Posted on 04/11/2020 8:39:15 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
An Oxford professor says she is “80%" confident the coronavirus vaccine she is working on will be successful - and could be ready by September.
Sarah Gilbert, a professor of vaccinology, is leading a team of researchers and said they have a potential vaccine that is due to begin human trials within two weeks.
In an interview with The Times, Prof Gilbert said the autumn timeframe is “just about possible if everything goes perfectly”.
She added: "It's not just a hunch and as every week goes by we have more data to look at. I would go for 80%, that's my personal view," but warned that "nobody can promise it's going to work".
Other scientists have welcomed the news with “cautious optimism”, and highlighted that investment in production, distribution and delivery would be key to enable a mass rollout.
While not commenting directly on the Oxford trial, the Department of Health has said if vaccines prove to be safe and effective in clinical trials, there are a number of manufacturing and supply chain options available to meet the projected demands.
Professor Stephen Evans, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said having a vaccine ready and proven to be safe is one thing, but availability in the millions of doses required for large-scale rollout across the UK with a system for delivery is a different matter.
Dr Colin Butter, associate professor and programme leader in bioveterinary science at the University of Lincoln, said it is important to understand there would not be “60-odd million doses” by September to vaccinate the entire population of the UK.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
My attitude on vaccines—I love it when other people take them. They take all the risk of bad outcomes, and I get the benefit of herd immunity without taking the vaccine.
Win, win.
So, does that mean the Vaccine has 80% Vonfidence?
Worldometer USA:
481,849
Currently Infected Patients
470,378 (98%)
in Mild Condition
11,471 (2%)
Serious or Critical
2% of active cases are serious or worse. 98% are mild.
Of course.
We always have.
Its a really good thing for YOU that you don’t want to argue that particular point. Because You have already lost.
Perhaps it might be a teeny bit Less “off your rocker - nutso” to say that the press is not reporting the use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent the Chinese virus.
Bill Gates is funding 7 of the vaccines that are under research.
I will not take any of his vaccines!
The genocidal Bill Gates is funding 7 researchers vaccines for COVID19.
Did you know that people who received a flu vaccine in 2017-19 suffered more severe case of COVID19?
Here listen to Amazing Polly.
thnaks for the link
Where’s my free money, dang it?
I think you're misinterpreting what she is saying. She is saying that at this point in the development and testing she is 80% confident that it will be a viable vaccine. She is not saying it will work only 80% of the time.
Well, that does it. Trump must wait at least for September to pass in order to start to put the country back to work.
And, then if that caccine doesn’t work, maybe by September we will hear about another caccine becoming ready perhaps by January 2021. So, then Trump would have to wait at least for January 2021 to pass in order to start to put the country back to work.
And, then if that caccine doesn’t work, maybe by January 2021, we will hear about another caccine becoming ready perhaps by April 2021. So, then Trump would have to wait at least for April 2021 to pass in order to start to put the country back to work.
And, then if...
Well I don’t want to argue either, but I beg to differ. Hydroxychloroquine is being used prophylactically. It’s just much harder to show efficacy in covid disease prevention so few people will talk about it. It’s the old “it’s impossible to prove a negative” conundrum. However there are attempts to study the rate of disease among people who were already on HQC before the outbreak (e.g. those with lupus or forms of arthritis taking HQC for those ailments) and comparing them against the rate of infection among the general population. Still won’t ‘prove’ anything but if the rate of infection is dramatically lower than the genpop, it will be an argument.
But that was not really my point. My point was that immunity is better than a vaccine. And if you could ramp up production of the treatment regimen, and if it works very well, it would be better than a vaccine and better than this lockdown. Lockdown really just prevents the healthcare system from being crushed by demand for resources (imo). Otherwise, this lockdown is bad for physical and mental health and economic health, and threatens to create ‘seasonality’ of the disease as Dr. Fauci calls it, where millions will be at risk next winter. If it just helps prevent the virus from replicating or changes the blood pH enough to make the body an inhospitable environment for the virus, and buys the immune system time to build an immunoresponse, then giving it to people upon positive test (and/or negative for antibodies) or upon onset of symptoms esp among those with underlying risk factor conditions, then it is better than a vaccine. A “herd immunity” is better than a vaccine.
Fair enough. See my post above for clarification of my meaning.
That's part of the reason that clinical trials are important. There are a great many things we won't know without a comparison group. Because we're in an emergency situation, there's enough data to justify giving HCQ a go -- we know it's safe in other applications; so, what is there to lose. However, until the results from the trials come in, we won't really know many important things, such as:
* what is the proper dose?
* When is the best time to administer the drug?
* which other drugs should be taken along with the HCQ for optimum results?
* which other drugs should be avoided, when taking HCQ?
* How does the efficacy of HCQ compare to other potential therapies (of which there are a great many)?
* Does it work for everyone?
and etc.
You may be right about a natural immunity, obtained from having had the disease (as opposed to an immunity induced by a vaccine). If HCQ (or some other drug, or drug combo) proves to be an effective cure; then it might be best to try to infect nearly everyone & treat them with the cure. That way, herd immunity would develop (amongst those who do develop antibodies).
It should go without saying (but, unfortunately, it does not go without saying) that using that strategy requires the use of a proven cure. HCQ is a very promising cure, and it should be used to treat those who already have the disease. However, it is not a 'proven' cure. If everyone gets infected, but HCQ actually only works on (say) 80% of the cases -- that could result in millions of deaths.
It is smart and ethical to give a proven-safe drug to people who already have the disease. It won't do any harm, and it could save a great many lives. It would be risky, and highly unethical to encourage infections, in search of herd immunity; unless there is a proven cure available.
We've been told to expect preliminary results from clinical trials by August. That's probably at least a year before we could expect an approved vaccine to appear. If the results of the trials prove that HCQ (or a cocktail of drugs) is a cure; then, I would agree -- open everything up, let everyone get infected, and then give them the 'cure'.
It is necessary for people to become infected before the immune response is triggered. If the drug were used as a prophylaxis (and it worked), then people would probably not get the disease (that's good), and they would not gain immunity (not so good). We would have to take the drugs routinely, to keep from catching the disease. If HCQ (or a cocktail) is proven to work; then, I do believe that your strategy is best -- mainly because it would put all of this behind us at least a year before a vaccine appears.
I read that as Coronavirus Catcine the first time and was wondering what cats have to do with coronavirus.
Your post was personally insiring to me. I cant wait for more forced vax either. Its a lot more efficient than ovens and gas chambers.
You want me to take a rushed vaccine that is about 80% right? Go F youself...
As long as the vaccine is no more dangerous that your typical flu vaccine, 80% effectiveness is as good as wearing some rag around your face in public. Of course you could do both or even hide under a bed if you want. Who’s to stop you?
Any vaccine appearing on the near horizon will be half-assed and rushed through approvals as a face saving measure for the publicly health bureaucracy.
Excellent summary. Thank you.
Do a little background reading on the swine flu and the disaster that was a vaccine for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.