hmmm wrote: » This confidence is new. I've never heard him use dates like that before. He might not know how the phase 3 trials will go, but he definitely knows the manufacturing capability.
hmmm wrote: » After Gates retired, and to atone for Windows Clippy, he decided that if he was going into philanthropy as a multi-billionaire he should tackle some of the really big problems. Healthcare in poor countries is one of those problems. Similar to Carnegie building libraries all over the world, despite making his fortune in steel. I think if I had 50 billion I'd do the same. So after spending 10 years working on issues like vaccines and preventative healthcare, spending billions on research and employing some of the best scientists in the world, Gates can be called a "medical expert". It's just a pity the Internet has facilitated the efforts of a small (but vocal) group of anti-vaccine activists who want us to go back to leeches and witchdoctors to cure disease instead of science.
Sconsey wrote: » No it's not because of his investments in pharma, if any. It's because of his philantropic activity and the foundation he set up with his wife. He is pumping most of his own wealth into areas like malaria treatments and prevention, including vaccine research (more for TB than malaria). Morons on Facebook have decided to villify him because they can't get their small brains around the fact that he is trying to help the less well off, it scares them. This moronic idea has been picked up by other hate groups who promote mis-information. He has become a public health expert through his research. He is not qualified but his insights on global health issues, through the work of his foundation, are still valuable. This did not happen all of a sudden. The comparison to Roman Abramovich makes no sense to me.
JDD wrote: » I don't see why my tax money should pay for treatment of someone who has refused to take the vaccine for no valid medical reason, and can afford to pay for the treatment themselves.
hmmm wrote: » Could this Bill Gates bull**** be taken somewhere else?
Scientists have developed for the first time a scoring system that can accurately predict which hospitalised patients will develop a severe form of coronavirus.
hmmm wrote: » If enough healthy people take the vaccine, we won't even need to give the vaccine to people with less healthy immune systems. That's why combatting the misinformation and lies from the anti-vax group is so important, and why those on the fence need to be told to get down off the fence and do their bit for society.
hmmm wrote: » If enough healthy people take the vaccine, we won't even need to give the vaccine to people with less healthy immune systems.
hmmm wrote: » That's why combatting the misinformation and lies from the anti-vax group is so important, and why those on the fence need to be told to get down off the fence and do their bit for society.
moonage wrote: » Most healthy people won't take a vaccine for a virus that is harmless to them. The natural immunity from getting the virus is preferable to that from any vaccine, especially a rushed and potentially dodgy one. If the vaxx zealots demand mandatory vaccination and get their way, it'll be a sorry day.
stephenjmcd wrote: » Firstly natural immunity is suspected now to only last a few months potentially. It may not be long term Secondly rushed and potentially dodgy one ? Have you looked into the review process & looked at anything printed on the trials so far in terms of data? You know the EMA is independent and won't approve anything that isn't meeting high safety and effectiveness requirements. Have you looked into why we may have the fastest vaccine ever ? The technology, the existing research for SARS. Oxford for example didn't just magic something up overnight, they're building on research since SARS. Might I suggest reading up on the processes in place & not spouting what sounds like a post from an anti vaxx 5G Facebook page. So much non sense and lack of infromation behind the post.
patnor1011 wrote: » Natural immunity is good considering current vaccines being developed in the west will not give you much of it if any. There is not and for quite some time will not be available research and trial into potential damage from delayed response. There are documented instances of damage which revealed itself only after many months or even years passed. That is what concerns people and why they may call it potentially dodgy. There is a race going on whether you are willing to accept it or not. Companies which come first will get biggest share of the market. This is not some altruistic coordinated approach but hard capitalism at its finest. If this was about lives at stake or something like that then governments would already go for vaccines which are out there. Like couple of chinese or russian one's. Vaccines are business and quite profitable one.
hmmm wrote: » Pfizer gets FDA approval to expand its vaccine trial to include kids aged 12 and up. The FDA must be seeing good data on the safety side to feel confident in allowing children to be included in the trial, otherwise it would be unethical to include them.https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/10/13/923248377/will-kids-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-pfizer-to-expand-trial-to-ages-12-and-up?t=1602750869765
Patients who receivedSNG001 had a 79% lower risk of developing severe disease compared to placebo Patients who received SNG001were more than twice as likely to recover from COVID-19 as those on placebo
hmmm wrote: » The test takes about 45 seconds - 30 seconds of blowing into the device, and a few seconds for the results. "
El Weirdo wrote: » That's quite a blow.
patnor1011 wrote: » Maybe because their tax money can pay for that treatment.
ACitizenErased wrote: » It appears that Pfizer and possibly Moderna are quite clearly in the lead here. Only a matter of time imo.
Micky 32 wrote: » I was talking to someone that knows someone involved in Oxford. I can tell you there will be a few misery bubbles burst on here by mid 2021.
ACitizenErased wrote: » In all seriousness it's going to be interesting to see the reaction of those calling for lockdowns when we have a vaccine
VinLieger wrote: » How do you mean?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
