Draft Series — Virus thoughts (Part 1)

A series of random notes/draft blog posts from my notebook. I will never be able to clear them and thus … the draft series.

(Note: They represent opinions and views, only. They are not factually correct, there is a ton of speculation, I pretty much maintain a neutral stance on most things, I love everyone, so there is no ill-will. On occasion, I cannot stay neutral, it will be extremely beyond-obvious. I did attempt to spell check and all that stuff, and have succeeded a quarter of the way. I do not want to discourage myself at this point as i promised me that it would be a 5-second job, or we would not have gotten the energy to sift through copious amounts of draft posts. Have done a cursory read, just in case, anything that is too personal was left with xxxxxx … otherwise left as is.)

20th Novemeber ‘20
Am curious how many companies are focusing on repurposing/re-working/building covid therapeutics. As in specifically for the multitude of the various severe cases, and/or looking down the road to the outfall. There’s space for everyone to innovate or to rework, it doesn’t make sense, neither economically, nor from a societal good perspective to have 100 companies rushing for a winner takes all end?

There’s also the benefit of access to funds. The budget for a medical solution is like $18 Billion thus far via a weird mix of Congress n the fed etc … making it quite messy but should trend largely in the general beneficial direction of companies if they can make a good, as direct as possible, cause-effect argument.

Either way, it should not be tough to get funding, but also to make another point (i can’t remember what now but will form it later), the entire front-line vaccine producers were quite un-diversified, and even the best one tt emerged, seemed to be unaware of the logistical issues, which then relate to the economic issues, which is for many countries, partly why they are willing to suffer the risks by reopening … to not-kill the economy, which is not unfair or fair, gradients obviously. I have no idea how to value it but it is of course done, what assumptions and approximations are used I have no idea, but the calculation had better not be the equivalent of heads or tails…. At least an excel spread-sheet.

On a separate note, remotely relevant, from afar, which is the only vantage point available to me, US wise results I would expect on average to be politically charged to some extent, quite large esp at present, although maybe a Biden future tampers this a bit, sooner is what I feel rather later seems more likely.

It seems now, more and more, that being a working vaccine, in and of itself is not going to be as impactful as it seemed. Social distancing is a safer option for some nations actually. The novelty of this virus n I think market failure (which is basically like leaving us running a MacBook and Jobs forgot to update the anti-virus protection since 2014, all the while, the virus is doing it’s thing, evolving and getting adapted to an increasingly hostile & shrinking environment.

Rough notes on its (covid 19 virus):

The virus was left to mutate which is essentially development and iteration, to be honest don’t even know if it hopped over, long before. We need a catch-all and these damn spikes is going to be like a game of “how fast is warp speed”.

Quasispecies is damn troublesome but kind in a way, letting us know, by infecting a few of us, quite seriously, multiple times. Actually has been around so long, it even lost some pro-survival abilities, and having some recombination event later, reacquired the capability. Suddenly, making a very complex virus ace2 “primed,” putting humans back on the map and made us possible hosts. (maybe “The Ultimate” Hosts in some ways, related to ADE). Actually, there is a confluence of factors at play, I think, for one, it makes the risk-benefit calculation a bit different for this virus, and maybe that explains the underwhelming reaction to Pfizer’s product. Maybe the FDA model of not needing causality has also contributed to a different risk/benefit calculation, maybe it is not that equipped to deal in this climate. Not tt it was perfect with regards to, or actually may be, is the entire basis of the “imperfection”; ADE issues?

Theory, I wonder how off base I am. an expert would be great to talk to set it straighter

Another thing that is peculiar, is that it kind of looks messier amongst reporters, scientists and doctors then it was 6 months ago. When there is an unprecedented level of cooperation and no lack of data whatsoever. Is Sth I’m curious about.

There is so much data, probably too much, is a statement tt would have made perfect sense, in a pre-machine learning era. It should be much more debatable now. Apart from data entry issues, which actually in total is basically a data cleanliness issue and thus would make it much more understandable. Other things tt are under the same umbrella are things like lack of international standards, geopolitics, all the more than stupidly obvious stupid things, and is understandable. Although from here on out, it would be a lot less, in the event the globe gets to take a breath at some point and lick wounds n count losses. Although technically, people should be accountable currently already. Something went very wrong either way, but the novelty makes it tough to pass too much judgment.

But all that leads me to think. That maybe setting up systems of record and establishing process, etc … is impt. And I mean in an overrides at least in some parts “current problems”. Fire figting either way is arguably entirely abt opportunity cost, the extent of which I suspect is understated, considering badly focused reporting in the media, in fact focusing on total infection rate which is arguably the polar opposite in every way of what I was thinking … arguably being amongst the most -ve expected value decision to make when deciding what to think, post, n talk abt.

One last curious thought.

Lack of data (qualitative), is my instinct off the bat. 2nd, is then lack of interpreters; but both quality/quantity … of data scientist.

Need to check this out but feels like not much is said abt tt. In my opinion, just guessing, I think it is partly a failure to realise that Scientist cannot be left to “lead” (referring to a push to trust in science, by which naturally, will end up being in Scientist because its not so simple. There are many scientist. And it is not actually the non-experts that I think end up causing the most damage, but the “experts”, and the accredited experts. I actually don’t think there is that much of a difference between differentiating, as much as it may seem it should be. Of course where it can, it should, but there is no stopping people from talking and posting, and some are good intentioned, some aren;t. Standard shit. The more important question however, that I think supercedes this, because if that can be solved, this may be not such a big problem. That is, the systemic problem of … no the fact, that people disagree. Obviously degrees of disagreement is counted as agreement, what i;m talking about is fundamentally disagree. There is no way to solve this, and it is as I have witnessed, just as it is. Reality. That no one knows for sure. Got to have a rule in place prior, with a head, who takes a vote immediately, an app or something. Conflict of interest perhaps have to have some considerations, half a vote lol…. -ve vote. Sent to mars. No no that is bad thinking, bad. Antartica perhaps.

Disagreement is good, scientific consensus as law, is an oxymoron but not for the most part, and certainly, cannot be remotely good in a crisis. Conflict of interest is a enormous problem that I am not sure exists, but think it may. As long as it is made clear, then it is better. But that in itself is a problem because there is no requirement to do that in anything other than a published piece of work in a journal (and that has problems of its own). BUTTTTT…. at the same time, another cancellation witch-hunt is .. oh man… a no-idea idea. I don’t have a solution. I don’t know, i’m tired. Anyone with followers past 50 000 or something has an obligation or run around naked or something. Whatever… I want ice crem

4 brothers. We’ve passed the point of diminishing returns. Read what we are saying. Correct us where we are wrong. If it is redundant, tell us, privately.-ve