6 ms·

Talk about good timing... imagine sars-cov-2 hitting a few years earlier...

vezycash 6y ago
Or someone cutting their funding because their research area wasn't immediately useful.
cinntaile 6y ago
It wouldn't have mattered much in practice. Astrazeneca has also produced a vaccine and it's not an mRNA vaccine. Not trying to downplay the research here, I'm just talking timing.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  At about the same time, Pfizer and BioNTech spoke with Graham about using the 2P mutation in their vaccine. Because their work was patented and widely published, other drugmakers—including Novavax and Johnson & Johnson—also based their candidates on the design. Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine would become the first authorized in the U.S. after it showed an impressive 95-percent efficacy rate. Moderna’s vaccine was 94-percent effective. (at least) 4 of the vaccine candidates utilize the research from the article.
- glandium 6y ago
  The technology used for the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine, AIUI, was years in the making, and wasn't ready either a few years ago. Again, good timing.
jonplackett 6y ago
I reckon 10 years earlier would have been the sweet spot of terrible - most of the world still on rubbish internet. Hardly any online shopping capacity from supermarkets. Zoom non-existent.
- onepointsixC 6y ago
  Is zoom really that much better than Skype circa 2010? I don't use it but there were video conferencing options open back.
  - iso1210 6y ago
    Yes. Video conferencing now is seemless, it wasn't back in 2010.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    Yeah it’s MUCH better. Skype even now still basically sucks. Zoom made it simple enough for literally anyone to use (and yeah I know at the expense of some security)
- anoncake 6y ago
  The pandemic would likely be over by now because we did not have the means to prolong it.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    Downside - millions upon millions would be dead. With no possibility to socially distance hospitals would have been overwhelmed with infected people in months. That would mean that instead of the 1% death rate we see now, anyone who needed ICU or oxygen to survive would then die, which I think is about 5X more, and it would include many younger people who just needed a little help but got none. Also anyone who needed the hospital for anything else is out of luck. Got hit by a car? Heart attack? Sorry, it’s full. With that number of dead and infected a lot of basic services would probably fail too just from lack of people. In short, it might be over quicker, but it would be A LOT more terrible.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Come on. 5% is an absurdly pessimistic and long debunked number. It wasn't even that bad in the beginning when hospitals killed almost as many people as they saved. Young people rarely get hospitalized so that part is nonsense too. Even if we lost 5% that doesn't even come close to disrupting society to the extent we inflicted on ourselves. No, it would not be more terrible by now – it would be over.
- nixass 6y ago
  Upside - not so many knuckle draggers having access to cheap phones, unlimited internet and limited intellect. All these "anti" movements and everyones-aunt-with-opinion would not exist, which would be better for everyone's mental health.
redis_mlc 6y ago
corona cases have been traced back to at least Sept. 2019 in China. Since most people who follow corona think there's about a 50% it came from the Wuhan virus lab, it's a shame they weren't working on a vaccine in Wuhan.

Or someone cutting their funding because their research area wasn't immediately useful.

It wouldn't have mattered much in practice. Astrazeneca has also produced a vaccine and it's not an mRNA vaccine. Not trying to downplay the research here, I'm just talking timing.

maxerickson 6y ago
At about the same time, Pfizer and BioNTech spoke with Graham about using the 2P mutation in their vaccine. Because their work was patented and widely published, other drugmakers—including Novavax and Johnson & Johnson—also based their candidates on the design. Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine would become the first authorized in the U.S. after it showed an impressive 95-percent efficacy rate. Moderna’s vaccine was 94-percent effective. (at least) 4 of the vaccine candidates utilize the research from the article.
glandium 6y ago
The technology used for the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine, AIUI, was years in the making, and wasn't ready either a few years ago. Again, good timing.

jonplackett 6y ago

I reckon 10 years earlier would have been the sweet spot of terrible - most of the world still on rubbish internet. Hardly any online shopping capacity from supermarkets. Zoom non-existent.

onepointsixC 6y ago
Is zoom really that much better than Skype circa 2010? I don't use it but there were video conferencing options open back.
- iso1210 6y ago
  Yes. Video conferencing now is seemless, it wasn't back in 2010.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  Yeah it’s MUCH better. Skype even now still basically sucks. Zoom made it simple enough for literally anyone to use (and yeah I know at the expense of some security)
anoncake 6y ago
The pandemic would likely be over by now because we did not have the means to prolong it.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  Downside - millions upon millions would be dead. With no possibility to socially distance hospitals would have been overwhelmed with infected people in months. That would mean that instead of the 1% death rate we see now, anyone who needed ICU or oxygen to survive would then die, which I think is about 5X more, and it would include many younger people who just needed a little help but got none. Also anyone who needed the hospital for anything else is out of luck. Got hit by a car? Heart attack? Sorry, it’s full. With that number of dead and infected a lot of basic services would probably fail too just from lack of people. In short, it might be over quicker, but it would be A LOT more terrible.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Come on. 5% is an absurdly pessimistic and long debunked number. It wasn't even that bad in the beginning when hospitals killed almost as many people as they saved. Young people rarely get hospitalized so that part is nonsense too. Even if we lost 5% that doesn't even come close to disrupting society to the extent we inflicted on ourselves. No, it would not be more terrible by now – it would be over.
nixass 6y ago
Upside - not so many knuckle draggers having access to cheap phones, unlimited internet and limited intellect. All these "anti" movements and everyones-aunt-with-opinion would not exist, which would be better for everyone's mental health.

redis_mlc 6y ago

corona cases have been traced back to at least Sept. 2019 in China. Since most people who follow corona think there's about a 50% it came from the Wuhan virus lab, it's a shame they weren't working on a vaccine in Wuhan.