6 ms·
Reading this, it struck me that we're quite fortunate that COVID-19 hit in 2020, and not in say 2000, when there would have been much less hope for development
by throwaway201103 6y ago
Reading this, it struck me that we're quite fortunate that COVID-19 hit in 2020, and not in say 2000, when there would have been much less hope for development of a quick and effective vaccine.
- treeman79 6y agoIt would have just been noted as a really bad fLu season.
- PhasmaFelis 6y agoEpidemiologists existed in 2000 and were quite capable of recognizing the difference between a global pandemic and "a really bad flu season". Hell, the 1918 pandemic literally was flu, unlike COVID, and it predated a lot of what we think of as modern medicine, and it was heavily censored by governments around the world, and it was still obvious that it was more than just "bad flu season."
- ashtonkem 6y agoThose who compare COVID to a really bad flu season don't seem to understand just how bad a bad flu season can get. The estimated deaths from 1918 are thought to be 17-100x what COVID has caused so far.
- beerandt 6y agoFor some people, maybe. For others, it's merely recognizing and stating that we've gotten through bad or even worse epidemics than this. Often without the sensationalized hoopla. Eg,1968. I'd argue it's the people saying it isn't comparable to a bad flu season who are the ones less familiar with the flu's devistating history.
- PhasmaFelis 6y agoThe fact that we've gotten through worse doesn't mean it's not a major issue. There's a large gap between "human civilization will survive this" and "not a big deal."
- bobthepanda 6y agoI mean, we basically had a test run with SARS. Only through good fortune did SARS flame out.
- vagrantJin 6y agoI feel COVID-19 is the real test run. Im in SA and the new strain is the real deal. Four people I know have perished in one week. I don't even know who to call or what to say.
- Jabbles 6y agoI am sorry for your loss. I have not seen any research that the new strains are more deadly, only that they are more infectious.
- vagrantJin 6y agoThe rate from infection to mortality has increased notably. Our government is trying their best to paper over the seriousness. Just now people on social media are demanding a harsh lockdown like March because its getting out of hand. Maybe news outlets will cover something I can link to.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Jabbles 6y agoYou must cite your sources, you cannot simply state this. It is not enough to write something and promise to link a source later.
- wizzwizz4 6y agohttps://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/12/24/covid-12-24-were-fed-its-over/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/12/24/covid-12-24-were-fed... from Christmas Eve is an early (secondary) source for some of this.
- simpleguitar 6y agoWell, both Russian and Oxford vaccines seem very effective, even though they are using conventional technologies. Without BioNTech or Moderna, an effective vaccine would have been delayed by maybe 3-6 months, which isn't too bad. But now that mRNA vaccines have been proven, they might be mass distributed in about 9 months in a future pandemic.
- mmmBacon 6y agoan effective vaccine would have been delayed by maybe 3-6 months, which isn't too bad. You realize such a delay would mean many more people would die not to mention the overall damage to society from lockdowns? I can’t understand how that would possibly be not “too bad.”
- simpleguitar 6y agoSorry, my "not too bad" comment was based on the initial estimate for the vaccine, which was 18-24 months from the start of the pandemic. That would have been July or Dec 2021. Science really came through this time. We not only had a new vaccine platform that arrived just in time (mRNA), but our conventional vaccine development was also able to get a good vaccine out much sooner than scientists originally thought.
- solarkraft 6y ago(Not OP) > You realize such a delay would mean many more people would die not to mention the overall damage to society from lockdowns? Yes. > I can’t understand how that would possibly be not “too bad.” Compare it to not having a vaccine ever.
- boxed 6y agoConventional? It's a virus vector with replaced genetic sequence produced by sequencing and genic manipulation.
- tfehring 6y agoReminds me of Howard Temin, whose widely dismissed research in the 1960s and 1970s was critical for our understanding of HIV/AIDS a decade later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Martin_Temin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Martin_Temin
- iridium_core 6y agoPeak deaths in Sweden from COVID this year are about the same as from Swine Flu in 2009: https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-deaths-1851.jpg https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-... Also the population would have been younger, with fewer vitamin-D deficient migrants. It would have been explained as a very bad flu season.
- simonh 6y agoWhen was the last time 350,000 Americans died in a 'really bad Flu season", even without lockdowns? When was the last time deaths per day were measured in the thousands? If you don't trust me perhaps you'll listen to Donald Trump, who told Bob Woodward in early February 2020: "And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flus.... This is more deadly,” he said. “This is five per — you know, this is 5 percent versus 1 percent and less than 1 percent, you know. So, this is deadly stuff.”
- krageon 6y agoThe US is a flaming pit of despair right now, for reasons stretching far beyond any impact COVID-19 may or may not have had. It's not reasonable to take the state of specifically that society as any sort of benchmark for how bad things are.
- Radim 6y agoAnd don't forget scientists have continued to gather and evaluate data since. We now have a much clearer (albeit still imperfect) picture of the disease and its behaviour. For example, COVID's current "death rate" estimate is ~3x worse than flu. Versus Trump's "~5x" in your quote from Feb 2020¹. People love to argue about such overall rates but for practical purposes, they're too crude a hammer – too aggregate, too high-level to be actionable. More importantly, we now have a better understanding of the groups at risk. > [Infection fatality rate] measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25. However, the rate progressively increased with age, growing from 0.4% at 55 to around 15% at 85. Age and certain comorbidities seem critical. This knowledge shapes the global COVID response, allowing help to be significantly more targeted and effective. For instance, when rolling out national vaccination plans. ___ ¹ Whichever rate Trump was talking about – there's case fatality rate, crude fatality rate, infection fatality rate…
- ksk 6y agoWe don't know how effective the vaccines will be, and we have no data on long-term immunity. Its a bit early to celebrate :)
- Swenrekcah 6y agoOn the other hand it might not have spread quite as far before people realised the danger. Global air traffic almost tripled between 2000 and 2019.
- tim333 6y agoSinopharm has an old school vaccine there you put disinfectant on the virus and then inject it which seems to work well. Info on the vaccine https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/08/17/sinopharms-inactivated-coronavirus-vaccine https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/08/17/si... They were using it in a limited way back in June https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma-asia/china-s-sinopharm-touts-100-antibody-response-for-covid-19-vaccine-it-s-already-giving https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma-asia/china-s-sinopharm-t... and has recently got approval. I can't help but wonder if they'd offered it generally with a not fully tested warning when it was offered to "employees of some large state-run companies" presumably in April/May, how many lives would have been saved.