Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

The UK government is buying some miracle Covid-19 test that is said to give a result in 90 minutes, although no data has been published on them.

Yet, it is being trumpeted this morning through the media as a major breakthrough to prevent a second wave. I, for one, am still waiting for these antibody tests they are going to make available 3 months ago.

I think they're doing about 5-10,000 antibody tests a day - I'm not sure if that's the same thing or not. On the new tests the speed would be helpful but I actually wonder if the key point is that they can distinguish flu and covid - which is going to be really important (absent a vaccine/treatment) this winter.

This is an area I have a bit of sympathy with them(-ish). The issue is that they always announce it once the order's made as a big part of the strategy for fighting covid, which they might or might not be. I think the better approach would be to announce it once they're tested, or announce it as a "we're buying everything and seeing what works" strategy. You know, it's a global pandemic - I don't particularly care about procurement best practice being followed. So the story I care least about is that one about the government buying tests that didn't work. I think that's hapened in every country in Europe, manufacturers have health authorities over the barrel at the minute given the context so can probably negotiate some nice terms and I want the government to be buying capacity with everything on the market and then sort of validating a sample of the tests.

Basically I'd rather government wastes money buying potentially shoddy tests but we have capacity to buy more if they work than government holds off and only buys tests that work but our supply depends on manufacturers increasing their capacity/we don't have a contract to buy them. But, as you say, I just wish they wouldn't announce it every time we sign a contract

[celedhring]

Basically I'd rather government wastes money buying potentially shoddy tests but we have capacity to buy more if they work than government holds off and only buys tests that work but our supply depends on manufacturers increasing their capacity/we don't have a contract to buy them. But, as you say, I just wish they wouldn't announce it every time we sign a contract

You guys should really buy that Russian vaccine, then. 

[The Brain]

How will katmai manage to find an antibody?

[Sheilbh]

I don't see what we could or even should do about it. I can financially support an NGO. So rich dudes have tons more money they can spare on supporting NGOs they like.

I mean, ban billionaires

Can anyone, including billionaires, have undue influence in pursuit of a worthy goal?  Soros funds organizations that lobby for liberal democracy as well as establishing universities.  Did Dale Carnegie exert undue influence when he funded libraries and a university?

Yeah, of course. It isn't inevitable but if you're donating lots of money and making decisions you maybe shape things, or move NGOs etc in ways they wouldn't choose to go which is a sort of undue influence in pursuit of a worthy goal. I certainly know people who work in malaria research who are very thankful and impressed by the Gates Foundation but also think it has a set of priorities etc that shape the research that's done (becuase they provide the money) or that's proposed (to get the money). It's exactly the same with any other good cause whether it's promotion of civil society or whatever else, if it depends on a big donor then it's going to shift its way of achieving that goal to align with the big donor.

Maybe with Soros you see this in his goal is to promote open, liberal societies and I'm sure he's thrown money around at everyone to do that, but the impression I get is that he's been particularly keen on funding higher education and universities. I query if, without him, people who want to promote open, liberal societies would have focused so much on that sort of capturing the elite as opposed to other ways of achieving their goal?

[Sheilbh]

Basically I'd rather government wastes money buying potentially shoddy tests but we have capacity to buy more if they work than government holds off and only buys tests that work but our supply depends on manufacturers increasing their capacity/we don't have a contract to buy them. But, as you say, I just wish they wouldn't announce it every time we sign a contract

You guys should really buy that Russian vaccine, then. 

That's actually another area the FT had a piece about vaccine strategy and listed the most promising candidates at the minute and the UK have put money into or reserved basically some of all of them (obviously most in the Oxford/AstraZeneca project), just in case any of them work - again I think that is kind of the right approach. I have no doubt some will fail and we'll have wasted millions on that, but it's probably better than missing out. I feel like the potential economic and tax gains of getting a supply of the right vaccine (less so testing) probably outweigh the cost of backing some duds.

[katmai]

How will katmai manage to find an antibody?

[celedhring]

Seems the pilot test of the contact tracing app developed by the Spanish government (which if I understand correctly works very similarly to Germany's) has been very successful and will begin rolling out this month.

[Tamas]

Sheilbh, months ago there was a big PR drive how you could postal order awesome antibody tests. Then iirc they had to admit they were faulty.

I am very happy for them to jump on any chance but this desperate PR drive the moment they signed the order is just terrible.

On the banning billionaires, that has been tried at a lot of spaces, and it took them a matter of a year or two to go from banning rich people to banning moderately well-off farmers. I don't think all that is worth it just to make sure nobody but the government has the means to influence politics.

[The Larch]

Seems the pilot test of the contact tracing app developed by the Spanish government (which if I understand correctly works very similarly to Germany's) has been very successful and will begin rolling out this month.

That is encouraging, I will certainly download it as soon as it's available.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, months ago there was a big PR drive how you could postal order awesome antibody tests. Then iirc they had to admit they were faulty.

I am very happy for them to jump on any chance but this desperate PR drive the moment they signed the order is just terrible.

From my memory it wasn't a big PR drive it was the head of the National Infection Service, I think Professor Sharon Peacock(?), testifying to Parliament about this test that would become available within a few weeks/months on Amazon. It was very big breaking news. But from my memory it was a fuck up - I think she went off-piste - rather than a deliberate perspective.

But that evening Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance were already walking it back and saying there was no timeline and it was all depending on the tests being good enough - Chris Whitty's regular line "the only thing worse than no test is a bad test". It then got big in the media as this great hope and the government just kept that going rather than admitting. before it was admitted that they weren't accurate.

They have definitely boosted stuff like this when they sign a contract rather than when things are delivered which is very annoying, though seems fairly standard PR.

[Tonitrus]

How will katmai manage to find an antibody?

Katmai IS the antibody.

[Syt]

Brazen shared this on Twitter:

[Eddie Teach]

Some of those exhortations are sending mixed messages.

[Oexmelin]

Did Dale Carnegie exert undue influence when he funded libraries and a university?

[Valmy]

Brazen shared this on Twitter:

What the hell is that even saying?