There are about six different vaccine approaches

They each have strengths, weaknesses and may or may not be able to be used together. The percentage stuff isn't too useful, some are much more effective after a booster.

There's about two hundred vaccines being developed under (roughly) those six categories. Some of those will work better than others too.

As scientists we're notoriously bad at getting messages across to the press - the lancet article you mention is basically just saying there won't be a jab that'll put life back to normal. The vaccines will nevertheless likely be game changers over the coming twelve months.

We do need to get away from the idea that we can mothball life and get back to how things were. We also need to get away from the idea that we 'getting on with things' and pretending the virus stuff isn't there is an option too.

It's an opportunity (with a lot of pain on the way whichever approach we take) to re-engineer the way we do stuff and looking for that evolution and how we do that is really key in the next five to ten years.

I manage a group of twenty people and so the balance of stuff is a real live issue for me (physical health/mental health /caring responsibility).

Saw Sumption's talk and another he did to a bunch of medics. I think he's approaching it more as a historian than a lawyer.

What is meant by 'learning to live with the virus' varies very much the interpretation of his argument. If he means we need to get used to more people dying because they did in the past, then I'm not on board.

If he means adjusting the way we live (building ventilation, eduction, commuting, health and how we retire) then I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted By: Cardiff Canary, Oct 29, 11:42:51