More vaccine drama
-
wrote on 4 Sept 2020, 17:30 last edited by
It really doesn't matter what he does or does not do. He'll be damned for it anyway. There are new stories going around now about how he called WWII dead suckers and war amputees losers. Anonymous attribution, as always.
-
wrote on 4 Sept 2020, 19:08 last edited by
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31866-3/fulltext
Lancet publishes Sputnik.
-
wrote on 4 Sept 2020, 21:43 last edited by
Russia is making great progress on the vaccine and administering to high risk folks as well as volunteers.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Putin leads the world on this.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/health/russia-vaccine-immune-response-intl/index.html
-
Russia is making great progress on the vaccine and administering to high risk folks as well as volunteers.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Putin leads the world on this.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/health/russia-vaccine-immune-response-intl/index.html
wrote on 4 Sept 2020, 21:52 last edited by@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
Russia is making great progress on the vaccine and administering to high risk folks as well as volunteers.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Putin leads the world on this.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/health/russia-vaccine-immune-response-intl/index.html
High risk, high reward.
-
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
Loki you are sidestepping the obvious problem that will occur if he is seen overruling the scientists for some marginal political gain. That will destroy a great deal of confidence in the vaccine and set herd immunity and recovery back significantly.
Loki you have now twice sidestepped this point.
Care to address it?
Trust is a big problem for sure. I am less interested in political gain than I am on the economy. If a Covid is the existential threat to life that we have discussed for months we have a moral obligation to use extraordinary means to save those lives.
On some level telling old people to wait for safety, you might die, seems really cold.
wrote on 5 Sept 2020, 02:43 last edited by@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
Loki you are sidestepping the obvious problem that will occur if he is seen overruling the scientists for some marginal political gain. That will destroy a great deal of confidence in the vaccine and set herd immunity and recovery back significantly.
Loki you have now twice sidestepped this point.
Care to address it?
Trust is a big problem for sure. I am less interested in political gain than I am on the economy.
Economic recovery requires decent take-up, IOW, more confidence not less. Trump overruling scientists in order to score some electoral points isn't going to help confidence.
-
wrote on 5 Sept 2020, 03:19 last edited by jon-nyc 9 May 2020, 03:21
Wow. Vaccine makers are preparing a joint statement
telling Trump to eat a bag of dickssaying they won’t seek approval until safety standards are met.Looks like they want to actually sell some of these.
-
wrote on 5 Sept 2020, 19:41 last edited by
I'm pretty sure that Mr. Trump wants everyone in the country to become autistic.
A crazy non-scientific vaccine would be just the right way for him to do it.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 15:40 last edited by
Russia publishes vaccine data:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/health/russia-covid-vaccine.html
-
@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
Loki you are sidestepping the obvious problem that will occur if he is seen overruling the scientists for some marginal political gain. That will destroy a great deal of confidence in the vaccine and set herd immunity and recovery back significantly.
Loki you have now twice sidestepped this point.
Care to address it?
Trust is a big problem for sure. I am less interested in political gain than I am on the economy.
Economic recovery requires decent take-up, IOW, more confidence not less. Trump overruling scientists in order to score some electoral points isn't going to help confidence.
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 15:44 last edited by Jolly 9 Jul 2020, 15:44@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
Loki you are sidestepping the obvious problem that will occur if he is seen overruling the scientists for some marginal political gain. That will destroy a great deal of confidence in the vaccine and set herd immunity and recovery back significantly.
Loki you have now twice sidestepped this point.
Care to address it?
Trust is a big problem for sure. I am less interested in political gain than I am on the economy.
Economic recovery requires decent take-up, IOW, more confidence not less. Trump overruling scientists in order to score some electoral points isn't going to help confidence.
That's why we vote for the Senile Man?
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 15:59 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 16:06 last edited by@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 17:32 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 17:38 last edited by
More deaths means more Social Security for me
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 18:24 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 19:05 last edited by
Who’s locked down anymore?
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 19:15 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 21:55 last edited by
Old people are voluntarily locked down.
They are terrified.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 22:05 last edited by
You’re a certified old person, are you terrified?
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2020, 22:47 last edited by
No, my mother is. She is healthy at age 92, but is apprehensive about being around people. She hasn't been to church for months, usually she never misses. She will walk around the block with a mask on.
-
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?
wrote on 22 Sept 2020, 17:38 last edited by@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?
