Coronavirus good news thread

As ever, incredibly informative. Two epidemiologists, specialist in evidence based medicine.

Really interesting watch. Thank you. Very sensible points and narrative. I do wish they would discuss some of the interventions in place in the same way as they do the masking debate- e.g social distancing/ hand washing/ other PPE measures/ indoor events/ singing/ sports. It would be good to understand the argument for any of the measures in place. I think I have a fair understanding of evidence/ lack of evidence but would like this challenged more. E.g I think masks are a simple and easily administered measure. If it is deemed masks are of little use, why distance? If its in the air then it is in the air for example.

I find it hard to reconcile the point at the end where the suggestion is that the virus will be classified as deadly as swine flu @ 0.3-0.5% (i think they were the numbers). Does this play down the impact the virus has had internationally in such a short space of time(high deaths- high transmission)? my understanding is that Swine Flu transmission was much smaller, and therefore risks of spread through the population were much smaller so to compare death rate seems difficult.
 
Someone like @bear66 could do with listening to this stuff..
Here's some good news in 2020 no excess deaths below the age of 60. 👍🏻

Have you got the numbers for average excess deaths per age group or a link to it? Will have a search for it later if not. These are crude numbers- but it is striking the number of deaths by week against age since January. Seems to be little change if you're under 50. And most importantly all leveling out consistently.

1595253679873.png
 
That NY Times tracker is really useful, thanks for sharing it.
I had no idea there were as many as 6 trials already in phase 3. The speed of development is pretty incredible. Odds have to be decent for a working vaccine confirmed in the coming months 🤞
Sadly not.
 
How so? Surely with so many candidates, even considering a high degree of failures, one or more will make it through the trials and regulatory requirements?

edit - quick check shows there are 165 in various stages of development.
It's just the length of time a phase 3 trial will take. It's not just efficacy they need to prove, it's things like side effects. These can take a lot longer to manifest themselves.
 
It's just the length of time a phase 3 trial will take. It's not just efficacy they need to prove, it's things like side effects. These can take a lot longer to manifest themselves.

ST - You seem to be assuming that they aren't going to rush something through? (I know you've said you work in the industry, so you know what you're talking about).

Surely phase 3 will take nothing like as long as normal. (Which I think I've read you saying before that it wouldn't be safe). However, with economies failing, I wouldn't be surprised if Govts took a bit of a calculated risk?
 
ST - You seem to be assuming that they aren't going to rush something through? (I know you've said you work in the industry, so you know what you're talking about).

Surely phase 3 will take nothing like as long as normal. (Which I think I've read you saying before that it wouldn't be safe). However, with economies failing, I wouldn't be surprised if Govts took a bit of a calculated risk?
It's something you simply CAN'T rush though. A side effect may nt show up for a while and it may be serious . Many people might be killed by an untested virus.

It's not as simple as showing people, money, resources at a problem during a phase 3 trial. You can't speed up the human metabolism. Well, you can, but that in itself would make the trial pointless.
 
It's something you simply CAN'T rush though. A side effect may nt show up for a while and it may be serious . Many people might be killed by an untested virus.

It's not as simple as showing people, money, resources at a problem during a phase 3 trial. You can't speed up the human metabolism. Well, you can, but that in itself would make the trial pointless.
Ultimately we need to know that it is effective. No point 50m people thinking they're "immune" and 6 months later there is a spike in infections as people change their habits.
 
It won't be safe if people get infected. Flu vaccines are 30 to 70% effective, which doesn't bode well for a totally new vaccine.
Yes but there is "safe" and "safe" The side effects of a vaccine could easily be worse than the disease.

That's why we have phase 3 trials and that's why they last so long.
 
Yes but there is "safe" and "safe" The side effects of a vaccine could easily be worse than the disease.

That's why we have phase 3 trials and that's why they last so long.

Despite all of that, several experts, including those running the Oxford trial, have frequently talked about rolling their vaccines out this coming winter, or the New Year, IF the trials go well. Are they selling a bit of false hope?
 
Just had a quick look and with H1N1 they had 5 vaccines approved by November 2009, having started the first trials in July 2009. Presumably they had to go through the same stringent trials, but how did they get those vaccines rushed through in such a short space of time?
Not asking to be difficult, I’m just genuinely interested in the process and you are obviously very knowledgeable about the sector and better informed than most of us.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-pandemic-timeline.html
 
Despite all of that, several experts, including those running the Oxford trial, have frequently talked about rolling their vaccines out this coming winter, or the New Year, IF the trials go well. Are they selling a bit of false hope?
I'm afraid so. It's simply not possible to have completed safe trials by then. Unless they started last year, unlikely as the virus didn't exist.
 
Back
Top