No such thing as herd immunity

Apparently some who tested CV+ have now been shown to have negligible antibody count afterwards. If the body does not create antibodies to fight off the CV but, instead, uses T-cells, then how is a vaccine going to work? Not my field, but seems an obvious question.
 
Alas think its here to stay same as flu and cold virus. Not convinced re a cure so we either have to social distance forever or let life go on normally and dedicate resources looking after the most susceptible to serious illness from it by way of treatment.

That's my take anyway as we can't live in a state of perpetual lockdowns and social distancing
 
I think the main policy now is hoping it dies out of it's own accord, a vaccine is a pipe dream.
I support your posts normally Lytham but I know there are lots of highly educated, highly skilled people putting their everything into the vaccine thing. Please be less flippant - no offence.
 
I support your posts normally Lytham but I know there are lots of highly educated, highly skilled people putting their everything into the vaccine thing. Please be less flippant - no offence.
It's not flippancy, it took Salk and others a decade to get a safe flu vaccine, six months or a year is a pipe dream.
 
40 years they be been trying for a vaccine for HIV. I know they'll put more of an effort into this but in my opinion it'll be a long time
 
Apparently some who tested CV+ have now been shown to have negligible antibody count afterwards. If the body does not create antibodies to fight off the CV but, instead, uses T-cells, then how is a vaccine going to work?

AFAIK the body can use both systems to fight off the virus, if the T-cells get the job done first then there's no need for the anti-bodies, if not then they will be generated.

I wonder if there's a connection with the severity of a patient's infection, if the T-cell response is strong and fast then maybe symptoms are minor whereas if it is weak and the body needs to rely upon anti-bodies the disease may be much more serious, alternatively the opposite may be true.

I would be interested if anyone knows any more.
 
"New COVID-19 antibodies study in Spain adds evidence against herd immunity" https://twitter.com/i/events/1280194458722562049

Looks like we'll need a vaccine

Well is this not basically saying not as many people have it as they thought and so herd immunity is a long way off, not that hard immunity can't somewhat work once a population has enough exposure in the future, all depends how long that immunity lasts or if maybe once had it it doesn't come back as bad...

On the bright side of not as many as thought maybe it's not spreading as quick as some thought?

Apparently some who tested CV+ have now been shown to have negligible antibody count afterwards. If the body does not create antibodies to fight off the CV but, instead, uses T-cells, then how is a vaccine going to work? Not my field, but seems an obvious question.

Where is this info from?
 
OK, I'm not naive but I had thought that the Oxford experiments were seemingly well advanced.

Unless I'm mistaken @Lytham_fy8 is talking about Dr Jonas Salk, who was the man behind the polio vaccine (a bit more serious than flu), but this was in 1955.

65 years later there's a fair to middling chance we know a bit more about the field and can probably move a bit faster than Salk could, also everyday things such as computers and telecommunications vastly change the picture.


Edit to add:

Another point worth bearing in mind is that these vaccines are already going into clinical trials (Oxford getting close to completion) so the vaccines have already been developed, they just need to find out if they work or not.
 
Unless I'm mistaken @Lytham_fy8 is talking about Dr Jonas Salk, who was the man behind the polio vaccine (a bit more serious than flu), but this was in 1955.

65 years later there's a fair to middling chance we know a bit more about the field and can probably move a bit faster than Salk could, also everyday things such as computers and telecommunications vastly change the picture.


Edit to add:

Another point worth bearing in mind is that these vaccines are already going into clinical trials (Oxford getting close to completion) so the vaccines have already been developed, they just need to find out if they work or not.
Salk was involved in the flu virus as well, don't forget that they didn't have quite the same testing standards back then which negated the time lost elsewhere.
 
As an aside.

Leap forward 100 years. How many 'new 'COVID'S' will there have been.

Can humanity survive them all?

Eventually one will do huge human damage, logical.
 
Salk was involved in the flu virus as well, don't forget that they didn't have quite the same testing standards back then which negated the time lost elsewhere.

Ah so he was, in the 1940's, I hadn't realised that flu vaccines went back that far.


don't forget that they didn't have quite the same testing standards back then which negated the time lost elsewhere.

Do you have a source for that? I mean the standards are "does it work" and "is it safe" and I don't see how those are likely to have changed much over the years.

The polio trials invovled about 1,000,000 volunteers, can you imagine how long it's going to take to analyse that using pen and paper, even collecting the data would be considerably harder without modern communications.


In any event professors of medicine seem to think otherwise so I'll go with them.
 
Breaking News!!!

We will all die of something one day.

Admittedly the Day might be earlier than expected, so you need to get out and enjoy whatever life you have left.

Ah! Right! You can’t because of lockdown.
 
Ah so he was, in the 1940's, I hadn't realised that flu vaccines went back that far.




Do you have a source for that? I mean the standards are "does it work" and "is it safe" and I don't see how those are likely to have changed much over the years.

The polio trials invovled about 1,000,000 volunteers, can you imagine how long it's going to take to analyse that using pen and paper, even collecting the data would be considerably harder without modern communications.


In any event professors of medicine seem to think otherwise so I'll go with them.
Salk's vaccine was pretty dangerous and expensive, it needed three shots and a booster, used a nasty dead strain, was tested on unwitting orphanage kids and was rushed in to production leading to the 'Cutter Incident' where the dead virus in the shot was reactivated and killed a few people due to dodgy production.

It'd take six more years until a cheaper more effective virus was licensed using a live virus.
 
Salk's vaccine was pretty dangerous and expensive, it needed three shots and a booster, used a nasty dead strain, was tested on unwitting orphanage kids and was rushed in to production leading to the 'Cutter Incident' where the dead virus in the shot was reactivated and killed a few people due to dodgy production.

It'd take six more years until a cheaper more effective virus was licensed using a live virus.

65 years of progress.

Maybe someone should adopt "progress" as a motto.
 
Well is this not basically saying not as many people have it as they thought and so herd immunity is a long way off, not that hard immunity can't somewhat work once a population has enough exposure in the future, all depends how long that immunity lasts or if maybe once had it it doesn't come back as bad...

On the bright side of not as many as thought maybe it's not spreading as quick as some thought?

Apparently some who tested CV+ have now been shown to have negligible antibody count afterwards. If the body does not create antibodies to fight off the CV but, instead, uses T-cells, then how is a vaccine going to work? Not my field, but seems an obvious question.

Where is this info from?

From a recent study by St George’s, University of London and St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
 
Back
Top