https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...order/2305834/

Ok but it's not relevant to the comparison of the dangers, absent any vaccines, of covid vs measles. The key point of my post (if we can remember that far back) being that an ifr of even 0.5 for covid is way more deadly than measles if we don't retain natural immunity and are likely to catch it every year*

It's also not relevant to the point about the control for the covid trial being the meningitis vaccine.

I also don't think it's relevant to Prof Gilbert's opinion that the vaccine her team are working on would, if it works, cover the family of mutations being observed in covid but it might be.


*on this TS's expert seems more bullish that natural immunity will help fight reinfection.

Fair enough. We don't know most people won't have some level of natural immunity, but probably better to be safe than sorry, and make contingencies for the worst.

A seasonal disease with a 0.5% death rate, and significant morbidity above this even for survivors, with no memory immunity would certainly be problematic. Probably not as bad as smallpox or malaria before modern medicine made these diseases manageable/extinct, but problematic nonetheless.

I only read into that link being posted as a different opinion from another "expert" in regards to vaccine development and thought it was odd you commented they were basically the same but my bad for misreading it I guess. Don't want to get into some semantics bs.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...the-rich-world

Would be more informative if it was overlaid with testing numbers.

Yeah no kidding. Vaccine expert (who gets funding and prestige and feel-good if she talks up success likelihood), in a long BBC interview, fails to mention by far the single most important fact that her audience should know: that humanity has never successfully created a vaccine for any individual virus in the entire class of coronaviruses, despite some serious trying, and that it's generally hard to produce one for many reasons, and that previous attempts to make one made it worse/increased damage.

That person is simply not credible and should be completely ignored. That chezlaw doesn't get this is amazing.

I'm hopeful on a vaccine but this whole thing is lol.

Yeah I don't get that we should ignore the work of the top vaccine science groups.

Healthy pinch of salt is required but dismissing them completely is beyond ludicrous.

I'm sorry TS but to call her not credible is so so bad on your part.

Then we better fund these groups properly and not dismiss them.

No one suggested ignoring their work, merely their hype
With people who are credible and honest in their disclosures, no pinch of salt is required.
To call her claims credible is so so bad on yours (and you admit that with your "huge pinch of salt").

They are properly funded. With all this funding over the years, not a single lab in the entire world in the history of humanity has come up with a working vaccine for any virus in the entire class of coronaviruses. They managed to make vaccines for smallpox, ebola, measles, diptheria, some herpes and dozens of other diseases (each taking many years), but not a single vaccine in the broad class of coronavirses. Previous attempts at a SARS vaccine even resulted in greater injury to monkey lungs. There are very good reasons why vaccines for infection lung diseases are unlikely to be successful.

These are BY FAR the most salient facts to talk about when discussing the prospects for a vaccine. Your expert failed to mention these most salient facts in an extended interview about vaccine hopes, in which she presented a rosy picture. Her financial, reputational and prestige interests are strongly aligned with not disclosing these facts and with presenting a rosy picture. Therefore she is not credible.

The truth here matters and people who fail to tell it are not credible and should be completely ignored. I had the same argument with similar chezlaw-level expert lovers at the start of this thread when I said the WHO experts are obviously full of ****/lying for China and should be completely ignored. Look how that turned out.

Oh and by the way here is Bill Gates' take, who is probably far more broadly competent than your expert:

He sees the best case as 18 months away, spread across 7+ vaccine candidates, and that's while wasting billions on rapid deployment. Here's your expert:

You want to put some money behind your expert, and I'll put some money behind her having jack **** by September? By the way, she's a founder of this:
You think she's giving us straight up honest disclosure about the probabilities here? All the while doing the interview trail (why isn't she working in the lab?) I can't imagine a single competent, credible scientist saying 80% chance of millions of doses ready within 4 months without even preliminary human trials done, especially considering that no one has ever created a working coronavirus vaccine, and that the nature of lung infection makes vaccines difficult if not impossible.

By the way, in the interview she calls for the UK government to pay for private vaccine companies (does this include the company she founded?) to start ramping up this vaccine before it's even tested. Nice bit of cash for the private industry to which she's amply linked. Would governments pay that kind of money for 20% chance within 18 months, as Bill Gates claims? No way. Would they do it for 80% chance by September. You bet.

I def wouldn't bet against BG but I sure hope the Oxford women is right.

good, so we agree

You don't know who is honest in this regard

Bizarre. The work to be able to proceed much faster than normal requires more funding

I take it with a healthy pinch of salt. I will be stunned if she produces results by September. I'd take March in a heartbeat

It's you're claim that more funding wont produce faster results is ludicrous. You lack credibility over this and yes the truth really matters because delaying development of a vaccine because of funding would a very serious mistake.

and Bill gates is clearly agreeing that more funding is require.

You are also misrepresenting the situation again TS. It may well 18 month or far longer to reach the stage Gates is talking about. I've never claimed otherwise.

Do you actually disagree with anything I said?

I had thought Gilbert's claims as reported in the BBC sounded ludicrously sanguine and totally full of s***, but I'm not a subject matter expert, and am not privy to what they know.

It would make perfect sense if she's shilling, though. Thrilled if she's proven right, but I'm skeptical.

It's not clear to me why you think they are good representations of x, y, or z population.

No it doesn't. You have no clue what you're talking about. She herself already claimed they had condensed five years work down into 4 months to have this ready for testing now (another reason to be skeptical of her claims, she seems prone to wild exaggeration, no?), and they did that on existing funding. If funding was the issue then let's throw a trillion dollars at it and have a vaccine tomorrow?

I had the same argument with morons on battery costs, I had to patiently explain to them why funding is irrelevant. Throwing incremental money at hard problems achieves nothing.

The thing she wants funding for is private companies - in which she's a founder of a key one backed by private equity - building out a ramping of her (as yet completely untested on humans) vaccine, so it's ready to ramp if it turns out ok. Which has the side benefits of a huge revenue flow for said companies. It has nothing to do with the research.

Your noob takes are tiresome. Listen to your intellectual betters, this whole thread has been you beclowning yourself.

So let me get this straight. She says 80% chance of success* and a million vaccines by September. I claim that she's not credible on the topic given how she's comically underplaying the odds of failure. You independently put the odds at <5% (unless you're easily "stunned") and yet think she is credible/giving the full picture? That's the story you're going with? Another beclowning for the ages.

*80% chance of success with no a single human tested yet!
Of course it won't. The only thing funding helps is having more mass production ready IF the vaccine works. There is no funding bottleneck for vaccine development and testing. If anything there is massive overfunding.
It would be indeed. Fortunately no one is or has made that mistake, that exists purely in your head. This is what good shills do - go on media tours to create a moral panic for "funding!!!!!" (where none is needed) among the naive bleeding heart public, which creates public pressure and investor interest that fills their pockets.

She's credible on the science. I take hype as hype. Hence the healthy pinch of salt. I allow that she is talking up the best possible case rather than the likely case.

but you're obviously wrong on the funding issue as Bill Gates, and everyone really, points out

and why you feel the need to misrepresent what I believe or claim is just plain weird. It does allow you to claim victory on obvious things we agree on but what's the point?

I don't even know what this means. She's obviously hyping in your mind - meaning lying - but you give weight to her words? That's an insane take.

And you admit she's lying (hyping is lying when discussing a serious topic with major implications) about the timeline and probability of success, which is the only thing we in this thread care about as investors and people trying to a get a handle on what will happen when.
I'm not wrong on anything in this thread. The funding is irrelevant for development and testing, there is more than ample and in fact large redundancy in the system. The vaccine that Oxford is working on is the same delivery system that Ohio researchers already have in human trials. Funding is not a bottleneck. As I patiently explained to you and went right over your head, the funding needed is only for highly risky early factory ramping for mass production of as yet unproven vaccines, which is very expensive. Vaccine development itself is amply funded and highly redundant at this point.
I haven't misrepresented you at all. When you come out looking ridiculous for the 11th time, you fall back to "you're misrepresenting me!" when anyone can straight up read your wrong takes for themselves.

Just wondering where you got this from. I am being somewhat lazy, but I tend to spend a lot of time reading about lipid nanoparticle delivery systems versus polymers, and I wouldn't mind seeing which system they are using.

I give weight to her scientific opinions and less to her marketing/enthusiasm type opinions. That's a sensible take.

I wouldn't call it lying. It's the same as me taking your analysis serious while taking the rhetoric/etc not very seriously


You're wrong. Fast tracking the process to move to human trials costs money. fast tracking from phase 2 to phase 3 costs money. These were unplanned and unfunded so they need more funding.

Yes they can see if they read my posts that I've never taken the hype very seriously. Just as I don't take your rhetoric or claims to victory very seriously. I take the serious content stuff seriously.

You amply beclowning yourself in the style of "herd immunity bro!" UK "experts" isn't a victory for me, chez. It's a loss for humanity.
Just to actually add some data to this pure intuition of mine (based on probable spread events), a Chinese study of 7000 cases found 1 case among the 7000 spread by outdoor transmission.

Contact history analysis in Australia (a very outdoors type society) is showing the same thing, you can't find any cases of outdoor transmission in the data.

This is spread by close contact, spittle from close talking, nose, eye and mouth goo on hard surfaces with no UV available to quickly neutralize it, droplets in confined places, and not much else. Basically anything indoors with lots of surfaces and close contact. The R0 of outdoors contact is probably <0.1. The rest can be easily opened up. The UK experts who are droning and fining citizens going for isolated walks in nature are pure anti-science and are just making their country a mockery

Tooth, first before I say anything I apologize for my troll post in the trading thread awhile back, I was still in denial but coming to terms with reality at the time. You have been spot-on about this from the start, and you have saved/made me money multiple times with your posts so I do hope you stay and continue to contribute.

Do you think the only way to eradicate this is everyone practicing distancing until it actually goes away? My understanding is that other corona-viruses such as the last SARS outbreak pretty much self-eradicated themselves in this way (but were caught much earlier to make distancing a practical means of eradication), or has this one already spread too far to ever be contained? Like you, I'm also skeptical of a vaccine becoming reality anytime soon. However, I am cautiously optimist here in the USA as I was expecting things to be far worse by now, and it seems distancing was implemented early enough to drastically reduce the spread in most of the country (so far, and especially by where I am so my view might be a bit biased as well). By cautiously optimistic, I don't mean I think it is going away anytime soon but that is not going to get as bad as originally feared. However, if there isn't a vaccine, would we ever be able to have enough distancing worldwide to eradicate too?

chezlaw is making no sense. Time and time again Tooth uses first principles to crush people who are anchored to conventional wisdom.

I will say though, about the bold, why do you correctly go after Sarah Gilbert but excuse it with Trump? I think your analysis has been incredible throughout. My only complaint is your blindly defending Trump.

I think you might have a slight contrarian bias. You are overly defending Trump because people are overly criticizing him.

Have people here discussed the stanford research claiming far more covid spread than previously thought (50-85x confirmed cases?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jesus, don't apologize, there are 3 losers/irredeemable idiots on this forum. Everyone else is fine.

Distancing works just fine in many places. This is spread by close contact and it's not that difficult to change behavior (with summer helping) to get it below 1. Once the infection count is low enough you add mass testing and contact tracing/isolation and you can fully eradicate it. This will happen in most Western and East Asian countries.
SARS seems like it was a lot easier to trace. It didn't spread anywhere near as fast, they actually caught it early in an age of far less Chinese travel. It's possible summer simply stopped transmission too.

As far as the world goes, it's going to spread a lot more yet. I said the cat was completely out of the bag for global spread with > 1 million dead when Italy hit 30 cases or so, and now that we're at 2 million cases my opinion hasn't changed.

This will go uncontrolled through much of the world with millions dead. Wealthy countries will contain it and get it to zero in their borders, or Korea-style zero with a low load + extensive testing, tracing and isolation, and travel will stay restricted for a long time. It will open up between infection free countries first.
Not worldwide, no. Poor countries and low IQ countries (most of the world) won't ever contain it. It will also mutate in these large populations and possibly come back with different strains, possibly infect local animal population, etc. There was a window in January and February to contain this, they failed thanks to the WHO and Chinese malevolence, so now we have to live with it until a vaccine arrives.

A little. Go back two or three pages.

One key point is that the Stanford doc who did that study had the results from two other studies, one from LA and one from MLB, when he released the paper on it.

My guess is that those studies validate his initial findings, as he has been doubling down on his theory.

The CDC started antibody testing in early April. These results should have been released by now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...d-tests-165116