Canadian Money Forum banner

2801 - 2820 of 2850 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
The common cold use to kill humans many millenniums ago, it does not today. The flu was much deadlier as well. I could make a list a lot longer then yours, but since those viruses have become so benign it is hard to remember them all. Most have gone off our history books. Only the few scary ones are still with us.

Look. Neither of us know the future precisely. You made a valid guess, and so did I. Maybe we should leave it to the future to determine which guess is more correct. I just doubt we will need a vaccine every 3 or 4 months. That sounded a little pessimistic to me.
Sure it may sound pessimistic, or conservative.
But it's also based on the data.
1. We know that COVID19 antibodies fade in a few months.
2. We have not been able to create a human vaccine for any other Coronaviruses.

It seems unlikely that a vaccine will last long if the antibodies fade quickly.
It would be a surprising coincidence that despite decades of effort, the first effective Coronavirus vaccine just happens to be the one for COVID19.

As far as "the flu", yes the more lethal strains tend to die out. Because they kill their hosts.
The most successful viruses are high spread, low symptom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,998 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,802 (Edited)
Now that they have opened up schools, it means less social contact for the kids with anyone beyond their parents and siblings outside of school.

No more grandparent visits or stay overs. No more extended families hunkering down and able to stay in a small, safe social circle.

The circles now become so exponentially large that they are rendered a useless concept.

One virus expert said there is the child's classmates, teachers, janitors, principles.......and everyone they are in contact with, and everyone they are in contact with, and everyone.......on and on. This is how outbreaks get out of control in a few days.

The endless trail of contact tracing will mean it simply doesn't get done to completion. They will be chasing their tails.

It reminds me of an old axiom.........be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,998 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,803
I went for a pickup at a burger joint yesterday. I was surprised they allowed people to dine-in within a small area. We are losing focus and will pay for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,621 Posts
Sure it may sound pessimistic, or conservative.
But it's also based on the data.
1. We know that COVID19 antibodies fade in a few months.
2. We have not been able to create a human vaccine for any other Coronaviruses ...
would be a surprising coincidence that despite decades of effort, the first effective Coronavirus vaccine just happens to be the one for COVID19 ...
The bolded part is in the eye of the beholder ... there are multiple coronavirus vaccine candidates created in the past that have successfully passed the bulk of the testing. They've just never completed the final phase to be an approved vaccine, mostly from a lack of ROI for the investors/companies.

This pessimistic POV makes it sound like there's never been progress, which is not the case. I'm surprised you figure it's unlikely that COVID19 would be the first when it clearly has the investment backing as well as wide spread application that was missing from the previous vaccines (i.e. the progress has pretty much been matched despite a much shorter time frame).


Cheers

PS
From what I recall of a recent article, something like three of the covid vaccines have been approved for limited or emergency use ... which is beyond the point that previous vaccines ran into trouble getting funding for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,247 Posts
Sure it may sound pessimistic, or conservative.
But it's also based on the data.
1. We know that COVID19 antibodies fade in a few months.
2. We have not been able to create a human vaccine for any other Coronaviruses.

It seems unlikely that a vaccine will last long if the antibodies fade quickly.
It would be a surprising coincidence that despite decades of effort, the first effective Coronavirus vaccine just happens to be the one for COVID19.

As far as "the flu", yes the more lethal strains tend to die out. Because they kill their hosts.
The most successful viruses are high spread, low symptom.
All correct, however there is a lot more to our immune response then anti-bodies. Effective anti-bodies would be the holy grail but t-cell response and other first level immune responses, which have been proven to exist for the corona virus, are very effective in keeping viruses from being dangerous. Again, it is not the infections that are the problem. It is the severe illness and death that is the problem. Let us not lose site of what the problem actually is.

I am pretty sure after we get fairly exposed to this thing it will lose its teeth quite considerably.

In any case, I think we have both stated our opinions, both of which are just educated guesses, so I think the readers of this thread have enough information to form their own opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
The bolded part is in the eye of the beholder ... there are multiple coronavirus vaccine candidates created in the past that have successfully passed the bulk of the testing. They've just never completed the final phase to be an approved vaccine, mostly from a lack of ROI for the investors/companies.

This pessimistic POV makes it sound like there's never been progress, which is not the case. I'm surprised you figure it's unlikely that COVID19 would be the first when it clearly has the investment backing as well as wide spread application that was missing from the previous vaccines (i.e. the progress has pretty much been matched despite a much shorter time frame).

Cheers
I pretty much agree.
Yes, COVID has the funding to push over the finish line, but so did SARS. They still gave up before they finished it.
It is likely that if it is possible, COVID19 might be the first.

I am more conservative in my view.
I don't want to construct my baseline projections for the future on scientific breakthroughs that may or may not happen.

We have a lot of people saying "once we get a vaccine in a few months, it will all be back to normal".
I think such an attitude is wrong, and detrimental.
We're going to be under these conditions for a lot longer than optimists think.
As others have pointed out, it will be a herculean task just to get a dose to every person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,633 Posts
I am more conservative in my view.
I don't want to construct my baseline projections for the future on scientific breakthroughs that may or may not happen.

We have a lot of people saying "once we get a vaccine in a few months, it will all be back to normal".
I think such an attitude is wrong, and detrimental.
We're going to be under these conditions for a lot longer than optimists think.
I agree with you MrMatt.

The way I'm viewing this is that we're in something like a war right now (and requires a similar mindset). This is a marathon. It won't be solved in a couple months, but it should get better with time. With every passing month, our healthcare capabilities improve due to better treatments and procedures.

It's wrong to pin false hopes on vaccines that don't exist yet. We should focus on doing healthy behaviours, minimizing risk as much as we can. We're doing OK with those things but it takes ongoing energy and commitment. It can be done, but it's hard, and it requires us to make sacrifices.

One thing I love about Bonnie Henry's approach is she's a health authority, but also gives great "pep talks". It's really worth listening to her talks. She helps relax and calm people, but she also is honest about what's going. She doesn't give false hopes or set unrealistic expectations.

Most recently she said something along the lines of: the numbers are getting worse, the summer fun is over so it's time for everyone to REDUCE their contacts. We relaxed things in the summer so that people could take a breather, but now you have to be a lot more careful.

This is the kind of leadership and guidance the country needs. Realistic assessments of the situation, ongoing calm, ongoing encouragement, and pep talks that remind us that this will eventually end.

My own guess is that we're roughly 10 to 12 months away from this thing no longer being an issue simply due to healthcare and contact tracing improving (not assuming a vaccine). That's not a very long time! 10 months goes by in the blink of an eye. It's not a big deal. Yes, we all have to make sacrifices in the meantime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,247 Posts
The glass is either half empty or half full. Each must choose. In my view there will be plenty of time for me to change my opinion, if required. Done it before. It is far from detrimental and with that said, optimism makes today a heck of lot more enjoyable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
The glass is either half empty or half full. Each must choose. In my view there will be plenty of time for me to change my opinion, if required. Done it before. It is far from detrimental and with that said, optimism makes today a heck of lot more enjoyable.
Betting "everything's going to be all right", is a recipe for disaster.

I prefer realistic, with a positive attitude.
Realistically we don't have a vaccine, and many candidates will fail, and even if we do, it will be a while before it's out enough to return to "normal". << That's likely what's going to happen, and that's just fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,247 Posts
Betting "everything's going to be all right", is a recipe for disaster.

I prefer realistic, with a positive attitude.
Realistically we don't have a vaccine, and many candidates will fail, and even if we do, it will be a while before it's out enough to return to "normal". << That's likely what's going to happen, and that's just fine.
But your outcome is no more or less realistic then mine. And what disaster. A disaster can only come from making a big bet. How much of a problem is it to say "everything will be OK" and then change your mind tomorrow. That is just life. Anyone that is older then 10 is use to that.

That said, if I have to guess while investing nothing in the guess, I will guess optimistically. Not just because it makes me feel better, and it does, but because of the observation that humanity has overcome this type of thing over and over again. This virus is not going to change our lives for that long. We will be OK, no matter which one of us is closer to being right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
But your outcome is no more or less realistic then mine. And what disaster. A disaster can only come from making a big bet. How much of a problem is it to say "everything will be OK" and then change your mind tomorrow. That is just life. Anyone that is older then 10 is use to that.

That said, if I have to guess while investing nothing in the guess, I will guess optimistically. Not just because it makes me feel better, and it does, but because of the observation that humanity has overcome this type of thing over and over again. This virus is not going to change our lives for that long. We will be OK, no matter which one of us is closer to being right.
Humanity will do fine, but I, the individual also want to do fine.

I understand optimists, but I personally feel like it's a naive/ignorant view/interpretation of a positive attitude. Conveniently I found a Simon Sinek post to the contrary, so I'm going to see a bit more of what he has to say.
I find Simon is able to articulate concepts in a manner I can understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,247 Posts
Humanity will do fine, but I, the individual also want to do fine.

I understand optimists, but I personally feel like it's a naive/ignorant view/interpretation of a positive attitude.
Naive/ignorant?

What do you call pessimists?

I think what you are really saying is you seem to believe the pessimistic outcome will come about and anyone that does not see it the same way as you do must be naive/ignorant.

Matt. Please. Let's end this. I would have let that last one go until you called me naive and ignorant. Don't do that again. You have an opinion. I have an opinion. I doubt any of them are naive or ignorant. They are just opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
Naive/ignorant?

What do you call pessimists?

I think what you are really saying is you seem to believe the pessimistic outcome will come about and anyone that does not see it the same way as you do must be naive/ignorant.

Matt. Please. Let's end this. I would have let that last one go until you called me naive and ignorant. Don't do that again. You have an opinion. I have an opinion. I doubt any of them are naive or ignorant. They are just opinions.
Pessimists is a negative and depressing outlook.

Nope, I don't believe the pessimistic outcome will come about, I'm simply not betting on the optimistic outcome. I've actually been quite consistent on this. I didn't say those who disagree with me are are naive or ignorant. I actually believe that it is possible to intelligently come to alternative conclusions or opinions.

I never called you naive or ignorant. You seem to be taking offense to something that I didn't say.
It is my view that optimism is a flawed philosophy that is not beneficial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,633 Posts
I don't see why being patient and expecting another year of elevated virus danger is so bad. Everything will be OK, but it will take time.

There's no question this is going to subside and become a non-issue eventually. Does it take 6 months or 12 months? Seems like splitting hairs to me, in the big scheme of things. Either way, we have to be patient and remain cautious for a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
I don't see why being patient and expecting another year of elevated virus danger is so bad. Everything will be OK, but it will take time.

There's no question this is going to subside and become a non-issue eventually. Does it take 6 months or 12 months? Seems like splitting hairs to me, in the big scheme of things. Either way, we have to be patient and remain cautious for a while.
That is a likely outcome, but the governments have to acknowledge he incredible damage their COVID policies are having.
Cancellations and reduced medical care, resuling in harm and even death. Massive increases in substance abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, and personal/business financial problems are simply being ignored in favour of "but COVID".

All the kids I know are thrilled to be going back to school. They've been under house arrest for months.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,621 Posts
I pretty much agree.
Yes, COVID has the funding to push over the finish line, but so did SARS. They still gave up before they finished it ...
This looks like a misrepresentation as I don't believe the funding was there for SARS for long enough. If you have references for a long period of funding, I'd be interested.

The references I recall had SARS cases reported up to the declaration that it was contained, in the short time span of nine months. After that, there were four natural cases and three lab accidents. Even if one expands to include the four later cases - it's still the relatively short time frame of fifteen months. Keep in mind that one of the clinical studies for a vaccine was starting in 2007 (three years after the last case and more than four years after more than a single case in a day).

It seems that big pharma as well as their investors left the SARS vaccine race early on, leaving the academics working on ninety percent of the candidates. As of Jan 2020, there's reported to be thirty three candidates with only four clinical trials (two in phase one and two in phase three).


Seems like the same pattern of funding being withdrawn before the finish line, with likely both private and gov't sources deciding there's more pressing issues.

Edit:
Which IMO is quite a bit different than giving up. Or one assuming the "giving up" was driven by hitting a series of failures.


... It is likely that if it is possible, COVID19 might be the first.
Then why the comment about the "coincidence" as well as making it seem like an unsolvable problem that only a hail mary will having results?


... I am more conservative in my view.
I don't want to construct my baseline projections for the future on scientific breakthroughs that may or may not happen.

We have a lot of people saying "once we get a vaccine in a few months, it will all be back to normal" ...
Why open the door to red herrings and side bar issues by ignoring or misrepresenting the past?
Surely discussing the danger and following up better plans is more pressing?

Or to put it another way, if being a Pollyanna is bad - what's so good about seeing only hopelessnes when it's more likely to be somewhere towards the middle?


Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,621 Posts
... I agree with you MrMatt.

The way I'm viewing this is that we're in something like a war right now (and requires a similar mindset). This is a marathon. It won't be solved in a couple months, but it should get better with time ...
Sure ... I just don't see why past history has to be minimized/ignored/misrepresented in order to discuss this point.


... My own guess is that we're roughly 10 to 12 months away from this thing no longer being an issue simply due to healthcare and contact tracing improving (not assuming a vaccine) ...
Maybe ... maybe not. It might go away like SARS, a vaccine might finally make it to the finish line or some effective treatment might be developed.

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
Seems like the same pattern of funding being withdrawn before the finish line, with likely both private and gov't sources deciding there's more pressing issues.

Edit:
Which IMO is quite a bit different than giving up. Or one assuming the "giving up" was driven by hitting a series of failures.
Research was stopped before they got a vaccine for SARS.
There have been labs working on Coronavirus vaccines for years before SARS, and years after SARS.
If the SARS research was really close to effective, I would assume that they would take that data, and we'd have made more progress towards a Coronavirus vaccine.


Then why the comment about the "coincidence" as well as making it seem like an unsolvable problem that only a hail mary will having results?
I never said that, I just said that they've never done that.
Doing something we haven't done before is hard and not guaranteed to succeed.
Some things happen, some things won't, and some things simply haven't happened yet.
I think COVID19 vaccine is in category 2 or 3.

Or to put it another way, if being a Pollyanna is bad - what's so good about seeing only hopelessnes when it's more likely to be somewhere towards the middle?
You'd have to ask someone who only sees hopelessness.

I see a bright future, once we figure out how to deal with the current situation.
I don't think having an unrealitic view (positive or negative) will help us deal with the current situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,732 Posts
There are rumblings that Ontario will move Toronto, Ottawa and Peel (3 most populous) regions back to Phase 2 lockdown to address the spikes in those areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
There are rumblings that Ontario will move Toronto, Ottawa and Peel (3 most populous) regions back to Phase 2 lockdown to address the spikes in those areas.
Makes sense, they're not ready to handle outbreaks.
For example, they declared an outbreak at Western (in London), and the next day the testing center at the school hit capacity (220 tests) before noon.
It was a very poor response.
Just for reference, UWO has some 40k students, and 5k+ staff/faculty. Only allocating 220 tests for an outbreak is a big mistake.
Facts & Figures 2019-2020 - Western University
 
2801 - 2820 of 2850 Posts
Top