More vaccine drama
-
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
That’s why we don’t subordinate the safety standards for the marginal electoral benefit of a political candidate, whether he be a stable genius or a senile old man.
The real question is what is the fastest we can move to prevent 1000 deaths a day.
@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
That’s why we don’t subordinate the safety standards for the marginal electoral benefit of a political candidate, whether he be a stable genius or a senile old man.
The real question is what is the fastest we can move to prevent 1000 deaths a day.
Ban people from being fatasses...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htmYou are allotted 2000 calories per day. Those that exceed will be punished.
-
@Copper said in More vaccine drama:
More deaths means more Social Security for me
It’s not working out that way. More people without jobs means less pay in and more downward adjustments to social security.
There is no winning the lockdown game except if your end game is Biden, the democrats and running their experiments on the utopia they envision for us.
-
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
Who’s locked down anymore?
You think life approaches anything approximating normal? This obsession with Trump masks the real fallout from Covid that will severely impact a generation of work ready kids. Wait until they see what their prospects are.
-
So two weeks ago it seems like the administrations plan was to give pre-eleciton approval to the Oxford/AZ vaccine. It seems like a reasonable contender for safety, since it's using a well proven approach (not to mention the Russians stole it and are dosing lots of people with it).
The problem is they didn't even register a P3 trial in the US until late August.
So now the administration is looking at two other vaccines for pre-election approval. Moderna and Pfizer. Both are messenger RNA vaccines, a technology that's never been used before.
Note that a pre-election approval date seems to be the constant here, only the vaccines they're looking at have changed.
There's a committee that approves vaccines, called the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC. They have a meeting scheduled for the 22nd of October, but no applications for approval are on the agenda.
I looked at the membership of that committee, the newest members all started 2/1/20, so we can assume they're actual scientists, not political sycophants. I doubt they share the Whitehouse's imperative of late October approval when safety considerations would demand another month or two of time.
Dr Peter Marks runs the biologics division of the FDA, which is where vaccines are approved (a different division than the 'drug' approval side of the FDA). He has said he'll resign if the politics trumps the science in this. (He's a serious guy, my foundation has dealt with him directly since our main treatment is a plasma based product.)
Nevertheless, Trump's appointee at the FDA can overrule him and the committee, and the political head of HHS can overrule the FDA completely.
Its worth noting that literally everybody is in favor of early approval. The actual P3 trials for Moderna don't conclude until late 2022. Not a typo. The study protocol continues for 2 years.
But earlier in the summer, or maybe late spring, the FDA came out with minimum guidelines for covid vaccine approval. They defined a relatively low bar on efficacy (50%, with lower bound on the confidence interval being 30%) in order to speed up the trial. (it takes time for the control group to get enough infections to establish robust efficacy statistics).
On the safety side, there was less of a compromise. I think none at all. They require the companies to monitor 'serious and medically attended adverse effects' for 6 months past dosing. Potentially more if it's a novel vaccine platform, say messenger RNA which has never been tried before
It is on this basis that Fauci and others have said early 2021 for emergency approval. The P3 trials of the major contenders got up and running in July or so.
Note that you can speed up efficacy testing by increasing the number of people dosed. If you dosed enough people, you could have efficacy results in a month.
But you can't throw bodies at safety results, any more than 3 pregnant women can produce a baby in 3 months. It might simply take time for adverse reactions to appear.
So, will Trump force a pre-election approval before the safety data are in?
And what if he does? We've already seen polling data about wariness towards the vaccine. How would this effect it?
In previous surveys, people on the left were more open to the vaccine than people on the right. Surely Trump overruling scientists who then resign would cause a rethink on the left. Would people on the right who are more skeptical become less so?
If you zoom out far enough, true vaccine efficacy - creating herd immunity - is really the product of two numbers: the technical efficacy of the vaccine and people's confidence in it - i.e. the percentage of people who are willing to take it.
How much damage is he willing to do to that confidence number for a pre-election 'victory'? Will he even take the time to understand the tradeoff?
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
So, will Trump force a pre-election approval before the safety data are in?
And what if he does? We've already seen polling data about wariness towards the vaccine. How would this effect it?
In previous surveys, people on the left were more open to the vaccine than people on the right. Surely Trump overruling scientists who then resign would cause a rethink on the left. Would people on the right who are more skeptical become less so?
If you zoom out far enough, true vaccine efficacy - creating herd immunity - is really the product of two numbers: the technical efficacy of the vaccine and people's confidence in it - i.e. the percentage of people who are willing to take it.
How much damage is he willing to do to that confidence number for a pre-election 'victory'? Will he even take the time to understand the tradeoff?
-
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
So, will Trump force a pre-election approval before the safety data are in?
And what if he does? We've already seen polling data about wariness towards the vaccine. How would this effect it?
In previous surveys, people on the left were more open to the vaccine than people on the right. Surely Trump overruling scientists who then resign would cause a rethink on the left. Would people on the right who are more skeptical become less so?
If you zoom out far enough, true vaccine efficacy - creating herd immunity - is really the product of two numbers: the technical efficacy of the vaccine and people's confidence in it - i.e. the percentage of people who are willing to take it.
How much damage is he willing to do to that confidence number for a pre-election 'victory'? Will he even take the time to understand the tradeoff?@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
So, will Trump force a pre-election approval before the safety data are in?
And what if he does? We've already seen polling data about wariness towards the vaccine. How would this effect it?
In previous surveys, people on the left were more open to the vaccine than people on the right. Surely Trump overruling scientists who then resign would cause a rethink on the left. Would people on the right who are more skeptical become less so?
If you zoom out far enough, true vaccine efficacy - creating herd immunity - is really the product of two numbers: the technical efficacy of the vaccine and people's confidence in it - i.e. the percentage of people who are willing to take it.
How much damage is he willing to do to that confidence number for a pre-election 'victory'? Will he even take the time to understand the tradeoff?Well if this is true we can just put the pandemic end date into Q1 of 2022. People are really dumb but we already knew that. But of course they will spend all cycles around the politics of a vaccine. Just get it out there so I can take it.
-
As pressure for coronavirus vaccine mounts, scientists debate risks of accelerated testing
Behind the scenes, scientists and medical experts are concerned that rushing a vaccine could end up worsening the infection in some patients rather than preventing it.
Studies have suggested that coronavirus vaccines carry the risk of what is known as vaccine enhancement, where instead of protecting against infection, the vaccine can actually make the disease worse when a vaccinated person is infected with the virus. The mechanism that causes that risk is not fully understood and is one of the stumbling blocks that has prevented the successful development of a coronavirus vaccine.
Let's give it to Mikey
He hates everything
-
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
So, will Trump force a pre-election approval before the safety data are in?
And what if he does? We've already seen polling data about wariness towards the vaccine. How would this effect it?
In previous surveys, people on the left were more open to the vaccine than people on the right. Surely Trump overruling scientists who then resign would cause a rethink on the left. Would people on the right who are more skeptical become less so?
If you zoom out far enough, true vaccine efficacy - creating herd immunity - is really the product of two numbers: the technical efficacy of the vaccine and people's confidence in it - i.e. the percentage of people who are willing to take it.
How much damage is he willing to do to that confidence number for a pre-election 'victory'? Will he even take the time to understand the tradeoff?Well if this is true we can just put the pandemic end date into Q1 of 2022. People are really dumb but we already knew that. But of course they will spend all cycles around the politics of a vaccine. Just get it out there so I can take it.
@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
Just get it out there so I can take it.
Exactly. If enough people are dumb enough not to take it, that should ensure one will be available for me! LOL
(or even two doses as I have heard that some people say two will be required.)
