Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. I had formed a different impression...
I don't think it's quite that dire, honestly.

Someone (Badge, I think) posted a study that is showing some lasting immunity from T-cells and that the immunity--even after antibodies wane--responds to new strains. So far everything I've seen suggests that the vaccines are effective against all currently known strains.

Obviously there are concerns. The longer this thing is around, and the more people infected, the more chance there is that we'll see a mutation that causes the virus to evade known natural or vaccine-provided immunity. But the quicker we reach herd immunity--whether through natural infection or vaccines, the harder it will be for the virus to have the opportunity to make such a mutation.

Then, we now know that mRNA vaccines work, and the huge advantage of mRNA vaccines is that the design and production of the vaccine is much simpler than many other types of vaccines, because all you need is the genetic sequence of the virus. Apparently within a week of sequencing this virus, the actual design of the vaccine was ready to go.

I think the position right now is more like we hold a decent lead well into the 3rd quarter, but we need to make sure we keep working hard so the opponent doesn't make a big comeback.

My thought is that COVID is here to stay, but the symptoms will wane with vaccine/prior infections. So it will be another common cold situation after a few years.

so you still dont consider an effective vaccine has been developed because enough time has not passed

ok fair enough

just out of curiosity at what point in the future will you admit a effective vaccine has been developed

what will be your trigger for approval

If it reduces the frequency of infection and severity of outcomes to nothing more than the standard flu over the next 12-18 months, I'd consider it effective.  That would mean that hospitalizations and deaths in all cohorts are no more than the flu produces on average.

If the original vaccine doesn't, but readily available boosters do, with the same results in decreasing frequency and severity, I'd consider that effective as well.

The entire point is, we don't know, won't know, and can't know, for a great deal of time.  Because the very nature of viruses is to work around the human body's countermeasures, whether developed internally by our bodies, or introduced externally from a vaccine.

There's no short-circuiting the process and really, truly-- ONLY time will tell.

I dont think your view is unreasonable

It will be interesting to compare the months from July forward to the flu stats

I think by Dec we will be at minimum matching them

Bulljive.

I've stated all along that I am including all potential mutations, and won't deem it effective until that's proven out.  That you have different expectations is your own fault, not mine.  No change in my status, no change in my expectations, no moving of goalposts from my end.

Try this-- we have a vaccine that works for now.  But a year from now we find mutuations, and our current vaccines don't work, and we come up with an annual booster shot.  But it's only 50% effective on average, same as our current annual flu shot.

Did we solve the problem?  No way, Jose'!

Abstract 

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Alphainfluenzavirus are RNA viruses that cause coronavirus disease-19 and influenza, respectively. Both viruses infect the respiratory tract, show similar symptoms, and use surface proteins to infect the host. Influenza requires hemagglutinin and neuraminidase to infect, whereas SARS-CoV-2 uses protein S. Both viruses depend on a viral RNA polymerase to express their proteins, but only SARS-CoV-2 has a proofreading mechanism, which results in a low mutation rate compared to influenza. E1KC4 and camostat mesylate are potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 S protein, achieving an effect similar to oseltamivir. Due to the SARS-CoV-2 low mutation rate, nucleoside analogs have been developed (such as EIDD-2801), which insert lethal mutations in the viral RNA. Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 low mutation rate suggests that a vaccine, as well as the immunity developed in recovered patients, could provide long-lasting protection compared to vaccines against influenza, which are rendered obsolete as the virus mutates.

Awesome!  Then we'll have our answer...

...in about 12-18 months.