Re: Readercon code of conduct

On 2024-05-27, Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

>
What mRNA brings to the table is the ability to create a
vaccine for a novel pathogen quickly, in weeks, rather than
months or years.

The first candidate mRNA Covid vaccine took nine hours to produce.  Some of
the older vaccine technologies wouldn't have reached that stage for the best
part of a year.  The next problem to crack is speeding up testing.  The
safety of mRNA vaccines should help there too.

This is so hugely valuable a technology that
I was perfectly happy to be part of the large-scale trials.
At 66, I was in the "starting to be at risk" population for
COVID.  Two Moderna shots, and every booster that was offered.
I have never gotten COVID, unless it was asymptomatic or one
of those "minor cold" things I've gotten once or twice since
the pandemic.  When I did take a COVID test, it was negative.
>
If something much worse than COVID comes along (like MERS
or SARS cutting loose) we will be very glad the tech exists.

We were lucky with Covid, the mortality rate was no higher than 0.5% at any
point. Spanish flu was more dangerous at about 2.5%.

On the other hand it has given a lot of people a false sense of
security. There are some interesting parallels with the Y2K problem.

>
Still, I can see some justification for considering the shot
*slightly* on the experimental side, and am uneasy about the
draconian mandates.
>

The measures were probably excessive for a disease with a mortality of 0.5%
but would have been woefully inadequate if it had been 2.5% instead. We took
months to impose pretty feeble restrictions. I would like to see
response-times measured in hours.


--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan