Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

P

PikeCowboy

Junior Member
I was thinking,

If there is one good thing that came out of the coronavirus ordeal it's that it's pretty well invalidated the concept of genetically targeted bio-weapons for a good while at least. While the CoV-SARS virus isnt an engineered virus, it was originally predicted to affect East Asians and South East Asians much more than other races based on identified receptors. This really demonstrates that until you have a population level spread you really don't know how a epidemic will play out. Anyone who releases a targeted virus runs an extremely high risk of it coming back to bite them selves.
 
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
PikeCowboy said:
I was thinking,

If there is one good thing that came out of the coronavirus ordeal it's that it's pretty well invalidated the concept of genetically targeted bio-weapons for a good while at least. While the CoV-SARS virus isnt an engineered virus, it was originally predicted to affect East Asians and South East Asians much more than other races based on identified receptors. This really demonstrates that until you have a population level spread you really don't know how a epidemic will play out. Anyone who releases a targeted virus runs an extremely high risk of it coming back to bite them selves.
Click to expand...
I agree with your argument but I don't recall reading anything about any prediction based on racial differences in receptors. Could you point us to a source?
 
P

PikeCowboy

Junior Member
Red Moon said:
I agree with your argument but I don't recall reading anything about any prediction based on racial differences in receptors. Could you point us to a source?
Click to expand...

earlier on when the infection was just in china they found that the virus hooks onto the ACE receptor in the lung cells, dont recall the details... and asians express significantly higher amounts of this receptor on cell surface compared with europeans or africans.

letme find a source once Im off work
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
PikeCowboy said:
earlier on when the infection was just in china they found that the virus hooks onto the ACE receptor in the lung cells, dont recall the details... and asians express significantly higher amounts of this receptor on cell surface compared with europeans or africans.

letme find a source once Im off work
Click to expand...

That was from an earlier study, which has only one eastern Asian in their small group of test subjects. That eastern Asian happens to be a male smoker who has ACE2 receptor level way higher than anyone else's. I don't think their results can be reliable. I don't think the ACE2 receptor level differs that much between different people. With a virus mutating so frequently, using a virus to specific target a specific group of people will be a very bad idea.
 
S

Surpluswarrior

Junior Member
VIP Professional
From Toronto radio...


Commentary: Don't let "Five Eyes" block international co-operation.
May 25th, 2020


WHA2b.jpg
A gathering of the World Health Assembly


On SoundCloud:

https://soundcloud.com/taylor-report%2Fdont-let-five-eyes-block-international-co-operation

Audio File:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Description (38 mins):

Phil asks if it is possible to bring the nations of the world together to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Apparently not, as long as the "Five Eyes" back the USA in its attempt to slough off its responsibility to support the WHO. "Five Eyes" is known to be "an anglophone intelligence alliance."

Canada and Australia were part of a US-backed effort to damage China and the WHO in two ways: 1) Trying to criticize China's handling of the pandemic, and 2) arguing for the representation of Taiwan at the WHO.

The Canadian-Australian attempts flopped, because the rest of the WHA membership weren't interested in creating problems, but instead in finding common solutions in the COVID-19 crisis.

The US has been regularly abrogating its international agreements and treaties. Trump's defunding of the WHO is part of a pattern of undermining multilateral organizations and international co-operation.
 
R

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Dolcevita said:
CanSino Biologics’ COVID-19 Vaccine Shows Promise in Humans

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Chinese company CanSino Biologic is the only Covid-19 vaccine maker that published its clinical trial result in a peer review journal - Lancet in this case. All others did so via PR announcements. Manipulation of stock prices ?
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Rettam Stacf said:
Chinese company CanSino Biologic is the only Covid-19 vaccine maker that published its clinical trial result in a peer review journal - Lancet in this case. All others did so via PR announcements. Manipulation of stock prices ?
Click to expand...

Publishing in a peer review journal takes a long time. Even when expedited, it would take a few months. Assuming the smoothest reviewing process ever, you will expect about 2-3 weeks of peer review, another 2-3 weeks of revision (assuming the reviewers absolutely love your study and recommend immediate publication with no delay, you will still need to spend a few weeks to do all the proper formatting, etc), another few days of back and forth between you and the editorial office to finalize the proofread. So your study will appear online (in preprint form) in 1 - 1.5 months. Then you will have to wait in line for available space to officially appear in a journal. That might take months depending on how popular the journal is.

The Chinese vaccine published in Lancet has been officially published last week, meaning that they had finished the study months ago. Most other vaccine companies just announced their successful development a few weeks ago. So most likely, their manuscripts are under review as we speak. This may be why we haven't seen these studies yet.

Many researchers are starting to put their manuscripts online immediately after they submit their manuscript and before peer review. This is more common with physicists, biophysicists and biochemists. People in the traditional biology field seem still a little reluctant to let people see their study before formal publication. I would imagine the biocompanies tend to be a little more conservative in terms of letting others see their babies.
 
Last edited:
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
vesicles said:
Publishing in a peer review journal takes a long time. Even when expedited, it would take a few months. Assuming the smoothest reviewing process ever, you will expect about 2-3 weeks of peer review, another 2-3 weeks of revision (assuming the reviewers absolutely love your study and recommend immediate publication with no delay, you will still need to spend a few weeks to do all the proper formatting, etc), another few days of back and forth between you and the editorial office to finalize the proofread. So your study will appear online (in preprint form) in 1 - 1.5 months. Then you will have to wait in line for available space to officially appear in a journal. That might take months depending on how popular the journal is.

The Chinese vaccine published in Lancet has been officially published last week, meaning that they had finished the study months ago. Most other vaccine companies just announced their successful development a few weeks ago. So most likely, their manuscripts are under review as we speak. This may be why we haven't seen these studies yet.

Many researchers are starting to put their manuscripts online immediately after they submit their manuscript and before peer review. This is more common with physicists, biophysicists and biochemists. People in the traditional biology field seem still a little reluctant to let people see their study before formal publication. I would imagine the biocompanies tend to be a little more conservative in terms of letting others see their babies.
Click to expand...

I think that given the nature of the study, the Chinese Covid vaccine trial would have been absolute top priority for the Lancet. So I would expect prioritised editorial time and there would be no question of it waiting for a spot once it was ready for publication. The Lancet would absolutely pull any other piece(s) needed to make this hit the press as soon as possible.

As such, while I agree that there was likely a fair amount of time in the review and editing process, and the study was likely concluded a while back, I just think it’s safe to assume that it would not be anywhere like as long as a normal article would typically take to be published.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top