Off_Field wrote:
Yes, I didn’t see the cases graphs on the site. And also think that deaths are surely a better measure of what we’re concerned about. If lots of young people get it with essentially no deaths, then it’s not a big deal.
The default setting on the FT site is deaths, you can change that to cases. Actually it IS a big deal if young people get it, as they are more likely to be asymptomatic spreaders. Watch the deaths increase up and down the East Coast over the next weeks….
172driver wrote:
Actually it IS a big deal if young people get it, as they are more likely to be asymptomatic spreaders.
They can spread all they want if those who catch it are at no or low risk of severe illness or death.
We need to get out of this ‘avoid it all costs’ mindset once this is harmless enough. More than 80% of all deaths are in people 65 or older (UK actual – 87%), which at this point are either fully vaccinated or will be in the next few months, depending on the country.
The real number to track is probably in between – hospitalisation. Infections no longer matter as a leading indicator very soon.
Peter wrote:
But nobody in Europe talks about this, because after they slagged off AZ, and now that J&J have pulled the plug
Except that the blood cloth issues are real. Several have died. The holding back of J&J is J&J themselves together with the US health administration. If anything, J&J and the US administration acted properly. AZ and did nothing, and the EMA is a snail in reacting. They haven’t even reacted properly as of yet, except nonsense about risk vs benefits. Risk vs benefit is up to each and everyone to decide for themselves. What the EMA should do is to figure the causes and exact risk, and label the vaccine accordingly.
LeSving wrote:
Maybe, but also too little focus on what is actually going on.
That’s exactly what I wrote in my first post on the subject (#3502).
We can talk about countries and regions but should not forget that this is a global issue, and if we fail to get vaccines to large parts of the developing world, we could be back to square one fairly soon.
An interesting and balanced piece on what’s going on regarding scaling up production in those parts of the globe, and in particular the stumbling block of IP..
https://www.agglomerations.tech/how-the-us-can-solve-the-global-vaccine-shortfall/
Conclusion
The world needs more vaccines and we need them quickly. It seems unlikely that suspending the IP rights will do much to accelerate production in isolation and it could significantly diminish the incentives for investing in the future. On the other hand, a full technology buyout — which includes the IP rights and incentives to work with foreign manufacturers — could simultaneously activate any latent capacity that may exist while also giving the developing world an opportunity to bootstrap their own vaccine manufacturing capabilities with the help of American know-how.
The US should be aiming not only to vaccinate the entire world, but to teach the world how to make vaccines. As the famous saying goes: give the world vaccines and you stop one pandemic, teach the world how to manufacture mRNA vaccines and you stop pandemics forever
aart wrote:
On the other hand, a full technology buyout — which includes the IP rights and incentives to work with foreign manufacturers —
Funny thought that governments like in the AZ case would be “buying out” IP that was created on government funding in the first place. Obviously this socialist author does not know (or doesn’t care) too much about how vaccine research is really done – and which parts are typically done by public research institutes and which parts are funded by for profit companies.
Truth is: Although the old communist thought of "nations should own all IP and means of productions to create utmost incentive to activate “latent capacity”" has largely been proven wrong by history. In every single case (= nation) where this approach has been actually tried out it has been shown that the negative impact on actual capacity (i.e. capital not invested in equipment, workers reducing effectiveness, etc.) is an order of magnitude larger than the theoretic “unlocking of latent capacity”.
Or, like a famous Neo-capitalist once said: Even if the socialists are right, it is still better to utilize 80% of 200% capacity than 100% of 50%.
aart wrote:
We can talk about countries and regions but should not forget that this is a global issue, and if we fail to get vaccines to large parts of the developing world, we could be back to square one fairly soon.
Actually not. See measles or tuberculosis: It technically is still a global pandemic but in Europe we do not care too much because our vaccination status is quite good. It indeed happens several times a year that cases from other parts of the world are imported, but due to the local vaccination status in Europe even if these cause outbreaks here they are always very local and rarely lead to significant deaths.
Same will happen with Covid as soon as we have a good vaccination status in Europe: we will still se imported cases and local outbreaks but case and fatality numbers will be below “typical life risks”.
aart wrote:
We can talk about countries and regions but should not forget that this is a global issue, and if we fail to get vaccines to large parts of the developing world
If you look at the death rates, you see that the “third world” is much better off than the “first world”. Covid is largely a first world problem, and highly related to average life expectancy. 67% of all deaths due to malaria are children under 5. All are third world. When average life expectancy is 50, and Covid only kills people above 60, and mainly those with other problems and who are obese, this is hardly a huge problem compared with other illnesses and diseases in the “third world”.
Peter wrote:
Pfizer just gives people heart attacks
I hope I won’t have to find out. I am scheduled for a Pfizer vaccination tonight. Peter wrote:
But nobody in Europe talks about this, because after they slagged off AZ, and now that J&J have pulled the plug, Pfizer is all they’ve got.
Moderna as well.
I do wonder if in the end it amounts to Pfizer and Moderna having more dilligently filled in their packaging sheet with side effects while AZ and J&J did not or missed the actual problem. Certainly the whole thing appears to be a result of the fast track certification but the question remains if the risk outweighs the benefit or not. That is really a quantity issue or if it can be narrowed down what pre-conditions cause the dangerous effects and such patients be excluded from those vaccines.
From the logic of things, would not Sputnik also be prone to the same side effects? If I get it right in my laymans reading of these things, the new style vaccines don’t suffer from them while the “old style” ones do? So if the old style ones use parts of the actual virus, is there something left in there which should not be there?
Well, when you get to the 1ppm level, the discussion becomes completely ridiculous and it merely shows that Vaccine X has become another political football. At any other time, a 1ppm side effect would be an astounding result.
The UK is now starting a trial of using a different vaccine for the 2nd dose. It will be a blind trial where the 2nd dose is one of the four possibles. There seems to be a more or less total scientific consensus that it will work just fine but there is a concern whether some travel destination country will accept that – especially before the trial is unblinded.
An astonishing bit of news just now: England has vaccinated 95% of over-55s. Not so much that 95% of over 55s have been done but that the anti-vacc movement has more or less collapsed – despite huge and obviously well organised and well funded campaigns on social media to discredit the vacc programme. But… this doesn’t seem right, based on data here. The numbers are still very good though.
