The numbers I heard were: 30% of humans have covid antibodies, US recovery rate is 44%, herd immunity starts at 50%.

I'm getting tested today. Hoping I "had" it.

I had blood drawn and got the swab, so maybe both?

More and more studies coming in. Antibodies fading quickly. Far more people with T-cell response than antibody response. We don't know what it all means yet. :-/

That's interesting. Probably means we shouldn't be in lockdown. We're probably prolonging how long this will last.

If we're going to do lockdowns at all, do them right. Either don't lock down at all, or lock down according to something along the lines of the criteria the IHME were using before they revised their model to account for reopening: lockdowns expected to continue until cases were suppressed to a level that could be managed via contact tracing. European countries did it right and are reopening without the spikes we are seeing.

And as usual, Ragnar's conclusions are suspect at best, and absolutely backwards at worst. If the implication of all these new studies is that herd immunity will be less than perfect, than his herd immunity strategy would not work.

One man's "prolonging the inevitable" is another man's "buy time for a vaccine."

The vaccine candidate I was reading about produces a stronger antibody response than natural infection.

Most vaccines take years to get to market. Pre-clinical trials are where most vaccines fail. Clinical trials are usually a decade or more. Fewer than a 1/3rd of vaccines make it to final approval.

Even if by some miracle they find something in a year, it's unlikely they're going to rush it to market unless we see a significantly higher death rate.

2020-07-13 14:44 from Ragnar Danneskjold
Most vaccines take years to get to market. Pre-clinical trials are
where most vaccines fail. Clinical trials are usually a decade or
more. Fewer than a 1/3rd of vaccines make it to final approval.

Even if by some miracle they find something in a year, it's unlikely

they're going to rush it to market unless we see a significantly higher

death rate.

You're either delusional or knowingly spreading FUD about the timeline. That's horsehit, Ragnar, and you know it. It's not going to take a decade. Not on the accelerated schedule that's been talked about. They're going to risk production before the phase 3 results are confirmed, and there are SO many companies and groups working on this in parallel. These are not normal times, and it's intellectually dishohest to compare them to normal times in that way.

But that's what you are. One of the most dishonest people I've had the displeasure of speaking to over the last 20+ years.

You're either delusional or knowingly spreading FUD about the
timeline. That's horsehit, Ragnar, and you know it. It's not going to

take a decade. Not on the accelerated schedule that's been talked
about. They're going to risk production before the phase 3 results are

confirmed, and there are SO many companies and groups working on this

in parallel. These are not normal times, and it's intellectually
dishohest to compare them to normal times in that way.

I find it a bit concerning if they are trying to rush the regular procedure in order to get the product deployed faster.

In my opinion, we should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. At this point that means hopping there will be a vaccine but not depending on it.

Most of that is down to something us IT professionals are quite familiar with: parallelization. At least 2 vaccine candidates are about to enter stage 3 trials, so we've shaved about 7 years off te typical timeline. And it's therefore just a falsehood to say "they're not going to speed the process up"; simply put, they already DID speed it up. The decision has already been made. Not only a falsehood, but deeply ignorant about what's actually going on in vaccine research at the moment.

The death rate is plenty bad enough to justify all of this.

I have to admit I would be very hesistant to accept a vaccine that was rushed to market. Even when medicines are approved at the normal rate, sometimes we find problems with them later on. Considering that the mortality rate of the Wuhan coronavirus has crashed through the floor now that we've increased testing and discovered that there were many cases with no or mild symptoms, the risk of using a minimally tested vaccine seems larger than the risk of contracting the disease, except perhaps for those with higher risk factors.




That was supposed to be one of the benefits of HCQ treatment -- its contraindications are well known, and its safety for those without the contraindications is high. I'm still not counting it out and will ask my doctor for it by name if I happen to get the virus.

Vaccines need to be clearly labeled Gates or non-Gates.

The death rate is plenty bad enough to justify all of this.

Bullshit.

You're either delusional or knowingly spreading FUD about the
timeline. That's horsehit, Ragnar, and you know it. It's not going to

take a decade. Not on the accelerated schedule that's been talked
about. They're going to risk production before the phase 3 results are

confirmed, and there are SO many companies and groups working on this

in parallel. These are not normal times, and it's intellectually
dishohest to compare them to normal times in that way.

But that's what you are. One of the most dishonest people I've had the

displeasure of speaking to over the last 20+ years.

Tell me exactly what I said that was false.... Literally nothing I said is false. Nothing. I talked about normal vaccine production.

While "they" may risk production, "they" could just as equally be wrong, just as "they" have been wrong in the past.
Yes, these aren't normal times. But this also isn't nearly as deadly as the media would have you believe. Maybe your personal experience is clouding your judgement on this.

I for one don't want to be forced to receive a vaccine that hasn't been well tested. If you want to be part of a mass experiment, be my guest.

I hope we don't discover that we've created the new thalidomide or worse in the process.