quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Trump “hands it” to Schumer.

https://legalinsurrection.com/...-to-schumer-instead/

Thanks for the post. For those of you who skipped this link please take a couple minutes.

Can someone help me with some math?

The latest COVID tracker is saying 6,059 deaths in the US

Out of 245,175 confirmed cases.

So if you do 6,059 / 245,175 I am coming up with a death rate of .0247. Let's go ahead and round that up to .025%. 1/40th of a percent. That's not even close to 2-5% that I see some of you guys using. Am I missing something or is my math just not adding up?

quote:

Originally posted by Krazeehorse:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Trump “hands it” to Schumer.

https://legalinsurrection.com/...-to-schumer-instead/

Thanks for the post. For those of you who skipped this link please take a couple minutes.

Outstanding. The asshole leftists are seeing a side of Trump they'd rather not see I think. He's dropped most of his funny charm and is going all CEO on their asses.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
An interesting development.

“Hundreds of veterinarians in Illinois have joined a statewide recruitment drive for extra medical support in combating Covid-19 and could soon be helping to save human lives.

*shrug*

I've gotten some basic/intermediate medical advice from a vet before. While I wouldn't want a vet in charge of my cancer treatment or doing my brain surgery, simpler things like cleaning and stitching a wound, splinting a broken bone, biopsying a skin lesion, treating a bacterial infection, or the like, are largely the same between humans and most other mammals.

So I think this is a good move. The vets can help take over the more basic type stuff, freeing up more medical doctors to help with COVID and the more advanced stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevbo:
And your level of expertise is.....?

than

quote:

80% of the people who get this (and you will get this)

Yeah? And what's your level of expertise, Mr. "In search of baseball, strippers, and guns." You're the kind of dickhole I'm talking about. Fuck off.

This thread has lots of good information we can share and learn from.
Unfortunately, the bickering is getting ridiculous.

The letter to Chuck Schumer was awesome!

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Can someone help me with some math?

The latest COVID tracker is saying 6,059 deaths in the US

Out of 245,175 confirmed cases.

So if you do 6,059 / 245,175 I am coming up with a death rate of .0247. Let's go ahead and round that up to .025%. 1/40th of a percent. That's not even close to 2-5% that I see some of you guys using. Am I missing something or is my math just not adding up?

Need to then multiply 0.025 by 100 = 2.5%

1/100 = 0.01 but we know 1 is 1% of 100.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Can someone help me with some math?

The latest COVID tracker is saying 6,059 deaths in the US

Out of 245,175 confirmed cases.

So if you do 6,059 / 245,175 I am coming up with a death rate of .0247. Let's go ahead and round that up to .025%. 1/40th of a percent. That's not even close to 2-5% that I see some of you guys using. Am I missing something or is my math just not adding up?

it's 2.5%. Your math is not adding up. 10% of 245k is 24k. 1% is 2,400.

The death rate is 10x the normal season flu rate.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Can someone help me with some math?

The latest COVID tracker is saying 6,059 deaths in the US

Out of 245,175 confirmed cases.

So if you do 6,059 / 245,175 I am coming up with a death rate of .0247. Let's go ahead and round that up to .025%. 1/40th of a percent. That's not even close to 2-5% that I see some of you guys using. Am I missing something or is my math just not adding up?

That's .0247 of 1, so 2.47 (percent) of 100.

6,059/245,175 = .0247 = 2.47% Need to multiply the .0247 by 100 to get the % rate

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Can someone help me with some math?

The latest COVID tracker is saying 6,059 deaths in the US

Out of 245,175 confirmed cases.

So if you do 6,059 / 245,175 I am coming up with a death rate of .0247. Let's go ahead and round that up to .025%. 1/40th of a percent. That's not even close to 2-5% that I see some of you guys using. Am I missing something or is my math just not adding up?

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Can someone help me with some math?

The latest COVID tracker is saying 6,059 deaths in the US

Out of 245,175 confirmed cases.

So if you do 6,059 / 245,175 I am coming up with a death rate of .0247. Let's go ahead and round that up to .025%. 1/40th of a percent. That's not even close to 2-5% that I see some of you guys using. Am I missing something or is my math just not adding up?

You are bad at math. 6059 is 2.47% of 245,175.

I’m also bad at math, but this helps.

From a NO ER doc three days ago. A lot of doctor talk, but the translation is, it's bad - 70-80+% failure rate on vent is very bad:

ER doctor offers lessons

Has somebody explained to mutedblade yet that he needs to multiply by 100?

Got it everyone. Appreciate the help with my math. Still. We're killing our country economically over a fatality rate of 2.5%. Doesn't help the 300+ million people that are going to be above ground after all of this if our inflation is so great that nobody can afford to live. Great Depression 2.0 isn't something that I am looking forward to.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:
From a NO ER doc three days ago. A lot of doctor talk, but the translation is, it's bad - 70-80+% failure rate on vent is very bad:

ER doctor offers lessons

All this talk, political in-fighting and hype about ventilators - and they fail to save patients 80+ percent of the time?

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:
From a NO ER doc three days ago. A lot of doctor talk, but the translation is, it's bad - 70-80+% failure rate on vent is very bad:

ER doctor offers lessons

All this talk, political in-fighting and hype about ventilators - and they fail to save patients 80+ percent of the time?

That is intubated patients (5% intubation rate, 20% total hospitalizations) the other 80% vary from permanent lung damage to perfectly fine. So you have about a 5% chance of requiring vent, if you require vent 25% live, 75% die. That adds up to 3.75% will die on vent. Not sure why it's so much higher than the CFR, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Other stuff I've read was 60/40, which would align more with CFRs at 3%.

No doctor, but anything over 1% CFR with the rates of infection don't add up to a rosey picture.

An interesting timeline. This is from March 23rd, but I don't recall seeing it here previously. In any case, it is a good reminder as to how terrible the Chinese government and the WHO are and what a menace they are to the rest of the world.

The Comprehensive Timeline of China’s COVID-19 Lies
By JIM GERAGHTY
March 23, 2020 9:13 AM

The Timeline of a Viral Ticking Time Bomb

The story of the coronavirus pandemic is still being written. But at this early date, we can see all kinds of moments where different decisions could have lessened the severity of the outbreak we are currently enduring. You have probably heard variations of: “Chinese authorities denied that the virus could be transferred from human to human until it was too late.” What you have probably not heard is how emphatically, loudly, and repeatedly the Chinese government insisted human transmission was impossible, long after doctors in Wuhan had concluded human transmission was ongoing — and how the World Health Organization assented to that conclusion, despite the suspicions of other outside health experts.

Clearly, the U.S. government’s response to this threat was not nearly robust enough, and not enacted anywhere near quickly enough. Most European governments weren’t prepared either. Few governments around the world were or are prepared for the scale of the danger. We can only wonder whether accurate and timely information from China would have altered the way the U.S. government, the American people, and the world prepared for the oncoming danger of infection.

Some point in late 2019: The coronavirus jumps from some animal species to a human being. The best guess at this point is that it happened at a Chinese “wet market.”

December 6: According to a study in The Lancet, the symptom onset date of the first patient identified was “Dec 1, 2019 . . . 5 days after illness onset, his wife, a 53-year-old woman who had no known history of exposure to the market, also presented with pneumonia and was hospitalized in the isolation ward.” In other words, as early as the second week of December, Wuhan doctors were finding cases that indicated the virus was spreading from one human to another.

December 21: Wuhan doctors begin to notice a “cluster of pneumonia cases with an unknown cause.”

December 25: Chinese medical staff in two hospitals in Wuhan are suspected of contracting viral pneumonia and are quarantined. This is additional strong evidence of human-to-human transmission.

Sometime in “Late December”: Wuhan hospitals notice “an exponential increase” in the number of cases that cannot be linked back to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

December 30: Dr. Li Wenliang sent a message to a group of other doctors warning them about a possible outbreak of an illness that resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), urging them to take protective measures against infection.

December 31: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declares, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.

Three weeks after doctors first started noticing the cases, China contacts the World Health Organization.

Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai’s center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”

January 1: The Wuhan Public Security Bureau issued summons to Dr. Li Wenliang, accusing him of “spreading rumors.” Two days later, at a police station, Dr. Li signed a statement acknowledging his “misdemeanor” and promising not to commit further “unlawful acts.” Seven other people are arrested on similar charges and their fate is unknown.

Also that day, “after several batches of genome sequence results had been returned to hospitals and submitted to health authorities, an employee of one genomics company received a phone call from an official at the Hubei Provincial Health Commission, ordering the company to stop testing samples from Wuhan related to the new disease and destroy all existing samples.”

According to a New York Times study of cellphone data from China, 175,000 people leave Wuhan that day. According to global travel data research firm OAG, 21 countries have direct flights to Wuhan. In the first quarter of 2019 for comparison, 13,267 air passengers traveled from Wuhan, China, to destinations in the United States, or about 4,422 per month. The U.S. government would not bar foreign nationals who had traveled to China from entering the country for another month.

January 2: One study of patients in Wuhan can only connect 27 of 41 infected patients to exposure to the Huanan seafood market — indicating human-to-human transmission away from the market. A report written later that month concludes, “evidence so far indicates human transmission for 2019-nCoV. We are concerned that 2019-nCoV could have acquired the ability for efficient human transmission.”

Also on this day, the Wuhan Institute of Virology completed mapped the genome of the virus. The Chinese government would not announce that breakthrough for another week.

January 3: The Chinese government continued efforts to suppress all information about the virus: “China’s National Health Commission, the nation’s top health authority, ordered institutions not to publish any information related to the unknown disease, and ordered labs to transfer any samples they had to designated testing institutions, or to destroy them.”

Roughly one month after the first cases in Wuhan, the United States government is notified. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gets initial reports about a new coronavirus from Chinese colleagues, according to Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar. Azar, who helped manage the response at HHS to earlier SARS and anthrax outbreaks, told his chief of staff to make sure the National Security Council was informed.

Also on this day, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released another statement, repeating, “As of now, preliminary investigations have shown no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infections.”

January 4: While Chinese authorities continued to insist that the virus could not spread from one person to another, doctors outside that country weren’t so convinced. The head of the University of Hong Kong’s Centre for Infection, Ho Pak-leung, warned that “the city should implement the strictest possible monitoring system for a mystery new viral pneumonia that has infected dozens of people on the mainland, as it is highly possible that the illness is spreading from human to human.”

January 5: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission put out a statement with updated numbers of cases but repeated, “preliminary investigations have shown no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infections.”

January 6: The New York Times publishes its first report about the virus, declaring that “59 people in the central city of Wuhan have been sickened by a pneumonia-like illness.” That first report included these comments:

Wang Linfa, an expert on emerging infectious diseases at the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, said he was frustrated that scientists in China were not allowed to speak to him about the outbreak. Dr. Wang said, however, that he thought the virus was likely not spreading from humans to humans because health workers had not contracted the disease. “We should not go into panic mode,” he said.

Don’t get too mad at Wang Linfa; he was making that assessment based upon the inaccurate information Chinese government was telling the world.

Also that day, the CDC “issued a level 1 travel watch — the lowest of its three levels — for China’s outbreak. It said the cause and the transmission mode aren’t yet known, and it advised travelers to Wuhan to avoid living or dead animals, animal markets, and contact with sick people.”

Also that day, the CDC offered to send a team to China to assist with the investigation. The Chinese government declined, but a WHO team that included two Americans would visit February 16.

January 8: Chinese medical authorities claim to have identified the virus. Those authorities claim and Western media continue to repeat, “there is no evidence that the new virus is readily spread by humans, which would make it particularly dangerous, and it has not been tied to any deaths.”

The official statement from the World Health Organization declares, “Preliminary identification of a novel virus in a short period of time is a notable achievement and demonstrates China’s increased capacity to manage new outbreaks . . . WHO does not recommend any specific measures for travelers. WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the information currently available.”

January 10: After unknowingly treating a patient with the Wuhan coronavirus, Dr. Li Wenliang started coughing and developed a fever. He was hospitalized on January 12. In the following days, Li’s condition deteriorated so badly that he was admitted to the intensive care unit and given oxygen support.

The New York Times quotes the Wuhan City Health Commission’s declaration that “there is no evidence the virus can spread among humans.” Chinese doctors continued to find transmission among family members, contradicting the official statements from the city health commission.

January 11: The Wuhan City Health Commission issues an update declaring, “All 739 close contacts, including 419 medical staff, have undergone medical observation and no related cases have been found . . . No new cases have been detected since January 3, 2020. At present, no medical staff infections have been found, and no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission has been found.” They issue a Q&A sheet later that day reemphasizing that “most of the unexplained viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan this time have a history of exposure to the South China seafood market. No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission has been found.”

Also on this day, political leaders in Hubei province, which includes Wuhan, began their regional meeting. The coronavirus was not mentioned over four days of meetings.

January 13: Authorities in Thailand detected the virus in a 61-year-old Chinese woman who was visiting from Wuhan, the first case outside of China. “Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health, said the woman had not visited the Wuhan seafood market, and had come down with a fever on Jan. 5. However, the doctor said, the woman had visited a different, smaller market in Wuhan, in which live and freshly slaughtered animals were also sold.”

January 14: Wuhan city health authorities release another statement declaring, “Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.” Wuhan doctors have known this was false since early December, from the first victim and his wife, who did not visit the market.

The World Health Organization echoes China’s assessment: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.”

This is five or six weeks after the first evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan.

January 15: Japan reported its first case of coronavirus. Japan’s Health Ministry said the patient had not visited any seafood markets in China, adding that “it is possible that the patient had close contact with an unknown patient with lung inflammation while in China.”

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins to change its statements, now declaring, “Existing survey results show that clear human-to-human evidence has not been found, and the possibility of limited human-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out, but the risk of continued human-to-human transmission is low.” Recall Wuhan hospitals concluded human-to-human transmission was occurring three weeks earlier. A statement the next day backtracks on the possibility of human transmission, saying only, “Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.”

January 17: The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection announce that travelers from Wuhan to the United States will undergo entry screening for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV at three U.S. airports that receive most of the travelers from Wuhan, China: San Francisco, New York (JFK), and Los Angeles airports.

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission’s daily update declares, “A total of 763 close contacts have been tracked, 665 medical observations have been lifted, and 98 people are still receiving medical observations. Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.”

January 18: HHS Secretary Azar has his first discussion about the virus with President Trump. Unnamed “senior administration officials” told the Washington Post that “the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market.”

Despite the fact that Wuhan doctors know the virus is contagious, city authorities allow 40,000 families to gather and share home-cooked food in a Lunar New Year banquet.

January 19: The Chinese National Health Commission declares the virus “still preventable and controllable.” The World Health Organization updates its statement, declaring, “Not enough is known to draw definitive conclusions about how it is transmitted, the clinical features of the disease, the extent to which it has spread, or its source, which remains unknown.”

January 20: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declares for the last time in its daily bulletin, “no related cases were found among the close contacts.”

That day, the head of China’s national health commission team investigating the outbreak, confirmed that two cases of infection in China’s Guangdong province had been caused by human-to-human transmission and medical staff had been infected.

Also on this date, the Wuhan Evening News newspaper, the largest newspaper in the city, mentions the virus on the front page for the first time since January 5.

January 21: The CDC announced the first U.S. case of a the coronavirus in a Snohomish County, Wash., resident who returning from China six days earlier.

By this point, millions of people have left Wuhan, carrying the virus all around China and into other countries.

January 22: WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continued to praise China’s handling of the outbreak. “I was very impressed by the detail and depth of China’s presentation. I also appreciate the cooperation of China’s Minister of Health, who I have spoken with directly during the last few days and weeks. His leadership and the intervention of President Xi and Premier Li have been invaluable, and all the measures they have taken to respond to the outbreak.”

In the preceding days, a WHO delegation conducted a field visit to Wuhan. They concluded, “deployment of the new test kit nationally suggests that human-to-human transmission is taking place in Wuhan.” The delegation reports, “their counterparts agreed close attention should be paid to hand and respiratory hygiene, food safety and avoiding mass gatherings where possible.”

At a meeting of the WHO Emergency Committee, panel members express “divergent views on whether this event constitutes a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC.”

President Trump, in an interview with CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, declared, “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”

January 23: Chinese authorities announce their first steps for a quarantine of Wuhan. By this point, millions have already visited the city and left it during the Lunar New Year celebrations. Singapore and Vietnam report their first cases, and by now an unknown but significant number of Chinese citizens have traveled abroad as asymptomatic, oblivious carriers.

January 24: Vietnam reports person-to-person transmission, and Japan, South Korea, and the U.S report their second cases. The second case is in Chicago. Within two days, new cases are reported in Los Angeles, Orange County, and Arizona. The virus is in now in several locations in the United States, and the odds of preventing an outbreak are dwindling to zero.

On February 1, Dr. Li Wenliang tested positive for coronavirus. He died from it six days later.

One final note: On February 4, Mayor of Florence Dario Nardella urged residents to hug Chinese people to encourage them in the fight against the novel coronavirus. Meanwhile, a member of Associazione Unione Giovani Italo Cinesi, a Chinese society in Italy aimed at promoting friendship between people in the two countries, called for respect for novel coronavirus patients during a street demonstration. “I’m not a virus. I’m a human. Eradicate the prejudice.”

JIM GERAGHTY is the senior political correspondent of National Review. @jimgeraghty

https://www.nationalreview.com...as-devastating-lies/

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Has somebody explained to mutedblade yet that he needs to multiply by 100?

Lol. I got distracted when typing my reply, which I foolishly thought was the only reply. Had no idea I’d be last jumping on a pile! Man this place moves fast.

I find it interesting that two pages back f2 posted about a possible vaccine breakthrough from Pitt School of Medicine. It could be delivered through the skin on a small patch therefore making it easy to produce and distribute. No one cared to comment on it.

The scientists at Pitt were ahead of the curve because they had been studying previous coronavirus outbreaks so they were already on the ground running when this one came along. Sure it's not going to be available tomorrow or next week but none the less some damn good news.

But no one apparently wants to bother commenting on it and let the thought that maybe the sun is rising instead of setting creep into their mind. Nope lets just keep crunching numbers and projections, graphs and charts that are just bad, bad ,bad and worse.

People are saying this is war. War is as much if not more psychological than it is anything else.
And if this is war we've lost the psychological battle 300 plus pages ago in this thread.

There are faces we have never seen on the news and names we have never heard of that are going to come forward with a solution to this that will allow us to get back to some semblance of a normal life. The truth is out there.

^^^

quote:

I find it interesting that two pages back f2 posted about a possible vaccine breakthrough from Pitt School of Medicine. It could be delivered through the skin on a small patch therefore making it easy to produce and distribute. No one cared to comment on it.

Great news! Here's more on that:

University Where Polio Vaccine Was Created Says They Have Potential Vaccine For Coronavirus

On Thursday, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, where Dr. Jonas Salk discovered a vaccine for polio, announced they have created a potential vaccine for the coronavirus.

Researchers gave the vaccine to mice through a patch in the skin, and say not only that the vaccine proved effective, but that producing similar patches with a vaccine for humans is scalable and can be produced in large quantities, according to KDKA radio, which notes, “It is the first study to be published after it was critiqued by other scientists ‘at outside institutions that describes a candidate vaccine for COVID-19.’”

Co-senior author Andrea Gambotto, M.D, who is an associate professor of surgery at the Pitt School of Medicine, stated, “We had previous experience on SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2014. These two viruses, which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2, teach us that a particular protein, called a spike protein, is important for inducing immunity against the virus. We knew exactly where to fight this new virus. That’s why it’s important to fund vaccine research. You never know where the next pandemic will come from.”

Co-senior author Louis Falo, M.D., Ph.D., professor and chair of dermatology at Pitt’s School of Medicine and UPMC, echoed, “Our ability to rapidly develop this vaccine was a result of scientists with expertise in diverse areas of research working together with a common goal.”

In the paper describing their work, the authors, who are waiting for approval from the FDA to quickly start human trials, write:

Genomic analyses indicated that SARS-CoV-2 shares genomic similarities with SARS-CoV within the receptor-binding motif that directly contacts the human receptor ACE2. This has important implications for vaccine design and for predicting pandemic potential. Human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has now been established, and the situation with SARS-CoV-2 is evolving rapidly with the numbers of verified cases growing into the thousands.

Another recently emerged coronavirus, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first isolated in 2012 in Saudi Arabia … For both these coronaviruses, the spike (S) protein is crucial for viral transmission and infection, and determines the tropism of the virus and host cell entry. SARS-CoV-2 binds the ACE2 receptor as MERS-S binds to the cellular receptor dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) via the receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the N-terminal surface subunit (S1), and then employs its C-terminal transmembrane subunit (S2) to fuse with the host cell membrane. [

Due to this vital functional property and established antigenicity, the S protein is an important target for vaccine development. Our previous studies have shown that adenoviral vaccine candidates expressing SARS-CoV-S1 and MERS-S1 subunits induced more efficacious antibody-mediated neutralizing activity than full-length S1, suggesting the subunit immunogen as an ideal vaccine candidate.

… The skin is an ideal target for immunization. It contains a rich population of antigen presenting and immune accessory cells capable of inducing a proinflammatory microenvironment favoring the induction of potent and durable adaptive immunity.

… Although the stability of each vaccine candidate in MNAs needs to be validated at different temperatures for varying storage periods, the available literature indicates that MNA-embedded vaccines have the potential to remain stable for an extended period of time without expensive “cold chain” requirements. Further, previous animal and clinical studies suggest that MNAs could provide a safe and well-tolerated delivery platform for efficacious immunization strategies.

… Driven by the promising immunogenicity of MNA-MERS-S1 vaccines and the urgent need to respond to the recent coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), we rapidly (within 4 weeks of the identification of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 sequence) designed and produced MNA SARS-CoV-2 S1 vaccines and tested their immunogenicity in mice. We describe the rapid development of MNA embedded SARS-CoV-2-S1 subunit vaccines using clinically-applicable MNA production methods by relying on our experience with clinical trials utilizing MNA delivery. Taken together, our results support the development of MNA delivered recombinant coronavirus vaccines for clinical applications.

… Taken together, our studies demonstrate the speed at which vaccines against emerging infections can be designed and produced using the recent advances in recombinant DNA technology. Combining emerging biotechnology methods with bioengineering advances in vaccine delivery strategies, it may now be possible to rapidly produce clinically-translatable vaccines against novel pathogens for human testing and subsequent global distribution in time to significantly impact the spread of disease.

The University of Pittsburgh writes of Salk:

In 1947, the University of Pittsburgh recruited Jonas Salk—an expert in influenza whose flu vaccine is still in use today—to develop a virus program at Pitt. For more than seven years, his team worked tirelessly to develop an effective killed-virus vaccine … The efforts of Pitt’s polio research team culminated in the largest national controlled field trial in history. At the trial’s successful conclusion, the federal government approved the vaccine for the public on April 12, 1955, an action that Newsweek called “a summit moment in history.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news...cine-for-coronavirus