4 ms·

Also it gives us some time to think clearly about next steps and to have some control over the situation at an individual and organization level. Maybe someday

Also it gives us some time to think clearly about next steps and to have some control over the situation at an individual and organization level. Maybe someday we will also decided that herd immunity is the way to go but we may also decided to give the researchers a month to see if they come up with other options

nullc 7y ago
> we will also decided that herd immunity Or more critically, if we learn that lasting native immunity is even possible. For the coronaviruses which cause the cold (such as CoV-OC43) the adaptive immune response is not particularly strong and immunity lasts only months. -- not due to mutation, but because of behaviors in the immune system which we don't yet understand. This has contributed to the difficulty in creating a vaccine for the prior sars virus. As a result, the whole "get people immune for next season" idea may be a largely pointless goal. The best comparisons we have so far suggest that it is, though we just don't have enough information yet.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "For the coronaviruses which cause the cold (such as CoV-OC43) the adaptive immune response is not particularly strong and immunity lasts only months. -- not due to mutation, but because of behaviors in the immune system which we don't yet understand. This has contributed to the difficulty in creating a vaccine for the prior sars virus." From what I understand, work on developing a SARS vaccine stopped because the epidemic was over, and there was no longer an interest or will to continue working on it. In addition, here's what Vincent Racaniello of This Week In Virology[1] had to say about antivirals: "We could have had antivirals against all coronas or many coronas if we had put the money in to making them, but there was no interest and therefore companies which need to make profits were not interested in pursuing them, but they could have been developed and stockpiled and been ready. "So if you had infinite money and people you could say, 'Let's get a bunch of RNA polymerases from bat SARS-like coronaviruses and design something that will inhibit them all.' I don't think it would be that hard because they're very conserved. But without the financial incentive... so, antivirals are kind of a different thing because you could develop them and bring them, you could even do a phase one and then have them ready for actual testing when there's an outbreak." [1] - at about 1 hr and 33 minutes in to episode 590 - http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-590/ http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-590/
  - nullc 7y ago
    Antivirals != vaccine. Antivirals for sars-cov-2 seem MUCH more likely to arrive quickly than a vaccine, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that several of the things currently being tested (some of which are already approved for the treatment of other conditions) are effective.

nullc 7y ago

> we will also decided that herd immunity Or more critically, if we learn that lasting native immunity is even possible. For the coronaviruses which cause the cold (such as CoV-OC43) the adaptive immune response is not particularly strong and immunity lasts only months. -- not due to mutation, but because of behaviors in the immune system which we don't yet understand. This has contributed to the difficulty in creating a vaccine for the prior sars virus. As a result, the whole "get people immune for next season" idea may be a largely pointless goal. The best comparisons we have so far suggest that it is, though we just don't have enough information yet.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"For the coronaviruses which cause the cold (such as CoV-OC43) the adaptive immune response is not particularly strong and immunity lasts only months. -- not due to mutation, but because of behaviors in the immune system which we don't yet understand. This has contributed to the difficulty in creating a vaccine for the prior sars virus." From what I understand, work on developing a SARS vaccine stopped because the epidemic was over, and there was no longer an interest or will to continue working on it. In addition, here's what Vincent Racaniello of This Week In Virology[1] had to say about antivirals: "We could have had antivirals against all coronas or many coronas if we had put the money in to making them, but there was no interest and therefore companies which need to make profits were not interested in pursuing them, but they could have been developed and stockpiled and been ready. "So if you had infinite money and people you could say, 'Let's get a bunch of RNA polymerases from bat SARS-like coronaviruses and design something that will inhibit them all.' I don't think it would be that hard because they're very conserved. But without the financial incentive... so, antivirals are kind of a different thing because you could develop them and bring them, you could even do a phase one and then have them ready for actual testing when there's an outbreak." [1] - at about 1 hr and 33 minutes in to episode 590 - http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-590/ http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-590/
- nullc 7y ago
  Antivirals != vaccine. Antivirals for sars-cov-2 seem MUCH more likely to arrive quickly than a vaccine, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that several of the things currently being tested (some of which are already approved for the treatment of other conditions) are effective.