In the meantime, extreme liberal media hacks go crazy with President Donald Trump jesting about ingesting bleach to cure the Corona Virus. Compare that Chris Cuomo's wife who actually, took a bleach bath and everyone is so, excited over it? Ha ha ha! https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...cience-bleach-bath-coronavirus-232247629.html
We have been at this covid thing long enough to know that the first phase of the infection is about viral load and if you become hospitalized that it is more about inflammation/cytokines. Remdes is an antiviral.....whereas dexamethasone is an antiflammatory. And this WHO study is- I believe- another study of hospitalized patients who would already be pretty far along. It has been known for a long time that remdesivir's results were only minimal for hospitalized patients but still possibly quite helpful if administered early when the virus is trying to ramp up, because......duh....it is an antiviral. I don't think that this WHO study puts that issue aside. I don't have a dog in the fight. Just sayin, I thought we/the scientific world had sort of already arrived at the need to examine the value of resdemsivir by studying viral load early on versus who is living longer after being hospitalized. We know that once the virus is out of the barn it is all about inflammation. Which makes steroids more important and is pretty late in the game for resdem to slow ramping up of the virus.
Part of the issue I see with this study is that most patients were being given multiple drugs -- there is no accounting for the interactions of Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir (fixed-dose combination with Ritonavir) and Interferon-β1a. Gilead never stated that Remdesivir decreased mortality or reduced intubations. They only stated that Remdesivir reduced the average hospital stay by four days. You make some valid points above regarding viral load and inflammation/steroids.
WHO coronavirus vaccine drive bedeviled by familiar question: Who pays if things go wrong? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...health-world/who-coronavirus-vaccine-payment/ Who foots the bill if people in poor countries fall sick with unexpected side-effects from coronavirus vaccines? It’s not clear and that’s a big problem in the battle to beat COVID-19. The World Health Organization has so far left the question of financial claims unresolved as it seeks to ensure shots are fairly distributed around the world, according to confidential documents reviewed by Reuters and six people familiar with discussions. A similar situation emerged during the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009-10. Back then, fears about potential compensation costs stymied the WHO’s efforts to get vaccines to low-income countries. Some health experts fear the U.N. body risks making the same mistake. Under the WHO’s COVID-19 vaccine plans, known as COVAX, 92 poor countries are eligible to access vaccines at lower or no costs until the end of 2021, but liability conditions remain vague. Without clearly stated terms, governments of poor states may be on the hook for potential compensation claims, which could put them off participating in the WHO-led plan and risk prolonging the pandemic in places ill-equipped to cope, health experts say. WHO and GAVI, a vaccine alliance that co-leads COVAX, said in a joint statement that the program will try to solve liability and indemnification issues “while addressing the financial obligations this may impose on AMC-eligible economies,” referring to the group of 92 poorer states which includes most African and Southeast Asian countries. Vietnam, which is eligible for free or cheaper COVAX vaccines, is unlikely to use shots provided by the global facility, a Vietnamese health official said, saying supply deals it negotiated bilaterally with pharmaceutical companies were more transparent than COVAX’s terms. Kenya, which is also eligible, said it was premature to say who should carry the liability for potential adverse effects but expected the vaccine-makers to bear some of the responsibility, according to Rashid Aman, chief administrative secretary at the ministry of health. Vastly underfunded — COVAX has received about a quarter of the $16 billion the WHO and GAVI say it needs by the end of next year — the program has left richer countries to fend for themselves when it comes to vaccine liability. “Participants will be responsible for deployment and use of approved vaccines within their territories and assuming any liability associated with such use and deployment,” according to a COVAX document detailing the terms for countries that must pay to join. The group includes European Union nations, China and also middle-income states, such as Argentina, Iran, Iraq, South Africa and Mexico. “The consequence of this arrangement is that these countries may end up being liable to pay a very high hidden price if something goes wrong,” a European Union senior official involved in talks with COVAX said. This is one of the reasons why the EU has decided not to take delivery of vaccines through COVAX even though the 27-nation bloc has pledged money to the facility, the official said, noting that deals the EU is separately negotiating with vaccine companies involve clauses that make firms liable for potential compensation. The United States has refused to fund COVAX and has instead sealed its own deals with drug companies, including offering a blanket legal immunity to COVID-19 vaccine-makers in a bid to spur investment. China announced last week it would buy COVAX vaccines for 1 percent of its population. There is no internationally approved COVID-19 vaccine, but the WHO estimates the first shot could be ready this year. Adverse effects after a vaccine gets regulatory approval are rare but the speed at which COVID-19 shots are being pursued increases the risks of unforeseen conditions — and of large litigation costs. During the H1N1 flu pandemic, the WHO struggled to get vaccines to dozens of poor countries partly because it had agreed with pharmaceutical companies that poorer nations would be on the hook for compensation claims just like richer countries, the organization acknowledged in a 2011 report. “Some recipient countries felt WHO did not adequately explain that liability provisions included in the recipient agreement were the same as the liability provisions accepted by purchasing countries,” concluded the report of the WHO committee that reviewed the handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic. Most of the estimated half million people who died from H1N1 were in poorer countries. There are nearly 200 coronavirus vaccines in development and many governments acknowledge that drugmakers are taking big financial risks in developing and manufacturing at an unprecedented speed — it usually takes 10-15 years to bring a vaccine to market — shots that may not be successful. There is broad consensus that some of these costs should be covered by taxpayers and many rich countries already have public or private funds that could pay indemnities to victims. But many poorer countries that have agreed to get vaccines through COVAX do not have such compensation plans nor the financial resources to fund them. This means that they could either face costs for which they have no insurance, or that potential victims there might not be compensated at all. “We are concerned how such arrangements could be a barrier for access to COVID-19 vaccines in lower and middle income countries that cannot or do not want to take on liability for the vaccines,” said Dimitri Eynikel of Doctors Without Borders, a nongovernmental organization. The Gates Foundation, one of WHO’s largest funders, raised similar concerns in a meeting with health experts in September, a person who attended the meeting said. “It is a high-priority for the foundation that … distribution issues are resolved to ensure that decisions impacting delivery are as effective as possible,” a spokeswoman for the Gates Foundation said, adding that work was being done to address those issues. In addition to potential compensation costs, the poorest countries that qualify for free or cheaper vaccines, are also required to chip in to buy vaccines with up to $2 billion by the end of 2021, a confidential GAVI document shows. Those unable to pay could be exempted next year, but later on they “will be expected to co-finance COVID-19 vaccines with tiered contributions that reflect economies’ ability to pay,” according to the document, a copy of which was seen by Reuters. Contributions from the poorest, which could be financed through loans and grants from international donors such as the World Bank, are expected to help plug the funding gap and achieve COVAX’s goal of buying at least 2 billion shots by the end of next year from a dozen vaccine-makers.
The thing that complicates this even more is that some of the Chinese and Russian pharma companies are giving their vaccines to places such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Brazil, Venezuela etc to run their own trials before distributing more widely in their countries. The plus side is that the country is doing their own safety check to compensate for the developers not necessarily releasing all their data. The downside though is that it helps to buffer them from any reliability related to inadequate testing.
Russia and China have scheduled tests on their vaccines with willing volunteers from third world countries. Someone has to be first right? If only we can put Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in front of the line and the RINOs too. Atleast, they would have served humanity instead, of themselves just this once. They are responsible for most of the problems of the US that President Donald Trump is trying to solve. Yet, he is the bad guy, demonized by extreme liberal political hacks and media 24/7 non-stop.
Now... I am prepared to believe there is a chance they will eventually create a vaccine better than a flu vaccine. Before, incorporating this information (IMO) the risk reward of the first few years of vaccine... was not favorable for the low risk group of just getting the virus. The vaccine could easily be worse than the Covid for the younger and healthy. Why would you screw with a hastily developed vaccine over taking a chance your healthy kids get Covid. Maybe they get a low load and quickly get antibodies and never even feel it. Even if they get it we now have the stats showing its less risky than the flu for younger kids. On a sliding scale... when balancing risk of vaccine vs Covid... you go from Covid is low risk to Covid is high risk. Vaccine is too Risky to Vaccine may be worth it. So logically as long as you stay on the low risk side... the vaccine is more risky than Covid... on sliding scale as you get older. However this is info may change the risk reward, tilting far more in favor of the vaccine. I would not want to be in the first few rounds... but as I get older... a vaccine based on this info would be worth considering. https://scitechdaily.com/johns-hopk...tem-pathway-that-may-stop-covid-19-infection/
Ah... jem the anti-vaxer is out. Not content to merely push for "natural herd immunity" - a concept that does not exist in reality and would cause the deaths of millions -- jem has now taken the further step of urging people not to get the vaccine, which is the only way that herd immunity can be obtained for a population and the spread of COVID-19 eliminated.
States file their Covid-19 vaccine plans to CDC without plans to pay for them, state health officials say https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/19/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html States still have no idea how they're going to pay for coronavirus vaccine distribution, despite filing plans last week, state officials said Monday. Friday was the deadline for states to submit their plans to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but they still don't have the needed federal money to help carry them out, officials said. "As it stands now, we do not have any capability to fund the imminent implementation of the plan," James Blumenstock, senior vice president for pandemic response and recovery at the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told reporters Monday. The CDC distributed $200 million to states for preparedness and planning, Blumenstock said, which "certainly would not be sufficient at all for a campaign of this magnitude and duration." The association has asked Congress for $8.4 billion to help states distribute and administer vaccines to people once they became available. "Even if the money was appropriated today, it would take time for those funds to reach the jurisdictions that in turn would need it," Blumenstock said. The funding for vaccines isn't the only problem. Health officials are also having to deal with a very skeptical public. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Monday it may be a challenge to get people to take the vaccine. "It would be a terrible shame if we have -- and I think we will have -- a safe and effective vaccine but we're not able to widely distribute it to those who need it," Fauci said in a virtual event for the National Academy of Medicine on Monday. People at the highest risk of Covid-19 should get a vaccine once one is shown to be safe and effective, whereas healthy young people could possibly consider waiting for another vaccine, Fauci told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Monday. The vaccine dilemma comes as Covid-19 cases continue to soar across the country. The next few months will be the "darkest of the pandemic," Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. As of Monday, there were more than 8.2 million cases and 220,088 coronavirus deaths in the United States, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. Osterholm highlighted the 70,000 cases of Covid-19 reported on Friday, which matched the largest number seen in the peak of the pandemic. Between now and the holidays, the US will see numbers "much, much larger than even the 67 to 75,000 cases," he said. Fauci, however, said a nationwide lockdown is not the way forward unless the pandemic gets "really, really bad." "No, put shutdown away and say, 'We're going to use public health measures to help us safely get to where we want to go,'" he said in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday night. (More at above url)