Pfizer, BioNTech Covid Vaccine Wins European Backing (bloomberg.com) 50
Pfizer and BioNTech SE's Covid-19 vaccine won the backing of a key European review panel, clearing the way for inoculations to start before the end of the year as the continent struggles with rising death rates and tighter lockdowns. From a report: The endorsement was announced in a news briefing by the European Medicines Agency on Monday. The final step in approval is a sign-off from the European Commission. European Union leaders pushed the regulator to speed up its review amid complaints that residents across the continent were still waiting to get a vaccine -- pioneered in Germany -- that is already being used in the U.K. and U.S. The goal is to start a European immunization campaign on Dec. 27, commission President Ursula von der Leyen said last week. Monday's recommendation puts the EU in position to meet that timeline. The commission last week signaled it would give the official go-ahead for distribution to start no later than two days after the agency's sign-off.
Re: (Score:2)
Super-COVID
lol
Denmark, Netherlands and partially Germany too. (Score:2)
The sudden new curves fit the UK curve almost perfectly.
Interestingly, Belgium isn't affected. Likely because they are just coming out of their worst spike and European record.
And for Germany, I tracked this multiple times a day, and it has actually just started to end. Görlitz is already falling. But due to it being a wave, it will take some time, to move all the way to France. Meaning what we are seeing in the statistics is merely quite delayed, as always.
Of course the lockdown might partially stop i
Re: New virus strains detected in UK, South Afric (Score:1)
Re: New virus strains detected in UK, South Afric (Score:1)
Re: New virus strains detected in UK, South Afri (Score:1)
Re:New virus strains detected in UK, South Africa (Score:4, Interesting)
There are strain mutation happening worldwide, and these mutations make it up to 70% more spready. The vaccines will need to be adjusted to be affected to the new Super-COVID
Actually, they don't. The strain you're talking about that's 70% more infectious exhibits the same traits that the current vaccines are already targeting. There's no need to tweak the vaccines for them to remain effective against it. Also worth noting, if you're getting your information from sources that use nonsensical phrases like "70% more spready" and "affected to", you really need to find some better sources. I was about to give you a pass on the assumption that English was your second language, but you referred to "our Social Security and Medicaid problem", so I'll instead assume that you're either a fellow American or someone posing as one.
in a couple of months we get to do this all again, but even worse.
Actually, we likely won't. COVID-19 mutates at a rate that's roughly 1/4 that of the flu. While having it spread so far and wide has given it more opportunity for mutation, we shouldn't need to play whack-a-mole with it like we do each year with the flu.
This virus is looking more and more like it will become endemic and probably should be renamed "Logan's Run Virus".... eventually once you hit 65, you WILL get the virus and it WILL kill you.
Actually, that's an unlikely outcome, at least where most of us live. While certain parts of the world may take decades to achieve a high enough rate of vaccination to eliminate the virus (in much the same way that we've had the same troubles with, say, polio), we have every reason to believe that with its low rate of mutation the virus will be all but eradicated in much of the developed world within the next few years. Barring a massive anti-vax surge or a significant increase in the rate of mutation, there's no reason to think that it will remain an ongoing problem in areas where vaccinations are readily available.
Why not the 5 January ? (Score:3)
At least in one EU country, the inoculations were supposed to start the 5 January. Does advancing them to the 27 December accomplishes much ? That said. Good on them if they can respect that date.
What i worry about are the antivaxxers. Their numbers seem very high everywhere and especially in France. We need 70+% inoculation rates in a time span short enough so the first vaccinated do not lose their immunity before the last ones get their shot. Or else the most vulnerable will serve as a human reservoir that will threaten us all. We need to inoculate most of the population and that includes the poor countries.
Re: Why not the 5 January ? (Score:2)
Hmm, now I wonder how it works... ;)
You didn't say either, so can I assume you don't know either and are talking out of your bottom mouth?
Re: Why not the 5 January ? (Score:1)
Re: Why not the 5 January ? (Score:1)
Re: Why not the 5 January ? (Score:1)
Re: Why not the 5 January ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to Nover, Colorado was taking in Patients from new Mexico and Texas. Now, we are full up as well, as are the other states.
That is also why NM and west texas are now triaging current patients, not just incoming. Multiple patients have been removed from ICU/Respirators and allowed to die due to lack of resources.
Re: Why not the 5 January ? (Score:2)
That depends on mutation rates, especially under more selective pressure from the vaccine. Better safe than sorry, racing to herd immunity before potential evolution is the safest.
Re: (Score:3)
Each additional day of waiting results in hundreds of corpses, so yep, it does accomplish much.
Compulsory vaccination is one of the few things I miss from the GDR.
Re: Why not the 5 January ? (Score:1)
We're getting there. Most of the population base their views almost entirely on what they are told by what I call "state-sponsored / corporate influencers", and some now even feel actively offended for being expected to think for themselves. So much so, that nutjobs actively ruin the concept of independent thinkers by calling themselves that, and poisoing that well. ("Querdenker" means "nutjob" now. Yay. Thanks, nutjobs! Next time use a better term, please!)
So soon, you don't need to make it compulsory anym
Re:Why not the 5 January ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also having older people vaccinated first may give a big relief to intensive care and decrease the death rate.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know how long the immunity last, it seems to be longer than what expected (3 months then maybe 1 year then maybe 3 years, only good news so far). Last time I read about it, the herd immunity is expected at 60%. Antivax are not n immediate problem. Currently the biggest problem is infrastructure. Next problem, a lot of people are not antivax but are frightened by the speed at which the vaccine has been developped (and we have to protectect these people from antivax fake news). Also having older people vaccinated first may give a big relief to intensive care and decrease the death rate.
You have to be careful with the 60% herd immunity number because a simple mean of 60% won't achieve the goal, and if there are pockets of the virus and the vaccine is only effective for 3 years it is able to reemerge.
Re: Why not the 5 January ? (Score:2)
Yes, with exponential curves, it always does, and every day counts.
E.g. if you expect something as bad as a daily doubling, 9 days would mean only 0.2% the damage (100/2^9). (Ignoring that ramping up vaccinating will take a bit of time, and that it's definitely not doubline every day. This is just to make the general point.)
Re: (Score:2)
Does advancing them to the 27 December accomplishes much ?
Assuming that the inoculation is the endgame for getting lives back to normal advancing that timeline by a week very much does accomplish a lot.
And here in Brazil... (Score:3, Informative)
This, besides that we have a Military General as our Health Ministry (that don't question any order from the president, odd as that may seem): this ministry is an army "supply-chain expert" that are leaving public healthcare units without basic supplies to make the vaccination campaign (like syringes and cotton...)
* I'm jealous that USA citizens take off his presidential fungus in 2020 already...
Re: And here in Brazil... (Score:3, Informative)
No, it doesn't. Not even close: it's pure FUD (the vaccine RNA-t doesn't enter the nucleus of cells, where lies the DNA)
Re: And here in Brazil... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding Bolsonaro: While he may be a religious lunatic and is certainly giving bad advice, he did at least personally share the risk he wants everyone else to take. That is much unlike many other country's leaders, who share neither the financial nor the health risks of the policy they make in this pandemic.
Re: And here in Brazil... (Score:1)
Re: And here in Brazil... (Score:2)
It only won EU backing. (Score:1)
Sorry, everyone outside, we know that the subcontinent Europe ends at the Ural, due to that being where the common cultural border is. But our imperialist fascists are currently spreading this reality distortion like crazy, just because they are in a dick size contest with some Moscovian dictator that you have as much in common with as we do with a certain Washington/London/Berlin/Paris Punch-and-Judy show.
(Let's see whose deciples/livestock got mod points to waste on their programmed triggers. :)
Re: (Score:2)
What dressings do you offer with that word salad?
Re: (Score:2)
Why Does It Take Two More Days? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Open source vaccines (Score:2)
With the Solarwinds debacle showing open source security is better than an opaque box (more eyeballs, etc), are we going to know the full molecular makeup of Covid-19 vaccines? Genetic sequences, chemical composition, everything? Or will governments pay big money to trust closed source again with billions of lives ?