Dr. Anthony Fauci says chance of coronavirus vaccine being highly effective is ‘not great’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Victoria33

Guest

Dr. Anthony Fauci says chance of coronavirus vaccine being highly effective is ‘not great’​

Published Fri, Aug 7 20201:57 PM EDTUpdated Fri, Aug 7 20205:04 PM EDT

Berkeley Lovelace Jr.@BerkeleyJr

Noah Higgins-Dunn@higginsdunn

Key Points
  • White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci that the chances of scientists creating a highly effective vaccine — one that provides 98% or more guaranteed protection — for the virus are slim.
  • Scientists are hoping for a coronavirus vaccine that is at least 75% effective, but 50% or 60% effective would be acceptable, too, he said.
  • The FDA has said it would authorize a coronavirus vaccine so long as it is safe and at least 50% effective.
Click to expand...
More:


More evidence, we will just have to live this coronavirus for awhile.
 
We don’t know yet what the efficacy might be. We don’t know if it will be 50% or 60%. I’d like it to be 75% or more," Fauci said in a webinar hosted by Brown University. “But the chances of it being 98% effective is not great, which means you must never abandon the public health approach.”

The measles vaccine is about 93% effective.

I wonder if this means you get a booster shot?
 
Not so fast!

He only a scientist, doctor and world leading expert on immunology…

Wouldn’t it would be prudent to wait for the President’s knowledgeable assessment before accepting anything Fauci has to say!
 
Well, that’s, on average, in line with the efficacy of the annual influenza vaccine. What do you thing people are expecting, given that the virus is easily transmitted and may vary (antigenic properties) over time.
 
If the vaccine is even 50% or 60% effective, that could still knock it out entirely. That’s because all we need to do is to get the reproduction rate (R0) down below 1.0. In January it was estimated at 2.5. In February the WHO estimated it at 1.4 to 2.5. Of course other things affect this factor, such as the behavioral steps people take to prevent spread. That is how they got (R0) to go way down in New York. If a vaccine is 50% effective and if everybody gets it, (R0) will be cut in half (I think). If only half the people get the vaccine, that might still cut the (R0) by a factor of 0.75, which could be just enough to set it on a track for extinction. And if it really is 75% effective, that would cut (R0) down to a quarter of what it was. So that’s why Fauci said it would still be good even if it was not perfect.
 
F_Marturana . . .
The measles vaccine is about 93% effective.
Click to expand...
Fauci is correct here.

The measles vaccine is different because the mode of infection is different than corona virus.

The measles causes its issues via spread throughout the human bloodstream making it an excellent candidate to be attacked by blood antibodies. (IgM and later IgG).

Not so the corona virus.

This corona virus (usually, not always) wreaks its havoc via respiratory infection and “slinkying” along the respiratory epithelium along the airways predominantly OUTSIDE of the bloodstream.

That can lead to pnemonias, respiratory compromise, and even death by asphyxiation if not countered early enough.

In order to attack THAT mode of spread, we would need a vaccine that stimulates IgA – the principle antibody that works OUTSIDE of the bloodstream (in addition to within) on the mucosal or wet surfaces (such as respiratory epithelium).

Since we do not know how (yet) to induce IgA antibody, we will never be able to make a good vaccine for things like colds, Influenza, corona viruses, etc. that infect and spread within the body in this manner. At least with current immunotechnology.

We will need a whole new immunologic paradigm to induce such antibodies effectively.

The body on the other hand MAY induce such IgA antibody protection. (We DO know how to induce IgG protection, but it is much less relevant with corona virus for the reasons I outlined above).

One caveat. IgA protection typically is not as long-lasting as blood antibody (IgG) protection is.
 
Last edited:
You know kids should go to school they are unlikely to get it and it doesn’t hurt them and it’s unlikely to infect the parents and if they come into contact with the virus then they will grow immunity for when they become adults
 
I was reading this morning, China cracked down on Doctors putting out the alert on coronavirus, silenced them. Guess what? Some are saying we are doing that to some of our doctors who voice support of HCQ… and really, I saw one forum where talk of HCQ is even prohibited.
 
I hear you, Anonkun, I would agree the economy is more important than human life, but as a pro-life Catholic, I cant but the economy ahead of the sanctity of human life, and therefore find the death of 161,000 Americans as being “it is what it is” as ludicrous as it is morally offensive.
 
dscath . . .
I cant put the economy ahead of the sanctity of human life
Click to expand...
Minor spell correction mine.

You don’t have to.

You can put the sanctity of human life first AND help the economy too.

And if you look at risk-benefits, this will be easily seen just with common sense.

We can destroy the economy (and hurt life here too) AND get a viral infection.

Or . . .

We can avoid destroying the economy (and preserve life here too) and get a viral infection.

The choice for life here is pretty basic.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
We can avoid destroying the economy (and preserve life here too) and get a viral infection.

The choice for life here is pretty basic.
Click to expand...
So, the pregnant couple who elect abortion so the financial burden of a baby is avoided is okay? Not sure if this logic is more weird or shameful!
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Minor spell correction mine.

You don’t have to.

You can put the sanctity of human life first AND help the economy too.

And if you look at risk-benefits, this will be easily seen just with common sense.

We can destroy the economy (and hurt life here too) AND get a viral infection.

Or . . .

We can avoid destroying the economy (and preserve life here too) and get a viral infection.

The choice for life here is pretty basic.
Click to expand...
No lock down nations have fought the virus better than some lock down natioins, witness the Philippines.

Yes, and taking the Democrats’ position on life doesn’t seem very much interested in valuing life.
 
dscath . .
So, the pregnant couple who elect abortion so the financial burden of a baby is avoided is okay?
Click to expand...
You tell me the violation of logic you used here dscath.

Do you understand how far off your comparison is and WHY?
 
If you understand your violation of logic, WHY use such an example?

With keeping up the economy, nobody is TRYING to get a corona virus infection.

With pre-meditated murder of your pre-born baby, people ARE TRYING to murder an innocent baby.

If everyone “holed up”, nobody gets the virus but everybody dies (no food, water, etc.).

So everywhere in between, you look at risks AND benefits to life.

If you destroy your country economically, you get to “fight” the virus from a “position of Venezuela”.

Catastrophic against life TWO ways.

If you DON’T destroy your country economically, you get to “fight” the virus from a “position of relative STRENGTH”.

Catastrophic against life ONE way.

Since the average age of death with corona virus infections is age 82, instead of everyone holing up,
you have the most vulnerable hole up (and realize even then, this is not perfect, some of them sadly will die).

The other thing you don’t do is fight against a drug that has shown efficacy according to many physicians (who by the way are healty) who actually take care of coronavirus infected patients on a day to day basis. You DON’T fight against hydroxychloroquine usage.
 
Last edited:
Disappointing but I’m not terribly surprised. Likely the only good news about that is for those that buy gold. GLD will likely continue to perform well if an effective vaccine remains elusive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top