Why are so many sceptical about a vaccine?

[larrygrylls]

There are currently in excess of 170 vaccines in development against SARS-COV-2 virus, 37 in human trials, 6 in phase 3 trials and one actually approved for limited use (to vaccinate the Chinese army).

Most immunologists expect we will have a vaccine by mid next year latest, and the U.K., at the forefront of vaccine development, has bought 90 million plus doses.

And yet, in thread after thread in this topic, people are saying that we should not continue to take precautions against Covid 19, as we will all ‘eventually get it anyway’.

Is this some form of status quo psychological bias that makes otherwise intelligent people not believe that one day (and not so far away) we will all get vaccinated and normal life will resume?!

www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-could-be-vaccinated-against-covid-19-as-uk-secures-strong-portfolio-of-promising-vaccines

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.amp.html

The world did not lock down because of an Imperial model - the UK just isn't that important any more

Most governments of the left, right, centre, dictatorships, theocracies, klpetocracies made their calculations and decided they couldn't risk being lynched if the worst case happened

Even in the UK, it was because Whitty & Vallance looked at N. Italy near collapse,
then did a back of the envelope calculation for what they called "reasonable worst case" without lockdown
of 80% infected and up to 1% death rate,
which gave up to ½ million

No responsible government could ignore the CMO and chief scientific adviser warning of this

In Germany, where I live, the RKI and Dept of health calculated for the 83 million pop a worst case of 1 million

• which was classed as secret but inevitably it leaked That also placed more emphasis on N Italy and back of the envelope

This obsession with the Imperial model is absurdly parochial

Countries around the world made their own calculations for their own situation
and densely populated developed countries decided they couldn't risk it

Countries with v few old people - i.e. developing countries - or with v low population density had different situations to consider

Bigchoc,

Well, most of us are in the U.K. , so it is fair to be a bit parochial!

However, the ‘Imperial Model’ is just one of many similar models which were used to inform government decisions globally. They vary in detail but not greatly in substance.

@larrygrylls

Bigchoc,

Well, most of us are in the U.K. , so it is fair to be a bit parochial!

However, the ‘Imperial Model’ is just one of many similar models which were used to inform government decisions globally. They vary in detail but not greatly in substance.

.... My point was that the Imperial model seems to be blamed by many in the UK for the reaction of all the governments around the world, not just the UK

Anyway, reading what the experts are saying, i.e. those actually working on vaccines:

I'd be astonished but delighted if a vaccine is rolled out this year,
but I expect a vaccination program will be completed by EOY 2021

Larry some other things to consider

1. how many of the sick would have had long term problems which would have a huge impact on the NHS and potentially welfare state for many years

2. How many net contributors would be taken out of the pot due to dying or suffering long term ill health, and what impact removing their taxes would have. I know some people love to think that the shielding and vulnerable are all pensioners who are months away from death and therefore somehow 'expendable' (which is thoroughly disgusting), but certainly among the people I know (and the ones they know) that isn't anything close to reality.

@larrygrylls

TheDailyCarbuncle,

You said on another thread and this one that you do not like the Imperial Model and that you produce similar models.

Can you tell me specifically your issues with the Imperial model, please, aside from the level of uncertainty, which will exist in any early stage epidemiological models?

There are endless articles about the problems with it, but one fundamental problem is that the code is so messy and badly written that it took a team from Microsoft over a month to tidy it up. The original code was so flawed and buggy that, using the same inputs, it produced results that varied by 80,000 deaths over 80 days. The 'code' for the model was released on Github but it's not the actual code used to generate the predictions, it's a highly modified version of it. As far as I know, the original code hasn't been made freely available.

It can be argued, and I agree to a certain extent, that a terrible model is better than no model at all - you're at least trying to figure it out. That's fine as long as the model is reviewed regularly and its accuracy is challenged and changed if needed. That hasn't happened with the Imperial model and people are still accepting its predictions as fact. A model, especially a model with really bad data, is just a very badly cobbled together set of possibilities. That's how it has to be. But people's lives have been destroyed on the basis of the Imperial model and people have accepted that destruction because they believe it's warranted.

If you look at the actual facts of what's happened, rather than a prediction of a buggy, badly written model, it's very obvious that what the model predicted is not accurate at all. That's not actually a surprise, the problem is that no one has had the balls to say 'you know that model that caused all this destruction, which we will be paying for for years to come, it's wrong.' The basis upon which the model was used in the first place was wrong - it should have been used as a starting point, with evidence being fed into future decisions. Instead a sort of horrific tunnel vision has taken over where everyone is totally fixated, zombie-like on predicted and potential deaths, totally unable to see the actual, real problems around them. I'm not some conspiracy theory nut - I know humans too well to know they're not capable of a decent conspiracy, it assumes much too much organisation and ability to keep secrets. I do know I am right about this one though and that when people finally realise it it'll be too late. And I wish I could be less wound up about it, because this is just how people are and I have to live with it. But I'm finding it really hard.

What I don't understand is how people can't see that, with lockdown, especially with how it keeps going on and on and on, it doesn't actually matter if you get covid or not, the situation ensures that you're going to suffer regardless, and your children will suffer. So, yes you might delay when you get infected, but that'll be the least of your worries really because all the effort you went to to get that delay has increased a whole range of other risks. So you might have a lower risk of dying from one thing - covid - but a much higher risk from dying or being affected by a lot of other things. It's the tunnel vision that gets to me, an inability to see that reducing one risk by massively increasing others doesn't make any logical sense.

And on top of that, unless there is a very reliable, very effective vaccine, which is not in any way guaranteed, there is no way to permanently avoid a virus. So you can do everything 'right' now, lose your job and suffer all the fallout of a destroyed economy and still get infected next year. So now you have covid and no job and possibly little or no healthcare either. I can't see how that's a better outcome for anyone.

I accept that at the beginning with so many unknowns, drastic action was warranted. But at this stage all that's happening is that more and more problems are being piled on top of each other. I think the way in which fear has been so thoroughly instilled in people - to the extent that they will accept the almost total destruction of their lives - is nothing short of evil. I don't think it was done deliberately but I think the reluctance to pull people out of that fear is deliberate because no one is brave enough to say that so much of what was done was over the top and unnecessary and the destruction was unwarranted. Instead, they double down, stick to their guns. Fucking cowards.

My views on this are quite simple:

There are 3 possible “endings” to this pandemic:

1. Vaccine
2. Elimination
3. Ongoing infection “herd immunity”

1. Vaccine. It MIGHT happen. But there’s no guarantee on it actually happening. Or the timescale. Or how effective it will be. Or how long immunity will last. Or safety

1. Elimination: if we aim for this internationally, this WILL happen. And vaccine research can continue in the background

1. Ongoing infection. This is pretty much where the UK is right now - half-hearted containment measures, accepting ongoing infections, and hoping for a vaccine.

Most reasonable course of action is 2, while hoping for 1. This means we don’t NEED a vaccine, but it will be a bonus if we get it.

Worst is 3, while hoping for 1. It means we wind up killing and disabling a lot of people, which hoping for a solution that is not guaranteed.

So yeah. We’re doing number 3.

How is elimination of a virus that is present across almost the entire world possible @PaddyF0dder?

Zero Covid approach as per NZ, Scotland etc. Requires considerable international co-operation, and it does limit international travel. But probably less damaging in the long term than a cycle of outbreaks and lockdowns.

Zero covid approach across the entire world?

At least across sizeable chunks of it. An ever-broadening “safe zone” with the capacity to swiftly contain imported cases.

It’s ambitious but I don’t see anything that makes it impossible. I’m convinced that, in the absence of a vaccine, it’s our quickest way through this. It solves the core problem (the virus) and the ancillary problem (uncertainty).

I see a huge number of things that makes it impossible. One being that covid is very hard to identify, which is why it's been so hard to get numbers down even within the country or within a small area of the country. We've had a very effective vaccine for measles for decades, it's very identifiable due to clear symptoms and it's still going around with regular outbreaks. I can't see any way that covid could possibly be eliminated when millions upon millions are infected across the world. Unless of course you propose nailing everyone into their houses for three weeks. Which I suppose eliminates it by ensuring that there's no one left to infect!

A global zero Covid approach is unachievable in my view. There are huge swathes of the world where locking down will cause people to starve, it just isn't practicable for lockdown a slum in India for example.

Elimination isn’t eradication. We’ve only ever eradicated one infectious diseases which is smallpox...that’s not the goal.

I’d say China, with a population of 1.4 billion and an average of 20 cases a day, has near well eliminated coronavirus within its borders.

I don’t understand @TheDailyCarbuncle your point that lockdown was more understandable at the beginning because we knew less about the virus. Surely the more learn, the more we find out that’s it not actually a respiratory disease but also a cardiovascular disorder (according to the British Heart Foundation), and one that affects multiple other organs even in so called ‘mild’ cases. If we’d known about HIV at this stage in its epidemic we would have said ‘mild flu like symptoms for a few days followed by recovery’.

If Covid turns out to affect sperm count in men or something then we will absolutely hustle towards elimination.

You can’t completely stop international trade and therefore international flights. The U.K. would be finished in a week if flights and ships were stopped, as would most countries. There are thousands of people flying into and out of the U.K. every day on essential visits (NOT just jollies to Spain).

Furthermore, if flights were 100% stopped, not only would nearly all airlines go out of business, but pilots would lose their type ratings and be unable to get back into the cockpit.

It’s not possible to replicate NZ in every country in the world. In fact, it’s actually debatable as to whether or not NZ can continue this level of success over coming months.

2. Elimination: if we aim for this internationally, this WILL happen. And vaccine research can continue in the background

Not sure I agree, because we have yet to find the animal reservoir.

Unconvinced the animal reservoir is massively important. That’s a localised issue, with (as far as we know) a single recorded incidence. Should the virus Juno again from animal to human, it would cause a further outbreak. But with adequate track and trace within an eliminated country, this would be no different to an imported case.

The reality is that there are likely animal reservoirs of all many of unknown viruses out there. Not entirely practical to plan for.

@Redolent

Elimination isn’t eradication. We’ve only ever eradicated one infectious diseases which is smallpox...that’s not the goal.

I’d say China, with a population of 1.4 billion and an average of 20 cases a day, has near well eliminated coronavirus within its borders.

I don’t understand @TheDailyCarbuncle your point that lockdown was more understandable at the beginning because we knew less about the virus. Surely the more learn, the more we find out that’s it not actually a respiratory disease but also a cardiovascular disorder (according to the British Heart Foundation), and one that affects multiple other organs even in so called ‘mild’ cases. If we’d known about HIV at this stage in its epidemic we would have said ‘mild flu like symptoms for a few days followed by recovery’.

If Covid turns out to affect sperm count in men or something then we will absolutely hustle towards elimination.

It could have been the case that a couple of months of lockdown caused the virus to fizzle out completely. That hasn't been the case. The virus is still going around and now the economy is fucked on top of that. So clearly lockdown isn't the solution.

Covid may well cause long term damage - many viruses that you've lived with all your life also kill and cause long term damage - but that's not really relevant in terms of lockdown because even with lockdown people are still getting infected, so at a certain point it has to stop, regardless of what covid is like because there's only so much destruction a society can tolerate before the damage is catastrophic.

I don't agree that if covid turns out to affect sperm count in men that 'we will absolutely hussle towards elimination' because no matter what covid does to anyone, elimination - beyond a fake type of elimination such as New Zealand's - isn't possible.

The common cold isn't worth millions of pounds and man hours to develop, as fir most people it's a few days' discomfort.

@PaddyF0dder

Unconvinced the animal reservoir is massively important. That’s a localised issue, with (as far as we know) a single recorded incidence. Should the virus Juno again from animal to human, it would cause a further outbreak. But with adequate track and trace within an eliminated country, this would be no different to an imported case.

The reality is that there are likely animal reservoirs of all many of unknown viruses out there. Not entirely practical to plan for.

Track and trace works well for a virus with clearly identifiable symptoms. SARS for example, has very few or no asymptomatic cases and usually causes a high temperature very quickly, so you can identify cases fast and isolate, track and trace before there's too much spread.

You could have covid now and not realise it. So could I. If you have a bit of diarrhoea next week, it could be dodgy food, it could be covid. Do you get tested every single week? Every day? Multiple times a day? How do you keep track of a virus that managed to spread through almost the entire world before anyone noticed?

@TheDailyCarbuncle

Do you mind if I ask what your professional background is?

It’s totally fine if you don’t want to say. I understand how we all like to preserve our privacy.

It’s just that I work in medicine, and know a lot of quite well qualified people who view Zero covid as the correct course. I’m interested to know if your views come from a place of professional experience.

Thanks.

I work in research, particularly in understanding human behaviour, developing solutions to problems etc, - it includes statistical modelling. I'm basically the person who comes in when everyone is proposing something and says 'and how is this going to actually work, given how human beings really are (not how you'd like them to be)' and it's been interesting to see every single mistake I see made being repeated on a massive, never ending scale. One 'expert' said in an interview that in some simulation they had run they didn't factor in the variable that when people feel ill they tend to stay at home. It didn't occur to them. That's the sort of shit I deal with all the fucking time.