Coronavirus outbreak

[DrJockitch]

21 minutes ago, JM_ said:

whats really exciting about the mRNA work is the potential to treat cancer. Pretty exciting stuff. I wonder how many of the anti-vaxxers will skip new cancer treatments in a few years?

That is a next step.

There is some very interesting mRNA based technology coming.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

That is a next step.

There is some very interesting mRNA based technology coming.

what worries me about science getting politicized like it has been over the last two years is, do governments stop or severely cut basic science funding? how far will the religious right wing take this stuff if they gain power in the US, e.g. ?

 

[Jimmy James]

24 minutes ago, JM_ said:

what worries me about science getting politicized like it has been over the last two years is, do governments stop or severely cut basic science funding? how far will the religious right wing take this stuff if they gain power in the US, e.g. ?

 

One take away is that the last two years has seen the largest global collaboration in history, quickest funding and fastest/best testing in history. That’s a lot of good.

 

Remember how hypocritical the religious right is. Trump is the perfect example. Morning prayers with the most aggressive evangelists, and yet he still was vaccinated and also received some of the first Covid treatments. 
 

They are the most scared. They will always talk a mean conspiracy game, but will quietly fund anything of concern or threat to themselves. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Jimmy James

[DrJockitch]

25 minutes ago, JM_ said:

what worries me about science getting politicized like it has been over the last two years is, do governments stop or severely cut basic science funding? how far will the religious right wing take this stuff if they gain power in the US, e.g. ?

 

The world is learning to move on without US leadership. In science it is more important than ever to not depend on them. 

[KristoffWixenschon]

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

I'm not sure using the term 'mistake' is really accurate tho. Viruses can be a moving target to deal with, and this one is slippery. You have to go with the best option based on what you know at the time, and adjust. 

 

I see a bigger problem with some corners of the public need for overly simplistic messaging and absolutes. 

You're right, mistake is not the right word. I should have just stopped at saying "they were wrong".

 

I dont think it was a problem that they were wrong. Being wrong is expected as you sort out what is true. I was just replying to a poster who didnt feel that public health had gotten anything wrong during the pandemic. 

They certainly got some things wrong. Its crazy to say they didnt. But it's also crazy to expect that they should be expected to get it right 100% of the time.

 

You are absolutely correct in your last paragraph. People feel really uncomfortable in those unknown grey areas. We could all benefit by understanding that this is a process, not a defined certainty.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

whats really exciting about the mRNA work is the potential to treat cancer. Pretty exciting stuff. I wonder how many of the anti-vaxxers will skip new cancer treatments in a few years?

MY guess is that very few will skip new cancer treatments.  Those that do will end up like Steve Jobs.

 

I guarantee that many anti-vaxxers are the type who will seek out just about any treatment should they get diagnosed with cancer.  If their oncologist suggests mRNA treatment, very few will say nope.  Some will even beg to get that treatment, even if it is in the experimental stages.  Just like a lot of people do when faced with a diagnosis that could be or is fatal.

[KristoffWixenschon]

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

Media bias and politics are the main issues for sure. 

 

It does surprise me that people have the attitude of "when will the shots end"? we get a new flu shot every year, but no one complains about that? 

 

These vaccines are a little different than the flu shot. One interesting example is that we choose which strain of flu to inoculate against in the fall, based on what has been circulating in the southern hemisphere during their winter. 

That cant really be done with covid yet. Again, its a constantly evolving target. 

 

But the original vaccines are still showing amazing efficacy at keeping people out of hospital and keeping people alive! That's a pretty good end goal.

[KristoffWixenschon]

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

The world is learning to move on without US leadership. In science it is more important than ever to not depend on them. 

You're right. The world depends largely on US innovation and achievement. I guess that's one benefit on unfettered capitalism haha...

I always struggle with that duality. On the one hand, pharmaceutical companies certainly put shareholder profit above public wellbeing, that's a problem. On the other hand, they innovate amazing life saving products! If they weren't allowed to be making insane money on their products, would we have so many incredible treatments?

[DrJockitch]

21 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

You're right. The world depends largely on US innovation and achievement. I guess that's one benefit on unfettered capitalism haha...

I always struggle with that duality. On the one hand, pharmaceutical companies certainly put shareholder profit above public wellbeing, that's a problem. On the other hand, they innovate amazing life saving products! If they weren't allowed to be making insane money on their products, would we have so many incredible treatments?

Some of the innovation comes from the companies but more often then not they are using technology developed in conjunction with publicly funded institutions.  They profit off taxes while lobbying against paying them and charging ludicrous costs. 

[KristoffWixenschon]

17 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Some of the innovation comes from the companies but more often then not they are using technology developed in conjunction with publicly funded institutions.  They profit off taxes while lobbying against paying them and charging ludicrous costs. 

Most of the innovation comes from the private sector. 

There is of course collaboration and I dont want to take away from the great innovative work done at universities and federally funded organizations.

Edited October 22, 2022 by KristoffWixenschon

[DrJockitch]

2 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

Most of the innovation comes from the private sector. 

There is of course collaboration and I dont want to take away from the great innovative work done at universities and federally funded organizations.

Having spent a number of years in biotech I would argue the opposite. Most of the innovations come from the universities. It is just implemented in commercial uses by pharmaceuticals and biotech companies.  There is often quite a bridge between the two with lots of biotech having partnerships with universities. 
mRNA tech is a great example. The backbone of that came through academic channels. It was fine tuned and scaled up for mass production by pharmaceutical companies. 

[KristoffWixenschon]

4 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Having spent a number of years in biotech I would argue the opposite. Most of the innovations come from the universities. It is just implemented in commercial uses by pharmaceuticals and biotech companies.  There is often quite a bridge between the two with lots of biotech having partnerships with universities. 
mRNA tech is a great example. The backbone of that came through academic channels. It was fine tuned and scaled up for mass production by pharmaceutical companies. 

It takes far more resources, trials and funding to bring a product to market. Universities could never do that at the speed that private companies can

[JM_]

4 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

Having spent a number of years in biotech I would argue the opposite. Most of the innovations come from the universities. It is just implemented in commercial uses by pharmaceuticals and biotech companies.  There is often quite a bridge between the two with lots of biotech having partnerships with universities. 
mRNA tech is a great example. The backbone of that came through academic channels. It was fine tuned and scaled up for mass production by pharmaceutical companies. 

 

4 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

It takes far more resources, trials and funding to bring a product to market. Universities could never do that at the speed that private companies can

You guys are both right. The original research generation comes out of universities, which are then taken to market by companies that have the deep pockets to get things to market, and weather some failures along the way too. 

 

 

[KristoffWixenschon]

28 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

You guys are both right. The original research generation comes out of universities, which are then taken to market by companies that have the deep pockets to get things to market, and weather some failures along the way too. 

 

 

Kind of.

Research generation comes from both universities and the massive R&D departments of private companies. 

 

But we have to remember that university researchers dont only rely on federal grant money to fund research. 

A large amount of research is funded by corporations themselves, through the university.

[JM_]

12 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

Kind of.

Research generation comes from both universities and the massive R&D departments of private companies. 

 

But we have to remember that university researchers dont only rely on federal grant money to fund research. 

A large amount of research is funded by corporations themselves, through the university.

sure there are lots of partnerships, healthcare does it, military, etc. Businesses don't tend to do curiosity driven research tho. 

[KristoffWixenschon]

13 minutes ago, JM_ said:

sure there are lots of partnerships, healthcare does it, military, etc. Businesses don't tend to do curiosity driven research tho. 

That's true! There is an incentive to create a product in corporate research. They rarely do research for the sake of theoretical interest. I'm glad there is a mix of corporate, government and charitable donation based research. 

 

But this is interesting:

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2015/science-and-innovation-today_sti_scoreboard-2015-6-en#page18

 

According to this, the top 250 private companies that spend the most on r&d, account for 70% of the global expenditure on r&d.

 

55% of those top 250 companies are based out of the US or Japan.

[JM_]

56 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

That's true! There is an incentive to create a product in corporate research. They rarely do research for the sake of theoretical interest. I'm glad there is a mix of corporate, government and charitable donation based research. 

yep you need a healthy mix

 

56 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

But this is interesting:

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2015/science-and-innovation-today_sti_scoreboard-2015-6-en#page18

 

According to this, the top 250 private companies that spend the most on r&d, account for 70% of the global expenditure on r&d.

 

55% of those top 250 companies are based out of the US or Japan.

thats not surprising at all. We're getting a little off topic but I'd love to see Canada and Japan have a much stronger relationship to help us boost our corporate R&D and manufacturing. 

[KristoffWixenschon]

37 minutes ago, JM_ said:

yep you need a healthy mix

 

thats not surprising at all. We're getting a little off topic but I'd love to see Canada and Japan have a much stronger relationship to help us boost our corporate R&D and manufacturing. 

I dont know how Canada stacks up to other nations in corporate r&d, or federal grant funded r&d for that matter. It would be interesting to read more about that.

 

It's sad how much manufacturing has left North America. That is a giant part of why we are seeing a declining middle class while corporate profits are higher than ever.

But yeah I guess now I'm getting off topic too.

[spur1]

To get back on topic…what is with the new Alberta premier looking into pardoning anti-vaxers? Not to mention going after AHS because of Covid restrictions. That’s all Canada needs is an anti-vax leader. 
My condolences to Albertans. 

[4petesake]

Yesterday at the Abbotsford border crossing. FAFO.

F’in Trudeau eh?