From: bap@shrdlu.com
On 2024-05-27, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>
> What mRNA brings to the table is the ability to create a
> vaccine for a novel pathogen quickly, in weeks, rather than
> months or years.
The first candidate mRNA Covid vaccine took nine hours to produce. Some of
the older vaccine technologies wouldn't have reached that stage for the best
part of a year. The next problem to crack is speeding up testing. The
safety of mRNA vaccines should help there too.
> This is so hugely valuable a technology that
> I was perfectly happy to be part of the large-scale trials.
> At 66, I was in the "starting to be at risk" population for
> COVID. Two Moderna shots, and every booster that was offered.
> I have never gotten COVID, unless it was asymptomatic or one
> of those "minor cold" things I've gotten once or twice since
> the pandemic. When I did take a COVID test, it was negative.
>
> If something much worse than COVID comes along (like MERS
> or SARS cutting loose) we will be very glad the tech exists.
We were lucky with Covid, the mortality rate was no higher than 0.5% at any
point. Spanish flu was more dangerous at about 2.5%.
On the other hand it has given a lot of people a false sense of
security. There are some interesting parallels with the Y2K problem.
>
> Still, I can see some justification for considering the shot
> *slightly* on the experimental side, and am uneasy about the
> draconian mandates.
>
The measures were probably excessive for a disease with a mortality of 0.5%
but would have been woefully inadequate if it had been 2.5% instead. We took
months to impose pretty feeble restrictions. I would like to see
response-times measured in hours.
--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
