Should we take another hard look?
-
@jon-nyc said in Should we take another hard look?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Should we take another hard look?:
When we politicize science that heavily, we're done for. What's next, pro/con covid vaccine along political lines?
I can almost see it happening, because Trump will likely be pushing for pre-election approval of the mRNA vaccine, which will cause the (not entirely unjustified) counter reaction about it being a brand new untested technology etc.
What that scenario has going against it is that Trumpists seem to make up a good chunk of the 50% who say they won’t take a Covid vaccine at all.
I think Trump is going to push for large trials, not a full roll-out. I could be wrong.
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
@jon-nyc said in Should we take another hard look?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Should we take another hard look?:
When we politicize science that heavily, we're done for. What's next, pro/con covid vaccine along political lines?
I can almost see it happening, because Trump will likely be pushing for pre-election approval of the mRNA vaccine, which will cause the (not entirely unjustified) counter reaction about it being a brand new untested technology etc.
What that scenario has going against it is that Trumpists seem to make up a good chunk of the 50% who say they won’t take a Covid vaccine at all.
I think Trump is going to push for large trials, not a full roll-out. I could be wrong.
There’s an n=30k trial going on now. Though the endpoints are listed at 2 years (Oct 2022, given the lag time of getting 30k people stuck from a 7/20 start), the FDA has made lots of noises about granting pre-approval at the 6 month mark if all is going well.
I think Trump will push hard for a late October approval, or at least some creative rebranding of the trial status to make it seem like a pre-election victory.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Yes and no. Both China and a Russia have an ‘approved’ vaccine. But they’re basically doing phase 3 with a different name - ‘limited rollout’.
True, they’ll hit a bigger N and will show safety and efficacy earlier. But (a) we won’t necessarily be able to trust their data and (b) the drugs aren’t identical, so it doesn’t help us approve ours any quicker.
-
Yes and no. Both China and a Russia have an ‘approved’ vaccine. But they’re basically doing phase 3 with a different name - ‘limited rollout’.
True, they’ll hit a bigger N and will show safety and efficacy earlier. But (a) we won’t necessarily be able to trust their data and (b) the drugs aren’t identical, so it doesn’t help us approve ours any quicker.
@jon-nyc said in Should we take another hard look?:
Yes and no. Both China and a Russia have an ‘approved’ vaccine. But they’re basically doing phase 3 with a different name - ‘limited rollout’.
True, they’ll hit a bigger N and will show safety and efficacy earlier. But (a) we won’t necessarily be able to trust their data and (b) the drugs aren’t identical, so it doesn’t help us approve ours any quicker.
I am talking about pressure to move fast. Results will go viral even if people challenge them. We going to just sit there? Really? I doubt it.
-
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
At an old drug?
Why give "the media" power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?
For that matter, why give any politician power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?Let the medical establishment do their thing and you pay attention to the medical establishment. The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, the revered academic journals ... pay attention to those.
Yeah, from time to time, they make mistakes.
But they are still a lot than "the media", a lot better than just about any politician. -
As if on cue.
But it’s the AZ. Probably a wiser choice, it’s the one the Russians stole so it’s gotten more testing.
-
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
@jon-nyc said in Should we take another hard look?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Should we take another hard look?:
When we politicize science that heavily, we're done for. What's next, pro/con covid vaccine along political lines?
I can almost see it happening, because Trump will likely be pushing for pre-election approval of the mRNA vaccine, which will cause the (not entirely unjustified) counter reaction about it being a brand new untested technology etc.
What that scenario has going against it is that Trumpists seem to make up a good chunk of the 50% who say they won’t take a Covid vaccine at all.
I think Trump is going to push for large trials, not a full roll-out. I could be wrong.
There’s an n=30k trial going on now. Though the endpoints are listed at 2 years (Oct 2022, given the lag time of getting 30k people stuck from a 7/20 start), the FDA has made lots of noises about granting pre-approval at the 6 month mark if all is going well.
I think Trump will push hard for a late October approval, or at least some creative rebranding of the trial status to make it seem like a pre-election victory.
@jon-nyc said in Should we take another hard look?:
I think Trump will push hard for a late October approval, or at least some creative rebranding of the trial status to make it seem like a pre-election victory.
From the CNBC piece:
One option, according to the FT report, would involve the U.S. Food and Drug Administration awarding “emergency use authorization” for the vaccine, which was developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca.
-
Oh wow. The administration told GOP lawmakers they would approve a vaccine before the election but weren’t sure which one. AZ is just considered the best candidate.
-
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
At an old drug?
Why give "the media" power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?
For that matter, why give any politician power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?Let the medical establishment do their thing and you pay attention to the medical establishment. The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, the revered academic journals ... pay attention to those.
Yeah, from time to time, they make mistakes.
But they are still a lot than "the media", a lot better than just about any politician.@Axtremus said in Should we take another hard look?:
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
At an old drug?
Why give "the media" power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?
For that matter, why give any politician power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?Let the medical establishment do their thing and you pay attention to the medical establishment. The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, the revered academic journals ... pay attention to those.
Yeah, from time to time, they make mistakes.
But they are still a lot than "the media", a lot better than just about any politician.Lad, if you don't think politics enter into the world of Big Pharma, you are naive.
