DaSilva wrote: » Is that not the potential issue though? That short of sterilising immunity means you can be infected, and potentially still transmitting, so it might not prevent you passing it to your family, but might prevent you ending up in hospital
Le Bruise wrote: » I don't think they were saying a vaccine is pointless, just that it won't end things straight away. For lay people, a return to normality is the end point, and for most of the first world that comes with the first batch of vaccine development. For the WHO I assume that end point is total suppression and an end to the pandemic on a global scale. Unfortunately, I don't think many developing countries will see a vaccine for quite a while.
Gael23 wrote: » As a lay person I would define an end point as a return to life before last March
Le Bruise wrote: » That's what I mean by return to normality. Not new norm, but normal pre-covid. Won't happen straight away, but fingers crossed by summer time 2021 (eternal optimist).
Account Number wrote: » https://www.thejournal.ie/covid-drug-treatment-5211489-Sep2020/ Someone with better knowledge than me care to explain to us plebs how this works?
Miike wrote: » Had a quick read of the paper in Science. In simple terms is appears as though the SARS-CoV-2 virus has a 'pocket' which harvests and stores Linoleic Acid inside the virus or otherwise disrupts the Linoleic Acid metabolic pathways in the human host. Linoleic Acid is not produced in the body, we take it in through foods mostly and it plays a viral roles in cell membrane maintenance, immune response modulation and the functions of epithelial cells. If this virus is harvesting Linoleic Acid/disrupting the metabolic pathways, it could explain why it does what it does to (a) the epithelial tissues in the body (a large body of experts considering COVID19 to be an epithelial disease) and (b) the effects SARS-CoV-2 has on the human immune system. Kind of a very... cursory explanation at best - I'm really tired. Also, I can add more thorough reading on the roles of Linoleic Acid etc if you'd like.
Stark wrote: » Makes sense. Though I'm guessing as it with most media reports of early discoveries, we're a long way away from an actual therapy based on this knowledge?
CiarraiManc wrote: » Summer 2021 is way too soon. Remember there were people who thought covid would be long done and dusted with by now.
FutureTeashock wrote: » Sweden has a population of 10 million and 6,000 Covid related deaths(most had underlying conditions), 0.06% of the population. There is no wondering needed.
Gael23 wrote: » Even the government now expressing optimism of a vaccine in early 2021
funnydoggy wrote: » House party in Gael23's house in March :D:D
Gael23 wrote: » Let’s wait for my 30th birthday in April😂
ACitizenErased wrote: » We better be invited :pac:
funnydoggy wrote: » I'll bring the beer! Anyone for corona? :pac:
mandrake04 wrote: » Is that supposed to be more reassuring?
Russia is so confident in its COVID-19 vaccine that it will shoulder some of the legal liability should anything go wrong, rather than requiring buyers to take on the full risk, the head of the state fund bankrolling the project told Reuters. The decision leaves the vaccine's state-backed developers open to potentially costly compensation claims should there be any unexpected side-effects. It is something many vaccine-makers have sought to avoid, by asking for full indemnity - complete protection from liability claims - from nations they sell to. The approach is different from many places in the world. In the United States, for example, liability for COVID-19 vaccines has been shifted fully to the US government. This shields the developers because widespread inoculation against the disease is considered a benefit to society. With the global vaccine race hotting up, and dozens of candidates being tested on humans, backers of Russia's 'Sputnik-V' shot see liability as a key battleground as they aim to capture market share. "Russia is so confident in its vaccine that it has not asked for full indemnity and this is a major differentiating factor versus any Western vaccine," said Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), the state sovereign wealth fund that is backing the vaccine. "All of them are asking for full indemnity of legal risks." Dmitriev did not say whether buyers of the Russian vaccine would be asked to take on partial liability, and did not give details about indemnity clauses. His representatives said he had nothing more to add. However, the health secretary of the Brazilian state of Bahia, which plans to buy 50 million doses of Russia's vaccine, told Reuters the legal risks would be carried by Russian entities. Vaccine developers around the world are compressing years of development into months, raising the possibility of unexpected consequences and making the issue of compensation claims a key point in supply deal negotiations. For example, British drugmaker AstraZeneca, which has developed a vaccine with Oxford University, has been granted full protection from any future liability claims by many countries with which it has signed supply deals, a senior executive told Reuters in July. Dmitriev's comments came after some scientists expressed concerns about the safety and efficacy of Sputnik-V, which the Russian government approved for use before completing large-scale human trials.
D.Q wrote: » Haha trying to sue the Russian government would probably have a smaller chance of survival than any potential side effect.
Polar101 wrote: » They would just say "there is no evidence this was caused by the vaccine, so sorry".
Gael23 wrote: » Off to a good start if the flu vaccine is a trial run https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0922/1166739-covid19-ireland/