The problem, if any, is idiots who think that the only possible type of holiday involves roasting to a crisp laying on a beach, then dying of skin cancer. Let them die roasting on pebbles - it means all the more mountains and forests and seas and lakes for the rest of us.
The animal work was done in Winnipeg, which I do not believe is in Texas.
The lab testing was done in California.
Some other work - probably the experimental design and analysis, I haven't RTFA'd in detail, just skimmed the first few paragraphs and discussions - was done in "Gaithersburg, MD" ; OIC, that's where the pre-challenge work on the monkeys was done. They were exposed to the virus after being shipped to the BSL-4 lab in Winnipeg.
Sigh. didn't you read the reports form GSK last week?
No chance of volume production of any vaccine this side of late 2015. No.chance.what.so.ever. It's bottling plants and production equipment that are the restrictions, besides not knowing which candidates are both safe and effective.
Using constrained production resources to produce a vaccine that is of limited effectiveness is a lethal waste of effort. Using the equipment to produce an unsafe vaccine will be storing up problems for the future - including not being able to persuade people to actually have the vaccine, and therefore allowing the epidemic to continue.
No, there isn't an easy solution. Did anyone ever say that there was going to be an easy solution? If they did, they were either lying or delusional.
The work cannot have been started much later than 1st May this year (the figures are in the paper). How much preparation work took place before this, and how much time was taken to write the paper, I don't know.
If they were to re-run the experiment with a different composition of Ebola genes, or a different adenovirus, trying to get better immune response, or fewer side effects, then they'd need until May next year to be publishing the next cycle's results.
In other words, they started doing this research probably months before you heard about the problem. (I'm motivated by both personal work history, and the fact that I work in West Africa; I didn't hear about the outbreak until around March this year, which was about 4.5 months after the outbreak started. I'd guess that this was about when the actual work that is reported here was started.)
Putting the BSL-4 lab in the Arctic, Antarctic, or downtown Tokyo wouldn't significantly change the risks. If you've got BSL-4 procedures and equipment in place and working, then there's no problem ; if you've not got the actual procedures and equipment in place, you're fucked.
You have just described why the surviving animals from the trial will probably be "sacrificed" after the trial is over.
It's possible that they'd be retained for some other experiment, if they're valuable enough a resource. Possible, but not very likely.
Obviously, the surviving monkeys will be useless for further experiments on Ebola. Also for common cold research (the vaccine candidate incorporated Ebola DNA into common-cold-related adenoviruses). Maybe they'd be useful for AIDS research. but most likely, it'll be the chop. (Barbiturate overdose, actually ; but you get the idea.)
Since they need to blind, they need to use at least 18 monkeys. (The paper mentions twenty were "secured" - from suppliers? or by wild capture? - and taken to the BSL-4 laboratory in Winnipeg. What happened to the other two?)
So, there are two constraints there, already. Firstly where are you going to get the hundred or two hundred monkeys that would have made for a much better study? It's a stunningly simple question, and that suggests to me that they probably couldn't get more. From anywhere. It's called a limited resource, because the resource is limited.
Now, what's the other constraint? It's space in BSL-4 laboratories. 20 monkeys need a pretty substantial animal house. Between living space (absolute minimum of 1 sq.m per animal, and you'll probably need more; let's guess 5 sq.m because you don't want these animals to die or fall unwell from stressful living conditions. You want them to die (or not) of your disease or the treatment. If you go around killing your test animals by incompetent husbandry, you have wasted your limited resources of both animals and lab space - this will not make you popular - people who waste valuable resources are never popular. So we'll give 5 sq.m per animal for cage space. 100 sq.m for the group. You'll need the same amount of space for corridors between the cages and access (you need to move entire cages in order to clean them properly ; I've worked in animal houses - I was moderately surprised on my first day there to see the amount of "wasted" space, but once you start rolling cages around to take them to the cleaning stations, you realise it's not wasted space.) So, we've got a 200 sq.m house just for the accommodation. You also must have a separate room for treatment - standard husbandry is that you don't do injections or things in front of the other animals because it stresses them. They're then more likely to die, or become unwell, regardless of treatment or non-treatment. Let's say 20 sq.m for the treatment room. How much lab space do you need in addition is hard to say. Lets say 80 sq.m (an 8m by 10m room) for a total space requirement of 300 sq.m.
That's a BSL-4. That is a pretty expensive piece of real estate. And you don't build BSL-4 facilities overnight.
If you go to read the fucking paper. (I know, it's Slashdot, people don't do that. But since you're accusing the researchers of FRAUD, I thought that just maybe you'd have the balls to actually do your fucking homework), you'll see that the study took 150 days, with an additional 30 days at the start for the animals to become acclimatised to their new home in the BSL-4 animal house. So, allowing 10 days to write and review the paper, they cannot have started this work any earlier than May 1st.
Did you know about the Ebola outbreak on May 1st? Did your political representatives? Almost certainly not. I did know about it then, but that's through some uncommon coincidences - I've worked in animal houses before as a student ; I've had repeated exposures through my work to various diseases, and I've had to carry a vaccinations passport along with my national passports for over 10 years now, and on May 1st, I was just returning to the UK from my employment in West Africa following a flight diversion into Cote d'Ivoire.
A sample size of nine isn't a study; it's a fraud.
Do you have any idea of how much of a complete twat (British English : it's rude) you sound? Nah, probably not. Well, I hope that the authors decide to sue you for libel. As a Brit, I've read this, in Britain, and had my opinion of the researchers materially influenced by your writing, so they've got adequate grounds to sue you for libel in Britain, under British libel laws. I'll give you a hint : don't waste time trying to prove your allegations of fraud - it's not a defence under British libel laws. Which is why I mention it.
And if after your death your family finds old artwork of characters Disney can have the place raided and all artwork drawn during his original employment confiscated.
If those were the terms of the contract of employment, then yes. Are you saying that humans 40 or 50 years ago were so stupid that they couldn't read the contracts written by humans of the same era. Before they signed them.
It isn't even that. The ineptitude of those looking for the AP is astounding. You stop the plane. You open up your wifi analyzer app and walk down the isle. Then you check all the devices in those few rows (4 tops) , and boot the asshole playing the joke. 1/2 hour tops.
Why on earth would you make 200 people sit on the tarmac for even half an hour?
Indeed. You alter the set-up of the several WiFi repeaters on the route from the plane to the customs post (you may need to have the plane go on a short magical mystery tour of the outer reaches of the field while doing this) so that they listen for WiFi hotspot's names. At the same time, you use the existing CCTV coverage to notice which passengers are passing each WiFi repeater when the rogue name appears. You may wish to fiddle with (programmable) signs to stir the passengers around a little. Direct them to different belts, or put up "HOLD - re-assigning baggage belt" type messages ; to generate turbulence in the pipeline of passengers. When you've idenitified the person carrying the offending item, you flag them for excessive duty-free as they're going through the customs post and... in the back room, the rubber gloves come out, then plunge out of the light of day.
This article sounds like insurance companies just trying to get out of paying claims,
Nope, primarily this is the insurance companies turning business away (or handing it to their "specialist" subdivisions, at much higher rates).
There are always cases of insurance claims being refused. But since the rate of fraudulent claims in general is in the region of 5 to 10% (and higher in vehicle insurance), you'll also expect that some of your genuine claims are going to be rejected as fraudulent. and some fraudulent claims are going to be accepted as genuine.
Personally, out of 6 encounters with the payout side of the insurance industry, I've had the loss adjusters round once (i.e., they suspected this claim), and when I produced receipts for around 60% of the material I claimed taken in a burglary, over several years... claim paid in full. Which was fair, because I wasn't inflating the claim.
A car you cannot insure for us on the public road is unlikely to be deemed by the courts to be of 'fit for purpose', so the sale of such a car in the future is likely to be void.
FTFY
We don't do retrospective legislation very often in the UK. Which is why the insurance companies are making a public fuss about this, so that future purchasers can't claim "we didn't know about this problem", and the manufacturers do have a reasonable time to fix the problem before the insurers really crack down.
Like I said up-thread, I reckon about 6 months. Then the premiums will go up to around the vehicle's value. There will remain "specialist" insurers who'll do the job for 40%, and will love creaming the profit, while the big insurers will have got a substantial risk off their books.
Wonder if you can claim for the insurance that the port is disabled.
Hmmm. Interesting. More interesting than many comments so far.
(Submitter here.)
You could make that claim.
Whether the insurance company chose to believe you is one question that is absolutely and entirely at their discretion (note that in the original description that they were refusing new business, or in some cases annual renewal of the insurance ; they are under no obligation to accept new business, and if you have existing insurance with them which they choose to discontinue, they're only obliged to return premiums paid in advance and to give you a reasonable time - several days to a week or so - to arrange new insurance if they cancel an existing policy).
They might, if they wanted the administrative hassle, send out a vehicle inspector to assess your vehicle's modifications, and then insure the vehicle under "showman's vehicle" terms. Needless to say, you pay for the inspector's report, every year. Or, if you had the system removed/ disabled by a dealer, then they'd want the garage's and manufacturer's certification of the modifications - just as if you'd lowered the suspension and changed the 1.5L engine for a 12L F1 race engine.
Or... you could tell them you'd made the changes without having actually made the changes. That's when it gets really interesting. Attempting to obtain a service by fraudulent misrepresentation is a criminal offence. It also invalidates your insurance. So, if your vehicle is stolen, and your lies (in writing, above your signature, dated) are found out, then you're liable to unlimited fines, a criminal record (e.g. many countries will now refuse you a visa, for the rest of your life), jail time. AND, because you were driving around with fraudulently-obtained insurance, you were driving with NO insurance. Which almost always means that you'll lose your driving license for several years.
The action that the insurance companies are taking is designed to make people either remove the keyless systems, or to take the vehicles off the road. They clearly don't want to have the business. They're doing this for their convenience, not for the convenience of their customers.
The next step - which I'd expect in about 6 months - will be to raise the cost of insurance above the cost of the vehicle. Which is a very clear way of saying "we don't want this business - it's too troublesome".
make sure to leave a snake in your car. It doesn't even have to be a big or poisonous snake.
... your car will be broken into by the RSPCA, assisted by police officers, since it's obvious that you're cruelly mistreating the snake by exposing it to such cold weather.
It's easier enough to get into a standard auto keylock.
If your vehicle is more than about 25 years old, that may well be the case (though it was getting rapidly harder even then). Newer cars are harder to the point that car theft for entire cars has dropped off a cliff (thefts continue for breaking for parts).
The story is about Britain, where we have a thing called RAIN, and it's cousin, RUST. A 25 year old vehicle is pretty uncommon ; a 40 (+something) vehicle is considered a classic, attracting negligible running tax because there are so few of them.
... or not, any more. Which is the entire point of the article. Not only do you not get the vehicle replaced if it gets stolen, but if you drive it on the public highway before it gets stolen, you're liable to arrest, jail and loss of your privilege of driving.
I don't know about your car, but the remote-opening central (un-)locking of my current car can be over-ridden by pressing a button on the driver's door arm rest. [Ker-lunk] and all doors and boot are locked. Which I have used on occasions when suspicious people have been doing the "wash yer winders" trick at traffic lights.
None of which helps you with someone approaching you when you're getting into the car in the parking lot / multi-storey park / street / whatever. Our kidnap security instructors at work refer to that as situational awareness. If you don't have that, you're fucked no matter how secure your vehicle is.
At least in the U.K. which is where the article is about. Basically underground car parks at private residences don't for practical purposes exist in the U.K., which is why the article *NEVER* mentions them at all.
By pure coincidence, my family home did have underground parking. But outside residents of that street, I haven't ever met a private residence that had an underground garage. Those garages were built into the houses in approximately 1860 to provide stabling for the horses and storage for the carriage. That they're underground is purely a quirk of the arrangement of streets and a moderately steep hillside.
Not quite as rare as hen's teeth. There are probably more carpenters carving rocking horse turds than there are developmental biologists playing fast an loose with the anatomy of developing chicks, which is how you can give hens teeth. (Seriously - you can. See my signature - I have a non-passing interest in such things.)
Slashdot Mirror
The problem, if any, is idiots who think that the only possible type of holiday involves roasting to a crisp laying on a beach, then dying of skin cancer. Let them die roasting on pebbles - it means all the more mountains and forests and seas and lakes for the rest of us.
Go back and RTFA.
The lab testing was done in California.
Some other work - probably the experimental design and analysis, I haven't RTFA'd in detail, just skimmed the first few paragraphs and discussions - was done in "Gaithersburg, MD" ; OIC, that's where the pre-challenge work on the monkeys was done. They were exposed to the virus after being shipped to the BSL-4 lab in Winnipeg.
In short, a typical cross-borders collaboration.
No chance of volume production of any vaccine this side of late 2015. No.chance.what.so.ever. It's bottling plants and production equipment that are the restrictions, besides not knowing which candidates are both safe and effective.
Using constrained production resources to produce a vaccine that is of limited effectiveness is a lethal waste of effort. Using the equipment to produce an unsafe vaccine will be storing up problems for the future - including not being able to persuade people to actually have the vaccine, and therefore allowing the epidemic to continue.
No, there isn't an easy solution. Did anyone ever say that there was going to be an easy solution? If they did, they were either lying or delusional.
The work cannot have been started much later than 1st May this year (the figures are in the paper). How much preparation work took place before this, and how much time was taken to write the paper, I don't know.
If they were to re-run the experiment with a different composition of Ebola genes, or a different adenovirus, trying to get better immune response, or fewer side effects, then they'd need until May next year to be publishing the next cycle's results.
In other words, they started doing this research probably months before you heard about the problem. (I'm motivated by both personal work history, and the fact that I work in West Africa; I didn't hear about the outbreak until around March this year, which was about 4.5 months after the outbreak started. I'd guess that this was about when the actual work that is reported here was started.)
Putting the BSL-4 lab in the Arctic, Antarctic, or downtown Tokyo wouldn't significantly change the risks. If you've got BSL-4 procedures and equipment in place and working, then there's no problem ; if you've not got the actual procedures and equipment in place, you're fucked.
It's possible that they'd be retained for some other experiment, if they're valuable enough a resource. Possible, but not very likely.
Obviously, the surviving monkeys will be useless for further experiments on Ebola. Also for common cold research (the vaccine candidate incorporated Ebola DNA into common-cold-related adenoviruses). Maybe they'd be useful for AIDS research. but most likely, it'll be the chop. (Barbiturate overdose, actually ; but you get the idea.)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...
You'll need a (free) account to get the PDF.
The viral challenge the monkeys were exposed to was sufficient to cause 100% infection. The challenge was DESIGNED to do that.
So, there are two constraints there, already. Firstly where are you going to get the hundred or two hundred monkeys that would have made for a much better study? It's a stunningly simple question, and that suggests to me that they probably couldn't get more. From anywhere. It's called a limited resource, because the resource is limited.
Now, what's the other constraint? It's space in BSL-4 laboratories. 20 monkeys need a pretty substantial animal house. Between living space (absolute minimum of 1 sq.m per animal, and you'll probably need more; let's guess 5 sq.m because you don't want these animals to die or fall unwell from stressful living conditions. You want them to die (or not) of your disease or the treatment. If you go around killing your test animals by incompetent husbandry, you have wasted your limited resources of both animals and lab space - this will not make you popular - people who waste valuable resources are never popular. So we'll give 5 sq.m per animal for cage space. 100 sq.m for the group. You'll need the same amount of space for corridors between the cages and access (you need to move entire cages in order to clean them properly ; I've worked in animal houses - I was moderately surprised on my first day there to see the amount of "wasted" space, but once you start rolling cages around to take them to the cleaning stations, you realise it's not wasted space.) So, we've got a 200 sq.m house just for the accommodation. You also must have a separate room for treatment - standard husbandry is that you don't do injections or things in front of the other animals because it stresses them. They're then more likely to die, or become unwell, regardless of treatment or non-treatment. Let's say 20 sq.m for the treatment room. How much lab space do you need in addition is hard to say. Lets say 80 sq.m (an 8m by 10m room) for a total space requirement of 300 sq.m.
That's a BSL-4. That is a pretty expensive piece of real estate. And you don't build BSL-4 facilities overnight.
If you go to read the fucking paper. (I know, it's Slashdot, people don't do that. But since you're accusing the researchers of FRAUD, I thought that just maybe you'd have the balls to actually do your fucking homework), you'll see that the study took 150 days, with an additional 30 days at the start for the animals to become acclimatised to their new home in the BSL-4 animal house. So, allowing 10 days to write and review the paper, they cannot have started this work any earlier than May 1st.
Did you know about the Ebola outbreak on May 1st? Did your political representatives? Almost certainly not. I did know about it then, but that's through some uncommon coincidences - I've worked in animal houses before as a student ; I've had repeated exposures through my work to various diseases, and I've had to carry a vaccinations passport along with my national passports for over 10 years now, and on May 1st, I was just returning to the UK from my employment in West Africa following a flight diversion into Cote d'Ivoire.
Do you have any idea of how much of a complete twat (British English : it's rude) you sound? Nah, probably not.
Well, I hope that the authors decide to sue you for libel. As a Brit, I've read this, in Britain, and had my opinion of the researchers materially influenced by your writing, so they've got adequate grounds to sue you for libel in Britain, under British libel laws. I'll give you a hint : don't waste time trying to prove your allegations of fraud - it's not a defence under British libel laws. Which is why I mention it.
That calls for a re-hash of the Rumsfeldian quote about known unknowns and unknown known facts.
Crap. This bloody mobile interface has wiped my reply. I'll try from the laptop when I get home.
If those were the terms of the contract of employment, then yes. Are you saying that humans 40 or 50 years ago were so stupid that they couldn't read the contracts written by humans of the same era. Before they signed them.
Indeed. You alter the set-up of the several WiFi repeaters on the route from the plane to the customs post (you may need to have the plane go on a short magical mystery tour of the outer reaches of the field while doing this) so that they listen for WiFi hotspot's names. At the same time, you use the existing CCTV coverage to notice which passengers are passing each WiFi repeater when the rogue name appears. You may wish to fiddle with (programmable) signs to stir the passengers around a little. Direct them to different belts, or put up "HOLD - re-assigning baggage belt" type messages ; to generate turbulence in the pipeline of passengers. When you've idenitified the person carrying the offending item, you flag them for excessive duty-free as they're going through the customs post and ... in the back room, the rubber gloves come out, then plunge out of the light of day.
... Except for those jihadis for whom English is their first language. (Though they tend to have averagely execrable spelling anyway,)
But it's mixing sport and politics. Fuck both camps using lathe shavings and caustic soda as a lubricant on the dildo.
Nope, primarily this is the insurance companies turning business away (or handing it to their "specialist" subdivisions, at much higher rates).
There are always cases of insurance claims being refused. But since the rate of fraudulent claims in general is in the region of 5 to 10% (and higher in vehicle insurance), you'll also expect that some of your genuine claims are going to be rejected as fraudulent. and some fraudulent claims are going to be accepted as genuine.
Personally, out of 6 encounters with the payout side of the insurance industry, I've had the loss adjusters round once (i.e., they suspected this claim), and when I produced receipts for around 60% of the material I claimed taken in a burglary, over several years ... claim paid in full. Which was fair, because I wasn't inflating the claim.
FTFY
We don't do retrospective legislation very often in the UK. Which is why the insurance companies are making a public fuss about this, so that future purchasers can't claim "we didn't know about this problem", and the manufacturers do have a reasonable time to fix the problem before the insurers really crack down.
Like I said up-thread, I reckon about 6 months. Then the premiums will go up to around the vehicle's value. There will remain "specialist" insurers who'll do the job for 40%, and will love creaming the profit, while the big insurers will have got a substantial risk off their books.
Round here we say "a padlock will keep out an honest man."
Hmmm. Interesting. More interesting than many comments so far.
(Submitter here.)
You could make that claim.
Whether the insurance company chose to believe you is one question that is absolutely and entirely at their discretion (note that in the original description that they were refusing new business, or in some cases annual renewal of the insurance ; they are under no obligation to accept new business, and if you have existing insurance with them which they choose to discontinue, they're only obliged to return premiums paid in advance and to give you a reasonable time - several days to a week or so - to arrange new insurance if they cancel an existing policy).
They might, if they wanted the administrative hassle, send out a vehicle inspector to assess your vehicle's modifications, and then insure the vehicle under "showman's vehicle" terms. Needless to say, you pay for the inspector's report, every year. Or, if you had the system removed/ disabled by a dealer, then they'd want the garage's and manufacturer's certification of the modifications - just as if you'd lowered the suspension and changed the 1.5L engine for a 12L F1 race engine.
Or ... you could tell them you'd made the changes without having actually made the changes. That's when it gets really interesting. Attempting to obtain a service by fraudulent misrepresentation is a criminal offence. It also invalidates your insurance. So, if your vehicle is stolen, and your lies (in writing, above your signature, dated) are found out, then you're liable to unlimited fines, a criminal record (e.g. many countries will now refuse you a visa, for the rest of your life), jail time. AND, because you were driving around with fraudulently-obtained insurance, you were driving with NO insurance. Which almost always means that you'll lose your driving license for several years.
The action that the insurance companies are taking is designed to make people either remove the keyless systems, or to take the vehicles off the road. They clearly don't want to have the business. They're doing this for their convenience, not for the convenience of their customers.
The next step - which I'd expect in about 6 months - will be to raise the cost of insurance above the cost of the vehicle. Which is a very clear way of saying "we don't want this business - it's too troublesome".
This is Britain, not America. Burglary with violence is an extremely rare occurrence. Probably less than a one-in-a-million event per household.
Hell - our police forces have to work hard to find enough officers to volunteer for firearms training.
If your vehicle is more than about 25 years old, that may well be the case (though it was getting rapidly harder even then). Newer cars are harder to the point that car theft for entire cars has dropped off a cliff (thefts continue for breaking for parts).
The story is about Britain, where we have a thing called RAIN, and it's cousin, RUST. A 25 year old vehicle is pretty uncommon ; a 40 (+something) vehicle is considered a classic, attracting negligible running tax because there are so few of them.
... or not, any more. Which is the entire point of the article. Not only do you not get the vehicle replaced if it gets stolen, but if you drive it on the public highway before it gets stolen, you're liable to arrest, jail and loss of your privilege of driving.
None of which helps you with someone approaching you when you're getting into the car in the parking lot / multi-storey park / street / whatever. Our kidnap security instructors at work refer to that as situational awareness. If you don't have that, you're fucked no matter how secure your vehicle is.
By pure coincidence, my family home did have underground parking. But outside residents of that street, I haven't ever met a private residence that had an underground garage. Those garages were built into the houses in approximately 1860 to provide stabling for the horses and storage for the carriage. That they're underground is purely a quirk of the arrangement of streets and a moderately steep hillside.
Not quite as rare as hen's teeth. There are probably more carpenters carving rocking horse turds than there are developmental biologists playing fast an loose with the anatomy of developing chicks, which is how you can give hens teeth. (Seriously - you can. See my signature - I have a non-passing interest in such things.)