Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just in a trolling mood again?Originally Posted by Isyel
Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just in a trolling mood again?
Guns make the news, science doesn't.
How short is the development time, exactly?
Of a vaccine? It depends how much money and resources you are prepared to throw at the problem. There are a number of different methods using weaken virus, virus fragments, or this new RNA method that need the -70 temperatures to store it.
Testing time is what is being rushed. You need to go through three stages of testing to prove that it is (a) safe, (b) effective, and (c) to see what the longer term outcomes are. It is stage three that is being rushed by emergency approvals because heaps of nations hospital systems are on the verge of collapse.
But what if we get DOUBLE AUTISM?
Loads of vaccines end up being stuck at early stages of development for years at a time for various reasons (politics, funding etc) which the covid vaccine obviously didn't have to deal with.
Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.
Usually a minimum of 18 months. This is an interesting article showcasing previous vaccines development times.
It's not just about how much money and resources you throw at the problem. We still don't have a vaccine for the 2002 SARS Coronavirus (SARS-Cov-1) or the 2012 MERS Coronavirus (MERS-Cov) and these two are much more deadlier diseases. Which is exactly why the vaccine for the SARS-Cov-2 virus raises reasonable concerns regarding effectiveness and durability of the immune response.
Thinking vaccines are only about the money and resources is just wishful thinking. That's not how medicine works. We have a treatment to keep HIV under control but we still don't have a vaccine for it (as another example). Same with hepatitis C.
Guns make the news, science doesn't.
The medical profession is notoriously bad at efficacy studies though, historically and present. Not accusing Cosmin here, he's talking sense and is a good egg.Obv, you are more informed than practicing proffesional. Please, spare no time to set him straight with your vast amounts of knowledge on the subject.
The British Medical Journal's "Clinical Evidence" analyzed common medical treatments to evaluate which are supported by sufficient reliable evidence (BMJ, 2007). They reviewed approximately 2,500 treatments and found:
• 13 percent were found to be beneficial
• 23 percent were likely to be beneficial
• Eight percent were as likely to be harmful as beneficial
• Six percent were unlikely to be beneficial
• Four percent were likely to be harmful or ineffective.
• 46 percent were unknown whether they were efficacious or harmful
In the late 1970s, the US government conducted a similar evaluation and found a strikingly similar result. They found that only 10 percent to 20 percent of medical treatment had evidence of efficacy (Office of Technology Assessment, 1978).
The new mRNA type vacines might be a solution for some of the old viruses without vacines, as that method is easier to target. In theory with modern methods cranking out various mRNA type vacines targetting the functional parts of different viruses should be quite easy...
Actually, it is in large part due to the resources and funding (including carrying risk) to a large extent. The other bit is that these researchers have used technology that has been in development for decades. Some of it, as far as I'm aware, is actually based on research done after the emergence of SARS.Usually a minimum of 18 months. This is an interesting article showcasing previous vaccines development times.
It's not just about how much money and resources you throw at the problem. We still don't have a vaccine for the 2002 SARS Coronavirus (SARS-Cov-1) or the 2012 MERS Coronavirus (MERS-Cov) and these two are much more deadlier diseases. Which is exactly why the vaccine for the SARS-Cov-2 virus raises reasonable concerns regarding effectiveness and durability of the immune response.
Thinking vaccines are only about the money and resources is just wishful thinking. That's not how medicine works. We have a treatment to keep HIV under control but we still don't have a vaccine for it (as another example). Same with hepatitis C.
Yeah, the mRNA isn't something that has been invented just now for covid, it has been in development for a long time. According to some sources actually creating the RNA sequence for the vacine took 2 days in itself, the ground work to get to that probably took more than a decade.Actually, it is in large part due to the resources and funding (including carrying risk) to a large extent. The other bit is that these researchers have used technology that has been in development for decades. Some of it, as far as I'm aware, is actually based on research done after the emergence of SARS.Usually a minimum of 18 months. This is an interesting article showcasing previous vaccines development times.
It's not just about how much money and resources you throw at the problem. We still don't have a vaccine for the 2002 SARS Coronavirus (SARS-Cov-1) or the 2012 MERS Coronavirus (MERS-Cov) and these two are much more deadlier diseases. Which is exactly why the vaccine for the SARS-Cov-2 virus raises reasonable concerns regarding effectiveness and durability of the immune response.
Thinking vaccines are only about the money and resources is just wishful thinking. That's not how medicine works. We have a treatment to keep HIV under control but we still don't have a vaccine for it (as another example). Same with hepatitis C.
One important trick is to get the vacine RNA past the immune systems into the cells to produce the protein you want to develop antibodies for.
Don't the mRNA covid vaccines have the lowest efficacy though?
Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.
No they have the highest. Around 94 to 95% efficiency.
Ah yeah, it's the oxford astra zeneca vaccine which is a bit shit.
Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.
The mRNA stuff is the snipers of the vacine world, targeting single specific proteins and their princible of operation is quite elegant.No they have the highest. Around 94 to 95% efficiency.
Basically the vacine contains the instructions to produce the spike protein that makes the big bad virus latch onto target cells, but no other payload of the virus thus it isn't infectious at all. So some spikes get produced and flagged as hostile and antibodies get created, meanwhile the RNA naturally decays away, leaving you with only the antibodies.
As long as the spike antibodies that get created don't end up targeting anything else the vacine should be way safer than the traditional ones based on weakened or dead viral colonies.
And even that one is better than regular flu vaccines. Heck with the modified dosage it reaches 90+% efficiency.
Vaccines 2.0The mRNA stuff is the snipers of the vacine world, targeting single specific proteins and their princible of operation is quite elegant.No they have the highest. Around 94 to 95% efficiency.
Basically the vacine contains the instructions to produce the spike protein that makes the big bad virus latch onto target cells, but no other payload of the virus thus it isn't infectious at all. So some spikes get produced and flagged as hostile and antibodies get created, meanwhile the RNA naturally decays away, leaving you with only the antibodies.
As long as the spike antibodies that get created don't end up targeting anything else the vacine should be way safer than the traditional ones based on weakened or dead viral colonies.
Get ready for Autism 2.0 boys. Imagine the absolute posting SCENES.
that one is a traditional vacine IIRC, so much cheaper and easier to mass produce and less demanding to store.And even that one is better than regular flu vaccines. Heck with the modified dosage it reaches 90+% efficiency.
Except in this case thats exactly what happened. The vaccines for SARS and MERS were only stopped because there was no longer enough of a need for them to be profitable after the outbreaks were brought under control. That work was piggybacked off to get the current vaccines developed so quickly, combined with unlimited funding and the ability to run testing phases concurrently.Usually a minimum of 18 months. This is an interesting article showcasing previous vaccines development times.
It's not just about how much money and resources you throw at the problem. We still don't have a vaccine for the 2002 SARS Coronavirus (SARS-Cov-1) or the 2012 MERS Coronavirus (MERS-Cov) and these two are much more deadlier diseases. Which is exactly why the vaccine for the SARS-Cov-2 virus raises reasonable concerns regarding effectiveness and durability of the immune response.
Thinking vaccines are only about the money and resources is just wishful thinking. That's not how medicine works. We have a treatment to keep HIV under control but we still don't have a vaccine for it (as another example). Same with hepatitis C.
my body is readyVaccines 2.0The mRNA stuff is the snipers of the vacine world, targeting single specific proteins and their princible of operation is quite elegant.No they have the highest. Around 94 to 95% efficiency.
Basically the vacine contains the instructions to produce the spike protein that makes the big bad virus latch onto target cells, but no other payload of the virus thus it isn't infectious at all. So some spikes get produced and flagged as hostile and antibodies get created, meanwhile the RNA naturally decays away, leaving you with only the antibodies.
As long as the spike antibodies that get created don't end up targeting anything else the vacine should be way safer than the traditional ones based on weakened or dead viral colonies.
Get ready for Autism 2.0 boys. Imagine the absolute posting SCENES.
BONESAW IS READYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks