Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[animaltested]

54 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Do viruses have Poly A tails? That's about the only explanation I could think of unless there are huge portions of the genome that are blanks.

Not gonna lie, my dumb brain read this as Do viruses have Pony Tails. 

For a split second, viruses could get it.

[seriously27]

49 minutes ago, WizeGuy said:

Now, do you think it's possible to get 300 million vaccines by Jan like Trump is saying?  Fauci seems to think it's possible, though perhaps hes being quoted out of context. 

 

We're really going to see the best (and worst) of humanity over the course of the following year. 

This would be incredibly unlikely. The process time for the manufacturing process is about a month an a half, with the best turnaround time being about 7 days to restart the process. You would need to do that 3000 times to have that many vaccines, and that's a low estimate depending on yield and not knowing the growth rate of the specific cells they would be using. This optimism is great but really very unlikely. 

47 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I'm not a GMP expert by any stretch but the first rule of thumb in biologics (drugs made by other organisms, which many of these vaccine candidates are) is what can go wrong will go wrong.

Sadly this is true. GMP, in a rushed state no less, is always a candidate for failure and these rushed batches are putting a strain on many GMP manufacturing companies at this time. Trying to determine the best possible equipment, feeding strategy, growth curves, etc etc is bad enough without throwing in operator error on top of everything. One lost lot can cause weeks of lost time. It's really the worst case scenario for a lot of these companies. 

[seriously27]

34 minutes ago, WizeGuy said:

Is this potentially good news or bad news or too hard to predict news?

File it under interesting. 

[Shanedorf]

16 minutes ago, WizeGuy said:

Haven't some of these potential drugs that are being expedited been used to combat other diseases? From what I've read- the vaccine out of Oxford, for example, is an altered Meningitis vaccine, so we can assume it wouldn't have any long-term health issues? Thats why I assumed we can expedite the process on some of these drugs.

One note: Drugs are to treat an existing infection, vaccines are to prevent it from happening
With the re-purposed drugs, there are shortcuts because much of the development work has already been done while targeting a different disease. Small molecule drugs are easier to make and they are usually a pure chemical that has been highly characterized and it behaves the same on Monday as it does on Friday. With vaccines and other biological drugs, they are made by living organisms that change -  and its extremely difficult to get them to behave the same on Monday as they do on Friday - and that's where things go wrong; there are contaminations, mfg issues, potency issues and other challenges.

Another issue with biologicals ( vaccines)  is that you have to dose them by injection instead of taking them orally. When you inject, you are bypassing the liver and gut which protect us from all kinds of toxicities and contaminations etc. So vaccines/ biologics are even more strictly controlled and passing QC tests is a big challenge, as it should be. What we have is better than starting from scratch, but its still a difficult challenge and there are many uncertainty's that need to be tested

Somebody else raised the question: How excited are we to be injected with a vaccine that was rushed through development ?
Given the anti-vaxxers, any misstep could lead to terrible outcomes and the possibility that many won't line up for a vaccination. Going fast has its benefits, but screwing this up in any way could be devastating to the future of vaccines among the general population - and we simply cannot let that happen.

[seriously27]

3 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

One note: Drugs are to treat an existing infection, vaccines are to prevent it from happening
With the re-purposed drugs, there are shortcuts because much of the development work has already been done while targeting a different disease. Small molecule drugs are easier to make and they are usually a pure chemical that has been highly characterized and it behaves the same on Monday as it does on Friday. With vaccines and other biological drugs, they are made by living organisms that change -  and its extremely difficult to get them to behave the same on Monday as they do on Friday - and that's where things go wrong; there are contaminations, mfg issues, potency issues and other challenges.

Another issue with biologicals ( vaccines)  is that you have to dose them by injection instead of taking them orally. When you inject, you are bypassing the liver and gut which protect us from all kinds of toxicities and contaminations etc. So vaccines/ biologics are even more strictly controlled and passing QC tests is a big challenge, as it should be. What we have is better than starting from scratch, but its still a difficult challenge and there are many uncertainty's that need to be tested

Somebody else raised the question: How excited are we to be injected with a vaccine that was rushed through development ?
Given the anti-vaxxers, any misstep could lead to terrible outcomes and the possibility that many won't line up for a vaccination. Going fast has its benefits, but screwing this up in any way could be devastating to the future of vaccines among the general population - and we simply cannot let that happen.

Just a quick sidenote because your point stands and I assume you only said it because that's what we are talking about, but I don't want anyone to be confused. Biologics are not just vaccines. There are many types of biologics that are not vaccines. Basically anytime you see a commercial for a drug with a weird name and no information on what the drug does....its a biologic. 

[Shanedorf]

3 scenarios going forward from Stat, they've been doing an excellent job with their coverage.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/01/three-potential-futures-for-covid-19/?

Scenario 1

 

Scenario 2

 

Scenario 3

 

[mission27]

4 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

3 scenarios going forward from Stat, they've been doing an excellent job with their coverage.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/01/three-potential-futures-for-covid-19/?

Scenario 1

 

Scenario 2

 

Scenario 3

 

I think they are ignoring the most likely scenario 

Basically their Scenario 2 but the second monster wave hits in November or December

[N4L]

19 minutes ago, mission27 said:

I think they are ignoring the most likely scenario 

Basically their Scenario 2 but the second monster wave hits in November or December

Did you not see the graph of scenario 2? 

[mission27]

4 minutes ago, N4L said:

Did you not see the graph of scenario 2? 

If I'm reading it right, cases start to snowball in August and peak by October.  I think that timeline should probably be 2-3 months later (start to see cases accelerated in October and peak in December or January).

[acowboys62]

4 hours ago, mistakey said:

Bro im as anarchocurious as they come and am very skeptical of govts taking power now but the reality of the situation is this disease has shut down the entire world and spreads like wildfire.  It needs no narrative to make reality scary. There are no good outcomes until 

1. an effective therapeutic that reduces the death rate

2. all the bad outcomes occur and we get herd immunity

3.  A combination of 1 and 2 until we get a vaccine

I dig that word. Don't we have a few of #1 floating around? I still believe you can take steps towards herd immunity while beginning to open things up. It will be very interesting to see when/if round two comes and what happens in the hardest hit areas. I just think the country needs to take steps to open and assume there will be no vaccine, better safe than sorry. 

[acowboys62]

3 hours ago, theJ said:

I agree with you there.  And i've said time and time again that this thing is no joke.  But it's not 1918.  Our world is better equipped to distance ourselves.  A large portion of our population can work from home effectively.  Modern medicine is much better than 1918.  There are reasons to be optimistic.  And i don't understand or agree with publishing fear narratives to keep people from doing safe things.  I don't believe that's helpful.

It makes the situation that much worse IMO.  Things are now scarce and people are afraid, that is the last thing anyone needs while being out of work / stuck home. 

[mission27]

3 minutes ago, acowboys62 said:

I dig that word. Don't we have a few of #1 floating around? I still believe you can take steps towards herd immunity while beginning to open things up. It will be very interesting to see when/if round two comes and what happens in the hardest hit areas. I just think the country needs to take steps to open and assume there will be no vaccine, better safe than sorry. 

The only effective therapeutic we have found so far is remdesivir and it has not yet been shown to reduce mortality in a statistically significant study (although I personally believe it will ultimately be shown to reduce mortality by 50%+ if given at the right stage of the disease).  

But otherwise in total agreement with your point.  We can't assume we will have a vaccine or that this disease is going to go away.  We need to figure out how to re-open and live with consequences. 

[mission27]

6 minutes ago, acowboys62 said:

It makes the situation that much worse IMO.  Things are now scarce and people are afraid, that is the last thing anyone needs while being out of work / stuck home. 

Its also directly responsible for people doing dumb things like holding super-spreading mass protests or refusing to wear masks.

If you tell people they have to stay home for 18 months and the world is going to collapse, that isn't a price people are willing to pay and they are going to make that clear through their actions.  If we were being a little more clear and realistic on what we are asking from people, there would be a lot less angst and reckless behavior. 

[acowboys62]

3 hours ago, Glen said:

Again

You go out to crowded bars because you’re not concerned. You get the virus. But ultimately are fine.

We work together where you give me the virus unintentionally while you’re asymptomatic.

I go home and give the virus to grandma despite staying home as best I can & limiting my social interactions.

Grandma dies.

womp womp

 

I don't do bars. I should find out soon if I already had the virus.  I work from home anyways so you are welcome to come over but its boring here, I do have a dope dog and he is pretty sick of just seeing me all day.  

...Just being an ***...

I get what you are saying, I really do and this is something I think companies need to start to think about.  You are going to have a large part of the workforce that does not want to go back to an office setting because of exactly the scenario you presented and I do not blame them, but you also have people who depend on their wages as a bartender, restaurant owner, barber, etc..  My employer is taking some rather awesome steps to prepare for the eventual return to the office for most people (which at a minimum will be 9/7).  Employers are going to have to find a way to protect their people and if they don't then whoever is the proper agency needs to step in and fix it. 

My personal feelings on all of this are that retail stores, bars, those things are not essential to me, I don't use them, I don't need to have their physical locations.  But what is essential to me is not the same for anyone else and that is why I believe they need to begin to open things.  My barber has already had to shut 1 of his 2 locations permanently.  I am perfectly ok cutting my own hair and saving the money, but it sure is essential for him to cut my hair along with hundreds of others.

 

Also, and maybe this is extremely  inappropriate, but going off of my experience with my grandparents. I have a grandfather who actually is in a home and has it and is fine so far and has comorbidities, I have a grandma in FL who refuses to wear a mask or do anything anyone should be doing because and I quote "I am 88 years old, I have figured it out so far". My other grandma who past years ago lived through the great depression and I am willing to bet she would have no interest in going through another if she were around and my other grandfather made it through WWII as a pilot who was shot down and then served as a cop for 26 years in Newark NJ and on his down time smoked camel cigarettes with the filters ripped off. Maybe it is just my experience, but I do not believe all grandparents are these fragile pieces of glass they get made out to be, the ones who are still able to function and be active are pretty hard SOBs who have been through a hell of a lot more than any of us and I know if mine had a vote, they would be all for opening things up because that is just how they have always been wired.  Obviously people have different circumstances so maybe I have just been exposed to one side of the extremes for too long. 

[acowboys62]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The protection from a vaccine should last years, but the vaccine itself is only a single dose and is cleared from systemic circulation very quickly (less than a week). Therefore, we aren't concerned about clinical trials that might take longer or even nonclinical studies using chronic administration (the longest of which is a required 2 year carcinogencity study). This shaves years off the development process.

The Phase 3 trials will be ongoing for a while as they test how long people retain immunity, but that shouldn't hold up approval if a company can prove it worked even if the immunity lasts 3 years instead of 10.

 

So yes this could happen quickly, but we aren't skipping things that are essential.

Is there a way they are able to figure out how long the potential vaccine could last far?  Obviously everything is on an expedited timeline so that Phase 3 you speak of will take place over months and not years, I assume from that they are able to estimate how long it could potentially last?