Sorry but it depends heavily on the ratio of mutations of the virus, just think about the common flu that come back every year in a different variant or, worst, at HIV, where you usually have multiple strains in a single infected subject costantly mutating.
Airborne trasmission is another crucial factor: ebola is a nightmare to deal with but at least is "just" transmissible with body fluids. If you get an illiness with a 50% mortality like that turning airborne you are in for the end of the world a we know it.
Anyway it can't be denied that going from the DNA sequence of the virus to a vaccine in a year, more or less, is a huge deal compared to the past.
Regulatory procedure at the moment dictates that you need a few months at least just for the setting up and certificatie of the facility where the vaccine is produced: this include everything, from personal, to machinery, most of the procedure itself, reagents, certification from the reagents vendors, disposal of wastes, etc...
I always think those facilities need more paperstuff than sanitary grade steel in weight
At the same time you have to go through the 3 initial phases of testing for approval.
The speed to produce a vaccine do not influence in any way this two phases, expecially the second as you can't predict reliably any possible reaction (e.g.: thromboss).
Actually no: as Bear wrote mRNA based vaccine are developed at an astonishing speed an that already is a testament how things have improved. The bottleneck in the future will be approval, both from the bureocracy and safety for human use, expecially the latter, as I alredy wrote.
Also, these new vaccine are really expensive to produce, I saw estimates up to 23 billions for 3 facilities for Pfizer alone. And there could be quite a few trade secrets involved.
Poor countries won't be able to afford that soon, not minding the qualified staff of know-how.
Airborne trasmission is another crucial factor: ebola is a nightmare to deal with but at least is "just" transmissible with body fluids. If you get an illiness with a 50% mortality like that turning airborne you are in for the end of the world a we know it.
Anyway it can't be denied that going from the DNA sequence of the virus to a vaccine in a year, more or less, is a huge deal compared to the past.
Quote:We can go from zero to working vaccine in as little as 3 weeks, and that time is likely to get shorter rather than longer.
Regulatory procedure at the moment dictates that you need a few months at least just for the setting up and certificatie of the facility where the vaccine is produced: this include everything, from personal, to machinery, most of the procedure itself, reagents, certification from the reagents vendors, disposal of wastes, etc...
I always think those facilities need more paperstuff than sanitary grade steel in weight
At the same time you have to go through the 3 initial phases of testing for approval.
The speed to produce a vaccine do not influence in any way this two phases, expecially the second as you can't predict reliably any possible reaction (e.g.: thromboss).
Quote:COVID-19 is still an ongoing pandemic, so it's too early to make a judgement like this.
Actually no: as Bear wrote mRNA based vaccine are developed at an astonishing speed an that already is a testament how things have improved. The bottleneck in the future will be approval, both from the bureocracy and safety for human use, expecially the latter, as I alredy wrote.
Also, these new vaccine are really expensive to produce, I saw estimates up to 23 billions for 3 facilities for Pfizer alone. And there could be quite a few trade secrets involved.
Poor countries won't be able to afford that soon, not minding the qualified staff of know-how.
Semi-professional threads diverter.