4 ms·

We had "if programmers build a plane". Maybe it's time for "if programmers run a vaccine development" video. Lol.

by megous 7y ago

patrec 7y ago
Walter is completely right. Under extreme circumstances (worst pandemic in 100 years) our risk thresholds should obviously shift. You can't cut corners too much and there is an inherent serial component, because if you want to vaccinate potentially hundreds of millions or even billions of people, you need to have some confidence about the risks involved. Even if you accept higher numbers of adverse vaccination reactions than you normally would. This means several months of observation you really cannot avoid. But most of the other things that take months according to refurb seem like baroque excess in the current context. Three months to analyze results and six months to recruit? Seriously? Also you can basically run any number of trials in parallel with different thresholds and then pick where you want to be on the risk/reward scale based on the situation a couple of months down the line.
- megous 7y ago
  I probably wouldn't take a vaccine that was validated just by several months of observation on test subjects, especially if it's a novel[1] mRNA vaccine. Maybe a year later, after release, when the potential for harm is better known. Other people may have a different risk/reward calculation. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/7/2/37/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/7/2/37/htm
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    I wouldn't suggest anyone being forced to take the vaccine against their will.
  - patrec 7y ago
    I'm not sure how this would contradict what I wrote, I totally agree that the observation of the patients is the one thing where you can't really speed things up much. It's inherently serial, no matter how much money and manpower you shove at it, but I don't see how this is true of many of the other stages mentioned upthread. Do you? I wonder if the downvoters fully understand that Covid-19 is a big deal. If we don't manage to eradicate it and it becomes as common as the (various strains of) cold, we will likely take a big hit to global life expectancy. It may also evolve to become more virulent and we may yet discover various unpleasant things about it. Even if it stays exactly as it is now and we just let it run it's course and get 70-80% of world population infected, before eradicating it in say two years time with a vaccine, we will eat a huge, multi-year dip in life expectancy in the developed world. And clearly, we are not accelerating this yet in ways that are completely safe (e.g. would we have more and better volunteers faster and more regularly if we paid them more than $100 for each visit?).
    - megous 7y ago
      I'm not trying to contradict you. Just saying that the kind of vaccine that can be perhaps ready relatively quickly is the kind that's not very common yet, and is in the stage of "new and exciting technology", atm. I'll exercise caution. There were news today that first subjects are getting the experimental vaccines already. I don't know if it's fast enough or not. But I doubt people will not try to speed things up, at all levels.
WalterBright 7y ago
What can be done without bureaucracy: "Although far behind, the United States did work hard to get a jet into the air during the war. Lockheed was engaged to build a jet fighter, using the British De Havilland Goblin engine. Speed was called for, and Lockheed gave Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson full authority for the project. He set up his special unit, the famous “Skunk Works,” with 23 engineers and 105 shop men, and he did 96 percent of his own fabrication and all inspection. Lockheed's normal development procedure of engineering conferences was by-passed; only 700 drawings were made; sometimes parts were made from a drawing, and sometimes the reverse was done: simplicity was Johnson's keynote. The XP-80 cost only 63 percent of the XP-38 prototype, which had been made by the customary system of development. It was accepted by the AAF only 143 days after the start of development, even though the engine had not been on hand until the 132nd day. After General Electric had designed an improved Whittle-type engine, the 1-40 or J33, the XP-80A was designed around it: the United States had a jet fighter and one of the best aeronautical designs in its history by the end of 1945." "The most telling criticism of massed-manpower engineering practices is the record of the “Skunk Works.” Starting with the XF-80, this technique has been used periodically by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson to produce the U-2, the JetStar business jet, and the A-11 (F-12). The XF-80, it will be recalled, used 23 engineers and was designed in 143 days; the U-2 also used 23 engineers and took 80 days; the JetStar used 41 engineers and took 241 days; Johnson used 135 engineers to build the A-11, which was designed to go over Mach 3 at 20 miles high. This contrasts with the 3,500 engineers used to build North American's XB-70, which went Mach 3 at 15 miles high. Although it must be acknowledged that none of these aircraft are large, the XF-80, the U-2, and the A-11 all pushed beyond the state of the art, and the repeated success of the “Skunk Works” shows that effectiveness of the system is no fluke." "The Jetmakers" by Charles Bright (yes, my dad) Think about it - 23 engineers and 80 days for the U2. Kelly Johnson knew how to get things done.
- megous 7y ago
  I accept the ingenuity of people. Though, if 1% of your planes have issue that causes them to stop working midflight after 1 year, at worst you'll lose a few pilots and fix the issue by inspecting rest of the planes. Backtracking and fixing issues after giving a vaccine to millions of people is a bit more problematic. Not just technically, but also in gaining the trust back, etc.

We had "if programmers build a plane". Maybe it's time for "if programmers run a vaccine development" video. Lol.

by megous 7y ago

We had "if programmers build a plane". Maybe it's time for "if programmers run a vaccine development" video. Lol.

Walter is completely right. Under extreme circumstances (worst pandemic in 100 years) our risk thresholds should obviously shift. You can't cut corners too much and there is an inherent serial component, because if you want to vaccinate potentially hundreds of millions or even billions of people, you need to have some confidence about the risks involved. Even if you accept higher numbers of adverse vaccination reactions than you normally would. This means several months of observation you really cannot avoid. But most of the other things that take months according to refurb seem like baroque excess in the current context. Three months to analyze results and six months to recruit? Seriously? Also you can basically run any number of trials in parallel with different thresholds and then pick where you want to be on the risk/reward scale based on the situation a couple of months down the line.

megous 7y ago
I probably wouldn't take a vaccine that was validated just by several months of observation on test subjects, especially if it's a novel[1] mRNA vaccine. Maybe a year later, after release, when the potential for harm is better known. Other people may have a different risk/reward calculation. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/7/2/37/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/7/2/37/htm
- WalterBright 7y ago
  I wouldn't suggest anyone being forced to take the vaccine against their will.
- patrec 7y ago
  I'm not sure how this would contradict what I wrote, I totally agree that the observation of the patients is the one thing where you can't really speed things up much. It's inherently serial, no matter how much money and manpower you shove at it, but I don't see how this is true of many of the other stages mentioned upthread. Do you? I wonder if the downvoters fully understand that Covid-19 is a big deal. If we don't manage to eradicate it and it becomes as common as the (various strains of) cold, we will likely take a big hit to global life expectancy. It may also evolve to become more virulent and we may yet discover various unpleasant things about it. Even if it stays exactly as it is now and we just let it run it's course and get 70-80% of world population infected, before eradicating it in say two years time with a vaccine, we will eat a huge, multi-year dip in life expectancy in the developed world. And clearly, we are not accelerating this yet in ways that are completely safe (e.g. would we have more and better volunteers faster and more regularly if we paid them more than $100 for each visit?).
  - megous 7y ago
    I'm not trying to contradict you. Just saying that the kind of vaccine that can be perhaps ready relatively quickly is the kind that's not very common yet, and is in the stage of "new and exciting technology", atm. I'll exercise caution. There were news today that first subjects are getting the experimental vaccines already. I don't know if it's fast enough or not. But I doubt people will not try to speed things up, at all levels.

WalterBright 7y ago

What can be done without bureaucracy: "Although far behind, the United States did work hard to get a jet into the air during the war. Lockheed was engaged to build a jet fighter, using the British De Havilland Goblin engine. Speed was called for, and Lockheed gave Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson full authority for the project. He set up his special unit, the famous “Skunk Works,” with 23 engineers and 105 shop men, and he did 96 percent of his own fabrication and all inspection. Lockheed's normal development procedure of engineering conferences was by-passed; only 700 drawings were made; sometimes parts were made from a drawing, and sometimes the reverse was done: simplicity was Johnson's keynote. The XP-80 cost only 63 percent of the XP-38 prototype, which had been made by the customary system of development. It was accepted by the AAF only 143 days after the start of development, even though the engine had not been on hand until the 132nd day. After General Electric had designed an improved Whittle-type engine, the 1-40 or J33, the XP-80A was designed around it: the United States had a jet fighter and one of the best aeronautical designs in its history by the end of 1945." "The most telling criticism of massed-manpower engineering practices is the record of the “Skunk Works.” Starting with the XF-80, this technique has been used periodically by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson to produce the U-2, the JetStar business jet, and the A-11 (F-12). The XF-80, it will be recalled, used 23 engineers and was designed in 143 days; the U-2 also used 23 engineers and took 80 days; the JetStar used 41 engineers and took 241 days; Johnson used 135 engineers to build the A-11, which was designed to go over Mach 3 at 20 miles high. This contrasts with the 3,500 engineers used to build North American's XB-70, which went Mach 3 at 15 miles high. Although it must be acknowledged that none of these aircraft are large, the XF-80, the U-2, and the A-11 all pushed beyond the state of the art, and the repeated success of the “Skunk Works” shows that effectiveness of the system is no fluke." "The Jetmakers" by Charles Bright (yes, my dad) Think about it - 23 engineers and 80 days for the U2. Kelly Johnson knew how to get things done.

megous 7y ago
I accept the ingenuity of people. Though, if 1% of your planes have issue that causes them to stop working midflight after 1 year, at worst you'll lose a few pilots and fix the issue by inspecting rest of the planes. Backtracking and fixing issues after giving a vaccine to millions of people is a bit more problematic. Not just technically, but also in gaining the trust back, etc.