Coronavirus thread

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Seems that the Pfizer news generate good expectations as regards many other vaccines in the making as well, including some in my region.
Apparently the Pfizer one is covered by EU agreements too.

Oh, interesting MT!  So, (and I'm guessing here) that in return for receiving the money from the German government (any others involved?), they agreed to certain quantities supplied and to whom?

PD

[MusicTurner]

Oh, interesting MT!  So, (and I'm guessing here) that in return for receiving the money from the German government (any others involved?), they agreed to certain quantities supplied and to whom?

PD

I've only heard one source for the EU/Denmark stuff, a reporter-doctor from the main broadcast station this evening - his impression after some research was that it was covered by EU collective agreements/buyings. He also said, that Pfizer is waiting for a confirmation of the vaccine effect, via tests that double the statistical material, and make it more certain.

Having returned from some evening work in town, I now see that the agreement for 300-400 mio vaccines to the EU is still in a waiting position, but that it should be signed 'soon'. No info regarding price levels in the single source I consulted
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1109/1176940-pfizer-covid-vaccine/

[T. D.]

Interesting.  I wonder how instrumental  BioNTech SE was in things?  Or perhaps 'just' will be in terms of the manufacture of more of the vaccine in the future?

If I did the calculations correctly (lots of zeros involved!), that works out to be about $20/dose that the US government will be shelling out at least initially?

PD

p.s.  Yes, and I did read earlier about VP Pence trying to take credit for the Trump administration helping to come up with the vaccine (as you mentioned). 

Somewhere way above in this thread I posted a Bloomberg (iirc) link to an interview with Pfizer's CEO, in which the CEO explained why he refused to take "Operation Warp Speed" money.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Somewhere way above in this thread I posted a Bloomberg (iirc) link to an interview with Pfizer's CEO, in which the CEO explained why he refused to take "Operation Warp Speed" money.

Thanks, I'll take a look at it--after a bit of breakfast.

PD

[krummholz]

The problem isn't the vaccination. The problem is the waiting and what needs to be done while we wait on a vaccine. What needs to be mandated are masks and this is what Trump should've done when he was briefed on the virus earlier in the year, but now we're faced with an ever growing population with a higher risk of the getting the virus because of the current administration's failed policies. So we're dealing with the negative effects of the belief that COVID doesn't exist while people are dying everyday thanks to the inactivity in combatting the virus and the general apathetic viewpoint held by Trump and his administration.

Not only of people believing that COVID isn't real (or is overblown), but also people who are suspicious of any new vaccine. PBS reported yesterday that only 60% of *physicians* (and 40% of nurses) said they would queue up to receive the vaccine at the earliest opportunity.

As to the cost, on the same broadcast it was reported that the U.S. government contracted to buy 100 million doses at a total cost of $2 billion (2 x 10^9). That sounds like $20/dose, at least in quantity.

Edit: whoops! Looks like T.D. beat me to it...

[Mandryka]

Not only of people believing that COVID isn't real (or is overblown), but also people who are suspicious of any new vaccine. PBS reported yesterday that only 60% of *physicians* (and 40% of nurses) said they would queue up to receive the vaccine at the earliest opportunity.

As to the cost, on the same broadcast it was reported that the U.S. government contracted to buy 100 million doses at a total cost of $2 billion (2 x 10^9). That sounds like $20/dose, at least in quantity.

Edit: whoops! Looks like T.D. beat me to it...

I think generally that it's wise to be distrustful of new medications, though in some cases you may come to the conclusion that it's worth taking the risk. But I can well understand if a healthy 50 or 60 or 70 year old woman, for example, decides that she'll wait a few years before taking a COVID vaccine, if offered.

The Pfizner molecule is in a particularly unknown territory, all sorts of monsters may well be lying in wait there and the only way to find out is to suck it and see.

[T. D.]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it--after a bit of breakfast.

PD

Googled and found this full transcript from 13 Sep:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-pfizer-ceo-dr-albert-bourla-on-face-the-nation-september-13-2020/

[T. D.]

Interesting article on mitigating superspreader risk:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

[drogulus]

     COVID research updates: Uninfected children have antibodies to the coronavirus

Scientists have found antibodies that recognize SARS-CoV-2 in the blood of people who have never caught the virus. Children are particularly likely to harbour such antibodies, which might explain why most infected children have either mild illness or none at all.

It has been unclear whether previous infection with one of the 'seasonal' coronaviruses — which cause the common cold — wards off SARS-CoV-2 or its severe symptoms. George Kassiotis at the Francis Crick Institute in London and his colleagues analysed blood samples from both adults and children who had not been infected with the new virus (K. W. Ng et al. Science https://doi.org/fg9k; 2020). The samples were collected either before the pandemic began or just as the virus began its global march.

The team found that roughly 5% of 302 uninfected adult participants had antibodies that recognize SARS-CoV-2. So did more than 60% of uninfected participants aged 6 to 16 — the age group in which antibodies to seasonal coronaviruses are most common. Most blood samples from uninfected people who had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 blocked the new coronavirus from infecting cells in lab dishes.

      Some of the viruses that cause the common cold trigger an immune response that blocks the Covid-19 virus. The antibodies recognize the base of the coronavirus spike common to all such viruses, not the tip of the spike unique to Covid-19.

[T. D.]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/deep-freeze-challenge-makes-pfizer-s-shot-a-vaccine-for-the-rich

...That euphoria is now being diluted by the realization that no currently used vaccine has ever been made from the messenger RNA technology deployed in Pfizer's shot, which instructs the human body to produce proteins that then develop protective antibodies.

That means that countries will need to build from scratch the deep-freeze production, storage and transportation networks needed for the vaccine to survive. The massive investment and coordination required all but ensures that only rich nations are guaranteed access -- and even then perhaps only their urban populations....

[Pohjolas Daughter]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/deep-freeze-challenge-makes-pfizer-s-shot-a-vaccine-for-the-rich

...That euphoria is now being diluted by the realization that no currently used vaccine has ever been made from the messenger RNA technology deployed in Pfizer's shot, which instructs the human body to produce proteins that then develop protective antibodies.

That means that countries will need to build from scratch the deep-freeze production, storage and transportation networks needed for the vaccine to survive. The massive investment and coordination required all but ensures that only rich nations are guaranteed access -- and even then perhaps only their urban populations....

I watched a story on the news (yesterday I think?) about the necessary cold conditions.  A bit more news here:  https://khn.org/morning-breakout/extreme-cold-pfizer-vaccine-requires-will-make-broad-distribution-tough/  I don't know how they/we are going to be able to get the vaccine distributed evenly and quickly.   

PD

[T. D.]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-11/sweden-imposes-partial-lockdown-of-bars-with-alcohol-curfew

For the first time since the pandemic started, Sweden is imposing a partial lockdown on bars and restaurants by banning the sale of alcohol after 10 p.m.

The restriction marks a departure from the country's previous guidelines that relied mainly on voluntary measures to stop transmission. The new measure applies across the country from Nov. 20 and means all businesses with a license to serve alcohol must close by 10:30 p.m.


"We are facing a situation that could turn black as night," Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said at a press conference in Stockholm. "We risk ending up in the situation we had last spring."

Amid a new wave of curbs on movement, authorities in 13 of Sweden's 21 regions have issued recommendations that, among other things, urge citizens to avoid physical contact with people with whom they don't share a home.

[krummholz]

I think generally that it's wise to be distrustful of new medications, though in some cases you may come to the conclusion that it's worth taking the risk. But I can well understand if a healthy 50 or 60 or 70 year old woman, for example, decides that she'll wait a few years before taking a COVID vaccine, if offered.

The Pfizner molecule is in a particularly unknown territory, all sorts of monsters may well be lying in wait there and the only way to find out is to suck it and see.

I don't dispute the thinking, but the fact remains that it is a serious barrier to herd immunity, assuming that is possible against this virus. If we have one or more effective vaccines, then the only way this pandemic will end happily is if the majority of people put aside their anxiety about this new medication. And the fact is that after the Phase 3 trials are complete, we will have a very good idea of the short term safety profiles of each vaccine. The possibility of long-term side-effects will, of course, not be ruled out for some time.

Hence the reason for my post: to point out that we have a form of the prisoner's dilemma here, where rational individuals make rational decisions that conflict with both the collective best interest and with their own. It does not seem to help to argue that if everyone thinks only of themselves, then no one will be safe from the virus. The only way out, I think, is if people can be convinced that the risk of an adverse effect is much less than that of contracting the virus in the absence of herd immunity.

[drogulus]

     I'll get the vaccine as soon as I can. It's a matter of shifting the probabilities in my favor.

[Karl Henning]

When a reliable vaccine is available to me, I'm in.

[T. D.]

This just in from Superspreader Central:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/covid-19-new-coronavirus-case-from-trump-white-house-election-party.html

And some typical denialism:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-11/trump-makes-last-push-to-speed-up-chicken-lines-despite-pandemic

[Mandryka]

     I'll get the vaccine as soon as I can. It's a matter of shifting the probabilities in my favor.

Are you in a group particularly at risk of developing a serious illness from COVID?

[Mandryka]

I don't dispute the thinking, but the fact remains that it is a serious barrier to herd immunity, assuming that is possible against this virus. If we have one or more effective vaccines, then the only way this pandemic will end happily is if the majority of people put aside their anxiety about this new medication. And the fact is that after the Phase 3 trials are complete, we will have a very good idea of the short term safety profiles of each vaccine. The possibility of long-term side-effects will, of course, not be ruled out for some time.

Hence the reason for my post: to point out that we have a form of the prisoner's dilemma here, where rational individuals make rational decisions that conflict with both the collective best interest and with their own. It does not seem to help to argue that if everyone thinks only of themselves, then no one will be safe from the virus. The only way out, I think, is if people can be convinced that the risk of an adverse effect is much less than that of contracting the virus in the absence of herd immunity.

We can't say that if everyone takes it we'll all be better off because we're uncertain of the effects of taking it. So it's a more complicated problem than balancing individual choice and collective rationality.

[prémont]

We can't say that if everyone takes it we'll all be better off because we're uncertain of the effects of taking it. So it's a more complicated problem than balancing individual choice and collective rationality.

Yes, but even with say only 50% protection it will be a great step forward. The late side effects may be more troublesome, but we can't know them all by now.

Protection will probably be less efficient in older people because of their more lazy immune system. But one can hope, that it at least will be able to milden the course of the disease.

[Jo498]

For anyone not at high risk it pretty clearly seems a higher risk to try a vaccine with considerable side effects (some tests were stopped because of them) that hits the market after only about one year of testing and development (five years is usually very fast for vaccines, the record so far supposedly is a bit less than five years for a mumps vaccine, I've heard) and also uses a method (RNA whatever) that has never before used for vaccines on humans. It seems that the social control experiment is now followed by a pharmakological experiment on unprecedented scale and almost everybody is happy to follow suit...