Who's going to be the first to mass market in the USA? Cast your public vote in the poll. Here are the rules to determine the winner.
1. We're the USA. We don't care if the Chinese or Russians or North Koreans stick stuff in their people. Only the USA counts.
2. It'll be hard to get exact figures, but as a general rule let's count the winner as the first organization that gets vaccinations inside the bodies of 25 million Americans in at least 25 different states.
I'll include what I think are the leading contenders in the poll, and you can read about them here, as of August 16th, 2020:
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
My wife and I were chatting the other day, and she expressed concern that antivaxxers would ruin the effectiveness of vaccines. My response was that I don't care that much as long as I'm vaccinated. If people enjoy getting sick, and they only infect other people who enjoy getting sick, then the only downside for me is hearing their annoying coughing and dying when I'm out on the town.
She did bring up the good point, though, that if people have permanent medical issues as a result, they could drag down the economy. I guess that's a good point.
Nothing ruins a night on the town like a bunch of people coughing and dying. I hate that shit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Hopefully it’s moderna
If their RNA vaccine is successful it changes the whole ballgame on vaccines and their development
I know nothing about that. Please enlighten me.
I voted for them due to their fast jump out of the starting gate, and I figure if they've got the NIH in their corner they're onto something. But I'm also cautious that they've never put a product to market. I worry a little bit that they'll turn out to be a shadow puppet that makes the CEO rich. My finger keeps hovering over the 'sell' button on the small amount of their stock that I have.
I also have stock in Editas, on a whole different topic. Again, I know nothing about what they're doing, but gene editing seems to be a potential game changer. If what they're doing works, then the world will be a different place. [Reply]
Doesn't seem like there is a strong backing for them. I bought in at 80cents and rode it up to 6.21 when I bailed. It cratered since then though, and continues to trickle down in value. I think last I checked it was around 2.60-ish.
The IBM Watson thing was a cool step for them same with getting added to the Russell 2000 and 3000, but I don't think they are a true player. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I know nothing about that. Please enlighten me.
I voted for them due to their fast jump out of the starting gate, and I figure if they've got the NIH in their corner they're onto something. But I'm also cautious that they've never put a product to market. I worry a little bit that they'll turn out to be a shadow puppet that makes the CEO rich. My finger keeps hovering over the 'sell' button on the small amount of their stock that I have.
I also have stock in Editas, on a whole different topic. Again, I know nothing about what they're doing, but gene editing seems to be a potential game changer. If what they're doing works, then the world will be a different place.
It’s pretty technical but basically they aren’t broken down as quickly as a dna vector and are more efficient at eliciting an immune response. Plus they would have huge ramifications in cancer treatment. You can also use a lot less “material” to get antigen recognition iirc
For short
I could send you some more detailed stuff that’s over my head if you wanna read it [Reply]
If you want to say who will produce the first PUBLICLY AVAILABLE vaccine that is approved in both the US and EU with an efficacy rate of greater than 50%... we have a debate.
Otherwise, it will be: Russia, Oxford, Moderna, in that order. Unless there is some bullshit rushing of Moderna to be out by the election, which is completely possible. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
My wife and I were chatting the other day, and she expressed concern that antivaxxers would ruin the effectiveness of vaccines. My response was that I don't care that much as long as I'm vaccinated. If people enjoy getting sick, and they only infect other people who enjoy getting sick, then the only downside for me is hearing their annoying coughing and dying when I'm out on the town.
She did bring up the good point, though, that if people have permanent medical issues as a result, they could drag down the economy. I guess that's a good point.
Was having this conversation yesterday. There aren't enough antivaxxers to make a dent. What to worry about is regular people who turn into covid antivaxxers. Not only for the health and safety, but because it affects the economy. I won't necessarily be first in line to get a vaccine, as they should improve over time and I would like to see the safety data first. But, if I had to choose right now, take the first vaccine available or never take one at all, I'm rolling up my sleeve. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
It’s pretty technical but basically they aren’t broken down as quickly as a dna vector and are more efficient at eliciting an immune response. Plus they would have huge ramifications in cancer treatment. You can also use a lot less “material” to get antigen recognition iirc
For short
I could send you some more detailed stuff that’s over my head if you wanna read it
Meh, I wouldn't understand the more detailed stuff unless they explain it to me like I'm five. I'll take your word for it that it's good. [Reply]