Debate begins for who's first in line for COVID-19 vaccine

All these discussions may seem premature, after all we don't yet have proof of a safe and effective vaccine, but this is going to become a big trouble if not done properly, so it is absolutely necessary to have a solid and well based decision as soon as possible even if just to make people get used to the idea.

It is fortunate that the vast majority of the people is rational enough not to fall for the illogical conspiracies peddled by antivaxxers, and know that any vaccine approved is a much better option than getting the infection, the other side of the issue will be then to make the public understand that it is not possible to have vaccines for everybody precisely because the process to make it safe and effective requires time.

Its highly unlikely that any new vaccine for this virus will create lasting immunity, maybe a year at best. The only way to know would be to spend the time to wait and see. As it is, all coronaviruses have structures which prevent someone's body from developing long-term antibodies. HIV also has this structure. This is why there are no vaccines for the common cold or HIV.

Viral scientists know this, but the political rush to develop something fast is muting any suggestion that there will probably be only temporary protection. Also, the billions being invested and already given over for pre-purchase to companies tends to inhibit discussion of this.

Its highly unlikely that any new vaccine for this virus will create lasting immunity, maybe a year at best. The only way to know would be to spend the time to wait and see. As it is, all coronaviruses have structures which prevent someone's body from developing long-term antibodies. HIV also has this structure. This is why there are no vaccines for the common cold or HIV.

This is wrong for several reasons,

one, there is no such thing as those "structures" that you mention.

two, HIV escapes the immune system by producing enzymes that block the interferon pathway, not the antibodies

three, as seen with SARS and MERS patients, there is a very strong production of antibodies many years after the infection, and since they are produced by coronaviruses they prove your assumption about them blocking long term antibodies wrong.

four, antibodies are not the only immune process activated by infections and vaccine, other immune reactions can protect against the infection without problem even if basal antibody levels are undetectable.

So no, virology scientists know that your comment is mistaken and that is why they can perfectly expect a vaccine to have long lasting effects without any contradiction. And no, the billions are irrelevant to the proper and valid discussion of this, it is something routinely being discussed by the professionals without problem, the difference is that their conclusions are opposite from yours because they are not based on mistakes.

This article implies that most people will want it. I say just give it to anyone willing to risk their health on it.

In the long run, any relatively young and healthy person will likely do better catching the virus than getting the vaccine.

Most people that have looked at the evidence labeled as "illogical conspiracies" by gatekeepers will stay away from these disease-causing vaccines.

At first priority, all health care staff like nurses and doctors must be priority number 1 to receive the vaccine!

This article implies that most people will want it. I say just give it to anyone willing to risk their health on it.

It is not an irrational thing to imply, most people are rational and demand for something that would allow for a return to normal life is very strong.

In the long run, any relatively young and healthy person will likely do better catching the virus than getting the vaccine.

That is false, you have no data that would allow to prove so, and historical data easily proves that by default vaccines are much safer than the infection they prevent. This is just part of the empty opinions that antivaxxers like to repeat but are never able to prove.

Most people that have looked at the evidence labeled as "illogical conspiracies" by gatekeepers will stay away from these disease-causing vaccines.

The opposite, only people with very strong ignorance about science and logic can fall prey of the antivaxxer conspiracies, the vast majority of the people can easily see self-contradicting and logically faulty conspiracies based on zero evidence as not something worth of believing. Specially when the antivaxxers fail to prove their points and just repeat them as if that would make them true, after a while even people "on the fence" can see which side have reason supporting it.

@virusrex

one, there is no such thing as those "structures" that you mention.

Well, I tried to avoid being too technical. But if you want to be picky, OK...

By "structures", I meant that the protien structure of this virus has a glycan shield the same as HIV. This glycosolation prevents long-term antibodies from developing during the gamma-phase, which is a couple years after vaccination. So a test trial of a few months as they are doing now does not give this data for long-term antibodies, and whenever it was attempted in the past with such glycosolated viruses, they have failed.

But you apparently knew this because:

two, HIV escapes the immune system by producing enzymes that block the interferon pathway, not the antibodies

If by those "enzymes" you mean glycosolation, then yes. Yet they are not "produced" but inherant to the protien structure of these viruses. This was noticed when the genome of the new coronavirus was published back in January, and virologists realized this way back then.

three, as seen with SARS and MERS patients, there is a very strong production of antibodies many years after the infection, and since they are produced by coronaviruses they prove your assumption about them blocking long term antibodies wrong.

With both SARS-1 and MERS, a vaccine was never produced. Yes, there are "hopeful" vaccines, but none proven, approved, and in use. And its not my "assumption" about coronaviruses failing at long-term antibody production. Here's a 35 year long EU study confirming this: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439v2

four, antibodies are not the only immune process activated by infections and vaccine, other immune reactions can protect against the infection without problem even if basal antibody levels are undetectable.

Sure, other paths are possible, but its breaking new ground, particularly with such a new virus. Perhaps there's hope with activating someone's innate immunity on COVID-19 (as is the case with bats and this virus) but again, that's new ground and years to know. The best suggestion thus far is utilizing existing vaccines like for polio which can stimulate innate immunity and offer possible temporary protection, but its not a long-term sollution. Though trials are currently underway in several countries with polio vaccine.

By "structures", I meant that the protien structure of this virus has a glycan shield the same as HIV. This glycosolation prevents long-term antibodies from developing during the gamma-phase, which is a couple years after vaccination. So a test trial of a few months as they are doing now does not give this data for long-term antibodies, and whenever it was attempted in the past with such glycosolated viruses, they have failed.

Glycan shields are common in many kind of viruses not only HIV and coronavirus but also alphaviruses, filoviruses, flaviruses, etc. including many viruses defeated by the use of vaccines. As mentioned before SARS patient have robust neutralizing antibody response many years after the infection, which serves to prove that glycosilation of viral proteins does not equal automatically lack of long term protection, or even lack of neutralizing antibody production, which is a different thing.

So no, glycosilated viruses can be, and have been, neutralized by vaccination without problem.

If by those "enzymes" you mean glycosolation, then yes. Yet they are not "produced" but inherant to the protien structure of these viruses. This was noticed when the genome of the new coronavirus was published back in January, and virologists realized this way back then.

No, that makes no sense, glycosylation of the proteins have no way to modify interferon activation, you are terribly confused and think one similitude (shared with endless other viruses) explains completely different pathways of immune escape. In reality the case of HIV, the Vif protein mediates inhibition of IFN-α's anti-viral responses degradating the JAK/STAT signalling cascade. Reversing this is enough to defeat the viral infection, without ever touching glycosylation of the capsid proteins.

With both SARS-1 and MERS, a vaccine was never produced. Yes, there are "hopeful" vaccines, but none proven, approved, and in use. And its not my "assumption" about coronaviruses failing at long-term antibody production. Here's a 35 year long EU study confirming this: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439v2

Read again my comment, infection produce long lasting neutralizing antibodies, that is enough to prove your point mistaken because that would be impossible according to your mistaken understanding.

https://www.jimmunol.org/content/jimmunol/early/2011/05/16/jimmunol.0903490.full.pdf

The real reason why there are no vaccines is because there is no point (nor ethical way to get approval) for clinical studies to approve a vaccine against a disease that affects exactly 0 patients a year. Nevertheless preclinical studies have been successful in a wide variety of animals, nothings point toward immunity for long time being impossible to achieve.

Your failed assumption is thinking that coronaviruses that produce a very different disease automatically must mean all other coronaviruses would only be able to elicit the same response, that is where you are wrong.

We have failed to produce a dengue vaccine, does that mean that all other closely related flaviviruses are impossible to stop by vaccines? obviously no, because Yellow Fever and Japanese encephalitis are two very clear examples of safe and effective vaccines to extremely similar viruses (with glycosylated capsid proteins!)

Sure, other paths are possible, but its breaking new ground, particularly with such a new virus. Perhaps there's hope with activating someone's innate immunity on COVID-19 (as is the case with bats and this virus) but again, that's new ground and years to know. 

No, it is not breakground knowledge at all, it has been known for decades for other viruses like the LCMV,  and it explains a lot of the responses not dependent on NAbs levels for disease from rabies to influenza. Your position is precisely saying that for this new virus this very well known mechanism is impossible, while the professionals in charge of the vaccine development simply have to assume this can very well work also for this virus.

The best suggestion thus far is utilizing existing vaccines like for polio which can stimulate innate immunity and offer possible temporary protection, but its not a long-term sollution. Though trials are currently underway in several countries with polio vaccine.

No, that is not the best suggestion at all, the best suggestion is to develop a vaccine and test how effective and safe is, instead of blindly assuming that very specific explanations have to be true in general, even when they have been proved false. Inexact knowledge sometimes can be more dangerous than ignorance, because mistakes and false assumptions can make you reach wrong conclusions and the small amount of knowledge you have will make you overconfident on them. An ignorant person on the contrary can simply recognize the experts know more and even if he thinks differently he at least can recognize he can be wrong.

I vote for me and my family.

Understandably bracing myself for all the negative comments after this controversial idea, but here it goes…

first and foremost I entirely agree that the volunteers Who got dummy shots get first priority.

After that, forget the old people. They may be the most vulnerable, but they’re exactly that. Vulnerable, and nearing the end of the line. Focus on the babies and kids who would have to suffer the consequences and side effects for the rest of their lives after catching a virus that we don’t know anything about.

Then,

Consider geography and give priority to people where an outbreak is hitting hardest.

No. Consider the geography, yes. But not necessarily where an outbreak is hitting hardest, but start with affected countries that are least able to handle an epidemic due to war, crumbling economy, etc. Say, Syria, Yemen...

Why should the US get priority if they didn’t bother to do anything about it in the first place?

Raw BeerToday  10:03 am JST

This article implies that most people will want it. I say just give it to anyone willing to risk their health on it.

In the long run, any relatively young and healthy person will likely do better catching the virus than getting the vaccine.

Most people that have looked at the evidence labeled as "illogical conspiracies" by gatekeepers will stay away from these disease-causing vaccines.

Good to see there are some people on this forum pushing back against the official narrative. There are millions more, but you wouldn't know it if you relied on the mainstream media for news. Anyone who questions the need for universal vaccination, follows the money, and recognises this for the psychological warfare that it is, is brushed off as a "conspiracy theorist." Whatever.

By all means, anyone who wants to take a vaccine voluntarily, go for your life. But compulsory vaccination, or de facto compulsory vaccination through denying basic liberties for not taking it, is completely immoral and unnecessary.

Virusrex, I'm curious - have you volunteered or will you volunteer to be a coronavirus test subject? You seem very confident about the science.

First in line: Rupert Murdoch, Kanye, Amber Heard, Jared Kushner, Ghislaine Maxwell. God bless 'em!

Good to see there are some people on this forum pushing back against the official narrative. There are millions more, but you wouldn't know it if you relied on the mainstream media for news. Anyone who questions the need for universal vaccination, follows the money, and recognises this for the psychological warfare that it is, is brushed off as a "conspiracy theorist." Whatever.

Pushing against the official narrative is one thing, what antivaxxers do is deny scientific, objective data and replace it with proven lies, that is not productive, nor rational.

Fortunately they are a very tiny minority and they cannot longer prey on the people that don't know better as easily as in past decades, now there are countless resources that can be used to check the information and prove every false detail they use. There is no warfare in telling lies are lies, that is only an excuse of those that only have lies to defend their mistaken ideas.

And again, as every time the old trick of "profit" is used, vaccines are the worst thing that a pharmaceutical company can ever do if it only wanted profit, the money is in treating the patients, not in preventing the disease in the first place.

But compulsory vaccination, or de facto compulsory vaccination through denying basic liberties for not taking it, is completely immoral and unnecessary.

There is nothing wrong or immoral about restricting liberties when the people can only use them while putting others at risk according to valid objective information. this is just people that don't want to take responsibility for their actions, so they can act egotistically and avoid the valid consequences of doing it. Antivaxxers, mask-haters, people that don't like to wash their hands after going to the toilet, all want everybody to respect their liberty of infringing other people's liberty. It does not work like that.

And yes, protecting vulnerable people from being exposed to a higher risk is completely necessary.

Virusrex, I'm curious - have you volunteered or will you volunteer to be a coronavirus test subject? You seem very confident about the science.

Reducing the discussion to a personal issue is also another of the invalid ways for antivaxxers to deflect after being proved wrong. Once they run out of false arguments the only resource left are fallacies.

What answer to this question would make it fine to put others at risk? What if I said I have been included in 5 clinical trials? would that make you accept they are safe then? what if only 2? If a doctor say one of your family members is at risk of death because of a complicated delivery, how many times should the doctor need to have been pregnant for you to listen to him?

The science proves vaccines are a safe an effective health intervention that protect the life and health of people, this one has no reason to be different no matter how much you hate it. You don't want to be vaccinated with something proved to be safe and effective? perfectly fine, but so is not allowing you to put unnecessarily at risk other people because of that personal decision.

Virusrex, I'm curious - have you volunteered or will you volunteer to be a coronavirus test subject? You seem very confident about the science.

Reducing the discussion to a personal issue is also another of the invalid ways for antivaxxers to deflect after being proved wrong. Once they run out of false arguments the only resource left are fallacies. 

What answer to this question would make it fine to put others at risk? What if I said I have been included in 5 clinical trials? would that make you accept they are safe then? what if only 2? If a doctor say one of your family members is at risk of death because of a complicated delivery, how many times should the doctor need to have been pregnant for you to listen to him?

The science proves vaccines are a safe an effective health intervention that protect the life and health of people, this one has no reason to be different no matter how much you hate it. You don't want to be vaccinated with something proved to be safe and effective? perfectly fine, but so is not allowing you to put unnecessarily at risk other people because of that personal decision.

Nonsense. I'm simply asking you to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. You keep intentionally misrepresenting me, calling me an anti-vaxxer - which is patently false. I've had vaccines in the past with no noticeable side effects. And if one of these corona vaccines is proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be safe, I would consider taking it if I were in a high-risk group, and would not oppose family members and friends from doing the same. That's my position. Loud and clear. No room for misrepresentation.

If you have been involved in taking vaccines in clinical trials, great, I don't have a problem with that if you're telling the truth - and I have no reason to think you're lying about it. My question was regarding a vaccine for this particular virus. Yes or no. Simple question.

Nonsense. I'm simply asking you to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. You keep intentionally misrepresenting me, calling me an anti-vaxxer - which is patently false. 

Quote where I have called you an antivaxxer, I decribe validly what antivaxxers do and say, if you want to accept that you do and say things as the antivaxxers do you are free to do it, but it is not because I called you one. Antivaxxers lie, repeat those lies and are unable to accept science proves them wrong and instead use excuses constantly. People that do that are antivaxxers.

My question was regarding a vaccine for this particular virus. Yes or no. Simple question.

And again, that question has absolutely no importance, there are around 20 clinical trials for covid right now around the world, being overly optimistic lets say that 1000 volunteers are involved in each, a random person has around 1/390000 chances of being a volunteer, what would you think would prove if I was not one of those 20,000 people world wide? who would think that the only possibility is refusing as if being recruited was something common? it is not logical that you expect a terribly infrequent event to be of importance.

Let me ask you then a personal question then, I know its a ridiculous situation.

If someone believes that covering himself and his family on radioactive uranium powder safely prevents infections. Is it then fine with you to let this person keep his beliefs and do as he pleases? what if his kid sits next to yours at the school? his basic rights should be protected at the cost of an effect on others?

Pushing against the official narrative is one thing, what antivaxxers do is deny scientific, objective data and replace it with proven lies, that is not productive, nor rational.

No, "antivaxxers" use science to demonstrate how the provaxxers exaggerate (or make up) the alleged benefits of vaccines and deny the proven health hazards of vaccines.

Antivaxxers include a number of leading virologists. The provaxxers refuse to debate "antivaxxers", all they do is try to silence them or discredit them with baseless insults.

The science proves vaccines are a safe an effective health intervention that protect the life and health of people...

You are denying the science. Many have died, become paralyzed, or had their health ruined by vaccines; that cannot be refuted.

Vaccines are not proven safe and effective, they are only claimed to be, by greedy and corrupt corporations and government officials.

this one has no reason to be different no matter how much you hate it.

Yes, that I agree with. There is no reason to believe that this vaccine will be any better... except for the fact that they are rushing things...

Virusrex, you are clearly insinuating that I'm an anti-vaxxer in your response. Claiming otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

You seem uncomfortable answering a straight question, and go off on a tangent saying how many studies are underway, which is irrelevant to what I asked. All you'd have to do is say you're not interested in volunteering, or that yes, you are. I wasn't asking you to say which one, or what are your odds of being selected. It's merely a question of intentions.

If someone believes that covering himself and his family on radioactive uranium powder safely prevents infections. Is it then fine with you to let this person keep his beliefs and do as he pleases? what if his kid sits next to yours at the school? his basic rights should be protected at the cost of an effect on others?

This is a ridiculous analogy and doesn't warrant any further response.

If someone believes that covering himself and his family on radioactive uranium powder safely prevents infections. Is it then fine with you to let this person keep his beliefs and do as he pleases?

I actually find this is an excellent analogy for vaccines. Imagine is scientists brought up scientific research showing that covering yourself with radioactive powder caused cancer, but gatekeepers respond by saying they were science deniers spreading proven lies. And imagine if government research funding was controlled by corrupt and greedy officials who insisted that uranium powder was safe and effective and whoever made any claim linking the powder to cancer was silenced and their videos deleted....

No, "antivaxxers" use science to demonstrate how the provaxxers exaggerate (or make up) the alleged benefits of vaccines and deny the proven health hazards of vaccines.

No, that is false, antivaxxers by definition are denialist of science, they misrepresent and falsify science but that is easy to prove with a minimum of reading from valid sources. This has happened even here with frequency, people with valid, scientific specific concerns are not antivaxxers, nor they use those invalid arguments.

Antivaxxers include a number of leading virologists. The provaxxers refuse to debate "antivaxxers", all they do is try to silence them or discredit them with baseless insults.

Not even one I can think of, how about giving some names? "a number of" can actually mean "0".

There is no need to debate people that go as low as willingly use lies as arguments, just by proving they lie is enough to safely discard all their arguments. They discredit themselves by doing it without need of anybody to help them.

You are denying the science. Many have died, become paralyzed, or had their health ruined by vaccines; that cannot be refuted.

No, many have blamed vaccines only very few have actually demonstrated it, and more importantly a hugely more important number of people have lost their health and lives because of the diseases prevented by vaccines.

The science is clear, vaccines may not be perfect (nothing is) but they are a much better option than the natural infection. The ones that deny science are those unable to accept this objective fact. Antivaxxers are unable to understand this.

Vaccines are not proven safe and effective, they are only claimed to be, by greedy and corrupt corporations and government officials.

On the contrary, vaccines in general have an extremely well documented record of safety and efficacy, each individual one with endless reports with very detailed data to prove it, as required during clinical trials.

The ones that only claim, but have no data to prove their points, are the antivaxxers. That is why their personal beliefs are considered ascientific and not worthy of be given attention.

They could prove vaccines are not safe with a well written scientific report, peer reviewed and included in a listed journal. But unsurprisingly all they do is invalidly manipulate small numbers and give irrational arguments.

And again, any greedy company do much better without vaccines than with them, in comparison treatment is a much better business, so that argument do not make sense, even if repeated endlessly.

Yes, that I agree with. There is no reason to believe that this vaccine will be any better... except for the fact that they are rushing things

It is perfectly possible that any of the many vaccines developed now are safe and efficient, because there is no need to rush anything for a vaccine for next year. That is a false argument.

@virusrex,

I know little about disease and immunology, but I find your response to divinda's posts unhelpful. She posts a link to a paper that from what I can see bears out the comment about long-term antibody production. You also post a link to a paper that from what I can see is far less certain in its conclusions than you are. It may be you're absolutely right, but the certainty of your opinions doesn't follow the doubts and uncertainties that we generally find listed in scientific papers. You'd be more convincing if you indicated an understanding of others' opinions. Sorry if I seem to be lecturing, but I'd like to be better informed, and frankly, your posts are not always so helpful in that regard.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

Virusrex, you are clearly insinuating that I'm an anti-vaxxer in your response. Claiming otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

Again, I have not done so, antivaxxers are lousy in their discussions and lose them all the time, that is why they try to discuss people.

I discuss the arguments, that are invalid, false, mistaken. You could be an antivaxxer or the president of a vaccine company, the arguments I criticize would still be wrong for the reasons I have written.

You seem uncomfortable answering a straight question, and go off on a tangent saying how many studies are underway, which is irrelevant to what I asked. All you'd have to do is say you're not interested in volunteering, or that yes, you are. I wasn't asking you to say which one, or what are your odds of being selected. It's merely a question of intentions.

Again, not being selected as one of the 20,000 out of 8 billion people depends on many other things apart from lack of interest. Do you also think people do not win the lottery because they are not interested in it? That is not an argument, is an excuse.

This is a ridiculous analogy and doesn't warrant any further response.

I said it was ridiculous, but not as an analogy, because if fulfills the purpose without problem, it is ridiculous only because it goes straight into the cognitive dissonance of antivaxxer beliefs and makes them criticize their own position unwillingly.

I actually find this is an excellent analogy for vaccines. Imagine is scientists brought up scientific research showing that covering yourself with radioactive powder caused cancer, but gatekeepers respond by saying they were science deniers spreading proven lies. And imagine if government research funding was controlled by corrupt and greedy officials who insisted that uranium powder was safe and effective and whoever made any claim linking the powder to cancer was silenced and their videos deleted.

Imagine this is what the uranium guy says, that radioactivity is actually good for you, but all governments of the world are in a conspiracy to hide it, that every doctor, nurse, researcher is in it, and they even kill their own families for profit, but a few one like him know that uranium is good and that is why you have to let him do as he pleases, he cannot prove anything of course, but for him that is not important.

So, his conspiracy theory makes it fine now for him to do as he wants?

Imagining that every single research institution of the world, every doctor, nurse, researcher is willing to poison their friends and families just so their bosses (not even themselves) can get more money is an even more ridiculous proposition. How much money would be enough for you to do it?

And how comes the very few people that go against these world wide reported facts are only those that have been proved to lie for personal benefit? millions lying and sacrificing their children is not more likely than a few known crooks doing it again for personal profit.

I know little about disease and immunology, but I find your response to divinda's posts unhelpful. She posts a link to a paper that from what I can see bears out the comment about long-term antibody production. You also post a link to a paper that from what I can see is far less certain in its conclusions than you are.

The point is to show that something that was invalidly assumed as impossible actually do happen, it is not the only argument for long lasting immunity, but only one of many others that I have listed. There is nothing uncertain about any of the two papers, both have their results well described and their methodology is sound, both can be perfectly true and do not contradict each other, The point is that not finding one response in some patients do not mean this response is not there, nor that this is the only one important for immunity.

It may be you're absolutely right, but the certainty of your opinions doesn't follow the doubts and uncertainties that we generally find listed in scientific papers. You'd be more convincing if you indicated an understanding of others' opinions. Sorry if I seem to be lecturing, but I'd like to be better informed, and frankly, your posts are not always so helpful in that regard.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

Which is exactly the criticism. The conclusion I criticize comes from very limited and sometimes mistaken information and ends up as a overgeneralizing argument that is presented as much more certain that what it really is justified.

I present other results and corrections that prove that the conclusion that "it is impossible for covid vaccines to provide long lasting protection" is not the only possibility and can be wrong.

Your criticism would be appropriate if my position is that there is only possible for a vaccine to protect for life, but that is not my point at all, my point is that this absolute certainty has no foundation. Proving a mechanism is not happening on very different diseases is not the same as saying it is not going to happen for this one, specially when the most closely related disease actually gives protection after natural infection.

In short, being so sure that vaccines cannot be useful is not justified by science and is only a misunderstanding from incomplete knowledge. The real consensus is that a vaccine for covid may (or may not) give long lasted protection without it being surprising at all.

virusrexToday  04:19 pm JST

Virusrex, you are clearly insinuating that I'm an anti-vaxxer in your response. Claiming otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

Again, I have not done so, antivaxxers are lousy in their discussions and lose them all the time, that is why they try to discuss people. 

I discuss the arguments, that are invalid, false, mistaken. You could be an antivaxxer or the president of a vaccine company, the arguments I criticize would still be wrong for the reasons I have written.

Again, you're avoiding the issue, and are trying guilt by association because you constantly use the term "anti-vaxxer" in your responses, knowing my position, without actually answering my question.

I will call your credibility into question. On this site you have assumed the role of vaccine/pharmaceutical expert, and that's fine. But you're not above reproach. When I've asked you as above to state whether you would be willing to volunteer to be a test subject in a coronavirus clinical trial (in principle, not specifically which one), you keep ducking the question. Odds and numbers are irrelevant. If you can't give a straight yes or no answer, it's reasonable to assume that you're not comfortable about being a test subject for this virus. It's not important whether you're selected or not; it's the principle.

If the answer is no, what are you concerned about? If the CEO of a pharmaceutical company were asked point blank whether a particular product, say a vaccine, is safe but would not give a clear, straightforward answer, would you question the product's safety and the CEO's credibility?

Is Hu first? (quoting an old comic)  . . . the numbers of newly infected in China are quite low, https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=xUYpX4fiC4n8tAXD1aiICA&q=china%2C+coronavirus+graph&oq=china%2C+coronavirus+graph&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOggIABCxAxCDAToLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6BQgAELEDOg4ILhCxAxCDARDHARCjAjoRCC4QsQMQgwEQxwEQowIQkwI6CAguELEDEIMBOgIILjoICC4QxwEQowI6DgguELEDEMcBEKMCEJMCOgUILhCxAzoICC4QxwEQrwE6CAguELEDEJMCOgoIABCxAxCDARAKULsZWL1XYMtZaABwAHgAgAF7iAGaEpIBBTE0LjEwmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjH2PmguYHrAhUJPq0KHcMqCoEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5#spf=1596540625721