“We’ve tried getting vaccines for coronaviruses before, particularly SARS and MERS. We just haven’t done it yet. We think this is going to be a hard effort.”[/quote]
Nothing in either of those articles says a vaccine is “unlikely to work.”
There is a lot of concern that finding a vaccine will take more time than we would like. There is concern that it’ll have to be taken annually or that it will not be 100% effective.
There is some concern that we won’t find one. That is possible. But likely? If anyone is saying that it’s likely that we won’t find one that works (and I haven’t read anyone saying that) they’re in the minority.
[/quote]
I don’t understand. what standard are you using? We have never created a Coronavirus vaccine that is acceptable after 30+ years of trying. We have new, poorly understood, highly contagious virus which is able to spread without and even before symptoms. We have an virus that seems to prey upon the sick and infirm, who are the most difficult to defend.
Please define ‘unlikely to work’ because ‘Thing we have never done before in a time frame we have never accomplished’ seems to qualify to me.
The FDA just announced that any approved vaccine would need to be 50% effect or better to be approved in full phase III clinical trials. This is inline with our best flu vaccines, and only means 1/2 people are protected/ symptoms reduced per vaccination. Flu season is an annual thing that claims tens of thousands of lives annually, and we can’t stop it. I need to know what you mean by ‘work’ because I think most people erroneously think it means ‘stop the spread of COVID-19’. Even the experts are not holding out for that.[/quote]
You’ve quoted me out of context. My response of “Nothing in either of those articles says a vaccine is ‘unlikely to work’…“ was in response to your post that had links to two articles (neither of which said the vaccine was unlikely to work). It was not in response to the post that you showed it was in response to. Please don’t quote me out of context.
[quote=DWCAP]
I don’t understand. what standard are you using? We have never created a Coronavirus vaccine that is acceptable after 30+ years of trying. We have new, poorly understood, highly contagious virus which is able to spread without and even before symptoms. We have an virus that seems to prey upon the sick and infirm, who are the most difficult to defend.
Please define ‘unlikely to work’ because ‘Thing we have never done before in a time frame we have never accomplished’ seems to qualify to me.
[/quote]
That certainly is concerning. But the magnitude of this problem is such that unprecedented resources will be spent on it. It’s certainly possible that that will result in unprecedented results. (I’ll address the standard later in the post.)
In any case, I’m not saying a vaccine is likely to work. I don’t know, and I’m trying to find out. I asked, in response to a statement of “a vaccine is unlikely to work” the question “where are you getting that from?” It wasn’t a rhetorical question. I am concerned with whether a vaccine will work (as everybody should be) and if there’s credible information saying that it’s unlikely to work, I want to know about it. You provided two articles, neither of which said a vaccine is unlikely to work.
I am certainly open to credible information that says a vaccine is unlikely to work. If it’s out there, I really very much want to see it. I’m trying to get at the truth, as always. I just haven’t seen such information out there yet. I thought livinincali knew something that I didn’t, so I asked about it. I’m asking you the same thing.
The fact that we’ve never developed a vaccine for a coronavirus certainly is concerning. One could make the argument that that makes developing a vaccine for this coronavirus unlikely. But I’d like to see that argument made from a scientist – or preferably several or even a consensus of scientists – who are experts in the field. So far I’ve seen some scientists who say it may not be possible or “we think this is going to be a hard effort.” So I’m on board with those positions. But I haven’t seen “unlikely” (or anything equivalent to “unlikely”) from any scientists yet.
[quote=DWCAP]
The FDA just announced that any approved vaccine would need to be 50% effect or better to be approved in full phase III clinical trials. This is inline with our best flu vaccines, and only means 1/2 people are protected/ symptoms reduced per vaccination. Flu season is an annual thing that claims tens of thousands of lives annually, and we can’t stop it. I need to know what you mean by ‘work’ because I think most people erroneously think it means ‘stop the spread of COVID-19’. Even the experts are not holding out for that.[/quote]
By “work” I don’t mean completely eradicate. I mean, at a minimum, provide the same kind of protection as a flu vaccine. You might still get it, but you’re a lot less likely to get very sick or die from it.
Also, I could be wrong, but I don’t think that 50% effective means that only half the people are protected/symptoms reduced. That would mean that half the people get no protection at all. I don’t think that’s the case. I read the CDC’s page on it, and it’s a bit unclear. If you have any clarification, I’d be interested to read it.
