Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[The Brain]

Here's another risk/reward discussion that I don't recall we've had before:  does it really make sense to test the potential vaccines with the same rigor as usual?  I see some stories about vaccine trials being paused because of some adverse effects or something, and it's followed by "it's normal for trials to pause".  My questions is, should we be acting as normal?  The protocols are there to balance risks and rewards, but in times of war the risk/reward balance tends to shift radically, and we're essentially in a state of war while Covid is not contained.

Among other things it depends on which people you want to give the vaccine. Everyone, or just people at risk?

[DGuller]

Here's another risk/reward discussion that I don't recall we've had before:  does it really make sense to test the potential vaccines with the same rigor as usual?  I see some stories about vaccine trials being paused because of some adverse effects or something, and it's followed by "it's normal for trials to pause".  My questions is, should we be acting as normal?  The protocols are there to balance risks and rewards, but in times of war the risk/reward balance tends to shift radically, and we're essentially in a state of war while Covid is not contained.

Among other things it depends on which people you want to give the vaccine. Everyone, or just people at risk?

Eventually everyone.  We can't give it to everyone at the same time, though, so why not give the less surely proven vaccine to people at risk first, while we keep the more rigorous trials going?  The more at risk people are, the more likely they're going to die from Covid while the t's are crossed and i's are dotted.  Those who are not at risk are relatively more likely to be killed by shoddy vaccine than Covid itself, so maybe for them the risk/benefit leans more towards waiting for a safer vaccine.

[garbon]

How many people are going to want to sign up for a risky vaccine?

[The Brain]

Here's another risk/reward discussion that I don't recall we've had before:  does it really make sense to test the potential vaccines with the same rigor as usual?  I see some stories about vaccine trials being paused because of some adverse effects or something, and it's followed by "it's normal for trials to pause".  My questions is, should we be acting as normal?  The protocols are there to balance risks and rewards, but in times of war the risk/reward balance tends to shift radically, and we're essentially in a state of war while Covid is not contained.

Among other things it depends on which people you want to give the vaccine. Everyone, or just people at risk?

Eventually everyone.  We can't give it to everyone at the same time, though, so why not give the less surely proven vaccine to people at risk first, while we keep the more rigorous trials going?  The more at risk people are, the more likely they're going to die from Covid while the t's are crossed and i's are dotted.  Those who are not at risk are relatively more likely to be killed by shoddy vaccine than Covid itself, so maybe for them the risk/benefit leans more towards waiting for a safer vaccine.

I know next to nothing about pharma, big or otherwise. Is there even a way to shield yourself from lawsuits from hell if you roll out a vaccine that hasn't been tested according to normal methods and people start dropping? Obviously it would have government approval, but that's always the case for drugs and I guess that's not a shield. The people at risk concerning Covid aren't exactly the hardiest humans, and are likely to die from things that wouldn't bother a young healthy person.

[DGuller]

Where there is a will, there is a way.  I'm sure more than a few absolute rules were in fact bent or outright ignored during the height of the epidemic, because everyone understands that rules are a guidance for normal times, not a suicide pact for extraordinary perilous times.

[Josquius]

How many people are going to want to sign up for a risky vaccine?

It's interesting. Lots of people are desperate for this to be over and saying they hope the vaccine comes soon...
Yet relying on other people to take it.

[Valmy]

How many people are going to want to sign up for a risky vaccine?

I'll test it for you garbon.

But lots of people have already signed up for trials and I would have if given the opportunity.

Playing a role in ending this epidemic would be an honor.

[alfred russel]

You give even a moderate incentive to take the vaccine, and people will be all over it. Such as you can't require people to wear masks that have the vaccine, no travel restrictions, no crowd restrictions, etc.

Maybe give early participants a bullshit plaque with a facimile of the president's signature thanking them for their service to the republic. Tie it to service and people will line up. There were lines of folks at the recruiting offices the day after Pearl Harbor, a huge response to recruitment in WWI, and more recruits than guns in the early days of the civil war.

I'd be all over either one of those.

[Sheilbh]

Here's another risk/reward discussion that I don't recall we've had before:  does it really make sense to test the potential vaccines with the same rigor as usual?  I see some stories about vaccine trials being paused because of some adverse effects or something, and it's followed by "it's normal for trials to pause".  My questions is, should we be acting as normal?  The protocols are there to balance risks and rewards, but in times of war the risk/reward balance tends to shift radically, and we're essentially in a state of war while Covid is not contained.

If you've not watched it I'd recommend watching How to Survive a Plague it's really excellent and covers this sort of issue in the AIDS crisis. I think we're in a slightly different situation here, but I imagine the FDA etc have basically paused everything that is not covid-related/helping the development of a vaccine which is not normal but does avert the other risks.

I think the stuff about "it's normal for trials to pause" is more to allay people's fears of something being rushed through and to inform them as most of us have not followed vaccine development/approval this closely before.

[Sheilbh]

BBC North West
@BBCNWT
Lancashire moves in to Tier 3 - but unlike the Liverpool City Region gyms will be allowed to remain open.

There are two regions in Tier 3 - and they have different rules. I'm already seeing people talking about Tier 3A and Tier 3B. Given that the entire purpose of the tier system was to make this simpler, more consistent and easier to understand it is bleakly funny that it's lasted less than a week before there are variations on it

"We have introduced a numbered tier system of restrictions for clarity. Unfortunately that number is numberwang."

[Josquius]

I really wonder about the wisdom of including gyms in this anyway.  As long as they're kept well cleaned and perhaps some activities like free weights (where you should have a spotter) are banned, then they really shouldn't be a huge issue.
Certainly looking at the big picture and considering health....

[Tamas]

I would struggle to think of a more risky place than a gym.

[Sheilbh]

I would struggle to think of a more risky place than a gym.

Yeah - I feel like an enclosed area with people heavily breathing and not always the best ventilation strikes me as fairly risky.

But fundamentally surely if it's risky in Liverpool it's also likely to be risky in Lancashire given that they're both in the same tier?

Edit: Andy Burnham
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1316822399262896133?s=20

I don't necessarily agree with the "one nation"point - but feel like if you have regional lockdowns then you need the right sort of financial support for people, businesses and councils - in the same way they were supported when we locked down nationally.

He's also out on the Twitter:

Andy Burnham
@AndyBurnhamGM
It's not about what we want for ourselves, @DominicRaab. It's about what we want for low-paid and self-employed people everywhere: fairness.

Dan Bloom
@danbloom1
Raab: "We can't have a situation where Andy Burnham is effectively saying unless you give us what we want, we're not going to do the right thing in terms of following the new rules which will protect the very people of Manchester he's elected to represent."

Edit: And Wales is considering a short national circuit-breaker lockdown.

[The Brain]

I would struggle to think of a more risky place than a gym.

You mean risqué?

[Eddie Teach]

I would struggle to think of a more risky place than a gym.

A night club.