New Coronavirus threat

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Actually a flu vaccine was developed which found to be effective vs. the 1918 pandemic influenza strain. The 2009 H1N1 flu which caused a number of problems had a vaccine developed to help protect against H1N1 influenzas, and testing has since determined that the 1918 influenza strain was also a type of H1N1, and that the 2009 H1N1 vaccine would help provide protection.

This of course is no help to those infected in 1918, but it does illustrate that not only do diseases morph or mutate, but they also come back around. Something similar happening with SARS-CoV-2 is quite possible.
I've read some interesting stuff over the past year (written pre COVID, but oddly prescient) on changing the approach to vaccine R&D, making the case that despite having the medical science capable to do so, the current pharmaceutical market simply isn't appropriately incentivized to conduct forward looking R&D to prevent things like this from occurring.

To put it simply, there is no incentive for a pharmaceutical company to expend money to forestall likely emerging pathogens, as they will not be compensated if it doesn't work.

The case that's made is that some segments of the medical community may be better off operating like the defense industry, and actually trying to conduct R&D to have an assortment of treatments/vaccines in place before these things break out and become global threats.
Of course, such research would have the dual purpose benefit of Biological defense and attack, which would probably be complicated to navigate in the perspective of international treaties.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I've read some interesting stuff over the past year (written pre COVID, but oddly prescient) on changing the approach to vaccine R&D, making the case that despite having the medical science capable to do so, the current pharmaceutical market simply isn't appropriately incentivized to conduct forward looking R&D to prevent things like this from occurring.

To put it simply, there is no incentive for a pharmaceutical company to expend money to forestall likely emerging pathogens, as they will not be compensated if it doesn't work.

The case that's made is that some segments of the medical community may be better off operating like the defense industry, and actually trying to conduct R&D to have an assortment of treatments/vaccines in place before these things break out and become global threats.
Of course, such research would have the dual purpose benefit of Biological defense and attack, which would probably be complicated to navigate in the perspective of international treaties.
I have a fundamental problem with how whole sections of healthcare, including pharmacology and research, is approached and handled.

The basic problem from my POV similarly boils down to healthcare being a for-profit enterprise, which then drives how who does what and when. Companies will not develop vaccines, or treatments, unless they (1) believe that they can make a profit, or are being paid to develop/produce a treatment, drug or vaccine. IMO that sort of model would need to be changed.
 

fozraro

Member
Failure to provide sources
There are plenty of new strains every day considering how many viruses there are in the world. What is considered a pandemic depends on whether it can be politicized.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Yes, viruses like SARS-Cov-2 do generally mutate on a regular basis. What on earth does that have to do with whether or not the pandemic is politically driven (your original claim)?
 

fozraro

Member
Yes, viruses like SARS-Cov-2 do generally mutate on a regular basis. What on earth does that have to do with whether or not the pandemic is politically driven (your original claim)?
[Mod edit: We have exercised editorial control over your attempt to derail this thread. Learn to have some decorum when your mistakes of fact are pointed out. Consistent failure of logic and attempts at trolling in this thread are not looked upon with favour by the Mod Team.

Read the forum rules and stop posting in this thread for the next 48 hours].
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
This is irrelevant to your original claim that:
What is considered a pandemic depends on whether it can be politicized.
Which is nonsense, since a pandemic is classically defined as "an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people".

With nearly 55 million confirmed cases, over a million deaths worldwide and 220 countries affected, I can see precisely nothing controversial about classifying COVID19 as a pandemic, the likes of which we have not seen since the Spanish Flu of 1918.
 

fozraro

Member
Mod Edit: Counter factual misinformation deleted. We do not tolerate your attempts to mislead.

Your posting privileges for this thread have been revoked. Any post you make in this thread in the next 48 hours will be deleted and sanctions will be applied.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Common flu affects billions of people annually. Every day there is pandemic. Whether we consider something pandemic depends on politics.

If you think about it, CDC released stats only a few thousand people in the US died from COVID-19, the remaining deaths were associated with COVD-19 but not necessarily due to it.
There is absolutely no equivalence between seasonal flu and COVID19. The former is a well-understood virus whose treatment, mitigation and management strategies are well established. The latter is a far more dangerous (and probably contagious) novel virus that is poorly understood by comparison.
 
Last edited:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Common flu was also pretty lethal when it first appeared. The survivors are pretty much immune to it. Same with black death. The survivors transmitted it to the New World after it ravaged Europe. COVID-19 lethality is down to 1 to 3 percent now that the people who are most susceptible to it have been killed by it. Over the next year lethality should fall to 1 percent. 10 years from now the survivors will be pretty much all immune to it.
More sweeping claims with no sources to support them. An infection fatality rate (IFR) of 1-3% would make COVID19 orders of magnitude more lethal than seasonal flu. Bearing in mind that only a small fraction of the human population has been exposed to the disease and the existence & mechanisms for immunity after exposure are not yet well documented, you are simply peddling misinformation at this point.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
More sweeping claims with no sources to support them. An infection fatality rate (IFR) of 1-3% would make COVID19 orders of magnitude more lethal than seasonal flu. Bearing in mind that only a small fraction of the human population has been exposed to the disease and the existence & mechanisms for immunity after exposure are not yet well documented, you are simply peddling misinformation at this point.
Many thanks for your lucid efforts at correcting deliberate misinformation being posted by fozraro. For his refusal to accept the science of pandemic management and lack of ability to respond professionally across multiple threads, the Moderators, at the request of multiple members, who have reported his posts, have also banned him.

For good order, see also : Covid-19 pandemic & Fake News - How you can help
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Many thanks for your lucid efforts at correcting deliberate misinformation being posted by fozraro. For his refusal to accept the science of pandemic management and lack of ability to respond professionally across multiple threads, the Moderators, at the request of multiple members, who have reported his posts, have also banned him.

For good order, see also : Covid-19 pandemic & Fake News - How you can help
No problem @OPSSG. Happy to do what I can to maintain the quality of information on the forum.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #677
Early indications suggest the flu season will be minimal in Canada, similar to Southern Hemisphere countries. Not sure which measures are most responsible for the decrease, masks and social distancing or travel bans or all these measures? As the US and Canada have similar travel bans but different approaches to mask wearing and social distancing, any significant higher flu infection rates in the US would seem to indicate mask and social distancing are the main reasons for lower rates this year.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-season-2020-canada-public-health-1.58046731605632966384.png
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Our health experts in NZ have put the very low flu rate down to the COVID-19 precautions that have been taken here. Whether or not the same low rates will occur in the northern hemisphere will depend upon individual countries COVID-19 pandemic precautions.
 
Top