 Designated quarantine rights have continued for a third consecutive day and winter rations are at an all-time low. So we have, Ellie, she has an armbite. Could, bearing in mind what we know about this world, so let's assume there's not a great deal of science there, could we take a sample of tissue or something from her armbite and use that to grow up a vaccine of some sort? Not a chance. No? No. Why not? That's not how the vaccine or the immune system works. If she didn't get infected right at the point of the exposure, it's not her immune system that got that sorted. It's the fact that she's not susceptible, and not being susceptible is very different to not to being protected by an immune response from your immune system. Not being susceptible, for example, is the case of some people cannot get HIV because HIV, to come into your cells, your T cells, has to bind to receptor to a protein on your cell, and that allows it to come in. And there's a few percentage of people in the world that actually have a mutation in that protein and the bug cannot. So they don't have to lock the viral key? Yes, exactly. That's the first way. That is, let's say, non-susceptible. That's one way. The other way to be protected from any disease is basically, and that's where maybe the incubation period is important, you can get an infection. Let's say you get a wound and you get an infection, and some people with a different immune system than yours would be in very big disease, and you not. And that may be because your immune system had had the time to come, make the antibodies and protect and then eliminate the disease, and another immune system might not. More or less, we all resistant or we can make antibodies to anything that come in, providing we have the time for that. And there's some of genetic background in us that makes that can be different. Some people can make less of certain types of antibodies than others, if I simplify a bit. So do you think, I mean, you mentioned, so let's say that she has had the time and she is producing antibodies to protect herself. Could we purify the sort of plasma or the serum from her blood and use that? If she has antibodies, yes. Then you could identify the antibodies in the blood. You could use the antibodies. What I would do is to identify what is the target on the bug, what is the protein or the sugar or whatever on the bug, and then use that piece to produce my vaccine. If you would want to take these antibodies to protect other people, that's also possible. I mean, Ebola is a case where people were just transfusing from other people that recovered from Ebola. Yes, you can use that to the amount that there's a certain amount of... There's only a certain amount of blood in Ellie's body, I suppose, and you could say, yes, okay, she needs time to recuperate. But having her antibodies, there's now relatively recent techniques. Yes, you could use her blood to make antibodies, so that would be a sort of treatment by actually taking the B cells, the lymphocytes that produce the antibodies. The antibodies are produced by cells called B cells, and it is possible if you identified what is the antibody that actually is able to stop the bug. You want to find the exact sequence, the genetic sequence that allows your cell to make that antibody, and then you can manufacture that antibody. Okay, so she's infected, so that's a different scenario again. There's not being susceptible, they've been protected, so your antibodies kill the bug, and in this case, she's infected, but not developing the disease. That's also something different. That is fine, if you create a vaccine, some vaccine, yeah, if you create a vaccine that does that, that's okay. I mean, what you care is everybody not dying or not getting sick, not necessarily whether they're infected or not. Does it matter if everybody's getting infected, but they're not sick? I mean, most of us maybe have a CMV infection, but we don't get sick about it, so that's all right. CMV, C2 megalovirus? Cytomegalovirus, okay. So we take her to our resource pool, but appropriate for the period research center. How long would it take to develop something that they could inject into me to prevent me getting infected with the fungus? What steps would we have to go through? Let's say it's very briefly go through. Briefly? Yeah, let's say in a few sentences. What steps do you have to go through? Briefly, it's difficult. Really? Okay. You have to, yeah, identify the strategy you're going to come up with. Probably you would try a few different strategies. You need a system to grow your bug safely and see whether the antibodies or whatever you find in her can block the replication of the virus. So you need, for example, a cell line where you can grow the bug and then put her serum in and see if her serum kills the bug or actually prevents it from killing the cells, where the bug is coming in, these sort of things. I'm afraid I have to touch that. You may need an animal model to sort of test your... Yes, I don't know. Well, in this instance, they might try and grow in humans. It seems like her humanity has... Well, if they try to grow in humans, that's more of an ethical issue. Well, let's talk about that as well. I think that's something we need to discuss. That's a big issue. That means that, let's say, to have an idea for vaccine is relatively quick. We have many vaccine delivery platforms that we can try. And if it was me, I would try quite a few of them. Try to work in vitro and identify what is needed to stop that bug. And then you go in vivo experiments to, let's say, you develop your vaccine, you have to check whether it protects or not before you... Because I take a little bit of the bug, you're not going to immunize the whole... Just because you object to me, doesn't mean it'll do anything at all. Exactly. So you have to check that. Exactly. So you have to check that the response you're inducing is actually able to stop the infection or the disease. And then you need, yes, a model, an animal model. In my mind, it's better than using humans, but okay, we're in dire situation. Then it's an ethics point of discussion. Well, let's shift over a little bit. But if I finish on the timing thing, what we call the pre-clinical, so before you test your vaccine in a human can take... In the best case scenario, I'd say two years and in the normal scenario, it's five, ten years. Ten years, potentially ten years. Well, look at HIV, for example. How long are we? 20 years? Yeah, 20, 30 years, probably. 30 years. And we don't... Well, we have things in clinical trials, but not a product. So it really depends on the complexity of the bug and the complexity of fighting it, or finding ways to fight it, and how the bug reacts to the fight. Some bugs just mutate. You have an antibody that blocks it, and then the next generation, it's mutated. So that is a very big, big, big deal. So typically, we do say vaccine developers that if we're given a disease, yeah, it takes ten years. Ten years is an optimistic... So we face a black for 20 years later, and we face a black for 30 years later, potentially. I'd say it would be a necessarily meningitis. I think a Novartis started in 1999 or something, and the vaccine came out last year, or was born in the UK last year. So you see that was a complicated bug, but you see the timeline is... It's elongated. It can be shortened, let's say, take Ebola. There was some preclinical stuff done in the early 2000s, probably, I don't know, for five years, maybe. And then when the Ebola outbreak came out, then one was able to use that knowledge and go to clinic within one year or two. When there's an emergency, you can put much more speed, I guess. What the fuck are you doing? Keep walking. I said keep walking!