And you would not be wrong. Always Boris first, Tory Party second, the British public a very distant third.
Severe risk factors. Lo and behold, Overweight, obesity and diabetes. Not sure if it's a vaccine the population need or a kick up the backside. It stands to reason that if the immune system has to reside in an unhealthy body it would not operate at its optimal level and eventually be overcome. Vaccine or no vaccine, waging a two front war is a losing battle. Polio In the 1920s when they cured Polio, the men who came up with the cure patented it for $1 and they said, paraphrasing here, it's like a cure, and it's helping human kind out, it would be like putting a patent on the sun, everyone deserves air, oxygen and sunlight. Not sure what the markup would be today, but I'm pretty confident the patent alone would far exceed $1 (inflation taken into account) Yes, there's a risk and free agency doesn't mean freedom of consequences, hopefully people will exercise good enough judgment. The article truly angered me though, it did not sit well with me at all. They can do pretty much what ever they wanna do there's no one there to hold them accountable.
So what happened between 2 and 3? The couple of bits I read said along the lines of "we can't share any info".
..So no response to anything then? Also, last I checked the immune system doesn't fight fat cells, so while your assertion that obesity and immune response are linked isn't wrong, the reason put forward doesn't really stack up. The point is, whether people need a kick in the fastfood hole or not, a lot of people have a co-morbidity for COVID. Even healthy young people die from COVID, with no known co-morbidities. So, yes, people should take better care of their flesh-suits, but at the end of the day COVID is something that can spiral so quickly that even healthy people with functional immune systems cannot fight it off. The patenting of the cure is utterly irrelevant to how the immune system cannot fight everything on its own. You know. The debate you seem woefully underprepared for.
Y'see, whilst I understand the sheer effort and can imagine the huge number of resources that have gone into this, I can't square it with that fact that most vaccines are developed over years - yes, I'm aware the flu virus subtly mutates all the time and annual flu vaccines are produced, but they don't start the process from scratch. Couple that with reports of problems/delays that seemingly went away as fast as they were rumoured, and that fact that we have a PM whose devotion to political expediency in order to save face is well proven... well it leaves me feeling not entirely sanguine about the vaccine's efficacy, or safety for that matter. I'm no anti-vaxxer - I just have serious doubt about how hard this has been pushed by no.10 and what if any safety protocols were skipped or short-cut.
If I'm not much mistaken a reasonable chunk of groundwork was done in the realm of coronavirus vaccination, owing to SARS-CoV-2 sharing some genetic similarities to other coronaviruses. It's just that the others kinda.. Petered out before it became financially viable for anyone to pump cash into a vaccine. That said, I would also be sceptical of Number 10's attempt to shoehorn it in, especially considering the doubt sprouting about the Oxford vaccine from people who know far more than you, me, probably anyone else in this thread. But, if I'm not much mistaken, the Pfizer lot are the ones who're in the news for selling 40m doses to the UK, not the Oxford AstraZeneca bunch - Yet.
That's kinda part of the problem - the WHO monitors viral infections and mobilises resource to produce vaccines for different strains of common viruses - including coronavirus - so one would assume cov19 is especially virulent or markedly different to have ravaged to world for a solid year. Yeah, and we're supposed to get it faster than the USA, despite Pfizer being an American company and Trump's huge America first push?!?
I think you're giving too much credit to Trump - Pfizer have said that their research was entirely independent of Operation Warp Speed or whatever it was called, and I have my doubts about the efficiency of government procurement under an incompetent buffoon like the orange one.
Most of the years spent in vaccine trials is in limbo applying for funding, applying for ethics clearance applying for staff and resources, finding populations to test etc. All of that can be fast tracked where there is a need as great as the current case, with little compromise on safety standards.
Not trying to be funny, but that sounds pretty vague. From what I've read about vaccine timelines, they can typically take 5-10 years once greenlit and funded, half of which time is trialling for efficacy / immune response uptake. My point being, regardless of resource thrown at development, trials still take a REALLY long time.
Honestly I can't comment on the differences - I am as far from a virologist as you can get! As for Pfizer and Trump.. I wouldn't be overly surprised that Trump couldn't get it to America first.. He's only ever put himself and his shrivelled up little dinger first.
Be as funny as you want lol, I'm a hungover tax adviser on a tech forum, it's not my responsibility to learn about vaccinology and allay your fears.
Again, the Oxford vaccine - I haven't looked into the others - was originally developed for MERS, another coronavirus, a decade ago. Modifying it for SARS-CoV-2 is closer to reformulating the annual flu vaccine than it is to developing a new vaccine from scratch.
To add balance. Not a single person in this thread has any authority to doubt the MHRA sign off if and when it comes.
Balance? You made a woolly reply and then followed up with condescending BS. I don't need authority to doubt something. I'm not campaigning against it - I'm voicing my concern and, given concerns already voiced by persons close to the programme, it doesn't strike me as outlandish.
An investigation happened, the conclusion of which was studied by the regulatory bodies of half a dozen countries, and trials were allowed to continue.
