People who did the right thing will get screwed

[PhDhawk]

I mentioned this before in another thread, but it was brought up again by Cuomo in his press briefing. He said, people who test positive for antibodies to the virus but have cleared the pathogen will be the people to get the economy started again. They'll be the first to go back to work and back to school while those who are negative for antibodies will have to continue to work from home.

I think this is going to be a real problem. When the Jones's kids get to go back to school in the fall, but yours have to continue to take online classes from home, or when you get replaced at work by someone who has the antibodies and you don't, or if you're unemployed and applying for jobs but they all require you to have proof of antibodies, or your job keeps you on the payroll but only gives bonuses and raises to the people who've been doing the "heavy lifting" by being "at work" instead of only doing the tasks they could do from home.

It's going to create a dichotomy of "haves" and "have nots". And it will be exacerbated when people realize that the Jones's are getting to go back to school because they went to a concert and got the virus ignoring all the stay at home orders, or by going to a house party during lock-down. Those that have antibodies, will have a disproportionately larger number of people who took chances, and those who don't have antibodies will have a disproportionately larger number of people who did everything their government asked of them to stop the spread.

But people who've recovered will be in a much much better position than the people who've not gotten sick, and that will likely remain the case until there is a good vaccine, or truly effective treatment. This would have long-term implications too, where people who benefit now, continue to reap those benefits into the future. This also has negative implications for how people could potentially act if the virus is seasonal and has a second wave next winter, or if there is a different pandemic that shows up years down the line.

[PhDhawk]

And I don't have a good answer for this, because from the population-wide standpoint, it's probably necessary and produces the most good to have immune people go back to work. But man, it's gonna punish people who never got sick for potentially a long time to come.

[jfish26]

I don't know this - can donated plasma antibodies have a vaccine-like effect in donees?

[Deleted User 307]

I don't know this - can donated plasma antibodies have a vaccine-like effect in donees?

It appears in early trials, yes. Very early trials seem to be going well.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 090946002/

[jfish26]

That would obviously be helpful.

It's also the case that what "flattening the curve" is primarily intended to do is to ensure that we have the medical resources to treat people as they get sick.

It would certainly be great if, at some point, we can meaningfully reduce the infectivity and/or severity of the virus, but part of what we'll collectively have to stomach is that we are NOT sheltering in place until the risk is zero, or even minimal.

[DCHawk1]

I don't know this - can donated plasma antibodies have a vaccine-like effect in donees?

It appears in early trials, yes. Very early trials seem to be going well.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 090946002/

I can't wait until Trump touts this...

[Deleted User 307]

I don't know this - can donated plasma antibodies have a vaccine-like effect in donees?

It appears in early trials, yes. Very early trials seem to be going well.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 090946002/

I can't wait until Trump touts this...

Congrats. You got me to leave.

[PhDhawk]

I don't know this - can donated plasma antibodies have a vaccine-like effect in donees?

It appears in early trials, yes. Very early trials seem to be going well.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 090946002/

Where does that talk about giving it to healthy individuals as a preventative? I only saw it mention giving it to already sick people.

[shindig]

Just like the government, nothing can be fast tracked. They say even with a vaccine, it will take a year to get it developed and ready for the masses. How the fvck does it take that long? We've got massive pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, J&J, Eli Lilly, Merck, etc. Can't the government push these companies (i.e. subsidize) to get a vaccine pushed through quicker.

[PhDhawk]

Oh, I guess you wimped out and quit before you could answer my question. Typical Vega, make a stupid ass statement and then leave like a panzy when someone else gives you a taste of you're own medicine.

Vega sure can dish it out, but he can't take it.

Also, in addition to being bad at math, he can't read.

I'm pretty sure that article is only talking about using antibodies as a treatment for the disease.

[PhDhawk]

Just like the government, nothing can be fast tracked. They say even with a vaccine, it will take a year to get it developed and ready for the masses. How the fvck does it take that long? We've got massive pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, J&J, Eli Lilly, Merck, etc. Can't the government push these companies (i.e. subsidize) to get a vaccine pushed through quicker.

They need to make sure it's safe, they need to make sure it's effective. Those things take time, even if you can scale things up quickly.

[DCHawk1]

Just like the government, nothing can be fast tracked. They say even with a vaccine, it will take a year to get it developed and ready for the masses. How the fvck does it take that long? We've got massive pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, J&J, Eli Lilly, Merck, etc. Can't the government push these companies (i.e. subsidize) to get a vaccine pushed through quicker.

The issue isn't necessarily in the development. In fact, a handful of vaccines (and therapeutics) have already been developed. It's the testing that takes so long. Gotta make sure it's effective AND that it doesn't kill you.

[PhDhawk]

It appears in early trials, yes. Very early trials seem to be going well.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 090946002/

I can't wait until Trump touts this...

Congrats. You got me to leave.

DC, if you could get to work on 2coach and Mich next, it'd be greatly appreciated.

[DCHawk1]

Just like the government, nothing can be fast tracked. They say even with a vaccine, it will take a year to get it developed and ready for the masses. How the fvck does it take that long? We've got massive pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, J&J, Eli Lilly, Merck, etc. Can't the government push these companies (i.e. subsidize) to get a vaccine pushed through quicker.

They need to make sure it's safe, they need to make sure it's effective. Those things take time, even if you can scale things up quickly.

Gates Foundation is funding seven (I think) production facilities that are already making vaccines and/or therapeutics, so that they will have stock and production ramped up...if/when approval comes.

[DCHawk1]

It appears in early trials, yes. Very early trials seem to be going well.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 090946002/

I can't wait until Trump touts this...

Congrats. You got me to leave.

Over that?

A pretty anodyne post.

[jfish26]

Just like the government, nothing can be fast tracked. They say even with a vaccine, it will take a year to get it developed and ready for the masses. How the fvck does it take that long? We've got massive pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, J&J, Eli Lilly, Merck, etc. Can't the government push these companies (i.e. subsidize) to get a vaccine pushed through quicker.

They need to make sure it's safe, they need to make sure it's effective. Those things take time, even if you can scale things up quickly.

Right. As I understand it, the process is incapable of being rushed. The best you can really do is what Gates is doing.

[PhDhawk]

I guess we're now talking vaccines and not healthy recovered vs uninfected.

But, (and I'm saying this without having seen all the research) most of what I've seen about these new vaccines seems to be single epitope vaccines. Meaning, your body will create antibodies against one viral protein or one part of it. Which means you have to choose a stretch of peptide that is invariable (can't be mutated or the virus is no longer pathogenic) or you have to have multiple epitopes. I could be wrong about this, but I think for an effective long term vaccine, they'll likely want to combine multiple different epitopes into one vaccine.

Also, at least one of the Vaccines that Gates is funding is a DNA vaccine. I don't believe any of those have been approved for human use, so I wonder if that will delay things for those vaccines.

[chiknbut]

Just like the government, nothing can be fast tracked. They say even with a vaccine, it will take a year to get it developed and ready for the masses. How the fvck does it take that long? We've got massive pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, J&J, Eli Lilly, Merck, etc. Can't the government push these companies (i.e. subsidize) to get a vaccine pushed through quicker.

They need to make sure it's safe, they need to make sure it's effective. Those things take time, even if you can scale things up quickly.

Gates Foundation is funding seven (I think) production facilities that are already making vaccines and/or therapeutics, so that they will have stock and production ramped up...if/when approval comes.

Not to be the fly in the ointment, but I'm sure you've already seen this from the panic-button-pushers.

[DCHawk1]

They need to make sure it's safe, they need to make sure it's effective. Those things take time, even if you can scale things up quickly.

Gates Foundation is funding seven (I think) production facilities that are already making vaccines and/or therapeutics, so that they will have stock and production ramped up...if/when approval comes.

Not to be the fly in the ointment, but I'm sure you've already seen this from the panic-button-pushers.

Yeah. I've seen.

Buncha assholes.

[chiknbut]