What if there is no cure?

MadYaker

ShineOn7 wrote: »

No "bubble" bursted here. That's good news, if the trials make it outside of a lab (the vast majority of them don't)

The toxicity from some posters is quite something considering what we're talking about

I should say those trials are on humans by the way, I guess that's what you mean by "out of the lab"? It's still going to be next year though most likely, life can't really get back to normal until we have a vaccine unfortunately.

I believe the Chinese have started human trials also though I can’t find a source for that now. With the sheer number of vaccines currently being worked on we’ll probably end with a few that are effective.

kravmaga

The chan chan man wrote: »

The common cold is also a coronavirus, there has been no prevention or cure for this for centuries. So what if there’s no cure for Covid-19? Do we stay on lockdown for life and watch our economies and mental states dwindle, or just accept that grandma’s gotta go?

Well there is still no cure or vaccine for HIV/Aids, that,s around since the early to mid 1980's.

patnor1011

ek motor wrote: »

How does any of that 'beat' this virus ? This virus is already absolutely flooring even relatively young and healthy people. The only way this virus will be 'beaten' is with a vaccine or totally effective anti viral drugs.

There will be no vaccine, not my words but people in the field said so.
Define "relatively young and healthy". Data show that 90% of death are over 80 and immunocompromised people with other underlying health issues. So "relativey healthy and young" is quite subjective. You are healthy or you are not.
Antiviral drugs may be found which will work against this virus but your own immune system beating it with ease is far better option.
There is no miracle pill for everything no matter how hard do you wish for it to be truth.

patnor1011

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Your condescending attitude really isn't helping. Covid is indeed flooring young people. It's putting fit people who've done Triathlons and fitness instructors in the fúcking ICU!

Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. Etc

That fitness instructor or soccer coach or young nurse which are oftem netioned as example were found to have undiagnosed serious issues. In other words they thought they are healthy but they were not.

hmmm

Merck CEO being interviewed today was emphatic - "there is ample reason to be optimistic that we will find either a treatment or a prevention". Merck have been responsible for 5 out of 9 vaccines approved for new diseases in past 25 years.

patnor1011

MadYaker wrote: »

SARS 1 didn't cause a pandemic so a vaccine wasn't needed. A vaccine for SARS 1 actually was in the works but it was shelved when the epidemic subsided. It took them 4 months to sequence the SARS 1 genome, were much faster at that today and as I type there about 60 different research groups working on a vaccine for SARS 2. Trials have already started https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52394485

Sorry to burst your bubble

SARS1 vaccine was not shelved because epidemic subsided. On the contrary there is few of them but none approved for humans and even those available for livestock are not being used as they caused more complications when used. A lot of papers explaining this. Rushed science is not always good, same thing happened when swine flu vaccine was rushed and caused complications in recipients.

ShineOn7

So if the posts on here and other threads are correct:

• No Immunity is coming
• No vaccine is coming. If it does, it wont work
• It has about a 1% mortality rate
• 50/60% of the world's population will get it

Meaning 1% of 4 Billion will die

And to think, I nicknamed Sky News "Gloom Porn"

This place is Sky News in forum form

CelticRambler

ShineOn7 wrote: »

So if the posts on here and other threads are correct:

• No Immunity is coming
• No vaccine is coming. If it does, it wont work
• It has about a 1% mortality rate
• 50/60% of the world's population will get it

Meaning 1% of 4 Billion will die

And to think, I nicknamed Sky News "Gloom Porn"

This place is Sky News in forum form

You're conflating points three and four. 1% of those diagnosed with symptomatic infection risk death (in the absence of effective treatment, which is only the current status and changing as scientists with real, practical experience get a chance to work on the problem); out of the 20-60% of the world's population that contract the virus, possibly as many as 80% will not become symptomatic, or not realise that they are symptomatic.

So more like 0.5% of 2 billion at risk, 80-90% of whom will be able to leave hospital after medical treatment.

Atlantic Dawn

ShineOn7 wrote: »

So if the posts on here and other threads are correct:

• No Immunity is coming
• No vaccine is coming. If it does, it wont work
• It has about a 1% mortality rate
• 50/60% of the world's population will get it

Meaning 1% of 4 Billion will die

And to think, I nicknamed Sky News "Gloom Porn"

This place is Sky News in forum form

Additionally every single person on the planet now will at some stage in their life die.

DeVore

There is no immunity or vaccine for HIV/Aids. Yet people (and society) live full and fruitful lives with it in the populace through anti-retrovirals and treatment.

Mitigating treatments may yet be found to curb the death rate and maintain health in the affected. Perhaps drugs to dampen the cytokine storm response that does much of the damage (a response from our own immune system).

Right now we dont know that ANY of the doomsday scenarios are going to come to pass (no vaccine, no treatment, no immunity etc). Lets not worry about what may or may not happen, we have enough to worry about with what is ACTUALLY happening.

Stay home. Wash your hands.

CelticRambler

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps drugs to dampen the cytokine storm response that does much of the damage (a response from our own immune system).

No "perhaps" about it. A French group, working across multiple hospitals, has identified an existing monoclonal antibody that does just that, in a properly run randomised trial. Results being peer-reviewed as we speak ...

Gynoid

DeVore wrote: »

There is no immunity or vaccine for HIV/Aids. Yet people (and society) live full and fruitful lives with it in the populace through anti-retrovirals and

Yes. But seriously how can using the example of the mitigation of HIV by retrovirals etc be overly comforting re Covid? I would not like to be on retrovirals for life or continue to pose a risk to close contacts if my viral load is too high. With HIV one can take very reasonable and easy precautions to avoid contracting it - with Covid being transmissable by aerosol, then not so much.
I hope cures are found. Personally I am using Vit D, occasional doses of echinecea augustifolia and cardiovascular exercise as hopeful preventatives. But in the meantime I think we have to fully accept that a really sh1tty, horrible, and serious thing has suddenly happened in the world. It requires patient endurance as well to wait and see what will happen. Patient endurance, it seems from some posts I see on boards, is not a quality that has been widely enough inculcated in our present civilisation.

TheIrishGrover

It is actually an interesting question. I mean, as so many have said, the world does need to get back to business and as normal as possible as soon as possible. Personally I don't think they will find a vaccine (I have no concrete basis for that feeling, it's just a belief).

CURRENTLY it seems that contracting/overcoming C-19 does NOT give you immunity so it does seem there is some variation out there.

I think (And, again, no scientific basis) what will happen will be:

• Restrictions will be lifted (Apart from pubs/restaurants/cinema etc). There will be a spike which will flatten in about a month as offices open, people mingle closer again.
• About a month after leveling off/ dropping midway between spike and Pre C19 levels of mortality (About the best we can hope for I believe. Prob optimistic) pubs/restaurants/cinemas etc will open.
• LARGE spike as pubs/restaurants will be jammers. Will level off/ drop a bit after another 6 weeks.
• I believe that this is going to be basically the new norm and something we are going to have to live with (No pun intended).

Obviously if this was the case then hospitals/medical institutions would need increased funding, hospitals, treatment research. Overall daily death rates will probably be 50% higher than Pre-Covid times, people will need to pay more attention to illnesses, especially the vulnerable but I think eventually we will need to go back to the office, will need to travel internationally, will need to mingle with friends and strangers and yes, will need to go back to pubs and restaurants and football matches and travel abroad for holidays. As a scociety of social animals social interaction is essential

Of course I hope I'm wrong. Every single one of us has loved ones who are in the danger zone and this will eventually wreak havoc in poorer nations/regions like Africa and South America but I just don't see a vaccine coming. Not for a couple of ears at the very least.

stephenjmcd

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

It is actually an interesting question. I mean, as so many have said, the world does need to get back to business and as normal as possible as soon as possible. Personally I don't think they will find a vaccine (I have no concrete basis for that feeling, it's just a belief).

CURRENTLY it seems that contracting/overcoming C-19 does NOT give you immunity so it does seem there is some variation out there.

I think (And, again, no scientific basis) what will happen will be:

• Restrictions will be lifted (Apart from pubs/restaurants/cinema etc). There will be a spike which will flatten in about a month as offices open, people mingle closer again.
• About a month after leveling off/ dropping midway between spike and Pre C19 levels of mortality (About the best we can hope for I believe. Prob optimistic) pubs/restaurants/cinemas etc will open.
• LARGE spike as pubs/restaurants will be jammers. Will level off/ drop a bit after another 6 weeks.
• I believe that this is going to be basically the new norm and something we are going to have to live with (No pun intended).

Obviously if this was the case then hospitals/medical institutions would need increased funding, hospitals, treatment research. Overall daily death rates will probably be 50% higher than Pre-Covid times, people will need to pay more attention to illnesses, especially the vulnerable but I think eventually we will need to go back to the office, will need to travel internationally, will need to mingle with friends and strangers and yes, will need to go back to pubs and restaurants and football matches and travel abroad for holidays. As a scociety of social animals social interaction is essential

Of course I hope I'm wrong. Every single one of us has loved ones who are in the danger zone and this will eventually wreak havoc in poorer nations/regions like Africa and South America but I just don't see a vaccine coming. Not for a couple of ears at the very least.

Well put, I'm quite inclined to agree, while I do hope there is eventually a vaccine its potentially well into the future. we cant continue to live under restrictions indefinitely and social isolation isn't an option indefinitely.

There will have to be a point where people are more conscious of their health and learn to live alongside the virus. There will be a stigma surrounding anyone that goes to an event that has a cough or even the common cold, automatically people will keep their distance, the solution you isolate for the 2 weeks if you have even the common cold. It'll become socially unacceptable to be out and about when your even mildly unwell

Hmmzis

The comparison to HIV is a bit disingenuous at best. The two viruses work and attack the human body in vastly different ways. There are antibodies produced in the body against HIV, but the trouble with that virus is that it mutates very quickly while inside the body.
SARS-cov-2 doesn't do anything like that, otherwise no person would have recovered from it.

Regarding immunity, the WHO have backpedalled their rather misleading tweet:

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1254160937805926405

CelticRambler

Hmmzis wrote: »

Regarding immunity, the WHO have backpedalled their rather misleading tweet

They haven't backpedalled, they've just tried to rephrase a statement made using a typically scientific way of talking into language that can be correctly interpreted by social media, journalists with short attention spans and Russian bots.

There's an enormous gulf between the reality of "the scientific process" as it relates to contagious disease (sources of contagion, rates of infection, development and testing of vaccines and treatments) and what the modern public wants and expects ... and the end point is definitely not like anything you'll see in any Hollywood movie.

So the OP's question is essentially rhetorical: what if there is no cure? Well, there will be a cure, because as scientists, we will keep plugging away at the problem until one is found. When that happens remains to be seen - but it won't be until politicians stop wasting money on pointless arse-covering excercises with no hope of success.

Will there be a cure? Yes, it's already on the way.

Will there be a reliable, effective vaccine? No, because it'll be a lot cheaper, using existing medicines, to cure the few people who get really sick, compared to the cost of developing and administering a vaccine to millions of people who don't need it.

Will we ever have reliable antigen tests? Yes - we already do.
- Is it worth being tested? Yes, no, maybe ... probably not for most people, because what are you going to do when you know the result?

Will we ever have reliable antibody tests? Yes - we already do.
- Is it worth having more and faster tests? Yes, no, maybe ... almost certainly not for most people, because what are you going to do when you know the result?

ek motor

patnor1011 wrote: »

There will be no vaccine, not my words but people in the field said so.

Where did you read that ?

MadYaker

patnor1011 wrote: »

SARS1 vaccine was not shelved because epidemic subsided. On the contrary there is few of them but none approved for humans and even those available for livestock are not being used as they caused more complications when used. A lot of papers explaining this. Rushed science is not always good, same thing happened when swine flu vaccine was rushed and caused complications in recipients.

Did you even read the BBC article I linked? The group from Oxford have already started human trials of the Coronavirus vaccine.

Hmmzis

Some perspective of the original SARS vaccine developments:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/7/pdfs/05-0219.pdf

- Inactivated virus versions didn't prove to be particularly safe in animal trials
- Full length S protein versions were very effective in animals, but could lead to adverse effects if subject was infected with related coronaviruses
- RBD versions seemed to be the best approach inducing large amounts of neutralising antibodies and showing no adverse effects in animals

CelticRambler

ek motor wrote: »

patnor1011 wrote: »

There will be no vaccine, not my words but people in the field said so.

Where did you read that ?

Can't speak for patnor1011, but as one of the "people in the field" I can confirm that there are lots of us saying so. It's a simple question of biology and economics:

- do members of the coronavirus family of viruses provoke useful immunity? No
- is it likely that SARS-CoV-2 will provoke useful, lasting immunity? No
- will a vaccine change the fact that coronavirus-induced illness is caused by an over-reaction of the patient's immune system? No.
- is it as likely that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will trigger as many cases of Covid-19 as the virus itself? Yes
- is it likely that a potential vaccine will make it through development, clinical trials and regulation before either (a) the virus fades into the background due to containment measures; or (b) a useful treatment protocol for severe cases is identified and made readily available? No.
- is any pharma company going to invest in a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, knowing that it's likely to be both ineffective and unnecessary? No.

As I mentioned on another thread, contrary to "popular opinion" there's very little money in vaccines for Big Pharma, so they've been opting out of vaccine research and production over the last couple of decades, to the extent that we're starting to see occasional problems with the supply of the "old reliables". Vaccines are now a loss-leader for most manufactuers, and a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't disease doesn't warrant the lab space needed; not when you can make millions from treatments for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

CelticRambler

MadYaker wrote: »

The group from Oxford have already started human trials of the Coronavirus vaccine.

This is an example of a language problem. The Oxford trial is an adenovirus vaccine, modified in the hope of triggering the production of antibodies against a small part of SARS-CoV-2. It is not a coronavirus vaccine, and there is no evidence that the theory behind the modification will work in practice, nor that any antibodies produced will stop a coronavirus infection. Strictly speaking, it's an experiment, not a clinical trial: the test subjects are not even representative of the demographic most severely affected by Covid-19.

hmmm

CelticRambler wrote: »

This is an example of a language problem. The Oxford trial is an adenovirus vaccine, modified in the hope of triggering the production of antibodies against a small part of SARS-CoV-2. It is not a coronavirus vaccine, and there is no evidence that the theory behind the modification will work in practice, nor that any antibodies produced will stop a coronavirus infection. Strictly speaking, it's an experiment, not a clinical trial: the test subjects are not even representative of the demographic most severely affected by Covid-19.

A Phase 1 trial is not going to start on elderly people or immuno-compromised. The trial will be extended all going well with the healthier groups.

Your post sounds vaguely medical, but I'm not sure what point it is making. The adenovirus is just the delivery vector, and the target is the coronavirus spike protein. There is plenty of evidence that it will produce antibodies based on previous work, and the NIH has proven recently that the Oxford vaccine technology is producing the desired response in animals for the similar MERS coronavirus. So far (and it is very early days) the vaccine candidate is proceeding smoothly through the trials.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/investigational-chimp-adenovirus-mers-cov-vaccine-protects-monkeys

ek motor

CelticRambler wrote: »

Can't speak for patnor1011, but as one of the "people in the field" I can confirm that there are lots of us saying so. It's a simple question of biology and economics:

- do members of the coronavirus family of viruses provoke useful immunity? No
- is it likely that SARS-CoV-2 will provoke useful, lasting immunity? No
- will a vaccine change the fact that coronavirus-induced illness is caused by an over-reaction of the patient's immune system? No.
- is it as likely that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will trigger as many cases of Covid-19 as the virus itself? Yes
- is it likely that a potential vaccine will make it through development, clinical trials and regulation before either (a) the virus fades into the background due to containment measures; or (b) a useful treatment protocol for severe cases is identified and made readily available? No.
- is any pharma company going to invest in a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, knowing that it's likely to be both ineffective and unnecessary? No.

As I mentioned on another thread, contrary to "popular opinion" there's very little money in vaccines for Big Pharma, so they've been opting out of vaccine research and production over the last couple of decades, to the extent that we're starting to see occasional problems with the supply of the "old reliables". Vaccines are now a loss-leader for most manufactuers, and a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't disease doesn't warrant the lab space needed; not when you can make millions from treatments for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Interesting to hear from someone 'in the field'. You mention the virus 'fading into the background' , how do you see this happening ?

Also , do you see it as likely that a 'useful treatment protocol for severe cases' being identified and made available at any stage in the next few years ?

CelticRambler

hmmm wrote: »

A Phase 1 trial is not going to start on elderly people or immuno-compromised. The trial will be extended all going well with the healthier groups.

Your post sounds vaguely medical, but I'm not sure what point it is making. The adenovirus is just the delivery vector, and the target is the coronavirus spike protein. There is plenty of evidence that it will produce antibodies based on previous work, and the NIH has proven recently that the Oxford vaccine technology is producing the desired response in animals for the similar MERS coronavirus. So far (and it is very early days) the vaccine candidate is proceeding smoothly through the trials.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/investigational-chimp-adenovirus-mers-cov-vaccine-protects-monkeys

Based on tests in six (6) animals. It's easy to show "a response" when you set things up in a lab to prove that you should be given permission to move on to the next stage. It's a lot harder to prove that your product does what it's supposed to do when it has to work in the real world.

Which brings us back to the particular challenge of coronavirus infections: if I snort the virus, will I be infected. Maybe, maybe not - it's far from certain, and nowhere near as infectious as something like measles.

If I am infected, will I perpetuate that infection? Maybe, maybe not. There's lots of evidence that some people do not pass on the virus to others.

If I am infected, will I develop symptoms? Maybe, maybe not. There's lots of evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not cause severe illness - or even mild illness - in the general population. Why is that?

So if I do develop symptoms, am I going to die? Maybe, maybe not ... but it won't be because the virus kills you, it'll be because your own immune system kills you, so any vaccine has to somehow trigger your immune system without triggering your immune system.

Just because a modified carrier virus stimulates the production of some of the antibodies that may (or may not) be seen post Covid-19 doesn't mean that it'll offer protection. What the vaccine developers will have to show is that their vaccine offers protection to those individuals whose immune system responds in an inappropriate/excessive fashion. To date, there is no research that explains why this happens or how to screen for those individuals. So no vaccine can be reliably tested to see if it works.

Let's back up a step: am I going to die? Not if my doctor has access to a selection of immunomodulators that keep the cytokine storm under control, and supply of oxygen. Voilà, suddenly the death rate from Covid-19 (20, 25, 30, whatever) drops to near-zero and the drug companies' interest in a vaccine evaporates - because why waste money on vaccine development when there are great profits to be made from producing immunomodulators that sit on the shelf of every hospital, going out of date waiting for the next Covid?

CelticRambler

ek motor wrote: »

Interesting to hear from someone 'in the field'. You mention the virus 'fading into the background' , how do you see this happening ?

In the same was as SARS-CoV-1 and MERS and other viruses that never made the news because they didn't affect people who'd been partying in the Alps, or sharing the airspace at sporting and religious events.

ek motor wrote: »

Also , do you see it as likely that a 'useful treatment protocol for severe cases' being identified and made available at any stage in the next few years ?

Weeks and months, not years. The details of one such protocol should be published "very soon" - the data is being peer reviewed right now.

hmmm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Based on tests in six (6) animals. It's easy to show "a response" when you set things up in a lab to prove that you should be given permission to move on to the next stage. It's a lot harder to prove that your product does what it's supposed to do when it has to work in the real world.

Testing on animals is normal before proceeding with human trials.

You seem to be arguing that the NIH (even better - the NIAID led by Fauci), a completely independent US regulatory body, has deliberately fabricated test results on behalf of a UK laboratory for a different virus for a reason I can't properly comprehend. That belongs in the Conspiracy forum.

Anyway, for the rest of us - good news so far, although 90% of vaccine candidates don't usually make it out of Phase 1/2 so still a way to go.

hmmm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Let's back up a step: am I going to die? Not if my doctor has access to a selection of immunomodulators that keep the cytokine storm under control, and supply of oxygen. Voilà, suddenly the death rate from Covid-19 (20, 25, 30, whatever) drops to near-zero and the drug companies' interest in a vaccine evaporates - because why waste money on vaccine development when there are great profits to be made from producing immunomodulators that sit on the shelf of every hospital, going out of date waiting for the next Covid?

I call bull**** on your claim to be working "in the field". Unless you're in an actual field.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

If there's no cure, I plan to live underground... away from all the rest of all you infected people!

Or at least that's the explanation I gave my neighbour, as to why I've dug a giant hole in the back garden. (I was actually just really bored, so I started following a root to see where it went... got a little carried away... )

Hmmzis

CelticRambler wrote: »

Can't speak for patnor1011, but as one of the "people in the field" I can confirm that there are lots of us saying so. It's a simple question of biology and economics:

- do members of the coronavirus family of viruses provoke useful immunity? No
- is it likely that SARS-CoV-2 will provoke useful, lasting immunity? No
- will a vaccine change the fact that coronavirus-induced illness is caused by an over-reaction of the patient's immune system? No.
- is it as likely that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will trigger as many cases of Covid-19 as the virus itself? Yes
- is it likely that a potential vaccine will make it through development, clinical trials and regulation before either (a) the virus fades into the background due to containment measures; or (b) a useful treatment protocol for severe cases is identified and made readily available? No.
- is any pharma company going to invest in a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, knowing that it's likely to be both ineffective and unnecessary? No.

As I mentioned on another thread, contrary to "popular opinion" there's very little money in vaccines for Big Pharma, so they've been opting out of vaccine research and production over the last couple of decades, to the extent that we're starting to see occasional problems with the supply of the "old reliables". Vaccines are now a loss-leader for most manufactuers, and a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't disease doesn't warrant the lab space needed; not when you can make millions from treatments for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

On the immunity front, don't even the Common Cold HCoVs provoke around a years worth of protection from re-infection in the human body? Some of the versions even seem to be cross-protecting to some degree - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3754627/

Regarding the money thing, if SARS-cov-2 causes countries to keep shutting down and constantly battling the spread of the infections, there will be money thrown at this in rather large amounts. While for SARS and MERS the market was near negligible, then for this the market is orders of magnitude larger. It doesn't have to be a long lasting effect to be useful, we get flu shots every year. If we have to get a shot for this every year or two, I'd say plenty of people will be up for it since this is way more dangerous that the flu.

Ciaranis

Diarmuid wrote:

Must reports suggest it's quiet stable so won't mutate reach year. So once you're immune, you stay immune

Sleeper12 wrote:

It's already mutated 8 times, to some extent, that we know of in the last 4 or 5 months. As of 2 weeks ago there were 8 separate strains of the virus.

Sleeper12 wrote:

It's already mutated 8 times, to some extent, that we know of in the last 4 or 5 months. As of 2 weeks ago there were 8 separate strains of the virus.

Do you have a link for this? I'm a layman but everything I've read suggests it is relatively stable so far. I have read about 2 possible strains. Perhaps this is out of date.