Initial vaccine trials looking good..!

[Z4C_er]

Absolute rubbish....sorry not being personal to you but your post is just that. You obvs have zero idea of how this virus affects the over 30’s and middle aged that contribute most to the economy. I have two friends that are 42 and 48 and are still suffering after contracting it in May....one is barely able to function on a normal level she’s got it so badly. They are just two examples, the country is not short of people that are suffering to a hell of a degree. You’re entitled to your opinion of course but to say this vaccine stinks is just the kind of backwards doom and gloom that the gutter press prey on. Your previous post regarding the vaccines taking 10yrs shows a complete lack of any understanding.

I don’t mean anything personal, I’m sure you’re a fine chap.

Thanks.

Do you think I made that graphic up? Really? I'm not that clever. Wish I was:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/vaccine-development-barriers-coronavirus/

Have you read that whole article sire...? It really doesn’t have much to do with developed countries taking on the virus....third world countries rarely, as far as I know, have the capacity to store huge amounts of vaccine at -60-80 Celsius, let alone develop it. That’s a very poor article to base a western viewpoint on. Third world countries aren’t going to banish this thing unfortunately, but I truly hope they benefit just as much as any other country.

Let's break this down.
This discussion is about a vaccine coming to the market in less than a year.
I presented a graphic taken from the World Economic Forum that illustrates how long a vaccine normally takes to develop.
It was thought somehow that I made it up.
So I presented the link to prove that I didn't. That's all. I got the graphic from that page.

 

[john-e89]

Thanks.

Do you think I made that graphic up? Really? I'm not that clever. Wish I was:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/vaccine-development-barriers-coronavirus/

Have you read that whole article sire...? It really doesn’t have much to do with developed countries taking on the virus....third world countries rarely, as far as I know, have the capacity to store huge amounts of vaccine at -60-80 Celsius, let alone develop it. That’s a very poor article to base a western viewpoint on. Third world countries aren’t going to banish this thing unfortunately, but I truly hope they benefit just as much as any other country.

Let's break this down.
This discussion is about a vaccine coming to the market in less than a year.
I presented a graphic taken from the World Economic Forum that illustrates how long a vaccine normally takes to develop.
It was thought somehow that I made it up.
So I presented the link to prove that I didn't. That's all. I got the graphic from that page.

Who said you made it up...? I certainly didn’t.

Hey whatever, everyone has the right to poo poo this vaccine or go for it when we can have it...personally I’ll go for it ASAP.

 

[R_P_M_]

You’ve got to be hopeful surely....a 90% success rate so far. I know there’s a long way to go, you might need 2 shots and it might only last 6 months....all up in the air but as far as I’m concerned there’s real hope at last.

Just to be clear it’s not the Oxford vaccine either.

Any thoughts...?

My thoughts? A normal vaccine development takes around 10 years. Amazingly we have managed to do this in less than one. But people don't ask why?
How?
infographic-vaccine-development-1200x1850.jpg
Doesn't it seem just a little bit fabricated? C'mon, I know most of you are smart.
Covid seems to be this ever changing, ever dangerous, ever present super-virus which is inciting scientists and world leaders to destroy world economies and somehow some drug company (Pfizer in this case) just put their hand up and say "ahem, err we've just miraculously developed a vaccine in a 10th of the time we normally do.... "
Look at the graphic again. Minimum 2 years development of the first 'discovery research' phase.

For a start step 1 was already done before this year, coronaviruses aren't new, we have a flu vaccine, we have experience of developing vaccines for MERS and SARS. Many of the vaccines are adaptations of past successes. So that's 2-5 years knocked off your chart right away.

 

[Ole gits rule]

Let's hope this does work, however, the normal man in the street will be lucky to see this in the next 12 months.

First will be NHS staff (rightly so), followed by the elderly and vulnerable, next will be the emergency services, military etc. then it may come to us poor ole sods.

If we need two doses six months apart then we may have a long wait.

 

[Z4C_er]

...But hey ho...
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccine-history/index.html
From earlier this year:
https://youtu.be/rACFqw6JNKA
From 2018:
https://youtu.be/q7QL8NUTO4s

 

[Z4C_er]

Have you read that whole article sire...? It really doesn’t have much to do with developed countries taking on the virus....third world countries rarely, as far as I know, have the capacity to store huge amounts of vaccine at -60-80 Celsius, let alone develop it. That’s a very poor article to base a western viewpoint on. Third world countries aren’t going to banish this thing unfortunately, but I truly hope they benefit just as much as any other country.

Let's break this down.
This discussion is about a vaccine coming to the market in less than a year.
I presented a graphic taken from the World Economic Forum that illustrates how long a vaccine normally takes to develop.
It was thought somehow that I made it up.
So I presented the link to prove that I didn't. That's all. I got the graphic from that page.

Who said you made it up...? I certainly didn’t.

Hey whatever, everyone has the right to poo poo this vaccine or go for it when we can have it...personally I’ll go for it ASAP.

I won't stand in your way. Go for it.
This just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[john-e89]

Let's break this down.
This discussion is about a vaccine coming to the market in less than a year.
I presented a graphic taken from the World Economic Forum that illustrates how long a vaccine normally takes to develop.
It was thought somehow that I made it up.
So I presented the link to prove that I didn't. That's all. I got the graphic from that page.

Who said you made it up...? I certainly didn’t.

Hey whatever, everyone has the right to poo poo this vaccine or go for it when we can have it...personally I’ll go for it ASAP.

I won't stand in your way. Go for it.
This just doesn't sit well with me.

I hope something changes your mind though Z4C. Stay safe.

 

[R_P_M_]

...But hey ho...
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccine-history/index.html
From earlier this year:
https://youtu.be/rACFqw6JNKA
From 2018:
https://youtu.be/q7QL8NUTO4s

So 2 years then.

Also the guy in the video from earlier this year wrote this article a few days ago... So which view does he support :?

https://fusion.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/covid-vaccine-safety-trials-us-2020-20201106.html

 

[Stevo1987]

You’ve got to be hopeful surely....a 90% success rate so far. I know there’s a long way to go, you might need 2 shots and it might only last 6 months....all up in the air but as far as I’m concerned there’s real hope at last.

Just to be clear it’s not the Oxford vaccine either.

Any thoughts...?

My thoughts? A normal vaccine development takes around 10 years. Amazingly we have managed to do this in less than one. But people don't ask why?
How?
infographic-vaccine-development-1200x1850.jpg
Doesn't it seem just a little bit fabricated? C'mon, I know most of you are smart.
Covid seems to be this ever changing, ever dangerous, ever present super-virus which is inciting scientists and world leaders to destroy world economies and somehow some drug company (Pfizer in this case) just put their hand up and say "ahem, err we've just miraculously developed a vaccine in a 10th of the time we normally do.... "
Look at the graphic again. Minimum 2 years development of the first 'discovery research' phase.

For a start step 1 was already done before this year, coronaviruses aren't new, we have a flu vaccine, we have experience of developing vaccines for MERS and SARS. Many of the vaccines are adaptations of past successes. So that's 2-5 years knocked off your chart right away.

I am not sure that is true because they are using an experimental approach, so it it new.
"It uses a completely experimental approach - that involves injecting part of the virus's genetic code - in order to train the immune system." From the BBC.

 

[R_P_M_]

My thoughts? A normal vaccine development takes around 10 years. Amazingly we have managed to do this in less than one. But people don't ask why?
How?
infographic-vaccine-development-1200x1850.jpg
Doesn't it seem just a little bit fabricated? C'mon, I know most of you are smart.
Covid seems to be this ever changing, ever dangerous, ever present super-virus which is inciting scientists and world leaders to destroy world economies and somehow some drug company (Pfizer in this case) just put their hand up and say "ahem, err we've just miraculously developed a vaccine in a 10th of the time we normally do.... "
Look at the graphic again. Minimum 2 years development of the first 'discovery research' phase.

For a start step 1 was already done before this year, coronaviruses aren't new, we have a flu vaccine, we have experience of developing vaccines for MERS and SARS. Many of the vaccines are adaptations of past successes. So that's 2-5 years knocked off your chart right away.

I am not sure that is true because they are using an experimental approach, so it it new.
"It uses a completely experimental approach - that involves injecting part of the virus's genetic code - in order to train the immune system." From the BBC.

This isn't the only vaccine on development.

 

[mmm-five]

Sorry, this was not originally meant as a rant, but it ended up that way.


Developing a vaccine for a common/known virus type, that spreads easily, with minor symptoms (not outcomes, as these can rapidly deteriorate), where you have access to a huge willing user base to test on (due to minor side effects if something doesn’t work) is much easier & quicker than developing one for a brand new virus of unknown original that only infects 1 in 1,000,000 but kills 50% of the infected, and where no one wants to volunteer to test it due to the poor outcome if the vaccine does fail. There are also some really good advances in computational experimentation, and AI learning to identify & rapidly prototype solutions.

Do you have any idea how many flu strains are going around at any one time, and how critical the government’s choices are (based on scientific/medical/WHO advice) on which ones to include in each year’s flu jab.

You can’t include them all as their efficacy is based on the amount of each inactivated strain you put into one shot, and how much the body can process at once. So in spring you have to pick the 3 or 4 strains that you think will be most prevalent in the winter months and ‘hope’ you made the right decision (don’t forget that these vaccines are not just sitting on the shelf for years waiting to be used, they’ll be produced to order, and it takes a while to produce your x million batches).

I also appreciate that not everyone wants to wear a mask, and that should be their right...as much as the right for any shop owner/worker refusing to serve anyone without one. Just because you feel fine does not mean your not carrying/spreading it...and I’ll bet you’d fight for your rights to be ‘free from the mask’...right to the moment a relative gets really sick from it.

As an example, and I wouldn’t wish this on anyone, see how Liverpool’s mayor Joe Anderson suddenly changed his tune from his lefty ‘we should be free to do what we want’ to warning people to respect the restrictions, to happily agreeing to a full city region lockdown after losing his brother to COVID.

Another example is an old (as in long-standing...but also 55) friend who was ‘fit as a fiddle’, never smoked, ate healthily, etc. He got a bit of a cough a couple of years ago and the result was the removal of a bit of lung and some veins from his neck to his chest. He was on quite strong medication for a year and had gotten to the stage where he could start work again...only for him to get a bit of ‘normal’ flu last year which put him out of action again with pneumonia then pleurisy. He’d just started recovering from this, about to get back to work again, when he received his ‘shielding’ letter. This meant him, his wife, and kids had to be very careful. First 3 months he moved into the guest cottage and had his meals brought over...then his wife was told she could go back to work. A week later the school was closed as a teacher had come back from abroad, failed to isolate and brought COVID to the school. He had to shield again....and now we’re in national lockdown.

In my mate’s case...he can take every precaution in the world, but if some anti-vaxxer/anti-masker knob decides it is his or her right to walk around shops without a mask because he/she is fit & healthy, then his family has to remain at home to limit the risk of him catching it and dying.

Is your little ‘protest’ worth risking his (or anyone else’s) life for? :-?

 

[john-e89]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[R_P_M_]

Spot on

 

[rdgreen]

I would suggest that the amount of money being thrown at the problem is one of the reasons that the vaccine has progressed so quickly. Amazing what happens when vast slabs of money can be found in a crisis but we can't find any finance for cures until the s**t hits the fan. As for the obvious anti-vaxers....what can you say? Smallpox, Polio Diphtheria, Bacterial influenza, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Tetanus are just some diseases that have either been eliminated, or close to eliminated by vaccination....no thanks to those that refuse to help herd immunity because a few (very few) have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Smallpox alone is estimated to have killed well over 500,000,000 people in its last 100 years of existence prior to vaccinations being available to all.
I'm old enough to remember the kids that disappeared suddenly from school in the 50's, and when/if they reappeared they some times had big heavy calipers on their legs...and they were the lucky ones.

 

[Z4C_er]

I'm amazed by the amount of people I talk to (general comment, not aimed at people here) that consider Pharmaceutical companies to be run by earth angels.
Some think that the role of big pharma is to cure the world of all disease and then.........
What? What do they do after that?
But let's take a step back. If you have a business, any business, your job is to grow the business. Your job isn't to run the business down by satisfying everyone once, is it? This is basic business school elementary stuff.
Big Pharma is just a business - nothing more - and their job is to grow the business. And to grow the business you need a growing population that depends on them.
Again, take a step back and think about it. They need sick people to survive. They need more sick people to grow. This whole event is in their best commercial interest. It sounds horrible but it's the truth.
The thing is, I'm sure there are people that will read this and either work for one of these companies or know someone that does. I'm not vilifying them or you. I know people as well, and they are good people - really good, with the best of intentions. I'm talking about the people at the top. Look at the lobby groups that run around in places of power pushing their own barrows. It's fact. Even a Doctor I know told me how the salespeople badgered him week in week out to use specific drugs. He even felt and had his own strong views that efficacy tests were skewed to favour particular trials. It's just business.
A recent event that sparked my interest was about the Hydroxychloroquine issue. I'll add a video from a well-known UK doctor at the end. But the minute it was suggested to be used it was poo-pooed by the media. And where do the media get their info from? They ran with the story and very few actually challenged the rhetoric. Even though many tests have been done to validate it's efficacy. The laughable thing was that HCQ has been around for approx 70 years and with no issue. As soon as you try to use this instead of a new drug (=£$) we get told it's dangerous. It's laughable.
https://youtu.be/2uzXHnUViro
But, that's it. I'll say no more. I love this forum and seriously, I don't want to offend anyone.
Please go out and do your own research. Dig deep (not the Mainstream Media, past Google and beyond YouTube if you can) and have an open mind.
Peace, love, out.
:wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:

 

[pvr]

Interesting discussion though and views about Pharma. Having worked with Pfizer for 22 years on projects world wide, I can honestly say that I have a very positive view of the company. Having read in the past the (internal documented) responses to fines and the reason for them, it is not necessarily quite like what the media portrays.

 

[mmm-five]

Interesting discussion though and views about Pharma. Having worked with Pfizer for 22 years on projects world wide, I can honestly say that I have a very positive view of the company. Having read in the past the (internal documented) responses to fines and the reason for them, it is not necessarily quite like what the media portrays.

I'm not a pharma employee, but they are one of the industries I regularly work with as a contractor (have worked with Merck, Zeneca, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Pfizer, Novartis, Shire, Amgen, Biogen, Baxter, etc.).

I'm as cynical as the next person, but if you've not worked in pharma, then you'll have no idea of the amount of responsibility is put on to each & every employees shoulders, and how much heat comes from the top when there's an issue is tremendous (and even the steady pressure when there is no specific issue) - and not just to the area of the root cause.

However, there's lots of corporate & individual responsibility training, workshops, refreshers, etc. to show you why everything you do can have an impact on the consumer/patient...and it's reiterated daily (even on the bottom of emails in some cases) that the consumer/patient is the #1 priority.

Every level of regulation, process checking, testing, etc. adds to the time & cost to develop something - but of course, everyone thinks it happens magically and for free.

I bet people would not be happy if any company in their pension portfolio decided to become a non-profit overnight...and of course in this communist utopia they'd be selling their house for the price they bought it for to avoid making a profit; and any cash they have left over at the end of a month of work will be handed back to the 'central' fund to help those less fortunate???

 

[BeeEmm]

Lots of stuff. Time to take a chill pill. Oops.

 

[R_P_M_]

I'm amazed by the amount of people I talk to (general comment, not aimed at people here) that consider Pharmaceutical companies to be run by earth angels.
Some think that the role of big pharma is to cure the world of all disease and then.........
What? What do they do after that?
But let's take a step back. If you have a business, any business, your job is to grow the business. Your job isn't to run the business down by satisfying everyone once, is it? This is basic business school elementary stuff.
Big Pharma is just a business - nothing more - and their job is to grow the business. And to grow the business you need a growing population that depends on them.
Again, take a step back and think about it. They need sick people to survive. They need more sick people to grow. This whole event is in their best commercial interest. It sounds horrible but it's the truth.
The thing is, I'm sure there are people that will read this and either work for one of these companies or know someone that does. I'm not vilifying them or you. I know people as well, and they are good people - really good, with the best of intentions. I'm talking about the people at the top. Look at the lobby groups that run around in places of power pushing their own barrows. It's fact. Even a Doctor I know told me how the salespeople badgered him week in week out to use specific drugs. He even felt and had his own strong views that efficacy tests were skewed to favour particular trials. It's just business.
A recent event that sparked my interest was about the Hydroxychloroquine issue. I'll add a video from a well-known UK doctor at the end. But the minute it was suggested to be used it was poo-pooed by the media. And where do the media get their info from? They ran with the story and very few actually challenged the rhetoric. Even though many tests have been done to validate it's efficacy. The laughable thing was that HCQ has been around for approx 70 years and with no issue. As soon as you try to use this instead of a new drug (=£$) we get told it's dangerous. It's laughable.
https://youtu.be/2uzXHnUViro
But, that's it. I'll say no more. I love this forum and seriously, I don't want to offend anyone.
Please go out and do your own research. Dig deep (not the Mainstream Media, past Google and beyond YouTube if you can) and have an open mind.
Peace, love, out.
:wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:

One video from a doctor. I am convinced.

 

[TitanTim]

I don't think we know as of yet how long the vaccine lasts for and whether a yearly booster will be required, and if true that it's reckoned a fifth of the population will refuse to have it should make it interesting.

Plus globally how many countries will be geared up to accept the vaccine, storage as I think it needs specific conditions, plus cost etc.

Not to put a downer on it :lol:

Tim.