moderate respiratory infections in humans, but can also cause gastroenteritis and hepatitis.

Up until recently, when most people read or heard the word "virus" in the biological sense, they probably pictured an adenovirus particle in their head. It's a rather beautiful particle:


Adenoviruses are DNA viruses, but they do not usually cause persistent infections like some other DNA viruses (the Herpesviridae and others, for example). They infect a broad array of vertebrates and they are a well-known and well-studied virus for which we have sophisticated manipulation tools available. ChAdOx1 is a manipulated chimpanzee adenovirus that has a gene essential for replication knocked out. It is grown on cells that express the protein that would normally be coded for by this gene so that it can replicate in culture, but when injected into an animal (or human) it cannot replicate. However, it can still express the proteins coded for in its genome in the cells that are infected. This then triggers both a cellular and humoral immune response.

What is interesting is that all vaccines in use to date carry the antigen (the foreign protein against which an immune response is to be directed) in some form. For inactivated vaccines, the virus or bacterium is killed first and an adjuvant (aluminum most often) is added to cause tissue inflammation and recruit an immune response. For live attenuated vaccines, the organism is weakened so that it will not replicate effectively at human body temperature or has difficulty evading the immune response. But again, the relevant antigens are there.

For this vaccine, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is not anywhere in the vaccine, but its gene is. Once the adenovirus vector enters the cell, then that cell's machinery start to make the protein. Because the protein is a foreign protein being expressed by a cell in the body, an immune response attacks that cell and develops memory. This approach has been tested in mice, camels, and monkeys and it appears to work well. The big question is whether it will take one or two doses to work. I think they are starting with one dose, but I would encourage them to go for two because two are more likely to work. Then they can investigate later if two are actually necessary. If they use one and it doesn't work, it would set back the process substantially because they'd have to re-design and re-recruit volunteers for a second dose.

flyguy89 wrote:

winginit wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Some people actually are, either implicitly or explicitly. As some others have said, we need to be prepared for anything at this point...including the fact that we may not have the capacity to ramp up adequate testing within a month. The amount and types of testing, contact tracing protocols that everyone would like to see implemented stat may ultimately take months ramp up and put in place...and months in lockdown we don't have. So we also should be prepared to look at phased approaches for reopening the economy as safely as possible without those ideal protocols/testing in place.

I should have clarified, no public official that I've seen or heard at least with any sort of power or meaningful influence (governor, mayor) is saying that shelter in place is going to last for several months (say, into July). It's their opinions, and those of the federal medical professionals who advise them, that matter.

Well, I mean you have several governors that have already announced the extension of lockdowns until June or later...the governor of Nevada just had a press conference where he basically said the lockdown will continue indefinitely. We're thumping up against 2.5-3 months by mid-June. And the parameters that have been outlined...the 14-day decline, the massive ramp-up in testing, the intricate contact tracing systems, while I agree all are totally necessary, it's highly unlikely those will be achieved in about a month, we're more likely than not looking at several months to achieve some of those measures. I'm saying we need to be prepared to move forward without some of those ...remain flexible, of course, in adjusting timelines where there are flare-ups, etc., but we really don't have months to wait on all of those items.

Regarding the Mayor of Las Vegas. She has no real authority, the Clark County board of commission makes the decisions. That said. Nevada set to open up on the 30th of this month. they have already given strip casino 17 point checklist of what is needed to open up. China's gaming industry opened one month ago and the bets are 5.00 each minimum. The gaming commission in Vegas is looking at a minimum of 50 a bet so that the casino will be less crowded. Look I don't pretend to know the answers. I just know life goes on. They will not be having buffets, just hotel rooms, no nightclubs, no entertainment venues, no swimming, no theatres, no bowling. The jury still out on food service due to the culinary union losing so many workers early on. Perhaps they will just do room service. The bottom line, they are starting out very slow, so they can sanitize areas and keep social distance standards.

As in all industries, that are going to re-open. It will be baby steps, The comments on the board that the rich will self shelter while their workers work. I can understand the anger and frustration because there was no widespread testing unless you happened to be famous or wealthy, and the money grab was by multinational companies apply for small business loans when the true small business got no money. This is the way the world has always been. We just have to face it and do what needs to be done to survive. Life has never been fair. We can just carry on and try to stay safe, while providing for our families.

WHO questions if their is immunity to the virus.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... 7894079012

Which means heard immunity, might not work.

The public understandably want answers, politicians seek the same and with certainty, as this scientist (and quite well known science communicator/broadcaster in the UK), says, it's not as simple as that.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oronavirus

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

We had a personal supply of 95 masks used for household work plus boxes of vinyl gloves. The vinyl gloves were for cleaning and reloading. Be prepared.

Bully for you. I'll put money on the fact you and your household most likely rendered possessing them virtually pointless with improper techniques, re-use and incorrect disposal.
PPE is useless when incorrectly used.
The public en-mass fit that description. Significant numbers are still unable to perform the most basic and effective act of washing their hands correctly. This is despite the current barrage of "how to clean your hands", so good luck prescribing something requiring more deft.

I've yet to see one person out in public locally correctly using their mask or gloves; if they ain't doing it correctly when in public, they're unlikely to be doing it right at home. In fact, their behaviour wearing their PPE achieves the precise opposite of the intended effect. Hence the advice from the relevant bodies.

Cuomo outlining a plan to gradually re-open New York City

ChrisKen wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

We had a personal supply of 95 masks used for household work plus boxes of vinyl gloves. The vinyl gloves were for cleaning and reloading. Be prepared.

Bully for you. I'll put money on the fact you and your household most likely rendered possessing them virtually pointless with improper techniques, re-use and incorrect disposal.
PPE is useless when incorrectly used.
The public en-mass fit that description. Significant numbers are still unable to perform the most basic and effective act of washing their hands correctly. This is despite the current barrage of "how to clean your hands", so good luck prescribing something requiring more deft.

I've yet to see one person out in public locally correctly using their mask or gloves; if they ain't doing it correctly when in public, they're unlikely to be doing it right at home. In fact, their behaviour wearing their PPE achieves the precise opposite of the intended effect. Hence the advice from the relevant bodies.

The point of the recommended mask wearing is NOT to be perfect, just reduction in exposure to airborne vectors. Why has masks suddenly been recommended,nw hen even N95 aren’t perfect? Because even 50% will be reduce exposures. You’re letting perfect be the enemy of good.

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1249 ... 18624?s=21

What if there’s no vaccine?

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronav ... vid-2020-4

DocLightning wrote:

What is interesting is that all vaccines in use to date carry the antigen (the foreign protein against which an immune response is to be directed) in some form.

I need to correct myself. I forgot that the rVSV-ZEBOV (recombinant Vesicular Stomatitis-Zaire Ebolavirus Vaccine) uses a similar technology in which the vaccine itself contains no ebolavirus antigens, but it does contain the gene for the surface glycoprotein. That vaccine uses the vesicular stomatitis virus, which does not infect humans very well, but can set up an infection long enough to generate an immune response to the ebola surface glycoprotein that is contained in its genome.

Interestingly, the Chinese also came up with an ebolavirus vaccine that is based on adenovirus 5, which they are now trying to use for a COVID-19 vaccine.

seahawk wrote:

WHO questions if their is immunity to the virus.

I'm getting rather annoyed by the WHO and their very poorly-worded pronouncements.

First of all, there *IS* evidence of immunity. Actual reinfection has not been conclusively documented as yet. There are a few suspicious cases but in those cases, the patients did not have severe symptoms, which suggests that some of them may have developed incomplete immunity. Second, neutralizing antibodies have been described in recovered patients. Third, infusions of convalescent plasma seem to help patients recover (which is probably due to a number of mechanisms, not just neutralization of virus particles). Fourth, two studies out of Korea have provided strong evidence of a protective immune response. Fifth, humans can develop protective antibodies against all four endemic coronaviruses and MERS-CoV.

There has been this set of wild "what-if" questions and hysterical pronouncements that seemed to be almost designed to cause public panic. No, no coronavirus is capable of causing persistent or latent infections like hepatitis B or HIV. No, the coronavirus particle is not resistant to detergents and alcohol like norovirus. No, the virus doesn't "infect immune cells like HIV." It can infect some T cells and macrophages but doesn't seem to replicate in them, and it's far from the only virus that uses this as a method of blunting the immune response. And yes, the immune system can and does clear the infection and there are neutralizing antibodies produced.

Now, the big unknown is how long that immunity will last. But my suspicion, in my very uneducated view as a physician with a graduate degree in molecular biology who used to work in a virology lab, is that repeat infections, if they happen, will be much milder. And *THAT* is what is important.

We could have a global pandemic of a virus that makes your eye twitch and we wouldn't need to shut down society over it. The issue here is that this particular virus can swamp hospitals. So if immunity is shorter-term (meaning protective antibody responses), my prediction is that we will still have enhanced cell-mediated immunity that will be able to respond more quickly to the virus and clear it before it turns into severe disease.

DocLightning wrote:

seahawk wrote:

WHO questions if their is immunity to the virus.

I'm getting rather annoyed by the WHO and their very poorly-worded pronouncements.

First of all, there *IS* evidence of immunity. Actual reinfection has not been conclusively documented as yet. There are a few suspicious cases but in those cases, the patients did not have severe symptoms, which suggests that some of them may have developed incomplete immunity. Second, neutralizing antibodies have been described in recovered patients. Third, infusions of convalescent plasma seem to help patients recover (which is probably due to a number of mechanisms, not just neutralization of virus particles). Fourth, two studies out of Korea have provided strong evidence of a protective immune response. Fifth, humans can develop protective antibodies against all four endemic coronaviruses and MERS-CoV.

There has been this set of wild "what-if" questions and hysterical pronouncements that seemed to be almost designed to cause public panic. No, no coronavirus is capable of causing persistent or latent infections like hepatitis B or HIV. No, the coronavirus particle is not resistant to detergents and alcohol like norovirus. No, the virus doesn't "infect immune cells like HIV." It can infect some T cells and macrophages but doesn't seem to replicate in them, and it's far from the only virus that uses this as a method of blunting the immune response. And yes, the immune system can and does clear the infection and there are neutralizing antibodies produced.

Now, the big unknown is how long that immunity will last. But my suspicion, in my very uneducated view as a physician with a graduate degree in molecular biology who used to work in a virology lab, is that repeat infections, if they happen, will be much milder. And *THAT* is what is important.

We could have a global pandemic of a virus that makes your eye twitch and we wouldn't need to shut down society over it. The issue here is that this particular virus can swamp hospitals. So if immunity is shorter-term (meaning protective antibody responses), my prediction is that we will still have enhanced cell-mediated immunity that will be able to respond more quickly to the virus and clear it before it turns into severe disease.

Thank you for the in-depth info here and elsewhere. Really appreciate your knowledgeable take on the situation and ongoing vaccine development/research efforts.

flyguy89 wrote:

Thank you for the in-depth info here and elsewhere. Really appreciate your knowledgeable take on the situation and ongoing vaccine development/research efforts.

My pleasure.

Also, it seems I'm not the only one getting annoyed. The WHO took down their tweet.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

We had a personal supply of 95 masks used for household work plus boxes of vinyl gloves. The vinyl gloves were for cleaning and reloading. Be prepared.

Bully for you. I'll put money on the fact you and your household most likely rendered possessing them virtually pointless with improper techniques, re-use and incorrect disposal.
PPE is useless when incorrectly used.
The public en-mass fit that description. Significant numbers are still unable to perform the most basic and effective act of washing their hands correctly. This is despite the current barrage of "how to clean your hands", so good luck prescribing something requiring more deft.

I've yet to see one person out in public locally correctly using their mask or gloves; if they ain't doing it correctly when in public, they're unlikely to be doing it right at home. In fact, their behaviour wearing their PPE achieves the precise opposite of the intended effect. Hence the advice from the relevant bodies.

The point of the recommended mask wearing is NOT to be perfect, just reduction in exposure to airborne vectors. Why has masks suddenly been recommended,nw hen even N95 aren’t perfect?

Masks aren't being recommended. They do little to reduce exposure. You can still contract it wearing just a mask. What masks do make a difference with, is reducing others exposure from you but as said, this is massively outweighed by the public rendering mask wearing pointless by incorrect use, techniques and disposal.

Wash your hands (properly), don't be a dick & maintain social distancing. Wear a mask if you must but do so using the correct techniques; otherwise you're probably doing more harm than good, to both yourself and THOSE AROUND YOU.

it's rather telling the selfish cultures are the ones moaning about a slight disruption to their slave to the greenback existence. There's more to life than money, millions are realising this.

I saw some posts on here about the virus mutating into a far less virulent form as time goes on (because evolutionary selection prefers those that do not kill their hosts). Approximately how long do you expect that time to be?

acavpics wrote:

I saw some posts on here about the virus mutating into a far less virulent form as time goes on (because evolutionary selection prefers those that do not kill their hosts). Approximately how long do you expect that time to be?

In fact, it has already happened.(1) A team from Zheijiang University took virus isolates from 11 patients and discovered 33 different mutations. They took these 11 samples and standardized their infectivity and then innoculated them into a culture of vero-E6 cells, which are the mammalian cell culture typically used to culture and study SARS-CoV-2. They found that some of these isolates replicated much more quickly and caused more damage to the cells than others. Two mutants that showed lower replication and less cytopathology (damage to cells) clusters with the group of viruses found mostly on the US West Coast. Two mutants that showed much higher replication and more cytopathology cluster in the group of viruses mostly found in Europe and the East Coast. This may explain why the West Coast has had an easier time than the East Coast.

The trouble is that coronaviruses mutate slowly for RNA viruses. BUT, consider this: if the strains found on the US West Coast are milder and less likely to make people very sick, and we are basing our decisions on when to ease quarantine measures based on hospitalization and ICU rates, then presumably, the West Coast would release its quarantine when the background prevalence of the virus in the population is rather higher than it would be on the East Coast when they ease their quarantine. If that is the case, then the milder Western virus would start to circulate again and move eastward. Because it causes milder disease, it can "fly under the radar" longer than its more virulent Eastern counterpart and spread farther and more quickly. So it would be "winning" the evolutionary race. And that's one way in which selective pressures act on viruses to cause milder disease in hosts.

(1)https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20060160v2

DocLightning wrote:

acavpics wrote:

I saw some posts on here about the virus mutating into a far less virulent form as time goes on (because evolutionary selection prefers those that do not kill their hosts). Approximately how long do you expect that time to be?

In fact, it has already happened.(1) A team from Zheijiang University took virus isolates from 11 patients and discovered 33 different mutations. They took these 11 samples and standardized their infectivity and then innoculated them into a culture of vero-E6 cells, which are the mammalian cell culture typically used to culture and study SARS-CoV-2. They found that some of these isolates replicated much more quickly and caused more damage to the cells than others. Two mutants that showed lower replication and less cytopathology (damage to cells) clusters with the group of viruses found mostly on the US West Coast. Two mutants that showed much higher replication and more cytopathology cluster in the group of viruses mostly found in Europe and the East Coast. This may explain why the West Coast has had an easier time than the East Coast.

The trouble is that coronaviruses mutate slowly for RNA viruses. BUT, consider this: if the strains found on the US West Coast are milder and less likely to make people very sick, and we are basing our decisions on when to ease quarantine measures based on hospitalization and ICU rates, then presumably, the West Coast would release its quarantine when the background prevalence of the virus in the population is rather higher than it would be on the East Coast when they ease their quarantine. If that is the case, then the milder Western virus would start to circulate again and move eastward. Because it causes milder disease, it can "fly under the radar" longer than its more virulent Eastern counterpart and spread farther and more quickly. So it would be "winning" the evolutionary race. And that's one way in which selective pressures act on viruses to cause milder disease in hosts.

(1)https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20060160v2

Very interesting, and as an old guy from the East Coast I do hope it mutates its strength down to something I can survive. Thanks for the information.

acavpics wrote:

Scientists at Oxford Univ. who are researching a coronavirus vaccine have claimed that this is a possibility. A stark deviation from the "12-18 months" timeline. UK government has stated that there are no guarantees, though. Some links provided below:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52329659

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tion-plans

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 71966.html

Is this a valid possibility?

Well, apparently a "researcher" at Oxford (in "gender and vulnerability" is hoping Oxford University is not able to come up with a vaccine, because White People Bad. Killing millions of people is worth it if that means the Chinese are allowed to save face. Yes, this is the kind of crap being preached at our esteemed institutions of higher learning...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... e5b83ba372

Pyrex wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Scientists at Oxford Univ. who are researching a coronavirus vaccine have claimed that this is a possibility. A stark deviation from the "12-18 months" timeline. UK government has stated that there are no guarantees, though. Some links provided below:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52329659

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tion-plans

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 71966.html

Is this a valid possibility?

Well, apparently a "researcher" at Oxford (in "gender and vulnerability" is hoping Oxford University is not able to come up with a vaccine, because White People Bad. Killing millions of people is worth it if that means the Chinese are allowed to save face. Yes, this is the kind of crap being preached at our esteemed institutions of higher learning...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... e5b83ba372

Did you read the article? It is a political opinion commentary. Most people with a higher learning can tell the difference between a "research" and an opinion based on nothing that they research.

But supporters of Trump will always fail to see that difference.

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Scientists at Oxford Univ. who are researching a coronavirus vaccine have claimed that this is a possibility. A stark deviation from the "12-18 months" timeline. UK government has stated that there are no guarantees, though. Some links provided below:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52329659

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tion-plans

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 71966.html

Is this a valid possibility?

Well, apparently a "researcher" at Oxford (in "gender and vulnerability" is hoping Oxford University is not able to come up with a vaccine, because White People Bad. Killing millions of people is worth it if that means the Chinese are allowed to save face. Yes, this is the kind of crap being preached at our esteemed institutions of higher learning...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... e5b83ba372

Did you read the article? It is a political opinion commentary. Most people with a higher learning can tell the difference between a "research" and an opinion based on nothing that they research.

But supporters of Trump will always fail to see that difference.

Yes, a political opinion commentary. A profoundly idiotic and misguided political opinion commentary. By someone in a position to teach that sort of crap thinking to others.

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Well, apparently a "researcher" at Oxford (in "gender and vulnerability" is hoping Oxford University is not able to come up with a vaccine, because White People Bad. Killing millions of people is worth it if that means the Chinese are allowed to save face. Yes, this is the kind of crap being preached at our esteemed institutions of higher learning...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... e5b83ba372

Did you read the article? It is a political opinion commentary. Most people with a higher learning can tell the difference between a "research" and an opinion based on nothing that they research.

But supporters of Trump will always fail to see that difference.

Yes, a political opinion commentary. A profoundly idiotic and misguided political opinion commentary. By someone in a position to teach that sort of crap thinking to others.

It is not misguided or idiotic, as she praises the researches. her targets are the mindless morons like BoJo and Trump.

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Well, apparently a "researcher" at Oxford (in "gender and vulnerability" is hoping Oxford University is not able to come up with a vaccine, because White People Bad. Killing millions of people is worth it if that means the Chinese are allowed to save face. Yes, this is the kind of crap being preached at our esteemed institutions of higher learning...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... e5b83ba372

Did you read the article? It is a political opinion commentary. Most people with higher learning can tell the difference between a "research" and an opinion based on nothing that they research.

But supporters of Trump will always fail to see that difference.

Yes, a political opinion commentary. A profoundly idiotic and misguided political opinion commentary. By someone in a position to teach that sort of crap thinking to others.

I interpreted it differently than you. Good thing she's not grading either of us. She on staff at Oxford along with the world's greatest minds. She knows the pressure is on, that her country and the world are counting on a vaccine. And, they will get there, we all know that. They will save the world. Oxford is the cream of the crop. All she's saying is the truth. The U.S. and the U.K. have not handled this pandemic well compared to other countries and could learn from other world leaders on how to handle a pandemic. Especially women leaders.

When a vaccine is handed to the world leaders on a silver platter. Everything will be forgotten. Slipped under the rug, cause the academics saved the day. She has a point. If you see it or not.

Not sure this has been posted in this topic, but on this youtube-channel there are almost daily uploads about covid-19 including new findings, treatments, vaccines and others.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ_IRFkDInv_zLVFTgXA8tW0Mf1iiuuM_

I find the videos really interesting and informative, eventhough I'm not involved in healthcare.

The guy doing the videos is an M.D. and he treats Covid-19 patient in an ICU among other things.

DocLightning wrote:

acavpics wrote:

I saw some posts on here about the virus mutating into a far less virulent form as time goes on (because evolutionary selection prefers those that do not kill their hosts). Approximately how long do you expect that time to be?

In fact, it has already happened.(1) A team from Zheijiang University took virus isolates from 11 patients and discovered 33 different mutations. They took these 11 samples and standardized their infectivity and then innoculated them into a culture of vero-E6 cells, which are the mammalian cell culture typically used to culture and study SARS-CoV-2. They found that some of these isolates replicated much more quickly and caused more damage to the cells than others. Two mutants that showed lower replication and less cytopathology (damage to cells) clusters with the group of viruses found mostly on the US West Coast. Two mutants that showed much higher replication and more cytopathology cluster in the group of viruses mostly found in Europe and the East Coast. This may explain why the West Coast has had an easier time than the East Coast.

The trouble is that coronaviruses mutate slowly for RNA viruses. BUT, consider this: if the strains found on the US West Coast are milder and less likely to make people very sick, and we are basing our decisions on when to ease quarantine measures based on hospitalization and ICU rates, then presumably, the West Coast would release its quarantine when the background prevalence of the virus in the population is rather higher than it would be on the East Coast when they ease their quarantine. If that is the case, then the milder Western virus would start to circulate again and move eastward. Because it causes milder disease, it can "fly under the radar" longer than its more virulent Eastern counterpart and spread farther and more quickly. So it would be "winning" the evolutionary race. And that's one way in which selective pressures act on viruses to cause milder disease in hosts.

(1)https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20060160v2

Wow. That's very interesting. Let's hope the milder version phases out the more virulent one sooner rather than later.


Apparently, Pfizer is also hoping to get their vaccine up and running for emergency use as early as September.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/europe/g ... index.html

Looks like the anti-viral Remdesivir is showing some positive results:

https://news.yahoo.com/gilead-sciences- ... 19432.html