FDA Panel Recommends Approval of Pfizer's Covid Vaccine For Emergency Use (cnbc.com) 152
A key Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday recommended the approval of Pfizer and BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine for emergency use in people over 16 years old, the last step before the FDA gives the final OK to broadly distribute the first doses throughout the United States. CNBC reports: If the FDA accepts the nonbinding recommendation from the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee -- which is expected -- it would mark a pivotal moment in the Covid-19 pandemic, which has infected more than 15.4 million people and killed roughly 290,000 in the U.S. in less than a year. The committee plays a key role in approving flu and other vaccines in the U.S., verifying the shots are safe for public use. While the FDA doesn't have to follow the advisory committee's recommendation, it often does.
The FDA could grant emergency use authorization of Pfizer's vaccine as early as Friday, James Hildreth, a member of the committee, told NBC's "Weekend Today" on Saturday. An emergency use authorization, or EUA, generally allows a drug or vaccine to be administered to a limited population or setting, such as to hospitalized patients, as the agency continues to evaluate safety data. It's unclear whether the FDA will authorize Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine for use in certain groups. Some people, including pregnant women and young children, will likely have to wait to get the vaccine in the U.S. until Pfizer can finish trials on those specific groups. The FDA said Tuesday that there is currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in children under age 16, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems. Regulators in Canada, the U.K. and Bahrain have all cleared the vaccine for use by most adults.
The FDA could grant emergency use authorization of Pfizer's vaccine as early as Friday, James Hildreth, a member of the committee, told NBC's "Weekend Today" on Saturday. An emergency use authorization, or EUA, generally allows a drug or vaccine to be administered to a limited population or setting, such as to hospitalized patients, as the agency continues to evaluate safety data. It's unclear whether the FDA will authorize Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine for use in certain groups. Some people, including pregnant women and young children, will likely have to wait to get the vaccine in the U.S. until Pfizer can finish trials on those specific groups. The FDA said Tuesday that there is currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in children under age 16, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems. Regulators in Canada, the U.K. and Bahrain have all cleared the vaccine for use by most adults.
It was not unanimous. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It was not unanimous. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, especially after the UK is seeing cases of anaphylaxis [reuters.com] after people get the first shot. This condition does happen in other vaccines, but the UK has recommended people with a history of anaphylaxis to a medicine or food should not get the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Anaphylaxis is an overreaction of the body’s immune system, which the National Health Service describes as severe and sometimes life-threatening.
There are always concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, especially after the UK is seeing cases of anaphylaxis
Given that these were apparently not seen in the trials which were conducted months ago when most people had not been exposed to the virus I wonder if it is a result of vaccinating those who already have immunity because they had covid but were perhaps unaware of it. Regardless, there are always risks with any medical procedure even if they are very small - the question is are the risks of the vaccine less than the risks of the disease it protects against and given the vaccine has been given to over 30k people in the trials and none of them died it already seems much, much safer than catching Covid.
Re:There are always concerns (Score:4, Informative)
Agree that everything has risk. No doubt about it. Only pointing out the OP's comment that the vote was not unanimous. Perhaps some were wondering about this new news.
As a side note, it will be interesting to see how much, and how soon, an effect this and Moderna's vaccine will have once people start receiving them. As of now, 1/3 of all ICU beds in the country are at 90% capacity or more, with over 200 hospitals at max ICU capacity [cnn.com]. In Nevada, one hospital has patients stuffed away in the parking garage [cnn.com] because they are over capacity for ICU beds.
With more than 3,100 reported deaths yesterday, and closing in on 300,000 total deaths, the race is on.
Re: (Score:2)
You were also extending the OP in a more productive direction and possibly even suspicious (as I always am) that the OP was a troll comment. Negative evidence in the subsequent silence of the OPer?
My new concern with the vaccine is a different flavor of concern about our lack of knowledge about what we are really doing. I've started wondering if the target proteins in the cell membranes might serve other targeting purposes than welcoming SARS-CoV-2. Maybe there are normal proteins in our bodies that sometim
Re:There are always concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
are the risks of the vaccine less than the risks of the disease
This decision should be up to the individual.
Re:There are always concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
This decision should be up to the individual.
Yes, it should. What seems to concern many is that the information some individuals are using to make the decision is of dubious credibility. Facebook is not research. Sadly, the source of information for many people is the 6 inch glowing rectangle echo chamber device they spend their lives staring into. Disconcerting to say the least.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the decision to not get the vaccine carries consequences of it's own which should be on the individual. This may include not being welcome in school or other potentially crowded situations.
Re:There are always concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. And if that individual chooses to not be vaccinated, then they can also choose to:
- not travel to other countries
- not travel by air or train
- not go to public events
- be refused entry / service by businesses
I'm all for individual liberties, as long as the individual accepts the consequences of exercising those liberties. You don't get to choose to not vaccinate and then go about life like everything is normal, because there will undoubtedly be a portion of the population that cannot take the vaccine or that the vaccine is ineffective for, and they don't get the choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Be careful what you say, friend. For all we know, he owns an IBM Model M.
Re:There are always concerns (Score:5, Informative)
Digging deeper into the UK incidents, both people who had a significant reaction had a history of allergic reactions serious enough that they carried epi-pens routinely.
Fortunately, places that will administer the vaccine routinely keep epinephrine available. SOP is to have the patient stay near for 10-15 minutes so they can get help if there is a reaction.
Especially given the above, getting the vaccine is surely safer than risking COVID.
Re:There are always concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the plausibility of that depends on how quickly the reaction took place. The vaccine is unusual in that it doesn't actually contain any of the antigens it sensitizes you to. It has to make its way into your cells and start building the antigens there, a process that takes 1-2 days to reach its peak.
So if people were having immediate allergic reactions within minutes of the inoculation I'd think it's more likely to be something that's actually in the vaccine before it was injected.
If it takes many hours for the reaction to occur, that would be consistent with preexisting sensitivity to the S protein coded for.
Re: (Score:2)
"Given that these were apparently not seen in the trials which were conducted months ago "
Sick people with heavy allergies tend to NOT to volunteer for studies to get random stuff injected in to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The trials were done in the United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina. The UK isn't on that list, so there's a good chance that none of the test subjects were from the UK.
I wouldn't discount the possibility that people in the UK have significantly different rates of allergy, whether for genetic reasons (not too likely, given that the U.S. is on that list) or because of different levels of exposure to various airborne or foodborne contaminants (way more likely because of differenc
Re:It was not unanimous. (Score:4, Informative)
It's very surprising that it happened on the first day of vaccination, but not in the trials.
The selection process for the phase 3 trials specifically excluded those with a history of allergic reactions. I'd be more surprised if there were no 'new' side effects discovered as mass roll-out of vaccination occurred.
It's either a statistical anomaly, or something changed with the vaccine. I wonder if there's a slight difference in the version made in Europe.
However, one can't discount either of these as a possibility. Allergy UK [allergyuk.org] says "The UK has some of the highest prevalence rates of allergic conditions in the world, with over 20% of the population affected by one or more allergic disorder" which might go some way towards accounting for the incidents.
I would consider the second reason to be less likely, mostly because changing the manufacturing or quality control process between the trials and roll out would risk opening the company up to huge penalties if it was found out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read that as "The FDA looked for patterns in the reported side effects of the trial participants, which if present might indicate a risk of the listed outcomes when the vaccine is used in the wider population. There was a slight indication that the vaccine will cause allergic reactions in some recipients."
Re: (Score:2)
The selection process for the phase 3 trials specifically excluded those with a history of allergic reactions.
No, participants with a "history of severe adverse reaction associated with a vaccine and/or severe allergic reaction (eg, anaphylaxis) to any component of the study intervention(s)" were not included in the pool of 44,000 trial volunteers. source [cnn.com] They did not exclude people with a "history of allergic reactions" like you claimed. That would be crazy.
Thank you for the clarification. Even though, broadly speaking, I was correct, I clearly wasn't specific enough which, given the subject matter, was an error on my part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It was not unanimous. (Score:5, Informative)
There was something that could have been done and was ruthlessly ignored https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] it was tested and the results buried.
The results weren't buried. We've all read about the studies. Some folks noticed that doctors who had received the BCG vaccine had a lower rate of infection than those who hadn't, and also noticed that during the earliest days of the pandemic (up to the beginning of April), countries with mandatory BCG vaccination had lower death rates.
Unfortunately, France completely blew that theory out of the water, with one of the highest CFRs in Europe, despite still giving every one of its citizens a BCG vaccination all the way up until 2007 (i.e. 100% of citizens over the age of 13 would have gotten it). At this point, there is very little question: the BCG vaccine doesn't work against coronavirus. At all.
However, people who have gotten the BCG vaccine are less likely to get coronavirus. It's just not because of the vaccine. People get the BCG vaccine if they are spending time in areas where tuberculosis is common. That means they're likely to be exposed to all sorts of other nasty stuff, too — not just TB. And the more your immune system is forced to deal with pathogens, the better it gets at recognizing pathogens and going after them quickly. That's also probably why poor countries have much, much lower death rates from coronavirus than first-world countries (by something like a factor of three, if memory serves).
Re: (Score:2)
That's also probably why poor countries have much, much lower death rates from coronavirus than first-world countries
It could also be demographics. "Based on people’s age alone, you would expect the disease to be ten times more deadly in Italy than in Uganda." [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only France. Lots of other countries still vaccinate for BCG [bcgatlas.org], and despite that the deaths are still high. Iran, Brazil India, and South Africa for example. Italy also vaccinated until recently, so the elderly are all vaccinated.
France was the one I knew about with certainty. I didn't realize Italy did it, too. Either way, it only takes one glaring exception where countries with BCG vaccinations do worse than non-vaccinated countries to pretty solidly disprove the theory.
So BCG alone does not prevent the Coronavirus.
This whole thing sounds like the hydroxychloroquine debacle: people just latch on it because their herd/tribe does, or because it goes against what evidence is available so far, not because of any rational reasons.
It's not that. I mean yes, it's similar, but in both cases, people latched onto it based on early study results that suggested it might be of some benefit. The problem is that they were unwilling to accept reality when later, larger, more controlled research st
Re: (Score:3)
As I understand it (as in the link) the two people who had an allergic reaction were also known to be allergic to a lot of things .. enough where both carried and epipen with them.
The claim by the pharma companies isn't that the vaccine is 100% safe for 100% of people.
I'm willing to live with a few "these people should not receive the vaccine" addendums if it means ending this pandemic..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, especially after the UK is seeing cases of anaphylaxis [reuters.com] after people get the first shot. This condition does happen in other vaccines, but the UK has recommended people with a history of anaphylaxis to a medicine or food should not get the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Anaphylaxis is an overreaction of the body’s immune system, which the National Health Service describes as severe and sometimes life-threatening.
I think it's worth mentioning this quote from your source:
The briefing documents said 0.63% of people in the vaccine group and 0.51% in the placebo group reported possible allergic reactions in trials, which Peter Openshaw, professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College London, said was a very small number.
Re: (Score:2)
Both people are recovering nicely (Score:2)
I don't think it's too much of an issue. At least no more than the flu shot. It does mean that people who don't want to get vaccinated really need to get vaccinated so that the kind of person who has to carry an Epipen doesn't have to take that risk.
Re:It was not unanimous. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. And concerns will not go entirely away anytime soon. That said, the benefits here are large, the known risks are reasonable, and the unknown risks are unlikely to be large.
People in consultation with their physician should be allowed to balance their own risks.
Re: (Score:2)
the known risks are reasonable
This decision should be made by the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It was not unanimous. (Score:5, Informative)
According to stat news, at least one of the people who voted no said they wanted the minimum age to be 18 instead of 16 .. so it's hardly like she thought the thing was dangerous ... just felt it was unnecessary for minors given their super low risk.
We don't know the reasons the other 3 voted no.
Re: (Score:3)
According to stat news, at least one of the people who voted no said they wanted the minimum age to be 18 instead of 16 .. so it's hardly like she thought the thing was dangerous ... just felt it was unnecessary for minors given their super low risk.
We don't know the reasons the other 3 voted no.
Interesting though, as the Trump CDC Cheif ordered deletion of an email regarding the administration ordering Charlotte Kent the CDC to change a report regarding the Virus effects on children - the deleted email instructed the CDC to “water down” its reports so they would “match President Donald Trump’s efforts to downplay the virus.” https://www.rawstory.com/2020/... [rawstory.com] P So let's put Hillary in jail, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Does deleting that email actually violate law? Serious question, because I have no idea.
It certainly makes the author look like a total shithead, but I think we already knew that the people running DHHS are total shitheads from them changing the reporting structure of covid case counts and hospital utilization from being reported to a largely non-partisan CDC to them, so they can bury shit before making it public.
Unless there's specific violation of law, calling for these shitbirds to be "locked up" is jus
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't watch the whole thing; my impression was that those who voted 'no' would have preferred language that was not quite so broad in the panel's approval. Age (under 18, really) was an example of a group where there was not much evidence, and the same for pregnant women. The broad language of the motion did not allow for exception
Re: (Score:2)
There are concerns.
Then take your chances.
Re:It was not unanimous. (Score:5, Informative)
Then take your chances.
Let’s see 1% chance of dying from Covid or a 0.005% chance of having a harmless allergic reaction from the vaccine. It’s a tough choice.
I agree 100%, I'll be lined up the moment I can get it.
A lot of injections can produce an Anaphylaxis immune reaction. That's the reason why they keep an eye on you for a few minutes. You can get Anaphylaxis from a tetanus shot. It happens rarely, and you need quick treatment, but an epi shot if serious, or Benadryl if not as serious, will set you right. But one thing to think about - If it were only death as that percentage of bad outcomes. - a lot of the denier crowd is fixated on death. They don't consider the cardiac problems, the pulmonary problems, the mental problems all caused by the virus in the survivors, which are probably worse than death. At least I'd prefer death to that suite of horrors
And those problems, my friends - cannot be treated with an epi pen. They stick around until you die from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The covid complications appear to be plentiful, of varying severity including death, and chronic. Anaphylaxis from a medication is super rare, serious when it happens, but also incredibly acute and very treatable with epinephrine that is readily available at any vaccination site.
I'll take the vaccine please.
PREP Act Immunity (Score:3, Insightful)
PREP Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d et. seq.
"authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a declaration to provide liability protections to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from, the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of certain medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures)"
Pfizer has no downside. If there are severe adverse effects, they can't be sued. If there is no risk, why have all the makers of Covid vaccines demanded and received immunity?
Keep in mind, the first group to get the vaccine will be the elderly. A group massively underrepresented in the trails.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the vaccine side effects are reported to be "non-trivial", so some of the older folks may be damned if they take it and damned if they don't. Personally I think I'd take it no matter what.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of the vaccine side effects are reported to be "non-trivial", so some of the older folks may be damned if they take it and damned if they don't. Personally I think I'd take it no matter what.
Taking the vaccine is a pretty safe bet. Anaphylaxis can kill a person, but it is trivially treatable. We can have a anaphylaxis reaction for just about any injection, even tetanus. The deniers might find that a better risk though, as only 50 percent of those who contract tetanus die.
The deniers are already claiming that the vaccine will destroy your immune system. Oh hell - some claim it has an implant chip in it too.
I don't want anyone to die or become permanently disabled, but there's a real strand
There is one downside (Score:2)
But yeah, Prep act sucks. It's yet another in a long line of nasty giveaways passed during the Bush Jr years that we all ignored because OMG! 9/11! Terrorists!
Re:PREP Act Immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is no risk, why have all the makers of Covid vaccines demanded and received immunity?
Show me a single drug that has ever been manufactured in the history of our human race that carries no risk. FFS comically enough even a placebo puts you at an elevated risk of developing diabetes.
Drug companies don't carry risk because that risk is put on regulatory agencies on purpose. There's are major societal reasons for that:
a) having an independent body carrying risk reduces the pressure to take risk.
b) preventing the companies who invest in the R&D from being exposed to the risk makes it more likely they invest in problems that may not generate high returns, which is why society enjoys treatments and cures for edge cases that aren't experienced by the wide population.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because they're receiving pressure from the government to get it done fast, and fast means not doing all the testing and data analysis they otherwise would?
Increased risk means increased liability, so they're trying to mitigate that. Besides, there are other "market-based solutions" to widespread problems with a vaccine, such as the company having to write down tens of billions of dollars worth of research and manufacturing when nobody wants their vaccine because it causes problems that others do not
Pivotal moment? (Score:2)
Seems very optimistic view there.
With anti-vaxxers running rampant in the US, how many people will get the vaccine? And how many doses will be available in the entire year of 2021?
General estimates requires above 60% immunity to reduce R0 enough to kill it off while allow lives going back to normal. Would anything change if only 10-20% (or even 30%) of the people got vaccinated, and most of them concentrated on the rich enough to pay for the shot?
Probably a "first step", but I think hardly "pivotal".
Re: (Score:2)
I think the vaccine is going to be free for all who want it. And in this case, if the anti-vaxxers don't want to take it then so be it - darwin might win a few more rolls of the dice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. Actual anti-vaccination people are fairly rare. People that are dubious of vaccination are a little more common, but a recent survey in the US put the number of people that are pro-vaccination at around 90%.
Getting 90% of people to agree on literally anything is very hard to do. Getting them to believe on something as complex and technical as vaccination is very good.
Would I like that to be closer to 100%? Sure. But you can't fix stupid. However, preventable disease can.
Emergency Use (Score:2)
I need to ask, is there any other kind of use? It sure doesn't seem like it would be of a recreational use. It's been an emergency from the start as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure I had it in February, and passed it along to all of my family, but all of us recovered without getting officially tested or seeking medical treatment. So absolutely there are millions of people out there (in the US) who aren't showing up in official statistics.
Re: 15.4 Million infected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the US is not the only country affected by COVID-19?
The 15M number is US infections. The 20M number from June was worldwide. Today, the worldwide count is just short of 70M cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The truth of what happened is that under Trump the USA purchased 100million doses with the option for 500 million.
Back in the summer, before this vaccine even went into human testing, pfizer asked if the US government wanted to exercise the option and pay pfizer the money for the vaccines in the option. The panel overseeing vaccine distribution declined at that time, because it was an unproven vaccine and there were others.
So now they are exercising the option
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
keep in mind those vaccines were not approved and there was no way to know they even worked at the time.
If they weren't approved, we wouldn't have had to buy them, because they would have been unavailable for sale. This was a no-risk proposition for the USA, and someone who was really good at making deals would have seen that immediately. Hell, with his control over the FDA, he probably could have had it declared unsafe even if it was totally legit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the 500 million doses will now arrive several months later.
Source?
Re: (Score:2)
The source is simple logic, as well as supply / demand.
They can manufacture the vaccine at a specific rate. That rate is far less than the 8B people in the world, and the entire world wants the vaccine. Orders are filled in the order they are received.
If you order later than sooner, you receive your vaccines later than sooner.
How is this a hard concept? It's literally the same case for every single thing you buy except downloaded software.
Re: (Score:2)
The source is simple logic, as well as supply / demand.
Funny, I don't recall asking you for a source. Maybe the guy I actually asked knows of a comment made by someone in the administration or at Pfizer.
How is this a hard concept?
This is in no way as simple as you make it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you get a completely legitimate answer, and then immediately shit on it because it wasn't from the guy you replied to, but have no actual retort for the answer and still act like a condescending asshole for no reason?
I think it's pretty clear that when I asked "Source?, I was looking for a comment from someone actually knowledgeable in the matter, not some internet rando's simplistic economic theories. You being too stupid to see that sounds like a personal problem.
Do you know how a comment forum works, like, at all?
I know what goes on in this comment forum. There's a lot of trolls running around who are afraid to associate the things they say with their login handles.
You're getting several things wrong (Score:5, Informative)
1. It was 100 million doses that Trump passed on. The 500 million is what their administration claims they still have access to. Which definitionally doesn't make sense. In fact the "500 million" doses is just what Pfizer is offering to sell when they're available.
2. The sources spoke under condition of anonymity, understandable so. Everything would be under NDA and they'd be fired immediately if they were called out.
3. Said sources Pfizer made multiple offers for the extra 100 million doses late summer.
4. When the 1st 100 million were sold there was no guarantee the vaccine would work either.
5. But the amount of money being spent to the US government was peanuts. $2 billion.
There's really only 3 possibilities here:
1. The Trump admin (including the people he put in charge) are really, really incompetent and didn't understand that $2 billion isn't a lot of money relative to the benefit.
2. Trump was trying to show off "Art of the Deal" style by walking away and waiting for Pfizer to come back and beg him to buy more vaccines (I personally subscribe to this one, as I could see Trump itching to brag about the "great deal" he got in a rally)
3. Trump was angling for a kick back of some kind. (possible, but I think unlikely, he still thought he was going to win re-election).
None of them are a good look.
Re: (Score:2)
See here [nbcnews.com]
Jesus Christ. Your article says Trump secured 600 million Pfizer vaccine doses (100M now, option for 500M later). You're saying there's actually something wrong with this, when there's also a contract with Moderna for another 600 million doses. [biopharma-reporter.com] How may doses of these highly effective vaccines do you think the citizens of the US need? There are 330M people in the US. Is 1.2 billion doses not enough? I guess rsilvergun math says yes.
1. It was 100 million doses that Trump passed on.
Your source says it was an *additional* 100M doses that were passed on.
You need to re-read the article (Score:2)
b. Was offered another 100 million immediately and turned them down.
c. The administration claims they were offered 500 million doses... but didn't give a timeline. This is just Pfizer telling them "You can buy 'em when we got 'em" and the admin repeating that to save face after they got caught with their pants down.
it doesn't talk about cost, but a quick google search will tell you the 1st 100 million doses cost $2 billion, I'm not expecting Pfizer to ja
I read the article. (Score:2)
It says he: a. Secured 100 million doses.
The article says:
b. Was offered another 100 million immediately and turned them down.
The contract with Pfizer was inked last July. Now
Re: (Score:2)
1. It was 100 million doses that Trump passed on. The 500 million is what their administration claims they still have access to. Which definitionally doesn't make sense. In fact the "500 million" doses is just what Pfizer is offering to sell when they're available.
Trump just announced that he's planning to take action to force them to sell doses to the USA before any other nation. So he passed up on the deal, but now he's planning to force them to make an even bigger deal with him.
This is not capitalism, democracy, or freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
If we start to see stories about Trump passing on all of the vaccines, or backing out of deals with companies that have promising ones, then be concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
It was probably a smart move to pass on this deal.
Oh yeah, BRILLIANT move turning down a vaccine in the middle of a pandemic.
I know a couple of hundred thousand people who would disagree that it was a 'smart move'. Well, they would disagree except they're dead because of fuckface Trump's incompetent 'handling' of the pandemic- a pandemic HE KNEW ABOUT months in advance.
But hey, great job rationalizing away the deaths of 300,000 people!
Re: (Score:2)
That is another lie the media is spreading.
God NO! do not take that vaccine! That vaccine contains a control chip implant produced by Biden, Hillary and Bezos, it is set for the next Presidential election that if you don't vote straight ticke Demoncrat, it will activate and kill you.
The second shot, oh, my patriotic friends, I bring to you the terrible news that it is even worse. It will take control of your brain, and turn you into a customer of those criminals who were running pizzagate. You completely lose all will to resist, and the liberals
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot Hugo Chavez and his time machine that would allow him to manipulate an election that occurs 7 years after his death, all funded by George Soros.
Re: (Score:2)
You completely lose all will to resist, and the liberals will cause you to storm churches and remove freedom of religion as they have orgies on the altars.
Okay but will this crusade have pizza? The last crusade I went on they said there would be pizza but there wasn't. I'm okay with the other stuff like storming churches and having orgies but I want to make sure about the pizza.
Re: (Score:2)
You can prance around and spin and bullshit all you want, but Trump fucked up just like he always does and this is no different.
Feel free to yammer on with your endless "blah blah blah blah blah" all you want, but we both know that Dumbass Donny fucked up.
The impeached, one-term loser dropped the ball.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to yammer on with your endless "blah blah blah blah blah" all you want, but we both know that Dumbass Donny fucked up.
Sorry, how did Dumbass Donny fuck up? It's my understanding that the US has secured 1.2 billion doses that are to be delivered between now and next June.
And that's just from Pfizer and Moderna. The US has billions of dollars of contracts with other vaccine manufacturers as well. [beckershos...review.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, how did Dumbass Donny fuck up?
To recap, since this appears to be difficult for you to grasp:
"Dumbfuck Donny turned down 100 million doses of vaccine that Pfizer offered to the government. That's 50 million people who could have been dosed if only he wasn't such a stupid shitdribble. How many of those people will get seriously ill or die from COVID?"
So what if your wife or mother of daughter dies? Yeah, they could have gotten the vaccine earlier and lived, but fuck your greedy whining. Trump knows what's best for you!
Re: (Score:2)
To recap, since this appears to be difficult for you to grasp:
"Dumbfuck Donny turned down 100 million doses of vaccine that Pfizer offered to the government.
Maybe there's some facts here you may not be grasping.
Dumbass Donny turned down an *additional* 100M doses from Pfizer back when no vaccines from any manufacturer had been proven safe/effective. Back when the Pfizer vaccine's distribution problems were known. Back when phase III trials hadn't even begun. Back when the US government had an an $8.5B contract with Moderna for their unproven vaccine. Back when the US government had billions in contracts with other manufacturers for their unproven vaccines
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
I am no fan of the president. But to be fair, this could have been the right decision at the time. (Emphasis on could)
There were lots of vaccines that were being developed. You don't need to secure 300 millions vaccines from 10 different vaccine providers. If you secure 50 million vaccines from 10 different providers that is still more vaccines than the US population. Some people are not going to want to it. Most likely you won't be able to vaccinate kids. The logistics mean that you probably can't easily deliver that vaccine everywhere in the country. And you probably only need to vaccinate half the population to curb the epidemic to where it can be handled.
Sure. Hindsight is 20/20. And now we can tell that the pfizer vaccine will be very helpful. But 6 month ago, securing 100 million doses of pfizer could have meant no securing 100 million doses of an other vaccines. And hedging your bet was a more sound option.
It was $2 billion dollars (Score:4)
The running joke is that it's not surprising that Donald Trump couldn't understand how odds work, what with this history running casinos.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you knew anything about the mRNA tech you'd know it was likely the vaccine was going to work out. It was a pretty safe bet. Low risk, huge upside.
Once again, hindsight is 20/20. I don't understand anything about mRNA vaccines. But my colleagues who do understand were excited to see one used in humans. My understanding is that before 2020 we had never approved mRNA technology to use in humans.
So hedging your bet was probably the right decision. Now was the hedge too big? Maybe. I don't have that data. But I play a lot of card games, and I know how easy it is to be snarky after the fact because "it was so obvious".
Now, not a fan of the president. And b
YOU DON'T KNOW (Score:2)
that's how much Pfizer wanted. To our gov't that's peanuts. And if you knew anything about the mRNA tech you'd know it was likely the vaccine was going to work out. It was a pretty safe bet. Low risk, huge upside. The running joke is that it's not surprising that Donald Trump couldn't understand how odds work, what with this history running casinos.
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
The $2B dollars to Pfizer was for the initial delivery of the first 100M doses. It is not known what the terms were for the *additional* 100M doses, deliverable in 2Q 2020, that Trump declined.
You're just on another one of your ridiculous propaganda sprees.
It's gonna be real interesting to see what happens to your brain when Trump moves out of it on inauguration day.
It wasn't likely to be much more than $2 billion (Score:2)
As the saying goes, facts don't care about your feelings. As for Trump, he's going to cause damage to America until his dying day. Which thanks to the socialist medical program he's covered by will be a very, very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that some vaccines require more than one dose to be fully effective, right? And that liquids in glass vials that need to be kept at low temperatures will inevitably have breakage / spoilage?
500M doses may not be enough for 300M people.
Re: (Score:2)
I am no fan of the president. But to be fair, this could have been the right decision at the time. (Emphasis on could)
No, it couldn't. We should be vaccinating the majority of the population. There was no sign that we would be able to do that without buying more doses from Pfizer.
Sure. Hindsight is 20/20.
Yeah. And in hindsight, we never should have allowed Drumpf into the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NY Times [nytimes.com] has been reservedly critical [nytimes.com] of the program [nytimes.com]. The Trump Administration had authorized $2 billion for the f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great news! (Score:2)
Wow, thatâ(TM)s the dumbest thing I have heard this hour. You really donâ(TM)t understand how statistics work. You failed at Math and Science in high school, but on the internet youâ(TM)re an expert on par with trained scientists?
95% effective means that 95% of people taking it will avoid the severe symptoms and more importantly avoid being a spreader.
Assuming even efficacy across ages/healths, it implies that out of the 1% of people who would died up to 95% of them would live. And that
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, thatâ(TM)s the dumbest thing I have heard this hour. You really donâ(TM)t understand how statistics work. You failed at Math and Science in high school, but on the internet youâ(TM)re an expert on par with trained scientists?
95% effective means that 95% of people taking it will avoid the severe symptoms and more importantly avoid being a spreader.
Assuming even efficacy across ages/healths, it implies that out of the 1% of people who would died up to 95% of them would live. And thatâ(TM)s not accounting for herd immunity etc.
Apparently even among the 4 or 5 percent that did catch the rona, not one of them suffered severe symptoms. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
As well, the death cult people aren't clever enough to understand that there are more problems than just dying. There's heart, lung, brain and nervous system problems in the survivors of the more serious cases.
It's a symptom of their stupidity that they would rather become physically addled and die a lot younger than take a couple of Benadryl if they are one of
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to get this vaccine, it does NOT mean th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also great news: you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
The polio vaccine was only 90% effective with two doses, and polio is all but eradicated. 95% is an amazing effectiveness rate for a vaccine.
And btw, any time you inject something into your body, there's a chance of severe reaction. This is why any pharmacy or clinic that does vaccinations also has epinephrine around - they can give you a jab of that and you're breathing and on your way.
Re: (Score:2)
Now instead of taking your chances with the real virus, which more than 99% of people survive, you can take these vaccines that have 95% effectiveness.
Out of curiosity, do you get written up a lot for not giving the customers back the correct change?
Be nice - He survived Covid with a lot of Brain damage or as he says "Dain Bramage" 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Died? Only three. Of course, in all my life, I had previously known zero people who died of communicable disease, not including pneumonia in the extremely elderly (and fewer than three of those), so that's a good two orders of magnitude higher....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know at least 5 people that have contracted COVID.
A good friend's uncle is in a body bag due to COVID.
See, your anecdote is nullified by my anecdote. That's why statistics and facts are important, rather than randoms spouting off on the Internet. Which, if you are involved in health care AT ALL, you would know, anonymous coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good. Sign me up.
Oh, you weren't expecting that, were you?
Re: (Score:2)
What if I simply call anti-vaxxers, morons?
You'd just be repeating yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it would selfishly end it for him sooner...
How about we get the vaccine to critical workers, elderly, at-risk populations first, THEN regular healthy young-to-middle-aged after?