Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Documents Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Ebola Vaccine Issues
sciencehabit writes Extensive background documents from a meeting that took place today at the World Health Organization (WHO) have provided new details about exactly what it will take to test, produce, and bankroll Ebola vaccines, which could be a potential game changer in the epidemic. ScienceInsider obtained materials that vaccinemakers, governments, and WHO provided to the 100 or so participants at a meeting on 'access and financing' of Ebola vaccines. The documents put hard numbers on what until now have been somewhat fuzzy academic discussions. And they make clear to the attendees—who include representatives from governments, industry, philanthropies, and nongovernmental organizations—that although testing and production are moving forward at record speed, knotty issues remain.
If an F35 costs $337M* and "27 million doses of vaccine" would cost $151 million (half to produce and half to deliver as per TFA), then one F35 would be worth about 60 million doses of vaccine? * (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398)
And the ethics around live human trials are tricky, because some participants in the trial will die from ebola.
Which isn't surprising. If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears. The framing of this as if the documents reveal some sort of 'scandal' is a bit troubling.
I'm sure the world's most average Ob/Gyn [Ron Paul] - and most successful living American cult leader - is also a highly qualified expert on Ebola.
That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?
Shouldn't we be debating the things he says? Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?
Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?
What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this? Is there some way in which you gain by posting such drivel?
You're right about being modded down - your post does nothing to inform the discussion.
What about:
80/20 - with the remaining 20% monitored more closely - with daily temperature readings - and if temperature spikes - take a blood sample, and give a high dose of vaccine. (or monitor everyones temperature, if blinding is a concern)
As I understood it - vacine - post infection is a moderately effective treatment
That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?
I am using that because his followers make a huge deal about the number of babies he has delivered. However considering how long he was a practicing Ob/Gyn, that number is actually not particularly impressive - particularly if he was the main or only practicing Ob for a moderately populated area.
Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?
From what I have seen, so far all he has been saying is that we're doing it wrong. I haven't seen anything from him about how to do it right. Naturally, his followers jump all over it as gospel.
Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?
The Ebola czar is supposed to help manage the response. Just as the Surgeon General does not perform surgeries while a member of the cabinet, the Ebola czar is just a manager.
What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this?
My point is that there are a lot of people - including one particular cult leader / politician / retired physician - telling us that we're doing it wrong. I have not seen any of these people do anything other than bitch and moan about it being done wrong; I most certainly have not seen them propose anything other than what we are doing.
Hell any proposal for the government to do anything would be automatically rejected as "the wrong thing" by Ron Paul as he is against all forms of government spending, regardless of how many lives are at stake (excluding, of course, his own).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It's kind of hilarious that a bunch of self-styled libertarians need to have a leader cult, isn't it?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
WHO held a meeting?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
$151M or $337M is not such a large sum of money that the US, UK, or French government couldn't unilaterally pick it up. The issue is with the politics. Voters and politicians in a single country are more okay with joining an international effort than seeing that they're the only ones footing a big bill.
In this regard, the UK's strategy shows a lot of leadership combined with practical politics:
"As far as financing, the U.K. government contends that a “multi-donor club” should pay for the vaccine development in “the medium term.” But for now, the United Kingdom says it will “unilaterally” cover the costs for purchasing vaccines in Sierra Leone, and it asks the governments of the United States and France to make the same commitment for Liberia and Guinea, respectively."
It's a good play that let's the more xenophobic groups feel that the UK isn't propping up the whole world, but also allows hawks to see this as the UK exercising leadership/dominance internationally.
It seems that this all about the financial bottom line. I understand things cost money, but it would nice if there was, for once, more concern about human lives.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I think this particular outbreak is being publicized to create FUD.
There have been outbreaks in the past that weren't nearly so well publicized. I think a few companies are close to having a cure/preventative and are using this FUD to get around a few regulations (we have a cure, but the rotten regulators won't let us use it and you could die because of the red-tape). I am not a fan of red tape, but to try to circumvent it for purely pecuniary reasons is not good, either.
I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
If your study was 100 folks and you gave 80 the vaccine and 20 placebo, you would only have a sample size of 20 to test the null-effect (e.g. how many folks naturally get better w/o the new fangled vaccine to see if the vaccine statistically helped the 80 folks or not).
To increase the placebo sample size to the same statistically significant level (e.g, 50 folks) you would now have to give your untested vaccine which may have potential side effects to 200 people (+120 more folks). Which would be more ethical?
You are assuming that the vaccine probably works and the side-effects are probably minimal. That bias has gotten many researchers in trouble throughout vaccine history. There is a reason for protocols.