FDA Panel Rejects Plan To Administer Pfizer's COVID-19 Booster Doses To General Public (cnbc.com) 151
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: An influential Food and Drug Administration advisory committee on Friday resoundingly rejected a plan to administer booster shots of Pfizer and BioNTech's Covid-19 vaccine to the general public, saying they needed more data. The panel, however, could still recommend the shots for other populations. Scientists continued debating the need for a third dose of the vaccines for people 65 and older and other vulnerable populations after their initial vote. "It's likely beneficial, in my opinion, for the elderly, and may eventually be indicated for the general population. I just don't think we're there yet in terms of the data," Dr. Ofer Levy, a vaccine and infectious disease specialist at Boston Children's Hospital, said after voting against the original proposal. The final tally failed 16-2.
In a paper published days before the advisory committee meeting, a leading group of scientists said available data showed vaccine protection against severe disease persists, even as the effectiveness against mild disease wanes over time. The authors, including two high-ranking FDA officials and multiple scientists from the World Health Organization, argued Monday in the medical journal The Lancet that widely distributing booster shots to the general public is not appropriate at this time. In outlining plans last month to start distributing boosters as early as next week, administration officials cited three CDC studies that showed the vaccines' protection against Covid diminished over several months. Senior health officials said at the time they worried protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death "could" diminish in the months ahead, especially among those who are at higher risk or were vaccinated during the earlier phases of the vaccination rollout. Before the vote, some committee members said they were concerned that there wasn't enough data to make a recommendation, while others argued third shots should be limited to certain groups, such as people over age 60 who are known to be at higher risk of severe disease. Some members raised concerns about the risk of myocarditis in younger people, saying more research is needed.
In a paper published days before the advisory committee meeting, a leading group of scientists said available data showed vaccine protection against severe disease persists, even as the effectiveness against mild disease wanes over time. The authors, including two high-ranking FDA officials and multiple scientists from the World Health Organization, argued Monday in the medical journal The Lancet that widely distributing booster shots to the general public is not appropriate at this time. In outlining plans last month to start distributing boosters as early as next week, administration officials cited three CDC studies that showed the vaccines' protection against Covid diminished over several months. Senior health officials said at the time they worried protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death "could" diminish in the months ahead, especially among those who are at higher risk or were vaccinated during the earlier phases of the vaccination rollout. Before the vote, some committee members said they were concerned that there wasn't enough data to make a recommendation, while others argued third shots should be limited to certain groups, such as people over age 60 who are known to be at higher risk of severe disease. Some members raised concerns about the risk of myocarditis in younger people, saying more research is needed.
Doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)
The stupid [imgur.com] will continue [imgur.com] to kill themselves. Meanwhile, some hospitals are in the process of creating death panels [marketwatch.com] while these same stupids insist there's nothing going on, even to their dying breath [imgur.com], while costing us billions of dollars [cbsnews.com]. But then, these people were never ones imbued with much intelligence [imgur.com] to begin with considering their arguments against getting vaccinated [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In all seriousness, this is the cost of a free society. People will make choices you don't like, but the good news is that you can get vaccinated and don't have to worry about it.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Cool story. Do smoking, obesity, and heart disease next.
In all seriousness, this is the cost of a free society. People will make choices you don't like, but the good news is that you can get vaccinated and don't have to worry about it.
Let us know when smoking, obesity or heart disease can be transmitted from person to person by breathing on them.
I didn't say I didn't like their choices. In fact, I think their choices are great. By killing themselves they not only give me a laugh, they help to increase the overall IQ of the country. Even better, they don't get to vote any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, smoking can. That's why pretty much everywhere has laws against smoking inside public buildings.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
It's actually a pretty interesting corollary now that I think about it. My parents and other smokers often clung to a very similar "baby with the bathwater" kind of sentiment to justify ignoring the facts. Something to the effect of "x person never smoked a day in their life and died of lung cancer, y person smoked their whole life and lived to be blank years old!". The key takeaway from that being, of course, that you can't predict your own fate, so why bother. Which of course is ridiculous on its face unless you're looking for a flimsy reason to not have to make the hard choice or confront your own beliefs/biases.
Queue all the "but this study (that's super dubious, cherrypicked, or outright fradulent or forged) says bleahblahbhbhbhalbhblablhalbh" responses.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't it? Even famously anti-vax France has a very strong majority of eligible people fully vaccinated. In Canada, a strong majority of the population supports *mandatory* vaccination. There's a very tiny but very vocal minority who constantly make the news, but they're finding increasingly hostile public reception. Just like smokers did.
The US is the black sheep, but still with a majority of eligible recipients vaccinated. As the choice between restrictions or medical rationing grinds on, I expect even th
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
As shown by Israel with a 61+% total population vaccination rate(And they're not giving the vaccine to children) the idea that there is a significant difference in spread rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated is bunk. As such, pissing and moaning about unvaccinated people being responsible for spreading the disease is naught but performance theater. Which means that it once again breaks down to personal risk.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you think that over 95% of the people dying of COVID right now are unvaccinated? Coincidence?
Re: (Score:2)
The vaccinated and unvaccinated spread the virus as similar rates - this is pretty well establish now. However, the immune (whether by vaccine, surviving exposure, or natural immunity) are far less likely to die of covid. The non-immune have chosen their risks, just the same as the smoker chooses his risks or the overeater chooses her risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I see you support vaccine passports. No unvaccinated indoors, just like we don't allow smoking in public buildings.
Re: Doesn't matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't miss your silly point.
I doubt your premise is true, but even if it is, it's important to mange the unvaccinated's risk of getting infected because they take up critical care resources at a much higher rate. If we were being sensible we would either a) confine them until there's no shortage of resources or b) triage them to the field out back of the hospital to either survive or die on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the idea that there is a significant difference in spread rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated is bunk. As such, pissing and moaning about unvaccinated people being responsible for spreading the disease is naught but performance theater.
Yes, we had hoped the vaccines would reduce spread like the vaccines for some other diseases do. Unfortunately they don't. This means that the unvaccinated gain no benefit from the majority who do get the shot. No herd immunity of others to protect you. Ha ha.
On the bright side though, the vaccines work very well at preventing the infected from requiring hospitalization. So long as we can keep the unvaccinated from clogging the health care system, it's all good. Just need to spread it out a little
Re: (Score:2)
https://health-infobase.canada... [canada.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do recommend sci-hub though, if you want to read actual research papers on COVID that are often behind paywalls. That is an excellent place to get you some science.
Re: (Score:2)
We know the vaccinated have significantly lower viral loads. As a matter of basic science that makes them likely to be less infectious to others than if they were not vaccinated.
Re: Doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Except the vaccinated also by and large treat the vaccination as a panacea, which means they are significantly more likely to come in close contact with more people over a shorter period of time.
That may or may not be true, I'm sure it varies by location. If it is, it is a social/political problem and not a medical one.
Anecdotally, we have a pretty high uptake of vaccines here, but even when mask rules in public were lifted, most people still wore them and are actually fine with their return now due to delta. Part of it is the high toll in lives we have paid over the last year and a half. Part of it is just showing respect and caring for others.
Absolutely it is your sacred right to not care about anyone but yourself, but conversely nobody owes you any respect for it either. And we don't. At all.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the vaccinated also by and large treat the vaccination as a panacea, which means they are significantly more likely to come in close contact with more people over a shorter period of time.
Sure, while the unvaccinated are really taking the virus seriously by social distancing, wearing masks, avoiding large gatherings, avoiding unnecessary travel, and quarantining for two weeks if they detect any cold or flu like symptoms.
Oh wait, they don't do _any_ of that, while most of the vaccinated still do at least _some_ of it. Then why would unvaccinated be less likely to come into close contact with more people over a shorter period of time?
Re: (Score:2)
It's called google shitbird. Specifically, "israel vaccination rate".
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
None of those things are contagious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
In all seriousness, this is the cost of a free society. People will make choices you don't like,
Bullshit. This is a public health issue. Everyone eligible should be required to be vaccinated if they are going to use any publicly funded facility/resource or have a negative PCR test.
but the good news is that you can get vaccinated and don't have to worry about it.
Not everyone can get vaccinated. This (currently) includes those under the age of 12 as well as those who are immunocompromised. At this point, I'm in favor of denying care to the unvaccinated with covid-19. The reason for this is people who need medical care are being turned away because of all the covid-19 patients.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! How long will it take before you realize you've been duped by yet another bullshitter on the internet? Isn't the story that everyone dies off after two years? That's not long from now, so when it passes will they just say, "oh, it was really 10 years" and you'll just believe them? When that passes will you believe when they tell you there is a trigger event? When 30 years go by and nothing happens will you ever realize you are just a gullible fool?
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that the VAERS is just to report possible adverse effects, right? After they investigate them, almost all of them are determined to be coincidental rather than a side-effect. Yes, the J+J shot had a few rare cases of clots and yes they fixed it. The myocarditis did occur (also rarely) in some younger people but it turned out to be temporary. Overall, vaccine has killed less than 50 people which is astoundingly low.
The vaccine isn't safe and wouldn't be approved under normal circumstances.
The vaccine isn't just safe, it's the safest vaccine ever developed. Se
Absolutely still have to worry about it (Score:2)
We really need to do something about this whole "I am an island in and of myself" belief that Americans have gotten drilled into their heads. The decisions of other
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm hit by a drunk driver, people like that may leave me without a hospital bed to go to.
That's on top of what I'd expect to be obvious, that I can still get a case from someone who chooses to stay fully vulnerable. I know the difference between 95% and 100%, and it's not 95% any more.
Plus, you know, I care about the other people they're going to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
COVID patients can still fill up the ICUs so quickly there is no room for those people though. Personally I think they should continue to offer the same service level to everyone that they provided it to pre-pandemic, and treat COVID patients only when it does not hinder that goal.
People should not be having cancer surgery postponed because others did not believe i
Re:Doesn't matter: But it does.... (Score:2)
This might not be an issue either IF they couldn't infect my niece or nephew who arn't old enough to be able to get a vaccine, or the millions of people who can't be vaccinated because of medical reasons, or the billions around the world who still have yet
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story. Do smoking, obesity, and heart disease next.
In all seriousness, this is the cost of a free society. People will make choices you don't like, but the good news is that you can get vaccinated and don't have to worry about it.
Amen, and it's paid in Herman Cain Awards. When you start to feel the smallest amount of pity, remember, they died for your freedom. Wait no, they died for their freedom. That's still not right, they died with their freedom? Let's go with that one. They definitely died doing what they love, no, shit. They died with the thing they love, freedom! And a bunch of tubes and forced oxygen in a hospital bed, shit, fuck. They definitely died knowing that they chose freedom. YES! ... and that's why we don't
Re: (Score:2)
"this is the cost of a free society. . People will make choices you don't like, but the good news is that you can get vaccinated and don't have to worry about it."
Public health is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, the very definition of a public good.
I cannot be free of someone else's poor public health choices.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Also while the over 1000/day that are dying seems like a lot,
It's 2,000 per day now thanks to Republicans. It was down to ~250 per day in June.
That we don't have the medical capacity to handle even a minor pandemic like this should be cause for a hell of a lot more concern,
650,000+ plus dead in 18 months is hardly a minor pandemic. Medical capacity is based on the average need. If every hospital and medical center had to anticipate three times the caseload indefinitely, no one would be able to afford the
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Unibrow Conservative Gollum modded this troll, WTF??? When its happening right in front of them. I guess they don't like it when they can't make up the "facts".
Holy crap you're actually low balling it (Score:2)
But as for not being able to afford the costs the solution to that is to do a universal health care solution so that people are using healthcare more often. Did you know cancer diagnosis skyrocketed age 65 when Medicare kicks in? Give people healthcare and they'll use it. That in turn will help me maintain our overall healthcare system. As it stands we have hospitals under s
Re: (Score:2)
It's 2,000 per day now thanks to Republicans.
Thanks to a new strain that results in three orders of magnitude higher viral loads.
It was down to ~250 per day in June.
Try July.
The spread of COVID? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What will this decision do to the spread of COVID?
We don't know, that's why we need more data.
Re: (Score:2)
In a word, nothing much.
The thing is, booster shots are good for those who may not have been able to produce enough antibodies - like those with compromised immune systems (either through disease, transplant, old age, whatever).
What happened is the FDA rejected the plan to give EVERYONE booster shots. Basically the data that says booster shots are good in the immunocompromised and elderly people don't really apply to 16 or 17 year olds who have healthy immune systems. Likewise, the data we do have from say,
Idiocy? (Score:2)
If I understand the technology correctly, a new vaccine capable of fighting new
Re: (Score:2)
I am certainly no expert in this field, but given the rapidly decreasing efficiency against new variations of the COVID virus
It doesn't rapidly decrease in efficiency against new variations. There was a preliminary study that showed a large reduction of efficacy, but since then we have more data and the vaccine is largely effective against delta.
In my local area, most hospitalized people are those without the vaccine. The people with the vaccine in the hospital are mostly people who got the vaccine after being exposed (ie, their family member got covid so they got the vaccine), or people who have a weakened immune system, from ot
Re:Idiocy? (Score:5, Informative)
The vaccine wasn't rushed, it was prioritized. There is a difference. "Rushed" would imply that there was some kind of sloppiness in the COVID vaccine's development, or that steps that might otherwise get taken for other vaccines were not done or glossed over for the COVID vaccines. This is not the case.
The reason we got a vaccine so fast is two-fold. First, the technology is always improving, and they are simply getting better at creating vaccines quickly. But secondly, because there were a whole lot of people pouring a whole lot of money into getting a vaccine for this novel coronavirus as quickly as possible, far in excess of what vaccine development ordinarily gets, many steps that are usually performed sequentially to accommodate a more typical rate of funding could actually be done in parallel.
Not rushed (Score:2)
There was a huge head start from SARS 1.0 and MERS. One vaccine developer said that as soon as they got the sequence for our new enemy, they knew exactly what to do.
Or just look at the results. Read https://berthub.eu/articles/po... [berthub.eu] and anyone who's done engineering will recognize a refined product.
The closest thing to "rush" was deliberately overlapping steps, which could have cost money if earlier steps had failed while later ones were already started.
Re: (Score:2)
This is my understanding as well. Fortunately, there was enormous amounts of money being poured into it that made such overlapping financially feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
You are, presumably, aware that mRNA vaccine research is many years old now, this is just the first live usage, which would have happened eventually anyways. The pandemic just gave it that extra shove to push it through a bit faster than we might have otherwise seen it.
Again, this is because more money was put into it that allow
Re: (Score:2)
It's novel, as you say, to do things simultaneously instead of in series, that doesn't mean that any of the steps that were ever essential for vaccine development were missed. The reason they are not done in parallel more often is simply because of the financial considerations of doing so, particularly if any of the phases produce results that might invalidate the results of some other phase that money might have already been spent on, It's far from unlikely for everything to go as well as it did for the
Ah, there isn't enough data (Score:2, Interesting)
I miss the pre-science, let's-follow-the-data, there's-no-evidence days.
I don't need a bunch of people to make recommendations from existing data. I can do that all by myself. There's no trick to making decisions AFTER you already have the data.
What I need, are experts that can make decisions with incomplete data, missing evidence, and, oh, I don't know, EXPERTISE?
I get that we need more data, more time, more tests, and more evidence. I hereby stipulate that we don't have that.
It's a given that by the ti
Re: (Score:2)
The question today is not "is there evidence that we need a booster".
Of course it is.
The question today is "should we get a booster today".
The answer is no because there is no evidence to support saying yes.
Stop showing me the data. Grow the four organs that we link with courage, stick your neck out (okay, that makes five), and prove that your expertise is worthy of others to follow.
Ignorance is not courage its just dumb.
Otherwise, you're useless. I don't need you to read the data for me.
What else is new? Useless is what government agencies do.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I show you a mushroom, and you don't have a laboratory available to you, there's no evidence that the mushroom is poisonous.
Are you going to eat it?!
Utilizing your expertise isn't ignorance. It's experience. Putting your name to your experience is the courageous part.
I hope you've never gone to a doctor. Your family doctor doesn't tend to run laboratory tests for every patient. A quick examination, and your doctor might say: "you've likely got a blah blah. try doing yada yada. if it doesn't go
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I show you a mushroom, and you don't have a laboratory available to you, there's no evidence that the mushroom is poisonous.
Are you going to eat it?!
No, I don't like mushrooms and I don't eat or inject things without affirmative evidence.
Utilizing your expertise isn't ignorance. It's experience. Putting your name to your experience is the courageous part.
Experience is no substitute for knowledge. It isn't like the necessary evidence to support boosters is unknowable, unobtainable or requires unreasonable effort to obtain. Being courageous with other peoples lives is not a virtue. Neither is being courageous with whatever public trust the federal government has left.
When world renowned experts wing it and rely on "courage" over reality you end up with Quebec bridges w
On the Contrary (Score:3)
I'd actually rather prefer to keep future-seeing witch-doctoring away from my medical experts, thanks.
One thing all the studies agree on is that if you've had your second dose of the vaccine any time in the past six to nine months, which everyone in the general population has, then you're still fine; you're protected. There's no point in getting a third shot too soon; it's not going to boost immunity if you get yet another shot too closely on the heels of the first two shots.
In fact, it is almost certainly
Re: (Score:2)
You've actually sold me on the now-is-not-the-time for a booster.
But that wasn't the discussion.
I want those FDA wimps to do exactly what you just did. To say, quite plainly: "our expertise says that it's better to wait". That's what you did. That's what I want them to do.
I don't care what their advice is (for this conversation). I just want their advice. "there's no evidence to support" is not advice. That's tantamount to saying "we haven't done our job, so we can't tell you". That's not to say that
Sheesh (Score:5, Informative)
This article must have been written in the few minutes they had between that vote and the one for folks over 65 - which was unanimously approved to get the booster.
The whole reason they rejected the under 65 population is because the data hadn't been reviewed by the larger community of experts yet for that group. Which is absolutely fair.
Just like with the original vaccine rollout, there's just going to be staging steps.
Unless this article was only pushed to give the false impression that the FDA was against boosters... that would be pretty lame.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Sheesh (Score:4, Informative)
It's likely the large majority of the population will be eligible. They're substantially understating the strength of the evidence for need, because they're rejecting that mild infections are important to control at all.
Poor Data (Score:2)
There are tons of field studies with noisy data, that are poorly controlled. There is even some published literature (Provincetown study) that is simply anecdotal. Good quality research is scarce.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is doing a double blind, randomly controlled trial on a third dose.
It is almost certain that such a trial at this stage would be considered unethical. We already know that the outcome of the intervention would be positive (on balance, ignoring any rare individual side effects), so denying that intervention to the control group would not fly with the trial regulators.
Without data to that standard, I don't see the FDA approving anything... Good quality research is scarce.
While there is no doubt that double blinded rct's are the gold standard for clinical research they are not the be all and end all of trials: perfectly good data can be obtained without using them. And, as previ
65 and Older Approved! (Score:5, Informative)
Is the US Dropping Mask Mandates for Vaccinated? (Score:1)
If two shots gives us enough protection, then is should be fine to drop mask indoor mask mandates for fully vaccinated individuals. Same with schools - teachers and students who are vaccinated should no longer be required to wear masks. Same with in medical settings.
Two shots gives us enough protection. No need for a third shot. No need for masks.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for your expert opinion Doctor. /s
Re: (Score:3)
Masks and lockdowns have always been about reducing the strain the pandemic is putting on the healthcare system
But vaccines are what will save lives. Covid-19 is going to be with us for a long time. Masks and lockdowns are only useful for their ability to slow down the surge of ICU admissions and deaths. But these people will still get sick and many will die. Just over a longer period of time, so our healthcare budget won't be broken.
As long as vaxxed people can infect people who end up going to the ICU
Infect unvaccinated people. The are going to die anyway, so who cares? But get vaccinated and a subsequent infection won't put you in the hospital. You will stay home feeling like you h
Re: (Score:2)
But vaccines are what will save lives. Masks and lockdowns are only useful for their ability to slow down the surge of ICU admissions and deaths.
Right, and the guy I was replying to was saying that vax status should determine mask policy. We weren't talking about vax policy.
Infect unvaccinated people. The are going to die anyway, so who cares? But get vaccinated and a subsequent infection won't put you in the hospital.
Who cares? I do. I want to know that if I get appendicitis, the ER won't be filled to overflowing with unvaxxed covid patients.
Re: (Score:2)
Your article is not dated, so it doesn't even meet the minimum bar for journalism or academics. It barely reaches the same level as a grade school book report. Please, for your own sanity, make sure you only consume information from dated sources. If there's no date, its probably bullshit.
I got the shot (Score:1)
I got a Pfizer booster. Not everyone has that opportunity but I did.
No side effects for me.
Does it improve my immunity? Who knows. It was my decision. I'm glad I did.
Politicians (Score:2)
Why did this make me think it was initiated by politicians?
Scientist: "A single dose of the vaccine is only 30.7% effective against COVID Delta (B.1.617.2)"
Politician: "Well why don't you give everyone three shots so they'll be 92.1% effective?"
Scientist: "I don't think it works that way."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/... [nejm.org]
Gnashing of teeth in the board room (Score:2)
The drug companies love to make drugs that we need to buy over and over again, rather than drugs that actually cure something. This is especially true of Pfizer, the people who brought us Viagra and Lipitor, two big money-makers for them. This wold be even better: The government would force everyone to take a booster of their proprietary vaccine over and over again. Think of the revenue! Their board must be very unhappy with the government board's decision.
Re: (Score:2)
given that a Pfizer dose is worth about $20, I say it's money well spent. It's nothing compared to the cost of the pandemic. Good job Pfizer, good job BioNTech, good job Moderna.
cat's out of the bag (Score:2)
Once the FDA granted full approval for the Pfizer shot, it effectively lost any regulatory enforcement authority with respect to that vaccine. As physicians read more about the data coming out of Israel, more of them will be willing to prescribe a third shot off label. If you have a patient who had no issues with the first two shots, it's a negligible risk. Up to 1/5th of all scripts in the US are off label. These vaccines will just join the club if the FDA insists on being left behind.
Re:Poor countries.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid take. Our need for a booster is way less than our need for no more reservoirs capable of generating new/worse variants. Even giving it away is plenty self-serving. Just smarter.
Re:Poor countries.... [are stupid, too] (Score:2)
Stupid take. Our need for a booster is way less than our need for no more reservoirs capable of generating new/worse variants. Even giving it away is plenty self-serving. Just smarter.
Quoted against the censor trolls. You make a good point. However, you may have been feeding a clever-side troll.
But I came to the discussion looking for the joke:
Science is complicated. People are stupid.
What could possibly go wrong?
Time for my crazy Chinese-side conspiracy theory? Naw. It would take to long to write and no one would laugh. Not even worth the teaser here.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would you be more concerned about, (A) a mutation that hurts general fitness by 10% but improves vaccine escape by 100%; or (B) a mutation that improves general fitness by 10% but worsens vaccine escape by 100%?
Which one spreads far and wide in a poorly vaccinated country like, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and which one gets eradicated?
Which one spreads far and wide in a well vaccinated country like, say, the US, and which one gets eradicated?
Which one should we have more concern over?
In
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Which one spreads far and wide in a poorly vaccinated country like, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,"
I'd be more concerned about spread in a poorly vaccinated country like say the Republican Republic of Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
This pandemic didn't even affect Afghanistan.
With their tourism rate and status as an international center of business? Really, this surprises you?
Re: (Score:2)
Doses should be allocated wherever the money takes them.
Everyone is free to donate to charities that send doses to the developing world. That's what I have done. That is the way to guarantee massive orders for donation, regardless of what governments decide.
Everyone who advocates sending doses to the developing world, but does not donate to such charities, is a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid take. Our need for a booster is way less than our need for no more reservoirs capable of generating new/worse variants. Even giving it away is plenty self-serving. Just smarter.
Indeed. The pandemic isn't over until it's over for everyone.
Stupider take (Score:2)
The vaccines in question require ultra-refrigeration, making them a non-starter in countries without the needed infrastructure.
There is enough vaccine to go around for booster doses, if evidence is supplied for their effectiveness and medical necessity.
If, "What about the poor unvaccinated people in the Third World" is a tactic to get wingers to take the vaccine, I am all for it. Otherwise, enough with the whinging and just dispense the fine booster doses.
Re: (Score:2)
Brain drain? If you're capable of contributing to the creation of a vaccine in a meaningful way, what are the chances that you're still living in the African country you grew up in? You probably already moved to Europe or the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Please show your evidence. Covi-19 is far far worse than influenza but all reports. The new delta variant is very damaging - more poeple are living now with the newer treatments, but the hospitalization rates are still far higher than for the flu, and the hospitalizations are very complex and not just bed rest, fluids, and monitoring.
You are repeating the lies of the conspiracy theorist,s the morons who think this is just a plot to kick Trump out of office or to instill some mythical one world government.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...pulling out that trope of blaming TV news for people not agreeing with you...while literally on an online news site.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Cuba is much more advanced that almost every African country. Second, our fate in the US is tied to the fate of the rest of the world. We are not an island. The pandemic has proven this, or at least proven it to people who don't think its a hoax. The people who have wanted to two doses isn the US have gotten them, the rest are too much influenced by conspiracy theories, and trying to force them to be vaccinated will backfire. The best option for the limited amount of vaccine that can be manufac
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Always seemed like a silly argument. I get that this is a pandemic and we are all interlinked, and that if we control it in the US only but it's raging in the world then it can not only continue to come back to the US but disrupt the global economy and impact the US that way.
I'm not saying we should do anything and everything we can only for the US even at the expense of the world, but the fact is that we, US citizens, elected our leaders and they are appointing these people, their concern should be first a
Re: (Score:2)
I get that this is a pandemic and we are all interlinked, and that if we control it in the US only but it's raging in the world then it can not only continue to come back to the US but disrupt the global economy and impact the US that way.
their concern should be first and foremost the wellbeing of citizens of the United States
I don't think you're very smart
Re: (Score:3)
Their job is to protect Americans, and they're failing at it because they're more worried about the opinions of European intellectuals.
I expect this to be reversed in a couple months when new members are on the board.
They've completely abdicated their responsibility, and substituted other goals than the ones involved in the job.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, it will likely be reversed.
perhaps this was all posturing? to keep the WHO sated?
but in the end, the needs of YOUR OWN COUNTRY matter more than some other.
its just how life is, like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Their job is to protect Americans, and they're failing at it because they're more worried about the opinions of European intellectuals.
They don't have the evidence to support boosters for all.
They've completely abdicated their responsibility, and substituted other goals than the ones involved in the job.
They followed the evidence instead of political bullshit for once.
Re: (Score:2)
They admitted that they have the evidence.
It substantially increases antibodies. Antibodies are very strongly correlated with efficacy. It is already true that if you get two doses and your antibody levels were still low, they'd give another shot.
It is just disingenuous to blame the evidence, when the evidence of both safety and efficacy are clear. Especially when numerous members of the board have published recent opinion pieces citing other reasons, reasons they're not supposed to be considering.
It is com
Re: (Score:2)
They admitted that they have the evidence. It substantially increases antibodies. Antibodies are very strongly correlated with efficacy.
Efficacy and antibody levels are not evidence of anything substantive. The point of the vaccines is keeping people out of hospitals and morgues. There is substantial evidence from the vaccination campaigns efficacy is disconnected from hospitalization and death rates in the vaccinated.
Neither is the relationships between measured antibody levels and health outcomes known WRT covid.
Making assumptions based on antibody levels and efficacy by induction is not only unwarranted in and of itself there is a subs
Re:You know it's possible they're right, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
there is no such thing as 'hogging the vaccine'.
first, we MAKE it. its not a fixed resource that runs out.
second, we have 30% of the pop that refuses it, even though we allocated enough for them.
so what's the problem in giving those who want it, their 3rd shot?
I got mine, fwiw. I live in calif and there was no problem at all requesting and getting it. walked in to supermarket, went to the pharm counter, filled out paper, checked the box and left the text line blank (as directed!) and got my shot.
anyone not getting one is stupid. yes, stupid. these things are wearing down and while you may not die, do you REALLY want to risk lowered cognitive abilities?
I like my brain. its my second favorite organ. I'm doing all I can to protect myself. I think for a living (like most of you) and while I dont think I'll get 'hospital level sick' from the plague rats out there, why would I even RISK reduced cognition?
get that 3rd shot, people. there's more than enough supply for everyone. fuck the WHO; its every country for themselves as its ALWAYS BEEN. that's just how it works, sorry to have to explain reality to some of you.
a country's job is to protect those inside the country. that ALWAYS comes before other countries. which country does NOT do that? (none; they all take care of their own, first.)
get that 3rd shot. just get it. if you ask, you'll get it (in any non-3rd world state, that is)
Re: (Score:2)
get that 3rd shot. just get it.
If it takes forgetting that I already got the 2nd shot, or thinking I was getting a flu shot, it might be a good idea to find a way.
Though I'd really rather be able to get it listed on the same card...
Re: (Score:1)
With your "get the third shot" entreaty hinging on the same lack of science showing efficacy as, say, ivermectin, are you suggesting that we also go out and prophylax with that as well?
Pfizer has had all the time they've needed to design the studies and enroll the patients to prove their case for selling more product to a willing US government.
So... why couldn't they prove it?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't even in the same ballpark as ivermectin. At best, ivermectin does nothing, at worst, ivermectin kills you.
A 3rd vaccine dose has a minimal risk of side effects. It won't make things worse. It almost certainly will be an improvement. The FDA's concern isn't whether the 3rd dose is beneficial or not - they're just not convinced that it's beneficial enough to be worth recommending to everyone.
Patent holders aren't allowing it to be (Score:1)
Basically, supply is artificially limited to protect profits. This is justified by stating that without these protections the vaccine wouldn't have been developed (though if you dig into it these companies got a lot of gov't money as a lot of the research was done at public University on our dime, but I digress).
So if you want to argue tha
Re: (Score:3)
The manufacturing limits don't really matter. No one has ever produced an mRNA vaccine before, so no one other than Pfizer or Moderna has the facilities to do it. It's a completely different process than the regular vaccines. You'd need to build new factories, train new people to run them, and verify the results. It's a solvable problem, but not a short term one.
As for J&J and AstraZenica, both of them ran into problems finding facilities capable of production. Remember the contamination issues? That fa
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you and I think the "but the rest of the world" logic from WHO is kind of ridiculous. The vaccination pace in the less developed world is likely to be slow due to remoteness, transportation, poor/non-existent cold chain, and various military conflicts, not to mention some level of resistance to vaccination by whatever local superstitions and paranoia exist. The vaccine efficacy will be much lower by the time they get this done, even if they ever get it done.
With this as a standard, we will ne
Re: (Score:2)
5-7% every two months.
by not hogging all the vaccine
We're not going to give you any extra free doses. This will not change that. You can afford your own with all your sanctimoniously-better financial management that you're always telling us about.
We'll still find a way to get our boosters.
The 5-7% is only for catching it (Score:2)
Now, like I mentioned to the other guy, we could end our supply constraints in a few months tops if we seized the intellectual property and allowed the rest of the world to freely manufacture vaccines. We are not going to do that, and I don't think I need to
Re: (Score:3)
>"Delta, you'll recall, came out of India when they relaxed restrictions too early"
There is no evidence to support your causal assertion. You can guess there might be a relation, but that is about all. "Restrictions" were not all that effective in the first place (compared to, say, education). What is effective is vaccination, and Delta came out way before then. It is more likely that it would have emerged regardless of whatever "restrictions" they legislated.
Re:Nobody wants the bloodclot shot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nobody wants the bloodclot shot. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well. Your link to a Twitter post that, in turn, leads to an author's web site was all the evidence I needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Which in turn links back to a far-far-rightwingnut web site called The Herland Report run by someone whose expertise is a Masters in 'History of Religions'. Yep, sounds like a medical expert to me.