4 ms·

Yeah, we don't even know if this disease is vaccine-able, meaning whether people get long term immunity post exposure. Worth noting that the SARS (v1) vaccine

Yeah, we don't even know if this disease is vaccine-able, meaning whether people get long term immunity post exposure. Worth noting that the SARS (v1) vaccine was abandoned after the disease disappeared. Idiotic lack of long term thinking.

btmorex 7y ago
You can't ethically test a vaccine once a disease has disappeared so I'm not sure what you'd expect them to do in the SARS case.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  True. Can't you test on non-humans? Also, the vaccine was halted due to lack of funding, not ethical reasons.
  - evan_ 7y ago
    Not if the disease doesn’t infect non-humans, or affects non-humans in a different way
    - H8crilA 7y ago
      It does infect cats, dogs, and bats (at least). And it seems money/interest was the problem: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/scientists-were-close-coronavirus-vaccine-years-ago-then-money-dried-n1150091 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/scientists-were-c...
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      I believe there is or was a mouse model for SARS.
  - mellavora 7y ago
    Interestingly enough, dogs seem to have problems with chocolate (theobromine, actually). The only problem humans seem to have with chocolate are supply-related. Yes, you test on non-humans. But because biology is different, you then need to test on humans.
ShorsHammer 7y ago
Why develop a vaccine for a disease that is now non-existent? We still have the research from that and that's why we already know about some of the workable treatments like HIV and Malaria drugs. There's a number of Zika vaccines that have been developed years ago that still aren't close to regulatory approval. SARS-COV-1 infected people for 2 years, then it was gone. There's certainly a chance that SARS-COV-2 disappears before a vaccine could make it to market.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  > Why develop (...) To get more research, obviously. Also - epidemics are tail risks. You cannot just leave them to the market to be priced on the expected value basis, that will leave them grossly underpriced.
  - ShorsHammer 7y ago
    > Why develop (a vaccine for a disease that is now non-existent?) Unless there's somehow infinite amounts to spend on research that's not viable whatsoever and actively diverting away funding from more pressing needs.
    - H8crilA 7y ago
      There are no more pressing needs than tail risks involving the entire population. But again, you leave it to markets and people that think in broken expected values and yeah it will seem like the project is stupid. Expected values make no sense when the system lacks ergodicity.
- BinaryIdiot 7y ago
  > Why develop a vaccine for a disease that is now non-existent? I think the idea here is since both SARS and Covid-19 are part of the coronavirus type, a vaccine for SARS would make modification and rapid deployment of a Covid-19 vaccine significantly better. Really, any existing coronavirus vaccine would have helped research efforts tremendously. > SARS-COV-1 infected people for 2 years, then it was gone. There's certainly a chance that SARS-COV-2 disappears before a vaccine could make it to market. Highly unlikely. SARS ended up infecting an order of magnitude less people _in its entire 2 year run_ than Covid-19. We will have this virus around for at least 5+ years, possibly forever.
jmartrican 7y ago
Joe Rogan interviewed Michael Osterholm (an American public-health scientist and a biosecurity and infectious-disease expert). he mentioned that he can create a vaccine within 24 hours for the coronavirus. The issue is not creating a vaccine, its creating one that won't hurt the humans who have to take the vaccine. So it's vaccine-able in a general sense. We just have to make it consumable for human usage. Just pointing out this little nugget of information, not trying to start an argument.

btmorex 7y ago

You can't ethically test a vaccine once a disease has disappeared so I'm not sure what you'd expect them to do in the SARS case.

H8crilA 7y ago
True. Can't you test on non-humans? Also, the vaccine was halted due to lack of funding, not ethical reasons.
- evan_ 7y ago
  Not if the disease doesn’t infect non-humans, or affects non-humans in a different way
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    It does infect cats, dogs, and bats (at least). And it seems money/interest was the problem: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/scientists-were-close-coronavirus-vaccine-years-ago-then-money-dried-n1150091 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/scientists-were-c...
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    I believe there is or was a mouse model for SARS.
- mellavora 7y ago
  Interestingly enough, dogs seem to have problems with chocolate (theobromine, actually). The only problem humans seem to have with chocolate are supply-related. Yes, you test on non-humans. But because biology is different, you then need to test on humans.

ShorsHammer 7y ago

Why develop a vaccine for a disease that is now non-existent? We still have the research from that and that's why we already know about some of the workable treatments like HIV and Malaria drugs. There's a number of Zika vaccines that have been developed years ago that still aren't close to regulatory approval. SARS-COV-1 infected people for 2 years, then it was gone. There's certainly a chance that SARS-COV-2 disappears before a vaccine could make it to market.

H8crilA 7y ago
> Why develop (...) To get more research, obviously. Also - epidemics are tail risks. You cannot just leave them to the market to be priced on the expected value basis, that will leave them grossly underpriced.
- ShorsHammer 7y ago
  > Why develop (a vaccine for a disease that is now non-existent?) Unless there's somehow infinite amounts to spend on research that's not viable whatsoever and actively diverting away funding from more pressing needs.
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    There are no more pressing needs than tail risks involving the entire population. But again, you leave it to markets and people that think in broken expected values and yeah it will seem like the project is stupid. Expected values make no sense when the system lacks ergodicity.
BinaryIdiot 7y ago
> Why develop a vaccine for a disease that is now non-existent? I think the idea here is since both SARS and Covid-19 are part of the coronavirus type, a vaccine for SARS would make modification and rapid deployment of a Covid-19 vaccine significantly better. Really, any existing coronavirus vaccine would have helped research efforts tremendously. > SARS-COV-1 infected people for 2 years, then it was gone. There's certainly a chance that SARS-COV-2 disappears before a vaccine could make it to market. Highly unlikely. SARS ended up infecting an order of magnitude less people _in its entire 2 year run_ than Covid-19. We will have this virus around for at least 5+ years, possibly forever.

jmartrican 7y ago

Joe Rogan interviewed Michael Osterholm (an American public-health scientist and a biosecurity and infectious-disease expert). he mentioned that he can create a vaccine within 24 hours for the coronavirus. The issue is not creating a vaccine, its creating one that won't hurt the humans who have to take the vaccine. So it's vaccine-able in a general sense. We just have to make it consumable for human usage. Just pointing out this little nugget of information, not trying to start an argument.