competition of qualifications. Regardless, given the background you stated, you should have mostly no problem at all if any following what they are discussing re: epitopes, genomes, etc. It mostly requires understanding ideas related to viruses and their genomes at a schematic level, not at the level of their biochemical structure, though that is hinted at on occasion. (I only mention biochemistry in this manner because, though it is important to why things are the way they are, its inclusion might serve to obscure the over-arching discussion of what is happening at a more coarse-grained conceptual scale. It is not intended as a taunt. The more important structures for the purposes of their discussion are at the level of the virus and its genome.)
Regarding the earlier comment you made on contemporary data from China: what sort of current data are you suggesting that they obtain and what sort of sources would be sufficiently credible? Unless it is being suggested that some sort of Chinese whistleblower will come forth with a set of government documents outlining a direct sequence of events leading to the outbreak, it is hard to imagine what would be being sought. The data to which I am referring was collected in situ in Wuhan roughly five years ago. There is no contemporary form of that data and cannot be. So, I have no idea what sort of data you might wish to be collected.
I still highly recommend that you watch the linked video if you want to understand the state of the situation. Keep in mind how many died as a result of misinformed takes on vaccinology and virology. I would suggest that it is too important an issue to discard.
Lastly, regarding a comment on the most recent briefing on China (the one from 1/7/25): it is not strictly true that no vaccines have been "developed" for hMPV. (Also, I think you might have inadvertently fused RSV and hMPV into "RMPV" in your comment.) Sanofi Pasteur is working on one that is to be in testing:
Study to Evaluate the Safety and Immune Response of an Investigational Vaccine for the Prevention of RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) and (hMPV) Human Metapneumovirus Infection in Participants Aged 60 to 75 Years
Study Overview
Brief Summary
VAV00039 is a first-in-human (FiH) study to assess the safety and immunogenicity (in adult participants aged 60-75 years) after a single injection of different dose formulations of an RSV/hMPV vaccine candidate and RSV vaccine.
Detailed Description
The duration of participation will be approximately 6 months for each participant.
Official Title
A Phase 1, Randomized, Modified Double-blind, Multi-center, Parallel Group, Multi-arm Study to Investigate the Safety and Immunogenicity of an RSV/hMPV Vaccine Candidate in Adult Participants Aged 60 to 75 Years
...
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06583031?term=hMPV&rank=1
So, yes, there are no currently approved vaccines for hMPV as far as I know, but there is, at least, one candidate that has been developed and is to be in testing later this year.
If you ever want to check on what is being investigated or what is to be investigated, the US government clinical trials website is (at present anyway) a good source:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
We'll have to see if that survives the Trump Administration.
= new reply since forum marked as read