Has the dead cat finished bouncing?

Thrugelmir

bogleboogle said:

Another factor I omitted: it seems Biden is the current strong favourite to win in the US elections in November. Biden has not shown anything like the resolve to reach a US-UK FTA that Trump has. So this could exacerbate the impact of the UK's potential failure to reach an agreement with the EU by October/November...

Biden isn't going to win any election votes by talking about a UK trade deal. The US electorate unsurprisingly has far bigger domestic issues they want addressed as a priority. Globalisation peaked a few years back. Trump simply continues to score own goals. Biden isn't a great candidate either. 

Alistair31

Thrugelmir said:

bogleboogle said:

Another factor I omitted: it seems Biden is the current strong favourite to win in the US elections in November. Biden has not shown anything like the resolve to reach a US-UK FTA that Trump has. So this could exacerbate the impact of the UK's potential failure to reach an agreement with the EU by October/November...

Biden isn't going to win any election votes by talking about a UK trade deal. The US electorate unsurprisingly has far bigger domestic issues they want addressed as a priority. Globalisation peaked a few years back. Trump simply continues to score own goals. Biden isn't a great candidate either. 

He could well die at the desk, or perhaps be carted off to a home. Let’s hope his VP is someone better than Trump and Biden himself. 

bogleboogle

Thrugelmir said:

bogleboogle said:

Another factor I omitted: it seems Biden is the current strong favourite to win in the US elections in November. Biden has not shown anything like the resolve to reach a US-UK FTA that Trump has. So this could exacerbate the impact of the UK's potential failure to reach an agreement with the EU by October/November...

Biden isn't going to win any election votes by talking about a UK trade deal. The US electorate unsurprisingly has far bigger domestic issues they want addressed as a priority. Globalisation peaked a few years back. Trump simply continues to score own goals. Biden isn't a great candidate either. 

Well Biden doesn't seem to be talking about anything - not that it's hurting his polling numbers given Trump's propensity to score own goals as you mentioned. But my point was that Trump is decidedly more pro-Brexit and seems more enthusiastic about reaching a UK-US FTA as a priority, whereas Biden does not. Thus, I expect a Biden presidency to harm the chance of reaching a US-UK FTA ASAP. 

Bobziz

My understanding is that even if the UK managed to negotiate a FTA with the US, it wouldn't come close to compensating for the loss associated with failing to negotiate a deal with the EU.  

Thrugelmir

Bobziz said:

My understanding is that even if the UK managed to negotiate a FTA with the US, it wouldn't come close to compensating for the loss associated with failing to negotiate a deal with the EU.  

WTO terms are far from the end of the world. Any deal with the EU is going to have so many caveats and conditions that most likely is going to be unpalatable. Let alone it's chances of passing through 30 odd Parliamentary votes. Too many singular vested interests. 

bogleboogle

Bobziz said:

My understanding is that even if the UK managed to negotiate a FTA with the US, it wouldn't come close to compensating for the loss associated with failing to negotiate a deal with the EU.  

The UK DIT's policy paper on UK-US negotiations (from March) projects a 0.02-0.36% increase in long-term GDP from a UK-US FTA. However, given most analyses expect a 1.2-4.5% long-term drop in GDP from Brexit, that does indeed seem pretty trivial in comparison...

kinger101

NorthernJoe said:

stephenadarglas said:

............... and there will be a vaccine soon and then the sky's the limit

Can you name one human coronavirus that we have a vaccine against? 

SARS (2003)      Nope
MERS (2012)     Nope
HCoV-NL63       Nope 
HCoV-229E       Nope
HCoV-HKU1     Nope
HCoV-OC43     Nope 

Vaccines need testing.  The viruses you listed there are either ones which cause mild common colds, or epidemics which were contained.  SARS-COV2 is different in that it causes quite severe and life-threatening diseases on some individuals, and the opportunity for containment has been lost, largely due to the ease at which it spreads via presymptomatic/asymptomatic cases.

There's probably never in history been so much intensity directed at vaccine development against a single virus.  Added to that, there are now more techniques available that ever to develop a vaccine.  Many have already been shown to have a protective effect in animal models.  A few vaccines are now in phase III trials.  

BrockStoker

kinger101 said:

NorthernJoe said:

stephenadarglas said:

............... and there will be a vaccine soon and then the sky's the limit

Can you name one human coronavirus that we have a vaccine against? 

SARS (2003)      Nope
MERS (2012)     Nope
HCoV-NL63       Nope 
HCoV-229E       Nope
HCoV-HKU1     Nope
HCoV-OC43     Nope 

Vaccines need testing.  The viruses you listed there are either ones which cause mild common colds, or epidemics which were contained.  SARS-COV2 is different in that it causes quite severe and life-threatening diseases on some individuals, and the opportunity for containment has been lost, largely due to the ease at which it spreads via presymptomatic/asymptomatic cases.

There's probably never in history been so much intensity directed at vaccine development against a single virus.  Added to that, there are now more techniques available that ever to develop a vaccine.  Many have already been shown to have a protective effect in animal models.  A few vaccines are now in phase III trials.  

The more I read about it, the more "slippery" SARS-COV2 is starting to sound. For those here that don't know, "slippery" is the term used for viruses that are hard to fight. Given the track record with related viruses, I'm inclined to agree with Northern Joe, that we may not have a good chance of finding a vaccine that is effective. It could be that our best hope for a vaccine will be one that is effective only for a few weeks before needing to be topped up, and if that is the case, it won't be the "magic bullet" most are hoping for. I have to admit, I was more bullish about vaccines a few months back, but the more I learn, the less bullish I become.

But all is not lost - antivirals can be used instead, and although they might not work like a vaccine, they could be used as a preventative measure, and they could also reduce (if not stop altogether) death rates of hospital admissions.

I posted this link on my own thread the other day, but might be worth posting again here:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4354790-vaccines-will-underwhelm-and-why-gilead-substantially-larger-market-opportunity

kinger101

BrockStoker said:

kinger101 said:

NorthernJoe said:

stephenadarglas said:

............... and there will be a vaccine soon and then the sky's the limit

Can you name one human coronavirus that we have a vaccine against? 

SARS (2003)      Nope
MERS (2012)     Nope
HCoV-NL63       Nope 
HCoV-229E       Nope
HCoV-HKU1     Nope
HCoV-OC43     Nope 

Vaccines need testing.  The viruses you listed there are either ones which cause mild common colds, or epidemics which were contained.  SARS-COV2 is different in that it causes quite severe and life-threatening diseases on some individuals, and the opportunity for containment has been lost, largely due to the ease at which it spreads via presymptomatic/asymptomatic cases.

There's probably never in history been so much intensity directed at vaccine development against a single virus.  Added to that, there are now more techniques available that ever to develop a vaccine.  Many have already been shown to have a protective effect in animal models.  A few vaccines are now in phase III trials.  

The more I read about it, the more "slippery" SARS-COV2 is starting to sound. For those here that don't know, "slippery" is the term used for viruses that are hard to fight. Given the track record with related viruses, I'm inclined to agree with Northern Joe, that we may not have a good chance of finding a vaccine that is effective. It could be that our best hope for a vaccine will be one that is effective only for a few weeks before needing to be topped up, and if that is the case, it won't be the "magic bullet" most are hoping for. I have to admit, I was more bullish about vaccines a few months back, but the more I learn, the less bullish I become.

But all is not lost - antivirals can be used instead, and although they might not work like a vaccine, they could be used as a preventative measure, and they could also reduce (if not stop altogether) death rates of hospital admissions.

I posted this link on my own thread the other day, but might be worth posting again here:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4354790-vaccines-will-underwhelm-and-why-gilead-substantially-larger-market-opportunity

I suspect the person who wrote that piece has a large holding in Gilead.  All viruses mutate at some rate.  It's true the virus might mutate such that the epitope used to make the vaccine alters, but not everyone developing a vaccine is targeting the exact same epitope.  So if more than one vaccine worked, it's unlikely all would fail simultaneously.  From an evolutionary perspective, it's just as likely the virus could mutate such that an antiviral no longer becomes effective.  It's also possible the virus could mutate to something which causes a much milder form of disease making antivirals/vaccines redundant.  Or something more severe.....
The antiviral house seems no less likely to fall at the mutational hurdle than the vaccine one.

I don't think prophylactic use of virals has any real potential other than being administered to high risk catergories such as healthy individuals who work in intensive care.  Manufacture of a drug safe enough to repeatedly give to non-infected individuals  at scale is a lot more challenging than scaling vaccine production.   

BrockStoker

kinger101 said:

BrockStoker said:

kinger101 said:

NorthernJoe said:

stephenadarglas said:

............... and there will be a vaccine soon and then the sky's the limit

Can you name one human coronavirus that we have a vaccine against? 

SARS (2003)      Nope
MERS (2012)     Nope
HCoV-NL63       Nope 
HCoV-229E       Nope
HCoV-HKU1     Nope
HCoV-OC43     Nope 

Vaccines need testing.  The viruses you listed there are either ones which cause mild common colds, or epidemics which were contained.  SARS-COV2 is different in that it causes quite severe and life-threatening diseases on some individuals, and the opportunity for containment has been lost, largely due to the ease at which it spreads via presymptomatic/asymptomatic cases.

There's probably never in history been so much intensity directed at vaccine development against a single virus.  Added to that, there are now more techniques available that ever to develop a vaccine.  Many have already been shown to have a protective effect in animal models.  A few vaccines are now in phase III trials.  

The more I read about it, the more "slippery" SARS-COV2 is starting to sound. For those here that don't know, "slippery" is the term used for viruses that are hard to fight. Given the track record with related viruses, I'm inclined to agree with Northern Joe, that we may not have a good chance of finding a vaccine that is effective. It could be that our best hope for a vaccine will be one that is effective only for a few weeks before needing to be topped up, and if that is the case, it won't be the "magic bullet" most are hoping for. I have to admit, I was more bullish about vaccines a few months back, but the more I learn, the less bullish I become.

But all is not lost - antivirals can be used instead, and although they might not work like a vaccine, they could be used as a preventative measure, and they could also reduce (if not stop altogether) death rates of hospital admissions.

I posted this link on my own thread the other day, but might be worth posting again here:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4354790-vaccines-will-underwhelm-and-why-gilead-substantially-larger-market-opportunity

I suspect the person who wrote that piece has a large holding in Gilead.  All viruses mutate at some rate.  It's true the virus might mutate such that the epitope used to make the vaccine alters, but not everyone developing a vaccine is targeting the exact same epitope.  So if more than one vaccine worked, it's unlikely all would fail simultaneously.  From an evolutionary perspective, it's just as likely the virus could mutate such that an antiviral no longer becomes effective.  It's also possible the virus could mutate to something which causes a much milder form of disease making antivirals/vaccines redundant.  Or something more severe.....
The antiviral house seems no less likely to fall at the mutational hurdle than the vaccine one.

I don't think prophylactic use of virals has any real potential other than being administered to high risk catergories such as healthy individuals who work in intensive care.  Manufacture of a drug safe enough to repeatedly give to non-infected individuals  at scale is a lot more challenging than scaling vaccine production.   

Appreciate your feedback as always kinger. There is so much seemingly conflicting info around (as well as potentially vested interests, as you point out) it's not easy for even someone with a little knowledge to sort the wheat from the chaff. The one point I am confident on is (as you also say), there is so much effort going in to find something that will fight the virus, that the chances of success are high.