Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop...

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

On 26/11/2020 18:53, Ed Lee wrote:

Well, we (US tax payers) gave Oxford lots of money too. We want
reasonable results or to stop paying early.

Perhaps you don\'t know how this all works. You seem to be missing
several points.

1. At the start of the vaccine development processes, /no one/ knows
which vaccines may or may not work. (Even now, we have no clear idea of
the long-term effects of any of the candidates - it will take years to
establish that.) So the US invested money (paid some, promised more) to
a range of vaccine developers in the hope that at least one would be
successful. Some that got money were not successful - that does not
mean the money was wasted. For any of these potential vaccines that
runs out of steam, or is clearly not going to result in something
useful, the development will stop.

2. Lots of countries have sponsored lots of vaccine developments. The
US state is not special in this regard. (Though it is probably unique
in also sponsoring people who have no qualifications other than being
friends with the president.) The US state has given (or promised) more
money than most - but then, it has more money to give.

3. Different vaccines have different pros and cons (some of which will
not be known for years). Even if it turns out that the Oxford vaccine
is weaker than others, it is still a good thing to have it. More
working vaccines is hedging the bets in case something goes wrong, such
as mutations rendering other vaccines ineffective. And in most
countries, we are concerned in trying to get vaccines that work for
/everyone/ - not just the rich countries of the world. A vaccine that
costs $20 and requires -80°C freezers will not work for India, while one
that costs $3 and requires a fridge will do the job nicely. You\'ve
suffered under a \"me first, screw everyone else\" president for the last
4 years, and perhaps that makes you think the only vaccine the USA
should pay towards is a vaccine to give to Americans. But fortunately
enough people are smart enough to realise that the USA is only /part/ of
the world, and even from the most selfish \"America first\" viewpoint,
your country is better off if the rest of the world gets rid of Covid too..

You have no idea what you\'re talking about as usual.

The most glaring ignorance of your misbeliefs ignores the eradication threshold to completely eliminate the virus from circulation. With an effectiveness of 63% and a propagation threshold for transmission hovering at 2.5 best case, this would require an immunization of (1-1/2.5)/0.63 =95% of the population, with an accompanying overshoot of 100% of the population infected. This means the Oxford vaccine will probably never eradicate the virus from circulation as has been done with measles for example. In case that still doesn\'t sink in, a 95% effectiveness requires only 63% of the population to be immunized by vaccine for total eradication. And this can achieve a measles-like eradication. Do you see the stupidity of saving $16 per dose and a little bit of money on refrigeration does for you.

You\'ve been beat up enough so I\'m not going to dwell on your other idiot statements everyone of which is wrong. You don\'t have any idea what you\'re talking about.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 2:11:57 AM UTC-8, David Brown wrote:

On 26/11/2020 18:53, Ed Lee wrote:

Well, we (US tax payers) gave Oxford lots of money too. We want
reasonable results or to stop paying early.

Perhaps you don\'t know how this all works. You seem to be missing
several points.

1. At the start of the vaccine development processes, /no one/ knows
which vaccines may or may not work. (Even now, we have no clear idea of
the long-term effects of any of the candidates - it will take years to
establish that.) So the US invested money (paid some, promised more) to
a range of vaccine developers in the hope that at least one would be
successful. Some that got money were not successful - that does not
mean the money was wasted. For any of these potential vaccines that
runs out of steam, or is clearly not going to result in something
useful, the development will stop.

2. Lots of countries have sponsored lots of vaccine developments. The
US state is not special in this regard. (Though it is probably unique
in also sponsoring people who have no qualifications other than being
friends with the president.) The US state has given (or promised) more
money than most - but then, it has more money to give.

3. Different vaccines have different pros and cons (some of which will
not be known for years). Even if it turns out that the Oxford vaccine
is weaker than others, it is still a good thing to have it. More
working vaccines is hedging the bets in case something goes wrong, such
as mutations rendering other vaccines ineffective. And in most
countries, we are concerned in trying to get vaccines that work for
/everyone/ - not just the rich countries of the world. A vaccine that
costs $20 and requires -80°C freezers will not work for India, while one
that costs $3 and requires a fridge will do the job nicely. You\'ve
suffered under a \"me first, screw everyone else\" president for the last
4 years, and perhaps that makes you think the only vaccine the USA
should pay towards is a vaccine to give to Americans. But fortunately
enough people are smart enough to realise that the USA is only /part/ of
the world, and even from the most selfish \"America first\" viewpoint,
your country is better off if the rest of the world gets rid of Covid too..

It\'s silly to based every U.S. decision on the whole world, that\'s the job of WHO. We are only considering how many doses we need in the U.S. Does it help the world if we order 300 million doses and dump 200 million of them in the drain? It\'s unrealistic to expect every body in the U.S. to receive the Oxford/AZ vaccine, when there are more potential better options.

The mRNA vaccine needs -70°C to keep for six months, 2°C for five days. Even for India, that should be doable in population center where it is most needed. I don\'t see much need for storing six months.

A typical test costs $50 to $100, mostly in administrative expenses. $20 vaccine is high, but not prohibitively high. Even for india, they already tested close to 140 millions, or a few billion dollars. Vaccine can cut down on recurring testing costs, so $20 might not be too important.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:17:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 2:11:57 AM UTC-8, David Brown wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:53, Ed Lee wrote:

Well, we (US tax payers) gave Oxford lots of money too. We want
reasonable results or to stop paying early.

Perhaps you don\'t know how this all works. You seem to be missing
several points.

1. At the start of the vaccine development processes, /no one/ knows
which vaccines may or may not work. (Even now, we have no clear idea of
the long-term effects of any of the candidates - it will take years to
establish that.) So the US invested money (paid some, promised more) to
a range of vaccine developers in the hope that at least one would be
successful. Some that got money were not successful - that does not
mean the money was wasted. For any of these potential vaccines that
runs out of steam, or is clearly not going to result in something
useful, the development will stop.

2. Lots of countries have sponsored lots of vaccine developments. The
US state is not special in this regard. (Though it is probably unique
in also sponsoring people who have no qualifications other than being
friends with the president.) The US state has given (or promised) more
money than most - but then, it has more money to give.

3. Different vaccines have different pros and cons (some of which will
not be known for years). Even if it turns out that the Oxford vaccine
is weaker than others, it is still a good thing to have it. More
working vaccines is hedging the bets in case something goes wrong, such
as mutations rendering other vaccines ineffective. And in most
countries, we are concerned in trying to get vaccines that work for
/everyone/ - not just the rich countries of the world. A vaccine that
costs $20 and requires -80°C freezers will not work for India, while one
that costs $3 and requires a fridge will do the job nicely. You\'ve
suffered under a \"me first, screw everyone else\" president for the last
4 years, and perhaps that makes you think the only vaccine the USA
should pay towards is a vaccine to give to Americans. But fortunately
enough people are smart enough to realise that the USA is only /part/ of
the world, and even from the most selfish \"America first\" viewpoint,
your country is better off if the rest of the world gets rid of Covid too.
It\'s silly to based every U.S. decision on the whole world, that\'s the job of WHO. We are only considering how many doses we need in the U.S. Does it help the world if we order 300 million doses and dump 200 million of them in the drain? It\'s unrealistic to expect every body in the U.S. to receive the Oxford/AZ vaccine, when there are more potential better options.

The mRNA vaccine needs -70°C to keep for six months, 2°C for five days. Even for India, that should be doable in population center where it is most needed. I don\'t see much need for storing six months.

A typical test costs $50 to $100, mostly in administrative expenses. $20 vaccine is high, but not prohibitively high. Even for india, they already tested close to 140 millions, or a few billion dollars. Vaccine can cut down on recurring testing costs, so $20 might not be too important.

Not just that but there\'s work in progress on innovating the mass production process of the mRNA vaccines promising to get that end cost down to $2 per dose. This whole global vaccination thing is a very fluid situation, nothing is set in stone.

 

[David Brown]

On 27/11/2020 16:34, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:53, Ed Lee wrote:

Well, we (US tax payers) gave Oxford lots of money too. We want
reasonable results or to stop paying early.

Perhaps you don\'t know how this all works. You seem to be missing
several points.

1. At the start of the vaccine development processes, /no one/
knows which vaccines may or may not work. (Even now, we have no
clear idea of the long-term effects of any of the candidates - it
will take years to establish that.) So the US invested money (paid
some, promised more) to a range of vaccine developers in the hope
that at least one would be successful. Some that got money were not
successful - that does not mean the money was wasted. For any of
these potential vaccines that runs out of steam, or is clearly not
going to result in something useful, the development will stop.

2. Lots of countries have sponsored lots of vaccine developments.
The US state is not special in this regard. (Though it is probably
unique in also sponsoring people who have no qualifications other
than being friends with the president.) The US state has given (or
promised) more money than most - but then, it has more money to
give.

3. Different vaccines have different pros and cons (some of which
will not be known for years). Even if it turns out that the Oxford
vaccine is weaker than others, it is still a good thing to have it.
More working vaccines is hedging the bets in case something goes
wrong, such as mutations rendering other vaccines ineffective. And
in most countries, we are concerned in trying to get vaccines that
work for /everyone/ - not just the rich countries of the world. A
vaccine that costs $20 and requires -80°C freezers will not work
for India, while one that costs $3 and requires a fridge will do
the job nicely. You\'ve suffered under a \"me first, screw everyone
else\" president for the last 4 years, and perhaps that makes you
think the only vaccine the USA should pay towards is a vaccine to
give to Americans. But fortunately enough people are smart enough
to realise that the USA is only /part/ of the world, and even from
the most selfish \"America first\" viewpoint, your country is better
off if the rest of the world gets rid of Covid too.


You have no idea what you\'re talking about as usual.

The most glaring ignorance of your misbeliefs ignores the
eradication threshold to completely eliminate the virus from
circulation. With an effectiveness of 63% and a propagation
threshold for transmission hovering at 2.5 best case, this would
require an immunization of (1-1/2.5)/0.63 =95% of the population,
with an accompanying overshoot of 100% of the population infected.

Vaccines are not the whole solution. Most countries are managing to
keep the R value much lower than that - only some basic measures are
needed (such as hand washing) if it is combined with a 63% vaccine.
(And the preliminary figure for the Oxford vaccine is 90%. Sure, they
found the good dosage by making an error and getting lucky, but it\'s
still looking good.) Also it seems that in many of the poorer areas of
the world, the virus is not spreading as much as expected - so a low
efficiency vaccine may be all that is needed.

This means the Oxford vaccine will probably never eradicate the virus
from circulation as has been done with measles for example. In case
that still doesn\'t sink in, a 95% effectiveness requires only 63% of
the population to be immunized by vaccine for total eradication. And
this can achieve a measles-like eradication. Do you see the stupidity
of saving $16 per dose and a little bit of money on refrigeration
does for you.

And here /your/ ignorance is showing clearly. You don\'t get eradication
of a virus that has multiple hosts, unless you vaccinate or eradicate
all those hosts. Measles could be eliminated entirely, if it were not
for the idiots of the world, because humans are the only host. Covid
cannot.

Secondly, for people who have a dollar or so a day in total for
everything in their lives, $16 could be a year\'s worth of savings. And
in parts of the world where ordinary fridges are unheard-of, -80°C
systems are never going to happen.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 9:02:34 AM UTC-8, David Brown wrote:

On 27/11/2020 16:34, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:53, Ed Lee wrote:

Well, we (US tax payers) gave Oxford lots of money too. We want
reasonable results or to stop paying early.

Perhaps you don\'t know how this all works. You seem to be missing
several points.

1. At the start of the vaccine development processes, /no one/
knows which vaccines may or may not work. (Even now, we have no
clear idea of the long-term effects of any of the candidates - it
will take years to establish that.) So the US invested money (paid
some, promised more) to a range of vaccine developers in the hope
that at least one would be successful. Some that got money were not
successful - that does not mean the money was wasted. For any of
these potential vaccines that runs out of steam, or is clearly not
going to result in something useful, the development will stop.

2. Lots of countries have sponsored lots of vaccine developments.
The US state is not special in this regard. (Though it is probably
unique in also sponsoring people who have no qualifications other
than being friends with the president.) The US state has given (or
promised) more money than most - but then, it has more money to
give.

3. Different vaccines have different pros and cons (some of which
will not be known for years). Even if it turns out that the Oxford
vaccine is weaker than others, it is still a good thing to have it.
More working vaccines is hedging the bets in case something goes
wrong, such as mutations rendering other vaccines ineffective. And
in most countries, we are concerned in trying to get vaccines that
work for /everyone/ - not just the rich countries of the world. A
vaccine that costs $20 and requires -80°C freezers will not work
for India, while one that costs $3 and requires a fridge will do
the job nicely. You\'ve suffered under a \"me first, screw everyone
else\" president for the last 4 years, and perhaps that makes you
think the only vaccine the USA should pay towards is a vaccine to
give to Americans. But fortunately enough people are smart enough
to realise that the USA is only /part/ of the world, and even from
the most selfish \"America first\" viewpoint, your country is better
off if the rest of the world gets rid of Covid too.


You have no idea what you\'re talking about as usual.

The most glaring ignorance of your misbeliefs ignores the
eradication threshold to completely eliminate the virus from
circulation. With an effectiveness of 63% and a propagation
threshold for transmission hovering at 2.5 best case, this would
require an immunization of (1-1/2.5)/0.63 =95% of the population,
with an accompanying overshoot of 100% of the population infected.
Vaccines are not the whole solution. Most countries are managing to
keep the R value much lower than that - only some basic measures are
needed (such as hand washing) if it is combined with a 63% vaccine.
(And the preliminary figure for the Oxford vaccine is 90%. Sure, they
found the good dosage by making an error and getting lucky, but it\'s
still looking good.) Also it seems that in many of the poorer areas of
the world, the virus is not spreading as much as expected - so a low
efficiency vaccine may be all that is needed.
This means the Oxford vaccine will probably never eradicate the virus
from circulation as has been done with measles for example. In case
that still doesn\'t sink in, a 95% effectiveness requires only 63% of
the population to be immunized by vaccine for total eradication. And
this can achieve a measles-like eradication. Do you see the stupidity
of saving $16 per dose and a little bit of money on refrigeration
does for you.
And here /your/ ignorance is showing clearly. You don\'t get eradication
of a virus that has multiple hosts, unless you vaccinate or eradicate
all those hosts. Measles could be eliminated entirely, if it were not
for the idiots of the world, because humans are the only host. Covid
cannot.

Secondly, for people who have a dollar or so a day in total for
everything in their lives, $16 could be a year\'s worth of savings. And
in parts of the world where ordinary fridges are unheard-of, -80°C
systems are never going to happen.
and never going to be needed.

https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-longer-shelf-life-its-covid-19-vaccine

30 days in household freezer are more than enough, unless they have trouble storing frozen meats.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 12:02:34 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

On 27/11/2020 16:34, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:53, Ed Lee wrote:

Well, we (US tax payers) gave Oxford lots of money too. We want
reasonable results or to stop paying early.

Perhaps you don\'t know how this all works. You seem to be missing
several points.

1. At the start of the vaccine development processes, /no one/
knows which vaccines may or may not work. (Even now, we have no
clear idea of the long-term effects of any of the candidates - it
will take years to establish that.) So the US invested money (paid
some, promised more) to a range of vaccine developers in the hope
that at least one would be successful. Some that got money were not
successful - that does not mean the money was wasted. For any of
these potential vaccines that runs out of steam, or is clearly not
going to result in something useful, the development will stop.

2. Lots of countries have sponsored lots of vaccine developments.
The US state is not special in this regard. (Though it is probably
unique in also sponsoring people who have no qualifications other
than being friends with the president.) The US state has given (or
promised) more money than most - but then, it has more money to
give.

3. Different vaccines have different pros and cons (some of which
will not be known for years). Even if it turns out that the Oxford
vaccine is weaker than others, it is still a good thing to have it.
More working vaccines is hedging the bets in case something goes
wrong, such as mutations rendering other vaccines ineffective. And
in most countries, we are concerned in trying to get vaccines that
work for /everyone/ - not just the rich countries of the world. A
vaccine that costs $20 and requires -80°C freezers will not work
for India, while one that costs $3 and requires a fridge will do
the job nicely. You\'ve suffered under a \"me first, screw everyone
else\" president for the last 4 years, and perhaps that makes you
think the only vaccine the USA should pay towards is a vaccine to
give to Americans. But fortunately enough people are smart enough
to realise that the USA is only /part/ of the world, and even from
the most selfish \"America first\" viewpoint, your country is better
off if the rest of the world gets rid of Covid too.


You have no idea what you\'re talking about as usual.

The most glaring ignorance of your misbeliefs ignores the
eradication threshold to completely eliminate the virus from
circulation. With an effectiveness of 63% and a propagation
threshold for transmission hovering at 2.5 best case, this would
require an immunization of (1-1/2.5)/0.63 =95% of the population,
with an accompanying overshoot of 100% of the population infected.
Vaccines are not the whole solution. Most countries are managing to
keep the R value much lower than that - only some basic measures are
needed (such as hand washing) if it is combined with a 63% vaccine.

> (And the preliminary figure for the Oxford vaccine is 90%. Sure, they

That is the preliminary publicity and not a figure anyone accepts. The real effectiveness is 63%.

found the good dosage by making an error and getting lucky, but it\'s
still looking good.) Also it seems that in many of the poorer areas of
the world, the virus is not spreading as much as expected - so a low
efficiency vaccine may be all that is needed.

The uncharacteristically low spreading multiplier is due to relatively extreme measures of lockdowns, frequent testing, contact tracing, and the prohibition of large gatherings. It is definitely not life as usual. And as we\'re seeing now, even in Japan, once the strict mitigation rules are relaxed, the contagion bounces back with a vengeance. It can do so because of inadequate population immunity. Vaccines are everything.
The really poor countries are unreliable. They\'re too poor to make a definitive determination of cause of death and can only infer or fabricate the cause of death.

This means the Oxford vaccine will probably never eradicate the virus
from circulation as has been done with measles for example. In case
that still doesn\'t sink in, a 95% effectiveness requires only 63% of
the population to be immunized by vaccine for total eradication. And
this can achieve a measles-like eradication. Do you see the stupidity
of saving $16 per dose and a little bit of money on refrigeration
does for you.
And here /your/ ignorance is showing clearly. You don\'t get eradication
of a virus that has multiple hosts, unless you vaccinate or eradicate
all those hosts. Measles could be eliminated entirely, if it were not
for the idiots of the world, because humans are the only host. Covid
cannot.

Care to explain how you don\'t eradicate a virus with multiple hosts when the population is immune to it? It is not possible to immunize all possible human hosts with a weak vaccine like Oxford, but it is possible to effectively do so with a potent mRNA vaccine.
The mRNA vaccine is not the ultimate, there\'s at least one other technology just completing Phase 3 which should be just as effective.

Secondly, for people who have a dollar or so a day in total for
everything in their lives, $16 could be a year\'s worth of savings. And
in parts of the world where ordinary fridges are unheard-of, -80°C
systems are never going to happen.

Obviously the people will not be required to pay for it in those circumstances, the government will. It\'s in the government\'s best interest to do so if they intend to remain viable. The price tag on the mRNA virus will not stand. The free market will produce a solution at sharply reduced cost, as always happens when you dangle multi-billion dollar opportunities in front of business.

 

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 27.11.20 um 20:18 schrieb Fred Bloggs:

> Care to explain how you don\'t eradicate a virus with multiple hosts when the population is immune to it? It is not possible to immunize all possible human hosts with a weak vaccine like Oxford, but it is possible to effectively do so with a potent mRNA vaccine.

Because you must also vaccinate all minks, rabbits, rats, bats and
maybe toads?
Eradicate means it won\'t come back for good, and won\'t pop up again
in 10 years.


Speaking of popping up: In Denmark they had mass killings of minkies
that had a mutated Covid strain, different but infectuous to humans.
They did not put enough earth on the dump, so, driven by fouling gas
some of the minkies resurfaced. Eeeek.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 1:46:44 PM UTC-8, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:

Am 27.11.20 um 20:18 schrieb Fred Bloggs:
Care to explain how you don\'t eradicate a virus with multiple hosts when the population is immune to it? It is not possible to immunize all possible human hosts with a weak vaccine like Oxford, but it is possible to effectively do so with a potent mRNA vaccine.

Because you must also vaccinate all minks, rabbits, rats, bats and maybe toads?

No, we just need to avoid close contacts with these animals. We just have to eliminate any infected animal immediately without putting them in hospitals. That\'s harder to do except under communist control. They can eliminate infected human and write them off the book.

> Eradicate means it won\'t come back for good, and won\'t pop up again in 10 years.

Once we have the mRNA vaccine work out and test out, it won\'t take too long to reproduce them the second time. Economic impacts will be much smaller the next time with the same virus.

 

[David Brown]

On 28/11/2020 18:21, Ed Lee wrote:

Obviously the people will not be required to pay for it in those
circumstances, the government will.
Which \"government\" would that be? In countries where $16 is way
beyond what people could pay, it is also way beyond what their
governments could pay (even if the relevant authorities were not
corrupt).

I know, they have to save money to build missiles to kill us. Even
if they do, we will still distribute to the people at much lower
cost.

Usually they have to save money to buy missiles from you to kill their
own people or neighbours. Or to let their leaders and their friends and
family buy mansions and jewellery around the world.

 

[David Brown]

On 29/11/2020 16:38, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 8:38:03 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

It is entirely possible that such pox viruses in animals will at some
point mutate and jump to humans. That is a prime method of how new
viruses arise. But it will not be smallpox.

Who cares if it\'s smallpox if the mortality is just as bad...

Why would you assume that the hypothetical muted virus would have the
same mortality as smallpox?

Look, you are the one who wrote a load of drivel about \"eradicating\"
viruses with multiple hosts. You were wrong - you don\'t eradicate a
virus (or anything else) unless you destroy it all, except perhaps in a
few highly controlled and limited situations. You are using big,
technical words to make it look like you understand virology and
epidemiology, and you don\'t actually understand what you wrote. No
amount of back-tracking and arm-waving will change that.

I\'d recommend you stop worrying about things you don\'t understand -
leave it to people who do. Fortunately, you are not in a position to
have any influence on these matters.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:42:04 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

On 29/11/2020 16:38, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 8:38:03 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

It is entirely possible that such pox viruses in animals will at some
point mutate and jump to humans. That is a prime method of how new
viruses arise. But it will not be smallpox.

Who cares if it\'s smallpox if the mortality is just as bad...
Why would you assume that the hypothetical muted virus would have the
same mortality as smallpox?

Look, you are the one who wrote a load of drivel about \"eradicating\"
viruses with multiple hosts. You were wrong - you don\'t eradicate a
virus (or anything else) unless you destroy it all, except perhaps in a
few highly controlled and limited situations. You are using big,
technical words to make it look like you understand virology and
epidemiology, and you don\'t actually understand what you wrote. No
amount of back-tracking and arm-waving will change that.

You\'re just an argumentative insulting little punk and you have no idea what I do or do not understand. You try to come across as a scientist but there are some giveaways in your manner of expression that tell me you probably have little education beyond post-secondary, some kind of vocational level training. If the virus is removed from the human population by immunization, it is effectively eradicated. Period.

I\'d recommend you stop worrying about things you don\'t understand -
leave it to people who do. Fortunately, you are not in a position to
have any influence on these matters.

Neither are you, idiot.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 8:09:21 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:

> Dunno what kind of unhinged lunatic would seriously suggest we vaccinate bats.

If you want a category, I\'d suggest \'someone with an open mind\'.

Some of the nasal-uptake treatments can be applied by spraying a mist, it gets
to the same breathing-apparatus surfaces that the virus does. So, all it takes
is a baited station with some recognition capability, that can attract a bat. Or, a
monitored spray station at major bat caves.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 3:26:05 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 8:09:21 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Dunno what kind of unhinged lunatic would seriously suggest we vaccinate bats.
If you want a category, I\'d suggest \'someone with an open mind\'.

Some of the nasal-uptake treatments can be applied by spraying a mist, it gets
to the same breathing-apparatus surfaces that the virus does. So, all it takes
is a baited station with some recognition capability, that can attract a bat. Or, a
monitored spray station at major bat caves.

Probably a waste of time since the only uninfected bats are newborns. The immunizing vaccine will not help the bats already infected.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 2:34:00 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:42:04 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 29/11/2020 16:38, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 8:38:03 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

It is entirely possible that such pox viruses in animals will at some
point mutate and jump to humans. That is a prime method of how new
viruses arise. But it will not be smallpox.

Who cares if it\'s smallpox if the mortality is just as bad...
Why would you assume that the hypothetical muted virus would have the
same mortality as smallpox?

Look, you are the one who wrote a load of drivel about \"eradicating\"
viruses with multiple hosts. You were wrong - you don\'t eradicate a
virus (or anything else) unless you destroy it all, except perhaps in a
few highly controlled and limited situations. You are using big,
technical words to make it look like you understand virology and
epidemiology, and you don\'t actually understand what you wrote. No
amount of back-tracking and arm-waving will change that.

You\'re just an argumentative insulting little punk and you have no idea what I do or do not understand.

More arm-waving.

> You try to come across as a scientist but there are some giveaways in your manner of expression that tell me you probably have little education beyond post-secondary, some kind of vocational level training. If the virus is removed from the human population by immunization, it is effectively eradicated. Period.

Immunizing people doesn\'t \"remove\" the virus. If any virus remains around, it won\'t have anybody to infect, and will die out. This isn\'t \"removal\" but it works just as well.
Fred Bloggs is prone to these kinds of imprecision. He might once have been educated to the point where he could do better, but he seems to have forgotten a lot of detail.

I\'d recommend you stop worrying about things you don\'t understand -
leave it to people who do. Fortunately, you are not in a position to
have any influence on these matters.

Neither are you, idiot.

Nobody who posts here has any influence. It\'s not that kind of forum.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney