Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Granyala]

Well it's as relaxed as it gets nowadays. Not sure there is anything left to relax, still need to use masks indoors

The masks would be the thing to relax *chuckles* but I guess that will be one of the last things to go.

[Yunru]

Media here is now a total mess. There are gona be a border lockdown. There is no border lockdown. There will be a border lockdown.

Make your freaking mind.

Also one thing that realy bothers me is that W.H.O. gave a green light to china virus vaccine.

[Forogil]

Wouldn't sharing the damn patent actually reduce the burden here and increase the supply globally?

Unlikely, the EU is right that patent waiver isn't a magic bullet.

First and foremost getting a new vaccine factory ready to produce it will take months, as we have seen; as a factory that produces a different vaccine cannot easily switch to producing these ones.

Additionally there's a major supply issue with the ingredients needed to make the mRNA vaccines; including lipid nanoparticles https://www.vox.com/22311268/covid-v...-nanoparticles
They are not only subject to patents, but even under patent litigation. (I believe the US company Moderna (stock ticker MRNA) lost to the Canadian company Arbutus.) Are those ingredients also included in the vaccine waiver plan? I haven't been able to find anything concrete on that - and assuming they are I don't know if the US was willing to waive the patent before Moderna lost.

BioNTech has also licensed their vaccine (produced by Pfizer in the west) to Fosun in China; so that it can be produced in China - but it is still not approved for use in China, and I don't know if that production line is approved anywhere. I don't see how patent waivers would speed up that https://www.hindustantimes.com/world...578664089.html

For mRNA vaccines there's also a cost aspect so it is uncertain if developing countries would use them, whereas viral vector vaccines (AstraZeneca's Vaxzervia(sp?), Russia's Sputnik V, and Janssen (or J&J) one) should be a fraction of the price - but are not that easy to produce.

Note that AstraZeneca already say that they produce the vaccines at cost during the pandemic and try to build production in less developed countries - the India one is known, but they have also tried and so far failed to build capacity in Latin America: Argentina&Mexico https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...rican-14723822

So, when it's seems complicated to build new production capacity in a middle income country when companies are actively trying to help, how realistic would it then be to make it in a low-income country without that help?

Russia is also trying to set up production all over the world for Sputnik V; but I have only seen reports that they are planning to do it - not that they have succeeded.

Or to summarize: Patent waivers is still to large extent a smoke-screen, as production facilities are already attempted all over the world - but constrained by production issues, supply issues, and drug-agency approval issues. India has recently been pushing for it, to divert blame for recent missteps including a slow vaccine rollouts a few months ago combined with mass gatherings (maybe up to 100,000 participants - they love those lakhs) causing numbers to grow out of control.

- - - Updated - - -

Double the existing numbers seems reasonable. Look back at the information about Russia - when they said that 80% of excess deaths year to year (and the obvious YoY increase by couple hundred thousand more) was linked to Covid, yet still have kept reporting 3 times lower official number of deaths, making those excess deaths just... disappear? You can bet they are not the only ones, plus I guarantee enough of the dead over the world do not have Covid as the cause of death due to wrong diagnosis, lack of information, etc.

Yes, for many countries the official numbers don't make sense - Russia is one of them.

It is also interesting that Russia was long pushing the line that they had no domestic spread of the disease, but all cases were import-cases. While requiring taxi-drivers to disinfect their cars several times a day. And the first deaths of someone infected with covid was reported as dying due to a different cause. I would believe that is likely contributing to vaccine hesitancy in Russia.

What I find more interesting is Brazil. The first guess would be that had covered up the deaths to a similar extent as Mexico or even as Russia, but they haven't and have reported fairly reliable numbers - despite Bolsonaro's denialism.

[Gaidax]

The masks would be the thing to relax *chuckles* but I guess that will be one of the last things to go.

Well masks are only indoors now and I hear they are considering dropping them altogether soon-ish.

I just hope there won't be a sudden surprise like in India, but that would need some sort of variant that breaches vaccine.

[Acidbaron]

Unlikely, the EU is right that patent waiver isn't a magic bullet.

First and foremost getting a new vaccine factory ready to produce it will take months, as we have seen; as a factory that produces a different vaccine cannot easily switch to producing these ones.

Additionally there's a major supply issue with the ingredients needed to make the mRNA vaccines; including lipid nanoparticles https://www.vox.com/22311268/covid-v...-nanoparticles
They are not only subject to patents, but even under patent litigation. (I believe the US company Moderna (stock ticker MRNA) lost to the Canadian company Arbutus.) Are those ingredients also included in the vaccine waiver plan? I haven't been able to find anything concrete on that - and assuming they are I don't know if the US was willing to waive the patent before Moderna lost.

BioNTech has also licensed their vaccine (produced by Pfizer in the west) to Fosun in China; so that it can be produced in China - but it is still not approved for use in China, and I don't know if that production line is approved anywhere. I don't see how patent waivers would speed up that https://www.hindustantimes.com/world...578664089.html

For mRNA vaccines there's also a cost aspect so it is uncertain if developing countries would use them, whereas viral vector vaccines (AstraZeneca's Vaxzervia(sp?), Russia's Sputnik V, and Janssen (or J&J) one) should be a fraction of the price - but are not that easy to produce.

Note that AstraZeneca already say that they produce the vaccines at cost during the pandemic and try to build production in less developed countries - the India one is known, but they have also tried and so far failed to build capacity in Latin America: Argentina&Mexico https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...rican-14723822

So, when it's seems complicated to build new production capacity in a middle income country when companies are actively trying to help, how realistic would it then be to make it in a low-income country without that help?

Russia is also trying to set up production all over the world for Sputnik V; but I have only seen reports that they are planning to do it - not that they have succeeded.

Or to summarize: Patent waivers is still to large extent a smoke-screen, as production facilities are already attempted all over the world - but constrained by production issues, supply issues, and drug-agency approval issues. India has recently been pushing for it, to divert blame for recent missteps including a slow vaccine rollouts a few months ago combined with mass gatherings (maybe up to 100,000 participants - they love those lakhs) causing numbers to grow out of control.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, for many countries the official numbers don't make sense - Russia is one of them.

It is also interesting that Russia was long pushing the line that they had no domestic spread of the disease, but all cases were import-cases. While requiring taxi-drivers to disinfect their cars several times a day. And the first deaths of someone infected with covid was reported as dying due to a different cause. I would believe that is likely contributing to vaccine hesitancy in Russia.

What I find more interesting is Brazil. The first guess would be that had covered up the deaths to a similar extent as Mexico or even as Russia, but they haven't and have reported fairly reliable numbers - despite Bolsonaro's denialism.

I know it isn't a magic bullet also Canada and India do have these factories, but yes it's not that clear or simply black and white.

There's more to it and the US and UK who kept everything for themselves now finger pointing to the EU that they should share more is nonsense, they don't have the moral high ground here that they claim to have.

I want mRNA to be released as it could do a whole lot of good and a lot of their research is funded with taxpayer money so i do find that politics should have a say in it through us.

I am saying that i find the EU who already does export a lot out of the EU and aided in the research should do more and this goes a bit beyond the corona vaccine but also with the mRNA tech. But the claim it can't be made elsewhere is a false one, not sure about the material shortages but there are other factories make no mistake whatever spin they are giving to this, it is out of financial reasons and out of fear of competition or tech being used by countries they are in competition with.


I invite you to watch this

[Forogil]

I am saying that i find the EU who already does export a lot out of the EU and aided in the research should do more and this goes a bit beyond the corona vaccine but also with the mRNA tech. But the claim it can't be made elsewhere is a false one, not sure about the material shortages but there are other factories make no mistake whatever spin they are giving to this, it is out of financial reasons and out of fear of competition or tech being used by countries they are in competition with.


I invite you to watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ5DavuOkcM

I did and it confirmed that The Hill is not the best source, and as I previously wrote BioNTech have licensed their vaccine in China (the vaccine commonly called Pfizer or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine) so it may be possible to manufacture in other countries - but it hasn't been approved in China yet, and I don't know the status of the production facility.

It's not like you can take a vaccine made in one factory and produce it in another factory and sell it directly - you have to get the new factory authorized as well. (Apart from the actual problem of making it in the other factory.)

I also detest that one-sided "journalism" that has started to appear in the US. It may be fun to watch - but it's not factual.

The claim that Incepta (I think) in Bangladesh could make large quantities of vaccines just because they have production lines for filling and make other vaccines seems unlikely as it seems they make lots of inactivated vaccines in yeast and eggs, not the types of vaccines that have been approved in the western world for covid-19.

Their web-site market them as:

Incepta Vaccine Ltd is a state-of-art facility fully compliant with WHO GMP guidelines adorned with large pol of scientists. GMP Complience Research & Development Facility. Making Bnagladesh self sufficient in developing all indigenous vaccines against the challenging s. World Class Animal House.

Would you trust them to make a vaccine for billions?

[Acidbaron]

I did and it confirmed that The Hill is not the best source, and as I previously wrote BioNTech have licensed their vaccine in China (the vaccine commonly called Pfizer or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine) so it may be possible to manufacture in other countries - but it hasn't been approved in China yet, and I don't know the status of the production facility.

It's not like you can take a vaccine made in one factory and produce it in another factory and sell it directly - you have to get the new factory authorized as well. (Apart from the actual problem of making it in the other factory.)

I also detest that one-sided "journalism" that has started to appear in the US. It may be fun to watch - but it's not factual.

The claim that Incepta (I think) in Bangladesh could make large quantities of vaccines just because they have production lines for filling and make other vaccines seems unlikely as it seems they make lots of inactivated vaccines in yeast and eggs, not the types of vaccines that have been approved in the western world for covid-19.

Their web-site market them as:

Would you trust them to make a vaccine for billions?

Fair enough i am not going to argue about India, but there's also talks off Canada. I am not claiming that releasing the patent would solve things overnight but i may very well help the effort.

What do you mean with one sided journalism exactly? I also find that show on the hill at least attempting to give a more balanced view, i am not going to debate how accurate it is as i don't watch it often my main source remains reuters and or books on subjects, but it remains news and sadly news will always prefer extremely negative stories over anything else due to how it being tied to views for revenue.

My point is mRNA especially becoming knowledge that is globally available simply would help a lot in several efforts. All this is being promoted as a global effort to deal with corona while it really is not that and while companies and countries quarrel over geopolitics and financial matters we are increasing the risk of it mutating once again in development countries.

[Forogil]

Fair enough i am not going to argue about India, but there's also talks off Canada. I am not claiming that releasing the patent would solve things overnight but i may very well help the effort.

I tried to search and found more about Biolyse in Canada.
https://khn.org/news/article/covid-v...oor-countries/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...-vaccines-for/

Apart from the minor factual errors, there's also the fact that they are not large enough to matter, as they claim the could make 20 million doses a year.
Compare to Pfizer/BioNTech that plan to reach a capacity for 3 billion doses annually in Q4, and AstraZeneca that have contracts for about 1 billion so far.

What do you mean with one sided journalism exactly?

To me that show was just going with the reporter angry at something and presenting one side of the story, with another reporter agreeing.

I also find that show on the hill at least attempting to give a more balanced view, i am not going to debate how accurate it is as i don't watch it often my main source remains reuters and or books on subjects, but it remains news and sadly news will always prefer extremely negative stories over anything else due to how it being tied to views for revenue.

Reuters is reliable, but too bare-boned, and books can present more - but you need several.

I also read The Economist, and just checked their take on it - and they don't think this would change much - https://www.economist.com/business/2...n-for-vaccines - and more importantly indicated that it was only vaccines patents that were discussed so I don't see how the waiver changes the story for the lipid issue. On the other hand, they also indicated that the threat of the patent waiver may make pharma-companies more interested in licensing as a counter-measure - but even that may take half a year.

And they also indicated that a patent waiver will take months to negotiate in WTO, followed by countries changing their local laws (also taking time), and companies actually building the factories (also taking months). It's certainly no quick-fix.

[Acidbaron]

I tried to search and found more about Biolyse in Canada.
https://khn.org/news/article/covid-v...oor-countries/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...-vaccines-for/

Apart from the minor factual errors, there's also the fact that they are not large enough to matter, as they claim the could make 20 million doses a year.
Compare to Pfizer/BioNTech that plan to reach a capacity for 3 billion doses annually in Q4, and AstraZeneca that have contracts for about 1 billion so far.


To me that show was just going with the reporter angry at something and presenting one side of the story, with another reporter agreeing.


Reuters is reliable, but too bare-boned, and books can present more - but you need several.

I also read The Economist, and just checked their take on it - and they don't think this would change much - https://www.economist.com/business/2...n-for-vaccines - and more importantly indicated that it was only vaccines patents that were discussed so I don't see how the waiver changes the story for the lipid issue. On the other hand, they also indicated that the threat of the patent waiver may make pharma-companies more interested in licensing as a counter-measure - but even that may take half a year.

And they also indicated that a patent waiver will take months to negotiate in WTO, followed by countries changing their local laws (also taking time), and companies actually building the factories (also taking months). It's certainly no quick-fix.

Yes that would really be just a drop in the ocean from the plant in Canada, well true that show does come across as venting frustration but it does highlight some things i am not aware of but i can find myself in that it does so in a purposefully sensational manner rather than more calm and nuanced.

Trying to make a habit of reading a book in something i am interested in once per month but yes there's a lot out there.

Have to say i do respect The economist and once i get back to investing more actively rather than passively, i do consider subscribing to that to be a must have.
It's a shame but in today's world you have to pay monthly if you don't want your news infested with totally not nuanced clickbait quality reporting to bring in the advertisement money.

So there is plenty of production capability it is the material shortages that is the bottleneck and that is not something that will be solved overnight. It is true however that right now those who can afford it will get it first due to market demands so the risk of more mutations is real and is something that can't be prevented.
That means that the Biden administration efforts to be the world good guy at expense of the EU, is for the large part a charade and again has more ulterior motives.
Just when you think with Trump out of the White House you get an EU ally again, we are back with an EU adversary. I am guessing without being well read on all this, this is done in an effort to make certain trade talks the EU has more difficult, pure speculation on my end though.


Thanks for the insight

[Masark]

They say when it will likely be available to children? They still have to be 16 or older where I am.

Vaccine distribution is provincial, so it'll vary by province.

For example, the limit here is currently age 32 and above, just reduced from 35.

They're claiming that all eligible people will get both their doses by July 31st.

[Edge-]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ron-j...b0b37f8949ddab

Again, reminder that we have a Death Cult where elected officials are "just asking questions" by repeating known false information or misrepresenting real information.

This is why so many folks aren't getting their first or second shots, because of absolutely irresponsible nonsense like this coming from a single political party that has firmly cemented itself as a Death Cult over the past year.

[szechuan]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...022439209.html

[Theodarzna]

Moral Judgments Impact Perceived Risks from COVID-19 Exposure

The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormously difficult decisions for individuals trying to navigate both the risks of the pandemic and the demands of everyday life. Good decision making in such scenarios can have life and death consequences. For this reason, it is important to understand what drives risk assessments during a pandemic, and, in particular, to investigate the ways that these assessments might deviate from ideal risk assessments. Two studies (N = 841) investigate risk judgments related to COVID-19. The results indicate that risk judgments are sensitive to factors unrelated to the objective risks of infection. In particular, activities that are morally justified are perceived as safer while those that might subject people to blame, or culpability, are seen as riskier.

(Source)

This paper finds that subjects are liable think a person is at much less risk of a COVID infection if they are perceived to be doing morally good actions, and are perceived more likely to contract COVID while doing things perceived as morally bad things. To put it simple, we may likely make risk judgments are in a skewed manner based on the moral perception people attribute to their actions. Subjects were given vignettes to assess if people were at risk or not. In the vignettes the actual risk of exposure is identical, but the reasons for the person risking COVID exposure different. For example one person is always getting stuck in an elevator with their neighbors, but is headed out to buy illegal drugs, and then in the same scenario its to go help an elderly relative.

In these two experiments the researches found that people were judging the risk of exposure as higher when the perceived moral valence of the persons actions is judged lower.

[2A5211]

Dr. Fauci: Any PCR-positive with a CT over 35 is "just dead nucleotides, PERIOD." - TWiV # 641

Also Dr. Fauci: Let's keep testing everyone with the PCR-positive cutoff at 40 CT, guaranteeing massive false-positives (97%).

Also Dr. Fauci: "We need to change the cycle count of the PCR test down to 23 for those that have been vaccinated."

If you don’t understand what that means..."the pandemic" would have never existed if we had done this from the beginning.

[Forogil]

Dr. Fauci: Any PCR-positive with a CT over 35 is "just dead nucleotides, PERIOD." - TWiV # 641

Also Dr. Fauci: Let's keep testing everyone with the PCR-positive cutoff at 40 CT, guaranteeing massive false-positives (97%).

Also Dr. Fauci: "We need to change the cycle count of the PCR test down to 23 for those that have been vaccinated."

If you don’t understand what that means..."the pandemic" would have never existed if we had done this from the beginning.

This makes no sense for a number of reasons.

• The "pandemic" suggest that you don't think people have gotten a disease and died from it. Millions of dead bodies contradict that; and many more who have survived can also tell you that they had a disease.
• Most countries tried test and trace last year, but were limited in terms of testing - and thus relied on other means to try to contain the disease (and most failed). A change in how PCR-tests are performed doesn't matter if you don't perform the tests.
• This idea that if the US just did this or that instead and nothing would have happened doesn't make sense; as it is a global issue.
• In the US the original tests made by CDC were broken, and for a time no-one else could do them, no change of policy for the faulty tests would have helped with that. (Allowing other tests might have helped, but it wouldn't have stopped it.)
• Changing the policy for the vaccinated wouldn't have mattered last year, because, wait for it, no-one was vaccinated.

[Rasulis]

Moral Judgments Impact Perceived Risks from COVID-19 Exposure


(Source)

This paper finds that subjects are liable think a person is at much less risk of a COVID infection if they are perceived to be doing morally good actions, and are perceived more likely to contract COVID while doing things perceived as morally bad things. To put it simple, we may likely make risk judgments are in a skewed manner based on the moral perception people attribute to their actions. Subjects were given vignettes to assess if people were at risk or not. In the vignettes the actual risk of exposure is identical, but the reasons for the person risking COVID exposure different. For example one person is always getting stuck in an elevator with their neighbors, but is headed out to buy illegal drugs, and then in the same scenario its to go help an elderly relative.

In these two experiments the researches found that people were judging the risk of exposure as higher when the perceived moral valence of the persons actions is judged lower.

Unfortunately, I don't think the virus cares whether the subjects are doing morally good actions or otherwise.

Pastor says he won't close church after COVID-19 outbreak infected 74 members

Returning to the pulpit after a COVID-19 outbreak infected him, his wife and 72 members of their congregation, the senior pastor of an Oregon church said Sunday that he will not kowtow to pressure to close the doors to the house of worship.

The pastor's Sunday sermon came after the Oregon Health Authority announced Wednesday that it launched an investigation on April 6 into the coronavirus outbreak at the church that left 74 members infected.

[Felya]

Unfortunately, I don't think the virus cares whether the subjects are doing morally good actions or otherwise.

That study found out, that if people believed the virus would infect others, they acted to prevent it. What you are showing is the effect of faith... as in, god is the preventive measure.

That study is confirming common sense... if you act knowingly immoral, but it doesn’t phase you... you might have a form of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

[Tuor]

Pastor says he won't close church after COVID-19 outbreak infected 74 members

Hate fanatics that only care with their own ego...

[Felya]

Hate fanatics that only care with their own ego...

It’s not ego, but it’s a forbidden topic regardless... it’s about control.

[Theodarzna]

Unfortunately, I don't think the virus cares whether the subjects are doing morally good actions or otherwise.

Pastor says he won't close church after COVID-19 outbreak infected 74 members

It doesn't but as the study shows, if an action is acceptable to do, people will perceive if something is safer if its considered morally good in their view.