Why is MN the only place that seems to pessimistic about a vaccine?!

[bottomsup00]

Been lurking on this board for a while.

Every time a vaccine is mentioned people seem to dismiss it, or say things like “it’s not a silver bullet” “it won’t save us” “things won’t go back to normal”

In real life, most people I speak to seem so positive about a vaccine.
Everyone I speak to understands it will take take to roll out to everyone and accepts this, but believes the vaccine approval will happen and fairly soon.

What makes a lot of people on here feel the opposite way?

Pessimists? Or anti vaxer?

@MadameBlobby

What annoys me is the “mark my words, there will never be a vaccine” uttered as fact by people who don’t have a clue.

@MadameBlobby

I see a lot of this too.

Ant vaxxers get very short shrift here.

In fairness it is very fiddly to vaccinate an ant, and I'm not sure they can give meaningful consent.

@Fatted

Common sense? We have four separate governments making their own decisions on lockdown restrictions etc. Do you honestly think there will be a universally agreed vaccination programme?

We have a flu vaccine and still have so many thousands die of flu each year.

I don't mean governments. And I don't mean the annual take up of flu vaccines.

I mean the basic, get the job done, common sense of any organisation's bread and butter procedures. And getting vaccines to the point of use is bread and butter for many organisations, civil service departments, PHE etc etc!

What confounding factors governments, media, sales teams and individuals want to add to it remains to be seen.

I think most people believe that there will be a vaccine at some point. What remains to be seen is how effective it is and when it can be rolled out meaningfully. Tbh having seen how the governments (UK, Scottish, Welsh and NI) in this country have managed everything else during this crisis I wouldn’t trust any of them to organise a car boot sale properly.

Yes, we have got vaccines that work against coronaviruses.

That’s interesting @GoldenOmber as I’ve definitely been informed there are no reliable vaccines for human Coronaviruses. What’s your source for this info?

@TheYearOfSmallThings

Ant vaxxers get very short shrift here.

In fairness it is very fiddly to vaccinate an ant, and I'm not sure they can give meaningful consent.

Ttthhhhhhrrrrrrrpppppp

In real life I don't know anyone working in medical research or pharma so if someone in the industry takes about timelines etc I will listen to people with that expertise. I was reassured by Dr Fauci saying that we should have some news about vaccine safety late November/early December. There's been so much misinformation it's hard to know who to trust. I was naive and thought science is fact and truth but having witnessed it politicised I have become more sceptical at accepting things,

Even if vaccines are rolled out early 2021 I'm a healthy 40 something who doesn't work in a care home or NHS so I won't be getting the vaccine at all according to the government list of who gets it. I live with my kids who wouldn't be eligible either.

I think people are right to be cautious after the many "broken promises" made by Johnson like the "12 weeks" claim, Xmas being normal etc Remember in March he actually said he was hoping to visit his mother for Mother's Day It is psychologically easier to not believe things until they happen with regards to CV.

@WearyandBleary

Yes, we have got vaccines that work against coronaviruses.

That’s interesting @GoldenOmber as I’ve definitely been informed there are no reliable vaccines for human Coronaviruses. What’s your source for this info?

We don’t have an approved vaccine against any human coronaviruses yet. We do have vaccines against ‘this type of virus’ - ie, coronaviruses.

The reason we don’t have any against the specific coronaviruses that infect humans isn’t because the human ones are any trickier, it’s because up until now, the ones that infect humans are either too mild to bother (ones that cause colds) or aren’t around any more (SARS). The only one that is still around and is a threat is MERS, which has been hard to carry out much vaccine research for because it’s very rare (and mostly affects few people far away), but still, ongoing research into MERS vaccine has been built on now for this one. Meanwhile, we do have veterinary coronavirus vaccines because, among other things, there’s a lot of money in farming so it’s been more worth the investment to develop.

Coronaviruses aren’t a type of virus like HIV that we’ve been unable to create a vaccine for.

And human Coronavirus isn’t intrinsically different from animal Coronavirus- that’s the whole reason we’re in this mess. If it’s possible to develop effective vaccines against them (which it is) then the species difference is not a deal-breaker.

Because nothing we are learning about how immunity works suggests a vaccine will work but it’s getting very glossed over in the press. Like today imperial said anti body protection doesn’t last asked what that means for a vaccine “it doesn’t necessarily mean there will not be a vaccine” but no more!

The cdc in the us accepts natural immunity normally provides the ceiling for what a vaccine can achieve its spouted daily that natural immunity is pretty crap and no one seems to honestly be going “and this is the implication for a vaccine” but rather just spout on about Hurd immunity which frankly Hasn’t been U.K. government policy since March when the bigger issue is we are saying “look guys the vaccine gives people antibodies” without mentioning “yes and those last about three months!”

I had opposite impression. There was a thread on here about trials. And many people were up for it.

nothing we are learning about how immunity works suggests a vaccine will work but it’s getting very glossed over in the press

This isn’t the case, don’t worry. There’s no reason to think antibodies fading a few months after natural immunity mean a vaccine ‘won’t work’.

Even if you think all governments are just out to kid you from the brutal truth, there is zero chance that a company like Pfizer would be ploughing so much of its own money into a vaccine that it didn’t think was fairly likely to turn a profit in the end.

@MadameBlobby

What annoys me is the “mark my words, there will never be a vaccine” uttered as fact by people who don’t have a clue.

But they do have a clue!

They all have a 'Dh in pharma', (see above), 'scientist friends', 'a 3rd cousin twice removed who's involed in the Oxford trials', a 'DP who's high up in the NHS'.

And so on and so forth.

ike today imperial said anti body protection doesn’t last asked what that means for a vaccine “it doesn’t necessarily mean there will not be a vaccine” but no more! They already had explained it, hadn't they? I read something yesterday/overnight that was more detailed.

www.ft.com/content/f75418a9-9ef5-4684-9222-758635e906b1

They all have a 'Dh in pharma', (see above), 'scientist friends', 'a 3rd cousin twice removed who's involed in the Oxford trials', a 'DP who's high up in the NHS'. There are few long term posters who don't need a man to explain, as they ARE the research scientist, NHS researcher etc.

But I do see what you mean!

"These data should also not be taken to infer that a vaccine would only induce short term immunity. Vaccines contain immune stimulators (adjuvants) that induce durable immune responses and the administration of multiple doses of vaccine ensures that high concentrations of antibodies (that decline only slowly over time) are achieved in the majority of vaccine recipients.”
Prof Eleanor Riley, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease, University of Edinburgh.
www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-a-preprint-from-the-react-2-study-looking-at-prevalence-of-antibody-positivity-to-sars-cov-2/

The BBC website has an article today about the drop off in antibodies following infection. Which means there is no certainty that a vaccine will give long-term immunity.

I think it's important not to over interpret this. It really needs a qualified scientist to say what this means for a potential vaccine. There is more to immunity than antibody counts.

Patrick Valance stated the other week that a vaccine will be coming in Spring but there will be some doses for certain individuals in December, what is so hard to understand about that? No its not from the Daily Mail but from a Gov advisor

I'm positive about a vaccine but realistic about its effectiveness. Antibodies won't last forever, just like the flu vaccine.

I’ve seen so many people talking about the impossibility of giving 67 million people vaccinations and moaning that if vaccine-induced immunity isn’t permanent we’d need to give people repeat doses every year, as if this was some sort of insuperable barrier - in blithe disregard of the fact that we routinely give 15 million people flu vaccines every single year in a period of a few weeks. It’s a big country with a lot of people to vaccinate but that means we have a lot of resources, a lot of venues, a lot of staff, pharmacies, dentists’ surgeries. Trebling the size of the current annual vaccine regime (assuming we exclude children) would cost money but it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the costs of not doing it.

Except that's not quite what he said!

he said there wouldn't be a vaccine before spring - no will

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2020/oct/20/covid-vaccine-will-not-be-available-in-uk-before-spring-says-sir-patrick-vallance-video

Video of him saying it. Look at the text underneath

He says It is unlikely a coronavirus vaccine will be in widespread use in Britain before next spring and that gets turned into Covid vaccine will not be available in UK until spring

See the difference? The word will was not used by him...

The Huff is usually a bit more honest in its headlines:

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/coronavirus-vaccine-spring-patrick-vallance_uk_5f8dc073c5b66ee9a5f2636e

Because if you are one of the "lock up the vulnerable and give the rest of us our freedom back" brigade the possibility of a vaccine really stuffs up the narrative.

The vaccine does feel rather rushed. But even assuming it is all good and ready to go, it's hard to escape the feeling our Government will manage to find a way to monumentally fuck up the vaccination programme.

he said there wouldn't be a vaccine before spring

No, he said that it was unlikely there would be a vaccine in widespread use before spring. Because it would take a while to roll a vaccine out to people, even if it's approved tomorrow. That is not the same thing as "there won't be a vaccine before spring."

So despite the HuffPost saying Vallance 'decisively poured cold water' on the WHO saying it was possible a vaccine would be available before the end of the year, he isn't saying anything different about when a vaccine would first be available.

It doesn't help that so much of the media coverage on this veers from one extreme to the other. "Vaccine by Christmas!" vs "No vaccine until summer!", no discussion of what they mean by 'there will be a vaccine' (a vaccine is approved? a vaccine is approved and NHS staff can start getting it? a vaccine is approved and I can get it as a low-risk adult? a vaccine is approved and we've all had it and life is going on?)

Realistically the most feasible scenario is that a vaccine will pass through phase III trials and be approved for some sort of emergency use some time around the end of this year/beginning of next, the vaccination programme would start with NHS staff and the most vulnerable then gradually be rolled out to whoever else is going to get it, and after a few months of that we'll see it really starting to have an effect on the spread of the virus. Jonathan Van Tam said a while back that he expected Easter would be the time we'd really start to see a vaccine having a big public health effect. (And that's not the same as saying there won't be a vaccine until Easter!)