Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[CCFCC3PO]

Why do you speak to people like that? Why be such an arse?

Why are you attempting to derail another thread?

[CCFCC3PO]

This is an interesting overview of vaccine production:

https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/behind-the...s-complicated/

The video was produced by GSK 4 years ago.

As a retired industrial pharmacist who has had a lot of experience in the manufacture of sterile injectable products (not vaccines per se but the production process of the finished product would be essentially the same) I would say that in parallel with the current R&D that's going on, the newly formed vaccine team need to be thinking well ahead to the more mundane but critical question of manufacturing facilities and supply of packaging materials.

Vaccines will be need to be processed in specialist aseptic facilities. There will be a requirement for tens of millions of vials (for the UK alone) which will need to be pre-sterilised along with the other component parts such as rubber stoppers, alu caps, and disposable syringes. A lot of these components are imported from abroad, in particular glass vials from the main suppliers like Schott and St Gobain. We could find ourselves in competition with other countries as we are with PPE at the moment, so we need to get talking to these companies asap!

If the product needs to be freeze dried then freeze drying capacity is an absolutely critical factor. Industrial freeze driers are not off-the-shelf items! If freeze dried then we will also need vials of water for injection to reconstitute the product - essentially doubling the number of vials needed!

Hopefully the vaccine team will include experts from manufacturing and not just R&D, so we don't find ourselves in the situation where we have a brilliant vaccine but nowhere to manufacture/fill it!

The Oxford University team appear to have thought of the manufacturing element of the process, and have the potential to produce 1 million doses. Let's say that their vaccine is a complete success, is that something that they "own" and sell on to other pharmaceutical companies around the world? Or is it something that becomes public domain, allowing countries to produce their own vaccines locally (where possible)?

[delmbox]

I was born this way

.

[CCFCC3PO]

.

Evidently your words, and not mine, but quite a childish way of dealing with the situation.

[CCFCC3PO]

It’s noticeable that your rarely witness self-inflated pomposity from the authorities in these fields.

Nor ad-hominem attacks. Strange that.

[Baloo]

Nor ad-hominem attacks. Strange that.

Apologise to Jon not me.

[CCFCC3PO]

Apologise to Jon not me.

I haven't apologised to you.

In response to me saying that we have never before produced a vaccine in 18 months, Jon was as sarcastic in his response as I was in mine.

After extensive research (3 clicks on Google) I can reveal that a vaccine for Zika virus was developed and ready for testing in 7 months - back in 2015.

So, now you have the context let's see you come to a more reasoned conclusion.

[the other bob wilson]

Taken from the Guardian's rolling coverage of COVID 19 earlier this morning;-


"10:47
An interesting study has emerged in the US which found that the number of people infected with coronavirus could be as much as 85 times higher than previously thought.

The research from Stanford University, which was published on Friday, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county, in California, and found the virus to be 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

The study, the first large-scale one of its kind, has yet to be peer reviewed and was conducted by identifying antibodies in healthy individuals through a finger prick test, which indicated whether they had already contracted and recovered from the virus.

At the time of the study, Santa Clara county had 1,094 confirmed cases of Covid-19, resulting in 50 deaths. But, based on the rate of people who have antibodies, it is likely that between 48,000 and 81,000 people had been infected in the county by early April – a number approximately 50 to 80 times higher."

[Baloo]

I haven't apologised to you.

In response to me saying that we have never before produced a vaccine in 18 months, Jon was as sarcastic in his response as I was in mine.



So, now you have the context let's see you come to a more reasoned conclusion.

Fair enough

[Gofer Blue]

The Oxford University team appear to have thought of the manufacturing element of the process, and have the potential to produce 1 million doses. Let's say that their vaccine is a complete success, is that something that they "own" and sell on to other pharmaceutical companies around the world? Or is it something that becomes public domain, allowing countries to produce their own vaccines locally (where possible)?

One would hope in the current situation that the latter would be the case!

[Wales-Bales]

Nor ad-hominem attacks. Strange that.

Congratulations on becoming the latest victim of the CCMB bully boys. If you have any view outside of the accepted groupthink you will be mercilessly attacked and ridiculed, even if you are right about everything. That's just the way it is on here, alternative facts are the new ultimate truth

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Taken from the Guardian's rolling coverage of COVID 19 earlier this morning;-


"10:47
An interesting study has emerged in the US which found that the number of people infected with coronavirus could be as much as 85 times higher than previously thought.

The research from Stanford University, which was published on Friday, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county, in California, and found the virus to be 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

The study, the first large-scale one of its kind, has yet to be peer reviewed and was conducted by identifying antibodies in healthy individuals through a finger prick test, which indicated whether they had already contracted and recovered from the virus.

At the time of the study, Santa Clara county had 1,094 confirmed cases of Covid-19, resulting in 50 deaths. But, based on the rate of people who have antibodies, it is likely that between 48,000 and 81,000 people had been infected in the county by early April – a number approximately 50 to 80 times higher."

The extrapolation from this is that infection rates are dramatically less than Govt. 'experts' are telling us. I posted last week an article from a leading advisor to the Home Office who said as much. also today [can't find it now] a leading expert in Finland said infection rates were closer to 0.14%. These are staggering differences to the current zeitgeist prevailing. One other thing - the countries who have applied the strictest lockdowns have had the most cases of COVID 19. The ones with the fewer restrictions , less cases. We've got 1000's of beds ready for CV19 patients, empty. We've cancelled critical treatment for the other 99% of the population...

[lardy]

The extrapolation from this is that infection rates are dramatically less than Govt. 'experts' are telling us. I posted last week an article from a leading advisor to the Home Office who said as much. also today [can't find it now] a leading expert in Finland said infection rates were closer to 0.14%. These are staggering differences to the current zeitgeist prevailing. One other thing - the countries who have applied the strictest lockdowns have had the most cases of COVID 19. The ones with the fewer restrictions , less cases. We've got 1000's of beds ready for CV19 patients, empty. We've cancelled critical treatment for the other 99% of the population...

Surely the extrapolation is that infection rates are much higher? Would like to see your working on that.

As for the lockdown/case comparison, are you saying that lockdown means it spreads more? I would imagine that number of cases is linked to number of tests more than anything else. And a country who takes it seriously enough to do lots of testing is also likely to take it seriously enough to have a lockdown.

[CCFCC3PO]

Taken from the Guardian's rolling coverage of COVID 19 earlier this morning;-


"10:47
An interesting study has emerged in the US which found that the number of people infected with coronavirus could be as much as 85 times higher than previously thought.

The research from Stanford University, which was published on Friday, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county, in California, and found the virus to be 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

The study, the first large-scale one of its kind, has yet to be peer reviewed and was conducted by identifying antibodies in healthy individuals through a finger prick test, which indicated whether they had already contracted and recovered from the virus.

At the time of the study, Santa Clara county had 1,094 confirmed cases of Covid-19, resulting in 50 deaths. But, based on the rate of people who have antibodies, it is likely that between 48,000 and 81,000 people had been infected in the county by early April – a number approximately 50 to 80 times higher."

I mean no offence when I say this, but I think the media need to hold back on sensationalising studies that are awaiting peer review.

[CCFCC3PO]

The extrapolation from this is that infection rates are dramatically less than Govt. 'experts' are telling us. I posted last week an article from a leading advisor to the Home Office who said as much. also today [can't find it now] a leading expert in Finland said infection rates were closer to 0.14%. These are staggering differences to the current zeitgeist prevailing. One other thing - the countries who have applied the strictest lockdowns have had the most cases of COVID 19. The ones with the fewer restrictions , less cases. We've got 1000's of beds ready for CV19 patients, empty. We've cancelled critical treatment for the other 99% of the population...

I think you meam infection rates are dramatically higher? Why do you put experts in inverted commas, what is it that they are saying that makes you think they are not experts?

[CCFCC3PO]

Ok, sorry, let's pick through this post.

The extrapolation from this is that infection rates are dramatically less than Govt. 'experts' are telling us

As Lardy says, how have you come to that conclusion?

I posted last week an article from a leading advisor to the Home Office who said as much. also today [can't find it now] a leading expert in Finland said infection rates were closer to 0.14%. These are staggering differences to the current zeitgeist prevailing.

You are in danger of believing the "experts" that suit your narrative.

One other thing - the countries who have applied the strictest lockdowns have had the most cases of COVID 19. The ones with the fewer restrictions , less cases.

Can you provide examples so that we can contrast and compare?

We've got 1000's of beds ready for CV19 patients, empty. We've cancelled critical treatment for the other 99% of the population...

Would you rather have too many beds, or too few?

[the other bob wilson]

I mean no offence when I say this, but I think the media need to hold back on sensationalising studies that are awaiting peer review.

I'm not sure saying it is interesting while pointing out themselves that there has been no peer review yet is sensationalising it is it?

[A Quiet Monkfish]

I think you meam infection rates are dramatically higher? Why do you put experts in inverted commas, what is it that they are saying that makes you think they are not experts?

I meant mortality rates - my error. If you find one expert you can find another with a different view. The Govt. opted for Ferguson. That's why we have 1000's of empty beds in specially built facilities lying almost empty. Also practically every other type of operation has been cancelled - even critical heart and cancer ones. Specialist wards are almost empty with spare staff. Experts said ventilators were crucial, two weeks ago there was a mad panic. Now it seems they're actually responsible for more deaths.

I know sod all about any of this except I don't swallow every bit of c**p I'm told. Probably an age thing. People of my generation are much more sceptical than the internet -savvy folk of today..

[jon1959]

I haven't apologised to you.

In response to me saying that we have never before produced a vaccine in 18 months, Jon was as sarcastic in his response as I was in mine.



So, now you have the context let's see you come to a more reasoned conclusion.

Fair enough

I was being a bit sarcastic, but that was in response to posts from CCFCC3PO that vaccines have never been developed in less than 5 years and his refusal to engage with the very many expert claims over recent months that a COVID9 vaccine may be available in 12-18 months based on current levels of research and collaboration. For what it's worth (contrary to his claim) I never said a Zika vaccine was produced in 7 months - I said I had found an online article that said the researchers were ready for clinical testing after 7 months (indicating rapid progress) but that the testing was never carried out because the virus fizzled out.

This is mainly about how confident we can be about vaccine development - and what that means for lock down, the importance of testing and tracing, and the shape and speed of any exit strategy - not about our variable levels of ignorance. My level of ignorance is very high, but I have enough confidence in people who do know stuff to think that CCFCC3POs insistence on 5 years minimum is overly pessimistic.

[lardy]

I meant mortality rates - my error. If you find one expert you can find another with a different view. The Govt. opted for Ferguson. That's why we have 1000's of empty beds in specially built facilities lying almost empty. Also practically every other type of operation has been cancelled - even critical heart and cancer ones. Specialist wards are almost empty with spare staff. Experts said ventilators were crucial, two weeks ago there was a mad panic. Now it seems they're actually responsible for more deaths.

I know sod all about any of this except I don't swallow every bit of c**p I'm told. Probably an age thing. People of my generation are much more sceptical than the internet -savvy folk of today..

I do wonder what needs to happen for you to swallow your pride and admit that the virus is actually a problem and it's not the media and politicians being drama queens.

[CCFCC3PO]

I meant mortality rates - my error. If you find one expert you can find another with a different view. The Govt. opted for Ferguson. That's why we have 1000's of empty beds in specially built facilities lying almost empty. Also practically every other type of operation has been cancelled - even critical heart and cancer ones. Specialist wards are almost empty with spare staff. Experts said ventilators were crucial, two weeks ago there was a mad panic. Now it seems they're actually responsible for more deaths.

I know sod all about any of this except I don't swallow every bit of c**p I'm told. Probably an age thing. People of my generation are much more sceptical than the internet -savvy folk of today..

There's more to being skeptical than just being anti-Government or anti-"expert".

The need for extra hospital beds was based on a model that has revised the peak downwards at relevant stages. For example, the readiness of the UK population to adhere to social distancing. The original models factored in that only around 50% of the population would follow the social distancing guidelines. The fact is, that a significant number of people are adhering to the guidelines (more than 50%), which has had a positive impact on the infection rate.

If the models proved correct, and we were out of beds, I'm wondering if that would also be the fault of Professor Ferguson (and his team)?

[CCFCC3PO]

I was being a bit sarcastic, but that was in response to posts from CCFCC3PO that vaccines have never been developed in less than 5 years and his refusal to engage with the very many expert claims over recent months that a COVID9 vaccine may be available in 12-18 months based on current levels of research and collaboration. For what it's worth (contrary to his claim) I never said a Zika vaccine was produced in 7 months - I said I had found an online article that said the researchers were ready for clinical testing after 7 months (indicating rapid progress) but that the testing was never carried out because the virus fizzled out.

This is mainly about how confident we can be about vaccine development - and what that means for lock down, the importance of testing and tracing, and the shape and speed of any exit strategy - not about our variable levels of ignorance. My level of ignorance is very high, but I have enough confidence in people who do know stuff to think that CCFCC3POs insistence on 5 years minimum is overly pessimistic.

I have no problems with the sarcasm, and I am sure you have no problems either.

With regards to the Zika vaccine - getting a vaccine to clinical trial in 7 months does not equate to having a fully working vaccine, nor does it equate to having enough of the vaccine to immunise the population that needs it (i.e. the people living in countries where the virus is prevalent). They are still working on a vaccine for the Zika virus by the way.

Nobody has achieved a vaccine on such a scale in 12-18 months, and that is why I am incredibly cautious about pinning hopes on getting a working vaccine out and to 60% of the population of the world (since it is affecting practically every country in the world) in that time. 60% is the figure I see quoted for herd immunity.

I have not insisted that a vaccine will take a minimum of 5 years. I am suggesting that people treat the headlines with caution. It could well be that we have a virus in 12 months, it could be that there will be enough to immunize the suspected 60% of the population that requires it (i.e. to achieve herd immunity) in 12-18 months. If it happens, it will be an incredible achievement, the like of which we have not seen before.

[CCFCC3PO]

I'm not sure saying it is interesting while pointing out themselves that there has been no peer review yet is sensationalising it is it?

I agree it is interesting, but without peer review I don;t think it is newsworthy at the moment. I would say that 85 times more people having been infected would be a sensational figure. It would also be very welcome because it would suggest that a significant number of people are asymptomatic.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

There's more to being skeptical than just being anti-Government or anti-"expert".

The need for extra hospital beds was based on a model that has revised the peak downwards at relevant stages. For example, the readiness of the UK population to adhere to social distancing. The original models factored in that only around 50% of the population would follow the social distancing guidelines. The fact is, that a significant number of people are adhering to the guidelines (more than 50%), which has had a positive impact on the infection rate.

If the models proved correct, and we were out of beds, I'm wondering if that would also be the fault of Professor Ferguson (and his team)?

But they weren't correct. Ferguson and his 'team' (excuse brackets) constitute an un-named collection of people advising the Govt. every step of the way. Obviously no Govt. has sufficient expertise in these matters, but whom they choose to listen to can have significant impact on our lives - now, and for years to come. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies [Sage], is the body of anonymous people who are hourly advising the Govt.

[CCFCC3PO]

But they weren't correct. Ferguson and his 'team' (excuse brackets) constitute an un-named collection of people advising the Govt. every step of the way. Obviously no Govt. has sufficient expertise in these matters, but whom they choose to listen to can have significant impact on our lives - now, and for years to come. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies [Sage], is the body of anonymous people who are hourly advising the Govt.

What were they incorrect with? Who would have been more correct?