NON_POLITICAL China Coronavirus THREAD

Page 465 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,745
48,416
136
I ran the WDW Marathon in 2016,2017, and 2019. I got to see the arena they played in under construction in 2017...and in 2019 they started using it for their merchandise store for the race expo. Just kind of cool that I've walked around the facility.

I'm really happy they were able to provide the players an opportunity to work....so to speak. Professional athletes are a lot like Olympic athletes... In many cases, every year that passes increases the odds their career will be cut short. My fear back in May was that professional sports were going to lose out on a year, similar to the Olympics being cancelled.

Yeah the clock is always running on player careers and missing out on a year of pay would be a tough thing to swallow. The start making a bajillion dollars with sponsorships coming out the ears will be fine but that's not a majority of any league.
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,392
1,780
126
Yeah the clock is always running on player careers and missing out on a year of pay would be a tough thing to swallow. The start making a bajillion dollars with sponsorships coming out the ears will be fine but that's not a majority of any league.
The leagues are already struggling I'm sure with all of the live event revenues they're losing. I have NFL season tickets and ended up getting a refund for the 2020 season due to game availability being so low. There were seats for remaining games available, but I didn't feel like jumping through the selection hoops. They're losing a bunch of money and all the stadiums will depreciate another year.
 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,688
2,811
126
The leagues are already struggling I'm sure with all of the live event revenues they're losing. I have NFL season tickets and ended up getting a refund for the 2020 season due to game availability being so low. There were seats for remaining games available, but I didn't feel like jumping through the selection hoops. They're losing a bunch of money and all the stadiums will depreciate another year.
It's tax write-off for the wealthy. These billionaire sports club owners are killing it this year because of covid market dip and rally in the equities market. So I have zero sympathy for any loss suffered by the rich club owners. In fact, I wish I had tax write-offs like they have. And as for the players, they're all rich and getting richer too.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
This fall/winter is going to get real bad.

...or it won't.

Sorry, but I don't feel you have any particularly insightful musings from what we all read in the media and I feel this thread would be better off without them... especially after you demonstrated yourself to be particularly susceptible to media spin with that link to CNBC:
Pfizer pushes back on vaccine date. I highly doubt that we are going to see a vaccine by the end of October.


Your take-away was literally the exact opposite of what Pfizer did/said! Granted, most of the media tried to give us that same impression but you really have to be more discriminating. Though CNBC falsely claimed Pfizer was rebuking Trump's "special day" promise in a paragraph where Pfizer was actually scolding vaccine naysayers (Trump's opponents), even CNBC didn't go as far as claiming that Pfizer was pushing back on the vaccine date. That was all you.

As for this fall/winter being "bad," well, expect it to sound bad whether it really is or not. They will focus on scary high positivity numbers and edge cases even if we get everyone at risk vaccinated and there are no major issues letting it burn through the rest of the population.

I'm hopeful but not blind. I think there's a good chance Pfizer will have regulatory trouble and be forced to wait for severe cases inside the Phase III trials and/or an extra 2 months. I think there's a good chance other vaccines will be otherwise-ready but going through the same hurdles this fall/winter. At this point, I can't say I would agree to the two month delay or the waiting for two severe cases in the control group since the entire point of an EUA and Operation Warp Speed is to reasonably risk some safety regulations and manufacturing/distribution concerns for speed.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,742
126
...or it won't.

Sorry, but I don't feel you have any particularly insightful musings from what we all read in the media and I feel this thread would be better off without them... especially after you demonstrated yourself to be particularly susceptible to media spin with that link to CNBC:


Your take-away was literally the exact opposite of what Pfizer did/said! Granted, most of the media tried to give us that same impression but you really have to be more discriminating. Though CNBC falsely claimed Pfizer was rebuking Trump's "special day" promise in a paragraph where Pfizer was actually scolding vaccine naysayers (Trump's opponents), even CNBC didn't go as far as claiming that Pfizer was pushing back on the vaccine date. That was all you.

As for this fall/winter being "bad," well, expect it to sound bad whether it really is or not. They will focus on scary high positivity numbers and edge cases even if we get everyone at risk vaccinated and there are no major issues letting it burn through the rest of the population.

I'm hopeful but not blind. I think there's a good chance Pfizer will have regulatory trouble and be forced to wait for severe cases inside the Phase III trials and/or an extra 2 months. I think there's a good chance other vaccines will be otherwise-ready but going through the same hurdles this fall/winter. At this point, I can't say I would agree to the two month delay or the waiting for two severe cases in the control group since the entire point of an EUA and Operation Warp Speed is to reasonably risk some safety regulations and manufacturing/distribution concerns for speed.

I'm a realist. You like to live in this fantasy land. I wonder if there were people like you during the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918. Probably.

I'll listen to experts like Osteholm thank you very much. You can state what you want, but your insights into COVID19 are trash IMO. Btw, I'll say what I want, and if you don't like it "OH WELL..."

A top disease expert is warning of 'another 12 to 14 months of a really hard road ahead of us' and says the US has no national plan to stop it.


 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I'm a realist. You like to live in this fantasy land. I wonder if there were people like you during the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918. Probably.

I'll listen to experts like Osteholm thank you very much. You can state what you want, but your insights into COVID19 are trash IMO. Btw, I'll say what I want, and if you don't like it "OH WELL..."

A top disease expert is warning of 'another 12 to 14 months of a really hard road ahead of us' and says the US has no national plan to stop it.



*Ahem*

Pfizer pushes back on vaccine date. I highly doubt that we are going to see a vaccine by the end of October.


"Realist" at work here, folks.

*rolls eyes*

In reality, Pfizer defended their October timeline, explained that it was self-imposed 8 months ago, claimed to be on-track for delivering Phase III results in October, denied that it was politically influenced, bemoaned attempts by politicians to politicize it, and expressed regret that one side was casting doubt on the safety of their vaccine.

I said it could be bad or it might not be, so tell me: what is my "fantasy?"

You had every opportunity to defend your bad take before and now I'm forcing you to address it. You think you're saving face by attacking me instead but you're really just digging your hole deeper. Try a proper response this time. At the very least you should define my "fantasy" before you dismissively accuse me of having one.


Full Pfizer memo:
Dear U.S. Colleagues,

Tuesday night I joined the millions of Americans who tuned in to the Presidential debate. Once more, I was disappointed that the prevention for a deadly disease was discussed in political terms rather than scientific facts. People, who are understandably confused, don't know whom or what to believe. Global health has too much at stake, and the public trust and acceptance of a vaccine is so important to me, that I'm writing to explain the principles we are using at Pfizer today.
Remember from the beginning of the year, it was clear that the suffering and destruction from the COVID-19 pandemic would be extreme. In February, cases began spiraling across the globe. Addressing a pandemic requires many simultaneous fronts of attack, but it became obvious that a safe and effective vaccine could be an essential part of the solution. And, it would take a huge effort by a company with scale to achieve that goal. I knew Pfizer had an obligation to step up and lead.

That is why in March, I declared a bold ambition: that Pfizer would create a vaccine, and we would devote any and all resources necessary to be successful. I further announced, after consulting with our scientists, that we could have vaccine data ready to submit to the FDA by end of the third quarter, in October, and hopefully a hundred million doses delivered by the end of the year. I knew our goal was ambitious, but it would also be critical to protect against the second wave of cases that could accompany the return of colder weather in the Fall.

Since then, and every day for the last seven months, we've kept our shoulder to that wheel. Our scientists have leveraged our vaccine research and development expertise, our manufacturing team has innovated to solve production and delivery hurdles, and we've recruited more than 35,000 people in clinical trials in multiple countries. Every ounce of our ability has been spent and nearly $2 billion put at risk.

Now, we are approaching our goal and despite not having any political considerations with our pre-announced date, we find ourselves in the crucible of the U.S. Presidential election. In this hyper-partisan year, there are some who would like us to move more quickly and others who argue for delay. Neither of those options are acceptable to me. Against this backdrop, people need to know three things:

First, we are moving at the speed of science. With a virus this ferocious, time is our enemy. This week, we will hit the grim marker of 1 million deaths globally and the number continues to climb. This danger supersedes any other timing considerations.

Second, we would never succumb to political pressure. The only pressure we feel—and it weighs heavy—are the billions of people, millions of businesses and hundreds of government officials that are depending on us. We've engaged with many elected leaders around the globe through this health crisis, but Pfizer took no investment money from any government. Our independence is a precious asset.

Third, our priority is the development of a safe and effective vaccine to end this pandemic. I have a duty to Pfizer's 171-year history to honor our legacy of discovering and manufacturing high-quality medicines. We will never cut a corner. Pfizer's purpose is simple: "Breakthroughs that Change Patients' Lives." It's our North Star.

Finally, I enjoy a robust policy debate, but I'm not a politician. I'm a scientist, business leader, husband and father, friend and neighbor who cares deeply about the integrity of this potential vaccine. The amplified political rhetoric around vaccine development, timing and political credit is undercutting public confidence. I can't predict exactly when, or even if our vaccine will be approved by the FDA for distribution to the public. But I do know that the world will be safer if we stop talking about the vaccines' delivery in political terms and focus instead on a rigorous independent scientific evaluation and a robust independent approval process.

Let's continue to work together to build trust in the science. That is what we are doing at Pfizer. Imagine the compounded tragedy if we have a safe and effective vaccine that many people didn't trust.
That is a risk none of us should accept.
Just where in that message did Pfizer push back on the October date to justify your BS claim?

I was itching for a fight. Thank you for obliging me. :)
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,745
48,416
136
The more I read these days the more confident I am that an effective vaccine (or two) will start limited rollout this year. The real shit storm is looking to be the deployment end. Little money is available for this effort which will cost several billion dollars and neither congress or the President seems to be taking it seriously. If this continues what's going to happen is that the places with resources will be able to administer doses efficiently and those that don't won't. Urban centers with money, major medical facilities, staff, and infrastructure will have a big advantage over the rest of the county when arguing for limited vaccine allotments.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay and CZroe

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,116
136
I'm still worried about the net effectiveness in the population. 60% effectiveness with 60% of the population receiving the vaccine (over ~1 year) and we have 36% of the population inoculated - plus what ever % are currently immune. That means several more years of the novel corona virus circulating in the population with plenty of opportunities for more contagious/deadly mutations to succeed. Maybe by then we will have an 80-90% effective vaccine and all the extra deaths will get more people to take it. What we really need is 80%+ uptake with a 90%+ effectiveness. Then the virus should all but die off.

I hope we get some very effective therapeutics next year that will reduce mortality even lower and reduce recovery time for the seriously ill and for those with moderate illness (and, hopefully, protect against long term effects). People who think this epidemic will end next year are in for a rude awakening.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
I'm still worried about the net effectiveness in the population. 60% effectiveness with 60% of the population receiving the vaccine (over ~1 year) and we have 36% of the population inoculated - plus what ever % are currently immune. That means several more years of the novel corona virus circulating in the population with plenty of opportunities for more contagious/deadly mutations to succeed. Maybe by then we will have an 80-90% effective vaccine and all the extra deaths will get more people to take it. What we really need is 80%+ uptake with a 90%+ effectiveness. Then the virus should all but die off.

I hope we get some very effective therapeutics next year that will reduce mortality even lower and reduce recovery time for the seriously ill and for those with moderate illness (and, hopefully, protect against long term effects). People who think this epidemic will end next year are in for a rude awakening.
Why would it be only 60% effective? This is very different from flu shots; which are a combination of MULTIPLE vaccines for several strains of flu. For the strains targeted by a particular flu shot, it's closer to 100% effective.

We aren't targeting multiple years-old strains that are constantly reassorting with each other. We are targeting one virus that hasn't had a full year of uncontained spread. There has been no selective pressure causing SARS-CoV-2 to adapt or change fundamentally, so there's no reason to assume effectiveness of the vaccine will be limited.
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,392
1,780
126
The more I read these days the more confident I am that an effective vaccine (or two) will start limited rollout this year. The real shit storm is looking to be the deployment end. Little money is available for this effort which will cost several billion dollars and neither congress or the President seems to be taking it seriously. If this continues what's going to happen is that the places with resources will be able to administer doses efficiently and those that don't won't. Urban centers with money, major medial facilities, staff, and infrastructure will have a big advantage over the rest of the county when arguing for limited vaccine allotments.
When you say deployment, do you mean administration of the vaccine? Access is going to be limited for those in rural areas, but no more than any other healthcare. I'm thinking there'll be a mix of typical pharmaceutical distribution, possibly through pharmacies (as they've started doing flu shots just about everywhere), doc offices will stick people with the vaccine for a fee (as they do with flu vaccine). Those in more rural areas may have to rely on state-run health departments and perhaps hospitals will open vaccine clinics if it allows them to make money somehow.

I was vaccinated for H1N1 and received a regular FLU vaccine at the same time that year. I had a link to the health department through my contacts that basically fast-tracked me and allowed me to skip the line when they were running low on vaccines. They were running low because everyone rushed out to get the vaccine and many were going for the nasal mist that was available....and that leads me to what I think the real problem will be.

I think the real problem is going to be distribution logistics as limited supply is released. What you're going to have is 50 states + other countries getting shipped vaccine. Within those states, demand is going to be varied and you're going to have some areas that get shipped too much and some that will be shipped too little. As a result, for quite a while, there are going to be shortages in most places and some places will have way too much.

I think one thing that will help ease those distribution logistics is just the fact that cold storage is required. Perhaps that will help reduce the likelihood that someone is stockpiling the stuff that doesn't need it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,745
48,416
136
When you say deployment, do you mean administration of the vaccine? Access is going to be limited for those in rural areas, but no more than any other healthcare. I'm thinking there'll be a mix of typical pharmaceutical distribution, possibly through pharmacies (as they've started doing flu shots just about everywhere), doc offices will stick people with the vaccine for a fee (as they do with flu vaccine). Those in more rural areas may have to rely on state-run health departments and perhaps hospitals will open vaccine clinics if it allows them to make money somehow.

I was vaccinated for H1N1 and received a regular FLU vaccine at the same time that year. I had a link to the health department through my contacts that basically fast-tracked me and allowed me to skip the line when they were running low on vaccines. They were running low because everyone rushed out to get the vaccine and many were going for the nasal mist that was available....and that leads me to what I think the real problem will be.

I think the real problem is going to be distribution logistics as limited supply is released. What you're going to have is 50 states + other countries getting shipped vaccine. Within those states, demand is going to be varied and you're going to have some areas that get shipped too much and some that will be shipped too little. As a result, for quite a while, there are going to be shortages in most places and some places will have way too much.

I think one thing that will help ease those distribution logistics is just the fact that cold storage is required. Perhaps that will help reduce the likelihood that someone is stockpiling the stuff that doesn't need it.


Yes. Rural areas aren't likely to have a lot of (or perhaps any) -70C freezers which is what the Pfizer mRNA vaccine has to be stored at. It will only last a day at fridge temp. Regular freezers will work for Moderna's vaccine but once both are in the wild you have to ensure that people get two doses off the same vaccine which could get tricky to track if resources are limited and systems fragmented. Once you start moving into mass vaccinations of the public after you get all the healthcare workers that's a lot of logistics to manage an ultimately pay for, money which has not been granted by the feds yet.

The shelf life of flu vaccine is months at 2-8C which makes it extremely easy to administer but IIRC the H1N1 mass vaccination campaign itself cost upwards of a billion dollars not including vaccine procurement cost. The coronavirus mass vaccination program will easily exceed that by several billion dollars of extra cost.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
17,171
7,550
136
plus what ever % are currently immune.

That's like 10-15% already. As long as the vaccine is reasonably effective, that should be good enough with some distribution. Now there will be outbreaks for sure because not everyone will take the vaccine.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,116
136
Why would it be only 60% effective? This is very different from flu shots; which are a combination of MULTIPLE vaccines for several strains of flu. For the strains targeted by a particular flu shot, it's closer to 100% effective.
1st gen COVID-19 vaccines are targeted towards 50-60%. We'll have to wait longer for better vaccines. These vaccines are being developed as quickly as possible.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,745
48,416
136
I have no idea how effective the first wave of mRNA vaccines will be and there will be differences based on what was encoded and how the immune system responds to it. Most scientists, while pretty willing to speculate, seem to agree this is just unknowable until the data starts to come in. Variation in effectiveness seems likely to hinge on age/condition so a vaccine could be 90% effective for me while 40% effective in over 70s with say diabetes.

Pfizer is moving another vaccine candidate through phase 1/2 trials so it would seem they see room for improvement but that could be geared at further reduction of side effects. I would not expect thee first generation vaccines to be in use for more than a couple years even if they are adequate for now.