CDC Panel Endorses Pfizer COVID-19 Booster Shots For People 65 and Older (cnbc.com) 84
A key Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory group unanimously voted Thursday to recommend distributing Pfizer and BioNTech's Covid-19 booster shots to older Americans and nursing home residents, clearing the way for the agency to give the final OK as early as this evening. CNBC reports: The agency's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices specifically endorsed giving third Pfizer shots to people 65 and older in the first of four votes. The panel will also vote on whether to recommend the shots for adults with medical conditions that put them at risk of severe disease and those who are more frequently exposed to the virus -- possibly including people in nursing homes and prisons, teachers, front-line health employees and other essential workers. The elderly were among the first groups to get the initial shots in December and January.
The vote is seen as mostly a win for President Joe Biden, whose administration has said it wants to give booster shots to all eligible Americans 16 and older as early as this week. While the CDC panel's recommendation doesn't give the Biden administration everything it wanted, boosters will still be on the way for millions of Americans. The endorsement comes a day after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to administer third Pfizer shots to many Americans six months after they complete their first two doses. While the CDC's panel's recommendation isn't binding, Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is expected to accept the panel's endorsement shortly.
The vote is seen as mostly a win for President Joe Biden, whose administration has said it wants to give booster shots to all eligible Americans 16 and older as early as this week. While the CDC panel's recommendation doesn't give the Biden administration everything it wanted, boosters will still be on the way for millions of Americans. The endorsement comes a day after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to administer third Pfizer shots to many Americans six months after they complete their first two doses. While the CDC's panel's recommendation isn't binding, Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is expected to accept the panel's endorsement shortly.
Re: (Score:2)
The left you say? https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the manufacturer of ivermectin say it does not work on covid?
Re:A lot of MDs think these jabs are full of shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing "botched" about the vaccine rollout was that he didn't station troops on every street corner in Redneckland and force those morons to get injected. We knew they were going to resist anything smelling of science and sanity, there's no reason why we let them get away with forcing the country to shut down again except that it would have been bad PR. Who the fuck cares, though? It's not like the MAGAts are ever going to vote for anyone sane or voluntarily stop contaminating everyone else. The
Re: Third time's the charm... (Score:2)
Third shot didn't do anything to me beyond give me a sore arm.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I will not be watching a video by a fake "monk" who runs a company of mercenaries. Thank you. By the way, he gave up the right to use the honorific 'Brother' when he left the Franciscans years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
45% of African Americans as of Monday, 49% of Latinos, and 69% of Asians, versus 53% of whites, not large differences. More vaccination sites needed to be located in poor neighborhoods and rural areas, as that has been recognized and addressed the vaccination rates among Blacks and Latinos has been rising while white vaccination rates seem to have plateaued. At this point I'd be in favor of requiring vaccination to receive any government services. Want to see lines around the block to get shots in Louisi
Re: (Score:2)
When the Biden Administration moved into the White House they did so blind. Unlike pretty much every previous administration since John Adams they were unable to work with the previous batch of lunatics, who just refused to meet with them to go over transition plans (some departments still manned by lifelong bureaucrats did work with them, but almost none of the political appointees would). When they finally moved in and asked for the plans to roll out the vaccination they were appalled to find that **the
Re: (Score:2)
"They're not in black neighborhoods" never struck me as the reason for lower vaccination rates, especially not this far in. These aren't grocery store trips that you have to make daily. This is an errand you only need to do once or twice. Black neighborhoods have CVS and Walgreens within bus distance if not walking distance. These places have been giving out the vaccine for free to anyone who walks in, with no lines, for the past 6 months.
My experience working at the mass and mobile vaccination sites in Hou
Re: (Score:3)
You've made a dreadful mistake. The proper place to post vaccine misinformation and similar lies is Facebook, not Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Jabs are only for people that pay taxes. (Score:3)
What is this "win for President Biden"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought this was supposed to be evidence driven. There is no "winning" or "losing", it should be what the science directs?
Re:What is this "win for President Biden"? (Score:4, Interesting)
The science says that it is safe, and that there is a correlation between protection and antibody levels, that breakthrough infections are happening now, and that the efficacy of the vaccine goes down by 6% every two months.
It seems the science clearly supports giving approval, and that the complaints are entirely about policy and politics.
They should only be looking at the safety, that's the part that is their role.
Re: (Score:3)
Safety is the FDAs role. They already approved it. The CDCs role is public health policy.
Re: (Score:2)
The CDCs role is public health policy.
No, the CDC's role is to fight the spread of the virus, and advise other parts of government.
Policy is intended to come from elected officials. The CDC works better as a non-partisan scientific advisory body than as an independent source of policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mandatory? (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Older Israelis who have received a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine are much less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 or to develop severe COVID-19 than are those who have had only two jabs, according to a highly anticipated study published on 15 September.
The standard regimen for messenger RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines is two doses, but some governments, including Israel’s, have started administering third ‘booster’ shots. The latest study evaluated 1.1 million Israelis over the age of 60 who had received their first two doses at least five months earlier. Twelve or more days after receiving a third jab, participants were about 19.5 times less likely to have severe COVID-19 than were people in the same age group who had received only two jabs and were studied during a similar time period.
Re:Mandatory? (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Older Israelis who have received a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine are much less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 or to develop severe COVID-19 than are those who have had only two jabs, according to a highly anticipated study published on 15 September.
The standard regimen for messenger RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines is two doses, but some governments, including Israel’s, have started administering third ‘booster’ shots. The latest study evaluated 1.1 million Israelis over the age of 60 who had received their first two doses at least five months earlier. Twelve or more days after receiving a third jab, participants were about 19.5 times less likely to have severe COVID-19 than were people in the same age group who had received only two jabs and were studied during a similar time period.
A correct quote, and I nearly modded you Informative. But then I wondered about the obvious possibility of selection bias and saw the following later in the same paper:
But Ellie Murray, an epidemiologist at Boston University in Massachusetts, cautions that observational studies such as this analysis can contain biases that are difficult to identify and account for. For example, people who sign up to get a booster might have a different risk of COVID-19, or behave differently, from people who do not get a third jab.
Ellenberg says that the authors try to address some of these potential biases. Even if not all biases have been eliminated, she says, the magnitude of the effect suggests that the booster offers some protection, at least in the short term.
So the situation at this point seems rather less clear-cut than it would appear from the initial quotation. "[S]uggests that the booster offers some protection" is much less dramatic than "are much less likely to test positive". So it seems that more data are necessary before a definitive conclusion can be drawn.
Re:Mandatory? (Score:4, Insightful)
Very true, there are biases though that could affect every study in regards to behavior, the numbers in the actual paper are pretty striking, with a nonbooster group showing 4439 cases out of 5,193,825 person-days at risk vs the booster group showing 934 cases out of 10,603,410 person days at risk.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/... [nejm.org]
So far the data on boosters seem to be "they work" it's all a matter of calculus of "how well to justify a 3rd dose for a vaccinated person versus a shot for a person with 1 or none doses" and how can you stretch the effectiveness of two doses before a 3rd will make maximum effect. There doesn't appear to be any downside besides availability.
I think this is the right call, get the 60+ crowd boosted because they are high risk of death and would require the most hospital care, hold off for the rest of everyone until probably 2022 at the earliest if not later into the new year.
Re: Mandatory? (Score:2)
But covid isn't done with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah fuck all those old people who are circling the drain anyhow. $20 and I’m 16 times less likely to catch covid? Seems like a deal.
Re: Mandatory? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only way to know that 16x figure is anywhere close to reality is with a controlled trial. Preferably a randomized, single blind control trial. No such data exists, so you have no clue if you're reducing your risk by a factor of 16 or by 16 percent.
As for people circling the drain...how do you feel about them gobbling up $2100 a pop antibody infusions or 10k per day hospital beds?
Oh...you *don't* think that any resource spent on saving a life is automatically well-spent because there's nuance to this stuff and issuing 140-character certainties is a fool's game? I agree.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As for people circling the drain...how do you feel about them gobbling up $2100 a pop antibody infusions or 10k per day hospital beds?
I wish they'd have gotten the $20 vaccine instead? What... is your point
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mandatory? (Score:2)
Every fully vaccinated person can get *two* boosters and it won't change the fact that unvaccinated individuals are catching covid and filling up hospitals.
Hyping boosters for the already vaccinated is a farcical PR move meant to divert attention away from Biden's failure to convince/reach out to the half or so of the unvaccinated who are not the stereotypical dude bro with a mullet under his maga hat.
Re: (Score:2)
When you've tried to "reach out" across the aisle to the anti-science anti-human rights anti-environment crowd for 41 years and rather than receive a handshake you've been punched in the face every single time, being told you need to "reach out" to them again and just possibly this time if they're in a good mood they'll only spit on you instead is not a very convincing argument. Enough of offering them the carrot, they'll just kick us in the balls and steal the carrot again. It's getting to be time for th
Re: Mandatory? (Score:2)
Yeah. Let's answer a public health problem with belligerence and a threat of civil war.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be paid by the government, we could start letting individuals cover their own costs.
But, if we start doing that for vax shots, then it seems only right that we'd also start doing the same for emergency care, monoclonal antibodies, etc. I hope they have a decent health insurance plan.
And if that were to happen... How long do you think it will be before healthcare providers start to demand their members be vaccinated or lose coverage for future covid-related incidents?
What is the #1 comorbidity for those under 65? (Score:3)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Obesity kills. Get the shot.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What are you babbling about? The Pfizer shot IS the FDA approved shot. You can't sue vaccine makers for almost any vaccine, you file a claim with the government. This is because in the 80s antivaxxing dimwits filed a bunch of lawsuits against vaccine makers, making it unprofitable to make vaccines. Because of the public health crisis the lack of vaccines would cause, the government stepped in and said 'no more of that crap'.
Re: (Score:1)
And now we get vaccines that kill thousands of people and the manufacturers just shrug instead of developing a safer version.
Leave it to gov't to screw everything and everyone up.
Re: (Score:1)
Last I checked, total COVID-19 vaccine caused deaths in the U.S. added up to three (thousands of VAERS reports are meaningless; anyone can report anything, so it's largely trolls and unrelated issues being reported; only those three had any substance to them on follow-up). All of the deaths stemmed from the rare blood clots complication from J&J (a problem that almost exclusively affects women under 50, and has the simple solution of steering them to mRNA vaccines like Pfizer & Moderna now that we'r
Re: (Score:2)
The vaccine isn't an invulnerabilit
Re:Pfizer and BioNTech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comirnaty is the brand name for the Pfizer vaccine that's already gone in hundreds of millions of arms. So, to summarize, Comirnaty and the Pfizer/BioNTech shot are the exact same thing, as in identical, as in you are completely full of shit.
https://www.wane.com/community... [wane.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.nebraskamed.com/CO... [nebraskamed.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Are you listening to yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. https://www.factcheck.org/2021... [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OK, idiot. This is from https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-c... [hrsa.gov]
"The PREP Act declaration for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 states that the covered countermeasures are:
any antiviral, any drug, any biologic, any diagnostic, any other device, any respiratory protective device, or any vaccine manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured:
to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure COVID-19, or the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom; or to limit the harm
Mostly a win? (Score:5, Interesting)
The vote is seen as mostly a win for President Joe Biden, whose administration has said it wants to give booster shots to all eligible Americans 16 and older as early as this week
Seen as a win by whom? Biden promised boosters for every adult starting on September 20th. He pushed so hard on it that 2 FDA officials resigned [businessinsider.com] in protest of his interference. The unanimous decision seems like a rebuke, if you ask me. The FDA ignored Biden's desire to be seen as coming up with answers amid a flailing covid response and instead ruled straight on the stats.
If you have the time, you can watch the FDA panel discussion [youtube.com] which preceded their ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did watch the FDA panel, and today's CDC panel. The extent to which nonmedical issues like spiting Biden, their opinion (withou
Not needed for the general public, so far ... (Score:3)
Perhaps it makes sense when limited it to immuno-compromised people such as organ transplant recipients, immuo-deficients (HIV patients,...).
For the general public though, several specialists have written a viewpoint in The Lancet [thelancet.com], a respected medical publication, saying that so far there is no need for a 3rd dose.
See the discussion by virologists and an immuologist at TWiV #805 [microbe.tv].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks ...
The data from the Israel study (assuming it is this preprint [medrxiv.org]) was re-analyzed, and that analysis came to a different conclusion than the study came to.
Listen to a physician discussing this [youtube.com]..
Do you have a link to the Mayo Clinic paper?
need to get vaccines to other nations (Score:2)
The ONLY way to so stop this is to get everybody vaxed. Africa, middle east, latin america, most of asia, etc all need these. And having China sell them crap vaccines is a HORRIBLE idea.
Should be available to everyone as choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than trying to arm twist people who don't want the shots, quickly approve boosters for adults and shots for kids, advanced masks that protect wearers better, treatments like monoclonal antibodies and repurposed drugs. America is a free country and works best when people have choices and take responsibility for their own lives.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
America is a free country and works best when people have choices and take responsibility for their own lives.
America is the 17th freest country in the world, wank wank
America works best when people help one another, collectivism is the basis of all great American advancements. None of them would be possible without it.
Re: (Score:2)
America is a free country and works best when people have choices and take responsibility for their own lives.
Highlighted the issue in bold. The problem is that there are a significant number of people taking their choice and saying "fuck you, I don't believe there's even a problem and will fight you if you try to address it." Freedom is, unfortunately, antithetical to mitigating virulent outbreaks when the existence of the virus is treated as a wedge issue.
Moderna & J&J? (Score:2)
When are those going to be approved?