Coronavirus

[Cigarbutt]

Toronto’s public health department basically outright said that any death is marked as a COVID death as long as the person tested positive for COVID. So if you died in a car accident yet tested positive for COVID that’s still counted in the death count? How can anyone trust the numbers anymore?

i think this is misinformation and perhaps disinformation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-covid-19-deaths-are-counted1/

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-and-reporting.htm

Given the evolving evidence (balancing reasons that could lead to over- and under- reporting) and excess mortality inputs, at this point, some underestimation of reported deaths is likely.

Disinformation from a public health source?

Here's the excess mortality graph provided by the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Saw a peak in early April that has since subsided. For the last week, it has fallen below the trend line.

Agree that there's probably an undercount, but there's also a general acceptance that deaths from cold and other influenza-like illnesses are undercounted as well. Plus, how do we separate that from the increase in deaths that we've seen as a result of lockdown (people delaying treatments and not going to the hospital when they should, deferment of elective procedures, overdoses, suicides, etc) How do we understand the true lethality of this virus when there's this level of ambiguity?

Btw, it doesn't look like it's just Toronto either - seems like the standard practice is to list all deaths for which the deceased tested positive as a COVID death. Here's Illinois's Department of Public Health explaining how they count: "Technically, if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID-19 at the same time - it's still listed as a COVID death," Dr. Ezike answered. "Everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that was the cause of death, but they had COVID at the time."

https://www.wandtv.com/news/why-and-how-covid-19-deaths-are-tracked-in-illinois/article_2085ddaa-93e8-11ea-b1c2-7fd058d907cf.html

Florida and Texas never had excess deaths more than once a while Flu season.  Its NY, NJ and surrounding states that contributed to much of the excess deaths.

The CDC excess mortality "dashboard" adds weight to the hypothesis that the overall reported COVID-19 mortality number is somewhat correlated to the excess mortality and while the excess mortality has been relatively uneven, most states appear to report significant excess mortality. If this excess mortality is an "adequate" price to pay or if it is felt that lockdowns actually worsened the overall excess mortality (?) are different questions. But the excess mortality is what it is.

There is noise and there are mitigating factors but, just like in investing, uncertainty is the name of the game and decisions have to be made. The following is interesting as it gives some perspective on the amount of underreporting that may be occurring (the data stops in early May). Since then, many states have been reporting excess influenza deaths with an unusual pattern, suggesting that some influenza-related deaths were in fact misclassified COVID-19 deaths. They suggest that the under-reporting may lie between about 2 and 20%.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090324v4.full.pdf

 

Follow-up:

The graph is not as ominous as it looks because it is a summation of heterogeneous data (some good and some bad) but it feels like a company increasing leverage while entering the zone of insolvency. It could work out OK but there may be collateral damage.

[Investor20]

Toronto’s public health department basically outright said that any death is marked as a COVID death as long as the person tested positive for COVID. So if you died in a car accident yet tested positive for COVID that’s still counted in the death count? How can anyone trust the numbers anymore?

i think this is misinformation and perhaps disinformation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-covid-19-deaths-are-counted1/

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-and-reporting.htm

Given the evolving evidence (balancing reasons that could lead to over- and under- reporting) and excess mortality inputs, at this point, some underestimation of reported deaths is likely.

Disinformation from a public health source?

Here's the excess mortality graph provided by the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Saw a peak in early April that has since subsided. For the last week, it has fallen below the trend line.

Agree that there's probably an undercount, but there's also a general acceptance that deaths from cold and other influenza-like illnesses are undercounted as well. Plus, how do we separate that from the increase in deaths that we've seen as a result of lockdown (people delaying treatments and not going to the hospital when they should, deferment of elective procedures, overdoses, suicides, etc) How do we understand the true lethality of this virus when there's this level of ambiguity?

Btw, it doesn't look like it's just Toronto either - seems like the standard practice is to list all deaths for which the deceased tested positive as a COVID death. Here's Illinois's Department of Public Health explaining how they count: "Technically, if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID-19 at the same time - it's still listed as a COVID death," Dr. Ezike answered. "Everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that was the cause of death, but they had COVID at the time."

https://www.wandtv.com/news/why-and-how-covid-19-deaths-are-tracked-in-illinois/article_2085ddaa-93e8-11ea-b1c2-7fd058d907cf.html

Florida and Texas never had excess deaths more than once a while Flu season.  Its NY, NJ and surrounding states that contributed to much of the excess deaths.

The CDC excess mortality "dashboard" adds weight to the hypothesis that the overall reported COVID-19 mortality number is somewhat correlated to the excess mortality and while the excess mortality has been relatively uneven, most states appear to report significant excess mortality. If this excess mortality is an "adequate" price to pay or if it is felt that lockdowns actually worsened the overall excess mortality (?) are different questions. But the excess mortality is what it is.

There is noise and there are mitigating factors but, just like in investing, uncertainty is the name of the game and decisions have to be made. The following is interesting as it gives some perspective on the amount of underreporting that may be occurring (the data stops in early May). Since then, many states have been reporting excess influenza deaths with an unusual pattern, suggesting that some influenza-related deaths were in fact misclassified COVID-19 deaths. They suggest that the under-reporting may lie between about 2 and 20%.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090324v4.full.pdf

 

Follow-up:

The graph is not as ominous as it looks because it is a summation of heterogeneous data (some good and some bad) but it feels like a company increasing leverage while entering the zone of insolvency. It could work out OK but there may be collateral damage.

 

They should also have percent dead in that plot.

[Cigarbutt]

^They should also have percent dead in that plot.

In order to figure out if rising accounts receivables is a 'good' thing, one has to look at fundamentals and assess what is happening with competitors in the industry.

I agree and the chart then could be effectively compared to a host of other countries showing what happens to the death rates when the test % goes below certain thresholds.

It would be easier to evaluate the excess mortality that has occurred, that is occurring and that will likely occur going forward. A 14-day moving average with a 14-day lag would even be more revealing.

[Investor20]

^They should also have percent dead in that plot.

In order to figure out if rising accounts receivables is a 'good' thing, one has to look at fundamentals and assess what is happening with competitors in the industry.

I agree and the chart then could be effectively compared to a host of other countries showing what happens to the death rates when the test % goes below certain thresholds.

It would be easier to evaluate the excess mortality that has occurred, that is occurring and that will likely occur going forward. A 14-day moving average with a 14-day lag would even be more revealing.

 

There is no excess mortality in US presently for past few weeks.

[LC]

Excess mortality usually exhibits lag in recent periods due to reporting and processing delays. European monitors statistically adjust for this delay. CDC does not (AFAIK):

 

Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm for more information

 

In general this is best viewed by state not at the national level, as each state exhibits different inherent characteristics (geography, density, etc.) and is responding with different policies to the virus.

[Liberty]

Taiwan gold standard:

 

[Cigarbutt]

^They should also have percent dead in that plot.

In order to figure out if rising accounts receivables is a 'good' thing, one has to look at fundamentals and assess what is happening with competitors in the industry.

I agree and the chart then could be effectively compared to a host of other countries showing what happens to the death rates when the test % goes below certain thresholds.

It would be easier to evaluate the excess mortality that has occurred, that is occurring and that will likely occur going forward. A 14-day moving average with a 14-day lag would even be more revealing.

There is no excess mortality in US presently for past few weeks.

Yes, the death rate aggregate curve has been declining in the US and that will eventually be the 'natural' trend in epidemic curves.

 

Given the demographic and risk profile of deaths (also taking into account LC's 'adjustments'), there is an expected reversion to the mean and more in the months following the peak and NY and surrounding areas are now contributing to this movement. However, there are a few states (Florida, Arizona, Texas and many others) that are 'fighting' the trend.

 

The interesting question is why did the US take the 'collective' decision to have a curve (seven-day rolling average of new deaths, by number of days since 3 average daily deaths first recorded) that is intermediate between the European Union (and UK and other similar) and Brazil?

 

Florence Nightingale went to Crimea in 1854 and noted very high hospital mortality. Using a common sense and data-driven approach, she was able to reduce the mortality rate from 42.7% to 2%. Just reducing the mortality by half would have been satisfactory but she aimed to be exceptional.

 

 

[Liberty]

The issue is that people look at the country-wide aggregate numbers and that's misleading, because it's actually a bunch of different infection centers going in different directions.

 

So NYC and others are going down and getting under-control, mortality decreasing, while other places like Florida and AZ are going up, and mortality is likely to come with a lag of a few weeks (you don't usually die right after being diagnosed, it takes a while..).

 

There's no scenario in which the current US situation is good, though. It's not even the fall yet, when things get even riskier, and you'd much rather get into the fall having almost no infection rather than having tens of thousands of new ones a day.

[Investor20]

The issue is that people look at the country-wide aggregate numbers and that's misleading, because it's actually a bunch of different infection centers going in different directions.

 

So NYC and others are going down and getting under-control, mortality decreasing, while other places like Florida and AZ are going up, and mortality is likely to come with a lag of a few weeks (you don't usually die right after being diagnosed, it takes a while..).

 

There's no scenario in which the current US situation is good, though. It's not even the fall yet, when things get even riskier, and you'd much rather get into the fall having almost no infection rather than having tens of thousands of new ones a day.

 

That has not happened in many places.  Taking California, from April 1st week till now

The cases increased from 1200 to 7500.

Deaths went from 70-80  to 60-70.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/

[Liberty]

The issue is that people look at the country-wide aggregate numbers and that's misleading, because it's actually a bunch of different infection centers going in different directions.

 

So NYC and others are going down and getting under-control, mortality decreasing, while other places like Florida and AZ are going up, and mortality is likely to come with a lag of a few weeks (you don't usually die right after being diagnosed, it takes a while..).

 

There's no scenario in which the current US situation is good, though. It's not even the fall yet, when things get even riskier, and you'd much rather get into the fall having almost no infection rather than having tens of thousands of new ones a day.

 

That has not happened in many places.  Taking California, from April 1st week till now

The cases increased from 1200 to 7500.

Deaths went from 70-80  to 60-70.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/

 

We'll see, I think there's other variables too. We're no doubt getting better at taking care of patients as we go up the learning curve (I've always said that if I ended up getting it, I'd rather get it 6 months in the future when we better understand what is going on and how to treat complications than in the early months when we were just guessing and flying blind). I think vitamin D probably has an impact (as it has with other respiratory infections) and the fall may show that. Early infections probably also hit more elderly populations because there was no lockdown, measures, and widespread understanding yet, while now the most vulnerable are probably taking more measures even in places that are fairly open, etc.

 

In any case, it's much much worse in the US than it would be under competent leadership, as the rest of the world has shown. It's going to have a much bigger economic and human cost than it needed to, which is tragic.

[mcliu]

In any case, it's much much worse in the US than it would be under competent leadership, as the rest of the world has shown.

???

[Castanza]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

 

 

[rb]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

Depends on what's a "reasonable time frame".

[lschmidt]

RNA vaccines  are new technology and haven't been rigorously tried and tested yet. If the question is whether there are vaccines against other RNA viruses, yes there are a bunch: influenza, Ebola, polio, measles, mumps. rubella, rotavirus, off the top of my head. SARS vaccine research was terminated because there was no longer an epidemic but there likely would have been a vaccine given enough time and trial and error. Most vaccine experts think that a vaccine is very plausible here.

[Castanza]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

Depends on what's a "reasonable time frame".

 

The time frame I see most often in the media is 12-18 months. It's hard not to be doubtful of that claim.

[cubsfan]

Good to see the USA dumping The Who:

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-united-states-will-withdraw-from-the-world-health-organization

 

Effective next Monday, the United States will no longer be a member nation of the World Health Organization, the White House announced Tuesday, ending the U.S.’s involvement in the global group, which President Donald Trump has claimed conspired with China to hide the true extent of the coronavirus pandemic.

[rb]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

Depends on what's a "reasonable time frame".

 

The time frame I see most often in the media is 12-18 months. It's hard not to be doubtful of that claim.

From what I at this point we have the knowledge and capability to pretty much make any (most?) vaccine in 12-18 months. So I'm not so worried about the time frame.

 

What I'm worried when it comes to the vaccine is:

 

1. Will it be any good?

 

2. Will the moron internet people actually get vaccinated?

[Castanza]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

Depends on what's a "reasonable time frame".

 

The time frame I see most often in the media is 12-18 months. It's hard not to be doubtful of that claim.

From what I at this point we have the knowledge and capability to pretty much make any (most?) vaccine in 12-18 months. So I'm not so worried about the time frame.

 

What I'm worried when it comes to the vaccine is:

 

1. Will it be any good?

 

2. Will the moron internet people actually get vaccinated?

 

I am by no means an anti vaccination individual. Get your vaccines and trust science. That being said, I don’t get the flu vaccine every year, and a vaccine produced for a virus we don’t truly understand does give me a bit of pause. I’m pretty much extremely low risk for covid to begin with. I probably would get it anyways, but seeing a vaccine rushed to market without any significant length of testing/long term effect analysis does make me think twice.

 

There are people on here saying that hydroxychloroquine hasn’t been tested enough and verified with long term effects. Wouldn’t it make logical sense to be just as hesitant regarding a vaccine?

[rb]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

Depends on what's a "reasonable time frame".

 

The time frame I see most often in the media is 12-18 months. It's hard not to be doubtful of that claim.

From what I at this point we have the knowledge and capability to pretty much make any (most?) vaccine in 12-18 months. So I'm not so worried about the time frame.

 

What I'm worried when it comes to the vaccine is:

 

1. Will it be any good?

 

2. Will the moron internet people actually get vaccinated?

 

I am by no means an anti vaccination individual. Get your vaccines and trust science. That being said, I don’t get the flu vaccine every year, and a vaccine produced for a virus we don’t truly understand does give me a bit of pause. I’m pretty much extremely low risk for covid to begin with. I probably would get it anyways, but seeing a vaccine rushed to market without any significant length of testing/long term effect analysis does make me think twice.

 

There are people on here saying that hydroxychloroquine hasn’t been tested enough and verified with long term effects. Wouldn’t it make logical sense to be just as hesitant regarding a vaccine?

Well when I'm talking about the "internet people" I'm talking about a different set of people who have let's say a different set of concerns. It's frankly frightening how many of them there are.

 

I totally understand what you're saying though. I'm as far from an anti-vaxer as you're gonna find but I'm not filled with confidence in the process when the Orange one comes on and says we'll make a vaccine in 3 months or something like that. That when anyone that knows even the smallest bit about the process knows it's not possible. I just wish they would butt out of it and let the professionals do their job.

 

Oh yeah, if I have a choice when the vaccines come out I would much rather get a JNJ or AstraZeneca vaccine than a Moderna one.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-moderna-exclusive/exclusive-moderna-spars-with-u-s-scientists-over-covid-19-vaccine-trials-idUSKBN2481EU

[SharperDingaan]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

Depends on what's a "reasonable time frame".

 

The time frame I see most often in the media is 12-18 months. It's hard not to be doubtful of that claim.

From what I at this point we have the knowledge and capability to pretty much make any (most?) vaccine in 12-18 months. So I'm not so worried about the time frame.

 

What I'm worried when it comes to the vaccine is:

 

1. Will it be any good?

 

2. Will the moron internet people actually get vaccinated?

 

I am by no means an anti vaccination individual. Get your vaccines and trust science. That being said, I don’t get the flu vaccine every year, and a vaccine produced for a virus we don’t truly understand does give me a bit of pause. I’m pretty much extremely low risk for covid to begin with. I probably would get it anyways, but seeing a vaccine rushed to market without any significant length of testing/long term effect analysis does make me think twice.

 

There are people on here saying that hydroxychloroquine hasn’t been tested enough and verified with long term effects. Wouldn’t it make logical sense to be just as hesitant regarding a vaccine?

 

An accelerated covid-19 vaccine is not going to be rapidly accepted, until the public sees whether large numbers of the high-profile 'volunteers', get the virus or or not. Nice if they don't die (for social media clips), but no different to the tried and true poison testers of old.

Show me, don't tell me  :)

 

SD

 

 

[Spekulatius]

RNA vaccines  are new technology and haven't been rigorously tried and tested yet. If the question is whether there are vaccines against other RNA viruses, yes there are a bunch: influenza, Ebola, polio, measles, mumps. rubella, rotavirus, off the top of my head. SARS vaccine research was terminated because there was no longer an epidemic but there likely would have been a vaccine given enough time and trial and error. Most vaccine experts think that a vaccine is very plausible here.

 

One thing that we have going for it is that there are a lot of test subjects to run the clinical trials in large numbers. That was one of the issues with SARS - we run out of test subjects due the SARS being ringfenced if I recall correctly. We don’t have the same issue here. :o

[John Hjorth]

RNA vaccines  are new technology and haven't been rigorously tried and tested yet. If the question is whether there are vaccines against other RNA viruses, yes there are a bunch: influenza, Ebola, polio, measles, mumps. rubella, rotavirus, off the top of my head. SARS vaccine research was terminated because there was no longer an epidemic but there likely would have been a vaccine given enough time and trial and error. Most vaccine experts think that a vaccine is very plausible here.

 

One thing that we have going for it is that there are a lot of test subjects to run the clinical trials in large numbers. That was one of the issues with SARS - we run out of test subjects due the SARS being ringfenced if I recall correctly. We don’t have the same issue here. :o

 

I hear you, Spekulatius,

 

It was a few day ago, I found out that the holy-go-moly daily public COVID-19 reporting here in Denmark "slacked" by going from daily reporting to weekly reporting on some stats, and I was actually stunned by that, until I realized that "10% [or something like that] of some "small number"" shouldn't in any way leave any effect on how your personal judgement about this evolves over time locally".

 

Nothing to be stunned about, actually. - Actually, It's more like some kind of privilege in the random ovarial lottery - until you get it right, - inside your head.

[Spekulatius]

So Trump Tweets to open the schools ASAP, but how are the schools going to open in states that have high infection rates? Unless those rates go down, AZ, AR, FLA, GA, TX and many others won’t be open the schools at all, imo. In any case, the decision to open is made at a district level, not by the  governor, much less federal level. The governor/ states gives general guidelines but that’s pretty much it.

 

Having lived through the online schooling since March with my teenager I pretty much think it’s a disaster. If these states can’t open schools in many areas, many parents are forced to stay at home which pretty much guarantees that the local economy there is going to be crappy.

 

I located in MA and our schools district has to create 3 plans ( online only, hybrid online/regular and regular schools with some precautions). I am hoping for the latter and I would be seriously pissed if my local government messed this up and gets hospitals and schools shut down in exchange for keeping bars, gyms and nightclubs open.

[StubbleJumper]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

Depends on what's a "reasonable time frame".

 

The time frame I see most often in the media is 12-18 months. It's hard not to be doubtful of that claim.

From what I at this point we have the knowledge and capability to pretty much make any (most?) vaccine in 12-18 months. So I'm not so worried about the time frame.

 

What I'm worried when it comes to the vaccine is:

 

1. Will it be any good?

 

2. Will the moron internet people actually get vaccinated?

 

 

If you were under age 40 and in good health, would you pursue a covid vaccination?  I wouldn't.  The mortality rate and morbidity does not justify the time and the risk of side-effects for people of that age.  If you are over 50 or 55, it starts to become a real risk and the vaccine might offer some real value. 

 

I hope we will see a vaccine developed, but I am not particularly optimistic about the adoption rate or the efficacy of the vaccine.

 

 

SJ

[rb]

Does anyone believe a vaccine will be developed in any reasonable time frame? Sure, necessity is a great driver of innovation. But as far as I'm aware, not a single RNA vaccine has ever been approved for human use (correct me if I'm wrong on that). That includes former attempts at a vaccine for SARS. I guess there could be some extenuating factors that contribute to the lack of RNA vaccines other than current scientific understanding. Lack of funding, potential profit, and general interest from big pharma/govt entities could be factors as well.

Depends on what's a "reasonable time frame".

 

The time frame I see most often in the media is 12-18 months. It's hard not to be doubtful of that claim.

From what I at this point we have the knowledge and capability to pretty much make any (most?) vaccine in 12-18 months. So I'm not so worried about the time frame.

 

What I'm worried when it comes to the vaccine is:

 

1. Will it be any good?

 

2. Will the moron internet people actually get vaccinated?

 

 

If you were under age 40 and in good health, would you pursue a covid vaccination?  I wouldn't.  The mortality rate and morbidity does not justify the time and the risk of side-effects for people of that age.  If you are over 50 or 55, it starts to become a real risk and the vaccine might offer some real value. 

 

I hope we will see a vaccine developed, but I am not particularly optimistic about the adoption rate or the efficacy of the vaccine.

 

SJ

If you live in north america you're most likely not in good health. You may think you are, but you're likely not. Most vaccines have no side effects and the side effects and from what we see the side effects from COVID 19 look pretty bad. That's with the fact that we don't even know most effects of COVID 19. So all in all that's a pretty dumb statement.