Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Chris Calohan on January 08, 2021, 11:44:50 pm
-
Got first dose today. Some moderate soreness in my arm and a bit of queasiness in the old gut but overall, other than some fuzzy-headedness and neck muscle cramping for about 10 minutes after the shot, it's been a no worries, mum kind of day. Everyone I've talked to has had pretty much the same reactions as me.
-
Out of curiosity, which vaccine, Chris? I forget what has been certified in the US.
Jeremy
-
Both the Pfizer and Moderna have been certified and are being administered.
I already got my second shot of Pfizer (incidentally, produced few miles from where I work). Some crappy feeling for a day or so after the second shot, besides the expected arm soreness.
Low incidence of allergic reactions from what I could see, only in people already very prone to allergies.
-
Interesting. The Pfizer vaccine was the first to be authorised here, then Oxford/AstraZeneca; administration of both has now started. The Moderna version has now been authorised but I don't think supplies are expected for another couple of months.
Jeremy
-
In Michigan at least, each hospital is assigned either Pfizer or Moderna, no mixing to avoid any potential for errors (administering the wrong one, they are not interchangeable).
-
I got the Moderna vaccine.
I would suggest hydrating muchly the day before, the day of and the day after. I would also suggest taking an OTC antihistamine a couple of hours before the shot. Ice packs after the shot help keep down the swelling and soreness. Tylenol or Advil right after the shot and regularly for a day after just to help the soreness. My second dose is on Feb 5. I hope I get it before they decide to release all doses in the belief they can have enough second round doses ready in time. Fauci isn't a fan of this plan.
-
Pfizer or Moderna, no mixing to avoid any potential for errors (administering the wrong one, they are not interchangeable).
Have you any source for that information ?
I've read widely on this and I don't think saying they're 'not interchangeable' is necessarily correct. It's more correct to say that the combination hasn't been tested.
In the UK there's already a published protocol to mix vaccines if necessary, say if there's no record of which vaccine was first administered. Most reputable experts in the UK don't expect any problems with mixing vaccines, although the efficacy of that policy will discovered in time. It's possible that mixing vaccines may even enhance protection.
-
There has indeed been much comment in the UK on the subject of the second dose of vaccine being of a different type from the first, but as far as I am aware, there has been no policy decision. Superficially, one might expect the two mRNA vaccines to be interchangeable to a greater degree than either with the more traditional Oxford type.
There is only one thread at LuLa in which any discussion on that point is permitted, however, and this isn't it.
Jeremy
-
but as far as I am aware, there has been no policy decision.
See page 14 of the document referenced below; "For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available, or where the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer a single dose of the locally available product. This option is preferred if that individual is likely to be at immediate high risk or is considered unlikely to attend again."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/949063/COVID-19_vaccination_programme_guidance_for_healthcare_workers_December_2020_V3.pdf
-
The quotation refers to a last-ditch resort for a particular, and one would hope unusual, situation, not a general policy.
I have removed political remarks from some posts above.
Anyone who makes any further political comments on this thread will be banned.
Jeremy
-
It's just factually correct to say some governments have been wrong in their response to Covid. It's not a political comment.
-
It's just factually correct to say some governments have been wrong in their response to Covid. It's not a political comment.
It is absolutely a political comment.
-
Exactly.
-
It's just factually correct to say some governments have been wrong in their response to Covid. It's not a political comment.
That statement, as expressed, is both apolitical and so anodyne as to be not worthy of being made. Identifying particular governments for criticism, however, is political: it invites argument as to the accuracy of the criticism, which cannot but be political. Responses to the pandemic are - must be - based on the balancing of numerous factors, which often conflict; and that balancing exercise is supremely political.
In any event, the question of what is or is not political is not open to debate.
Jeremy
-
Have you any source for that information ?
I've read widely on this and I don't think saying they're 'not interchangeable' is necessarily correct. It's more correct to say that the combination hasn't been tested.
In the UK there's already a published protocol to mix vaccines if necessary, say if there's no record of which vaccine was first administered. Most reputable experts in the UK don't expect any problems with mixing vaccines, although the efficacy of that policy will discovered in time. It's possible that mixing vaccines may even enhance protection.
I took me less than 30 sec to google and get to this: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html
Until a combo is tested and shown to be similarly effective, you don’t get to use it because someone thinks it’s a good idea, that’s how it works in medicine.
That should be the end of the discussion.
For humoring purposes, there can be many reasons why the combination might not work. While they technically present the same protein, the actual sequence might be slightly different between the vaccines and the immune response also depends a lot on the presentation, meaning the additional sequences “tied” to the actual mRNA. Another google search can clarify it. Make it that the doses are different and the schedules are different, 3 weeks Pfizer and 4 weeks Moderna, many things can go wrong.
In conclusion, until tested and proven, it’s not valid.
-
As for side effects management.
Unless you have significant allergies I wouldn’t take an antihistamine by default. The incidence of allergic reactions is rare, there are more chances that you will get a side effect from the antihistamine itself.
For NSAIDS/acetaminophen, that’s probably a good idea to take them before if you don’t enjoy pain. I didn’t because I wanted to see how the side effects go, but I felt compelled to rectify my initial decision when I was having chills in the middle of the night ;)
-
Thanks, Armand. This is exactly the kind of information it's worthwhile to have. Politics is not information.
-
https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/19/a-side-by-side-comparison-of-the-pfizer-biontech-and-moderna-vaccines/
-
If you think you have doubts which one to get, I will be in the position to choose between four: Pfizer, Moderna, Chinese, and Russian.
I already speak Russian and English, so maybe Chinese this time?
-
Letting you all know that I've volunteered for the Russian covid 19 vaccine trials held at The Countess of Chester hospital, England. I received my first injection at 14:30 yesterday. It’s completely safe with иo side effects whatsoeveя, and I feelshκι χoρoshό я чувствую себя немного странно и я думаю, что вытащил ослиные уши.
Jeremy
-
Good luck, Jeremy!
-
Fortunately we have the luxury of being able to sit back and watch what happens with you guys.
I don't think that we have had a death from Covid in Australia for months.
-
I haven't been able to find in any of the timetables any information about exactly when all LuLa members are to be vaccinated. I would prefer a vaccine that speaks either English or American, as my Russian and Chinese are rather weak.
-
You can try to Indian ones, see what happens. Apparently they make most of the world vaccines.
-
I took me less than 30 sec to google and get to this: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html
That document says the same as I said above.
"if two doses of different mRNA COVID-19 vaccine products are inadvertently administered, no additional doses of either product are recommended at this time"
No nothing actually bad is expected to happen, it's just an unknown.
-
Fortunately we have the luxury of being able to sit back and watch what happens with you guys.
I don't think that we have had a death from Covid in Australia for months.
Good point! We are not the 'Lucky Country' for no reason. ;)
As I've mentioned before, it's the deaths per capita, or per million of population, that should be compared.
Australia so far has only 35.84 Covid deaths per million, whereas Belgium has 1,748.34 Covid deaths per million. The U.K. has 1,216.36 deaths per million, and the USA 1134.99 deaths per million.
However, some countries are doing even better than Australia. New Zealand has only 5.08 deaths per million. China has 3.43 deaths per million (if you can believe their statistics), and Thailand has less than one death per million (0.96).
Here is my source:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
-
I read that on the black market you can get the Oxford vaccination for £2.
Or 3 for a Pfizer.
-
I read that on the black market you can get the Oxford vaccination for £2.
Or 3 for a Pfizer.
That's cheaper than Viagra.
-
That's cheaper than Viagra.
If you say so. I wouldn't know.
Jeremy
-
If you say so. I wouldn't know.
Jeremy
I'm not taking even the baby aspirin. But I've been getting incessant online offers from B&H and some other mail order companies.
-
If you say so. I wouldn't know.
Jeremy
:D :D :D
-
That document says the same as I said above.
"if two doses of different mRNA COVID-19 vaccine products are inadvertently administered, no additional doses of either product are recommended at this time"
No nothing actually bad is expected to happen, it's just an unknown.
I’m not sure what you are trying to prove here. I was quite clear in my response. Also, from the same document it says they are not to be used interchangeably.
Yes, probably nothing bad will happen but you are missing the point. In medicine we don’t go along with maybe it will work when we have an alternative that we know it works. It has to be compared and validated. In this case it has to be shown that it is as good as the current vaccines, not that you will have no bad reactions.
The text mentions not to administer another dose if the second was INADVERTENTLY the other vaccine, because we don’t know what could happen yet and the first principle is “do no harm”.
-
I read that on the black market you can get the Oxford vaccination for £2.
Or 3 for a Pfizer.
Some entrepreneurs are clearing substantially more with their covid vaccines.
The City of London police reported on Friday that a scammer had obtained 160 pounds from a 92-year-old woman and had jabbed her in the arm with what she described as a “dart-like implement” after he turned up unannounced at her home.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-fraud/uk-scammers-tricking-victims-into-paying-for-fake-covid-vaccines-idUSKBN29G1GS
-
That's cheaper than Viagra.
ah You have read about the side effects, lasting a year or more..
-
ah You have read about the side effects, lasting a year or more..
Viagra?? 😀
-
Viagra?? 😀
That's an additive that some photographers, back in Wet Darkroom days, liked to add to their developer before drinking it. ::)
-
must have been developing Kodachrome ! ;)
-
Good point! We are not the 'Lucky Country' for no reason. ;)
As I've mentioned before, it's the deaths per capita, or per million of population, that should be compared.
Australia so far has only 35.84 Covid deaths per million, whereas Belgium has 1,748.34 Covid deaths per million. The U.K. has 1,216.36 deaths per million, and the USA 1134.99 deaths per million.
However, some countries are doing even better than Australia. New Zealand has only 5.08 deaths per million. China has 3.43 deaths per million (if you can believe their statistics), and Thailand has less than one death per million (0.96).
Here is my source:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
True, but if you took one state out of the equation our deaths would be 1/8 as many. New Zealand has the big advantage (apart from a population less than Sydney) that their PM does not have to deal with 8 dysfunctional states and territories.
-
True, but if you took one state out of the equation our deaths would be 1/8 as many. New Zealand has the big advantage (apart from a population less than Sydney) that their PM does not have to deal with 8 dysfunctional states and territories.
True! Victoria has by far the largest number of Covis-19 deaths, followed by NSW. I live in Queensland, which has a population of 5.11 million. So far there has been a total of only 6 Covid deaths in Queensland, or one per 852,000. I feel so relaxed. :D
-
This conversation is drifting away from vaccination.
Jeremy
-
I had the 1st dose of the Pfizer vaccine. No side effects except some mild soreness at the injection
site and even then I had to activate my deltoid to find it.
Regards,
Dale
-
That's cheaper than Viagra.
Pfizer makes Viagra and the Covid vaccine. Some people have said Pfizer's vaccine will do for the living what their Viagra's done for the dead.
-
My wife and I are getting our first shots Friday, 2 1/2 weeks earlier than originally scheduled. We can't wait. I really need to get a haircut after almost a year. My wife told me she'd kill me if I put it in a ponytail. :)
-
I'm pretty close to a pony tail...about two inches over my collar. I will get one 21 days after my second shot on the 5th of Feb.
-
I'm pretty close to a pony tail...about two inches over my collar. I will get one 21 days after my second shot on the 5th of Feb.
How'd the first shot go? Reactions? What type? What state?
-
How'd the first shot go? Reactions? What type? What state?
Sore arm the next day, but nothing much after that. I am in Florida. There was no line to speak of where I went and was in and out in less than 20 minutes, 5 for the shot and a 15 min wait to ensure no major reactions.
-
How'd the first shot go? Reactions? What type? What state?
Beware of the side effects!!!
-
Sore arm the next day, but nothing much after that. I am in Florida. There was no line to speak of where I went and was in and out in less than 20 minutes, 5 for the shot and a 15 min wait to ensure no major reactions.
That's great. Which vaccine? My daughter who lives in NY says they're out of vaccines already. I think we're in the same situation here in NJ.
-
Beware of the side effects!!!
Fortuantely, I believe it's real. Also, I have big hands too.
-
What I’ve heard (sample size 1, Pfizer vaccine) is that the first jab gives you a sore arm and the second really knocks you out for 24 hours.
-
What I’ve heard (sample size 1, Pfizer vaccine) is that the first jab gives you a sore arm and the second really knocks you out for 24 hours.
Seems about right.
My friend, a doctor, said this:
Not going to lie, the second shot sucked for me. Fatigue, chills, body aches, headache. Getting better now, but still not out of the woods.
-
I got the Moderna shot and the two people I know who've had the second dose said no issues any worse than the first..sore arm and perhaps a bit more fatigued.
-
Maybe it's good there are reactions. That tells me something is happening, The body is fighting back manufacturing antibodies, so the vaccine is working.
-
Our ditzy Republican governor in Iowa finally gave in to the CDC yesterday and opened vaccinations to 65 and older. That added +500k old people to the queue. So on-line sign-ups flooded in this morning.
In typical government idiocy, the sign-up website starts with picking a time slot first, and then proceeds thru 3 more screens of name, addr, phone, and an 18 question health survey. By the time you finish that and "submit", the time slot you picked first is gone! So you have to start over. Don't have to fill everything out again, but you do have to click thru the screens. Took me 3 tries.
And all this after the morning's news says the current vaccines may not be as effective against the new variants.
-
Our ditzy Republican governor in Iowa finally gave in to the CDC yesterday and opened vaccinations to 65 and older. That added +500k old people to the queue. So on-line sign-ups flooded in this morning.
In typical government idiocy, the sign-up website starts with picking a time slot first, and then proceeds thru 3 more screens of name, addr, phone, and an 18 question health survey. By the time you finish that and "submit", the time slot you picked first is gone! So you have to start over. Don't have to fill everything out again, but you do have to click thru the screens. Took me 3 tries.
And all this after the morning's news says the current vaccines may not be as effective against the new variants.
In NJ where I live, they opened it to everyone over 16 if they have other medical issues. So you have people 80 years old being passed over by people in their twenties when statistics show in our town that 2/3 of the deaths are people over 65. What idiot changed the original policy to vaccinate people over 65 first.? NJ is getting 100,000 doses a week and right now there are 4 million people eligible because of the new policy. What dopes we have in government. So in order to increase the first-time doses, another dope changed the policy and they're making second doses on reserve into first doses. Does anyone want to take a side bet there won't be enough second doses to cover the people who already had their first dose?
-
Alan, the key phrase in your post is "with other medical issues".
Your post, and Redcrown's, are also perilously close to politics. Behave.
Jeremy
-
Alan, the key phrase in your post is "with other medical issues".
Your post, and Redcrown's, are also perilously close to politics. Behave.
Jeremy
Possibly Redcrown could have left off the party affiliation of his governor. However, I do not believe discussing/criticizing/disagreeing with government decisions on vaccine distribution is ‘political’....though it should be done respectfully.
The following are selected items from https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/deciding-who-should-be-
The prioritization of age is so important because people over the age of sixty-five account for about eighty per cent of the deaths. The issue that was raised at the A.C.I.P. meeting that I must say has concerned me is that there was no difference in apparent risk in the data presented by the C.D.C. between the ages of sixty-five to seventy-four and over seventy-five...that the single largest predictor of death is clearly age, and single comorbidities are lower than that.
When you get to people with comorbidities, it’s a much more difficult situation to ascertain, and how can you be sure who has high-risk conditions, and whose doctor is willing to write a note that they have high-risk conditions?
where things get stickier and, for example, when you get to things such as how to deal with essential workers versus people with comorbid conditions.
definition of an essential worker is, and they come in two speeds: those with the highest exposure to people with covid—and that’s a reasonable category—but there are also other people, such as schoolteachers, who are unlikely to be at the highest exposure rate, or at the highest risk of dying, and yet the damage that everyone accepts is destroying the socialization and education of kids
the highest priority for everybody is to prevent people from dying, and vaccines are likely to do that. The second priority is to keep hospitals open. And now the question is how do you deal with the issue of maintaining society at a functional level, as a different part of the question than the scientific matter of where do you get the most bang for your buck for preventing transmission. If you wanted to only prevent transmission, you would vaccinate high-school students and college students and let everybody else die off, which is what one of the herd-immunity proposals actually ended up looking like to me. I don’t think that’s the highest priority. I think that, if young people are going to get infected and they transmit and they don’t die, to me, that’s a lesser priority than if people get infected and die, and we can prevent that. If we’re less efficient when we get down to the lower-age groups, that’s fine.
-
What I’ve heard (sample size 1, Pfizer vaccine) is that the first jab gives you a sore arm and the second really knocks you out for 24 hours.
My wife and I had our first shots - Moderna - yesterday and our shoulders are sore a little this morning. Otherwise no other effect. Meanwhile, the second shots are in four weeks except only my wife got the email confirmation of the appointment. Not a good sign. I'll have to follow up on Monday if you can get through to anyone. All the places are swamped and don't answer phone calls.
-
In NJ where I live, they opened it to everyone over 16 if they have other medical issues. So you have people 80 years old being passed over by people in their twenties when statistics show in our town that 2/3 of the deaths are people over 65. What idiot changed the original policy to vaccinate people over 65 first.? NJ is getting 100,000 doses a week and right now there are 4 million people eligible because of the new policy. What dopes we have in government. So in order to increase the first-time doses, another dope changed the policy and they're making second doses on reserve into first doses. Does anyone want to take a side bet there won't be enough second doses to cover the people who already had their first dose?
Despite your misanthropic attitude and constant whining, it seems you got your vaccine in pretty short order, even ahead of your 95 year old mother-in-law who is in a nursing home.
-
So in order to increase the first-time doses, another dope changed the policy and they're making second doses on reserve into first doses. Does anyone want to take a side bet there won't be enough second doses to cover the people who already had their first dose?
Someone who takes a decision that you either don't understand or don't agree with (or both) isn't necessarily a "dope". Public health officials take decisions based on the good of the population, and those decisions don't always match those which might be taken for the benefit of particular individuals.
The first dose confers a substantial degree of immunity: not as good as two, but not insignificant. From a public health point of view, it at least arguably makes sense to use limited supplies to give as many first doses as possible. This is a live debate in the UK.
The BBC interviewed a woman whose mother was likely not to get her second dose for a while, wailing "but she won't be able to hug her grandchildren without it!". The reporter didn't point out that her mother's ability to hug her grandchildren might be gained, from a second dose, at the expense of the life of someone who as a result wouldn't get a first.
Jeremy
-
The first dose confers a substantial degree of immunity: not as good as two, but not insignificant. From a public health point of view, it at least arguably makes sense to use limited supplies to give as many first doses as possible. This is a live debate in the UK.
It's not clear to me how Pfizer and Moderna selected their respective intervals of 21 and 28 days between doses for the clinical trials. Was there some preliminary testing that indicated those intervals produced the optimal immune responses? Some experts here have suggested that a longer interval (e.g., six or even eight weeks) might work just as well, but they admit they don't have the science to support their guess: they are extrapolating from experience with other vaccines.
-
Someone who takes a decision that you either don't understand or don't agree with (or both) isn't necessarily a "dope". Public health officials take decisions based on the good of the population, and those decisions don't always match those which might be taken for the benefit of particular individuals.
The first dose confers a substantial degree of immunity: not as good as two, but not insignificant. From a public health point of view, it at least arguably makes sense to use limited supplies to give as many first doses as possible. This is a live debate in the UK.
The BBC interviewed a woman whose mother was likely not to get her second dose for a while, wailing "but she won't be able to hug her grandchildren without it!". The reporter didn't point out that her mother's ability to hug her grandchildren might be gained, from a second dose, at the expense of the life of someone who as a result wouldn't get a first.
Jeremy
Two-thrids of the people who died in my town were over 65. I have friends who are 80 who can't get appointments because there are none left. Meanwhile, they're giving the vaccine to people 16 years and older who smoke. Because of the change in policy, my state of New Jersey now has 4 million people eligible. The state is supposed to get 100,000 doses a week. That's forty weeks some people are going to have to wait. Unfortunately, my 80 year old friend didn't get to the internet or phone fast enough.
Yes, the people who changed this policy are dopes, worse, they're going to kill more people than if they left the policy as it were.
here are the people they are lumping together with people over 65
Licensed healthcare professionals and health care staff (including paid and unpaid health care workers)
First responders, sworn law enforcement and firefighters, and essential workers
Individuals ages 65 and older. So they'r putting people who are overweight and let's say 25 years old ahead of 65-year-olds. That's dumb. Meanwhile, Nj is all out of vaccine already. No one's making more appointments, who knows for how long.
Individuals ages 16-64 with medical conditions, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that increase the risk of severe illness from the virus. These conditions include:
Cancer
Chronic kidney disease
COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
Down Syndrome
Heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies
Obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 30 kg/m2 or higher but < 40 kg/m2)
Severe Obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2)
Sickle cell disease
Smoking
Type 2 diabetes mellitus
-
There's no triage putting first on line people who are old and who also have comorbities. Here's from one of the places providing the vaccine:
Due to supply limitations, vaccination appointment availability is extremely limited at this time. Once registered, it may be some time until you receive your link to schedule an appointment.
Once You Register:
Because of the massive number of vaccine registration forms we have received; you will be in our queue to receive the scheduling link based on your place in line and the number of people who requested a vaccine before you.
When you are next in the queue, the link will automatically be sent as a text message and email to the phone number and email address you entered in the registration form. Then you can schedule your appointment.
If you incorrectly entered information into the registration form, you will need to fill out a new registration form.
We do have a limited number of appointments at this time due to vaccine supply, with more opening up. We are not scheduling appointments over the phone.
Please do not call or send a message to your local hospital about vaccine scheduling.
Thank you for your understanding.
-
Alan, one could call them “dopes”, but definitely foolish enough to believe a prior CDC administration which was proven to be disorganized and ‘loose’ with the facts.
The AP, on 1/12, reported, “... Azar also said the government will stop holding back the required second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, practically doubling supply. Both those shots require two doses to achieve optimum protection.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar says the government will no longer hold back second doses of the COVID vaccines, practically doubling supply. He’s also urging states to immediately start vaccinating people age 65 and older. (Jan. 12)
Additionally, Washington is urging states to immediately start vaccinating other groups lower down the priority scale, including people age 65 and older and younger people with certain health problems...”
Apparently NJ was “silly” enough to to believe add’l supply was available (which it wasn’t) and to fully open the gates as Azar recommended, causing, as you report, massive demand without any means to prioritize appointments.
NC only “opened the gates” to include 65+ (to the existing healthcare providers). The two major healthcare centers in the state had already set up very efficient scheduling operations and injection centers. Each county is setting up add’l operations beyond that. My county has an appointment system where you register and they will prioritize scheduling based on risk factors such as age, comorbidities, and zip code (Covid reporting density).
-
Alan, one could call them “dopes”, but definitely foolish enough to believe a prior CDC administration which was proven to be disorganized and ‘loose’ with the facts.
The AP, on 1/12, reported, “... Azar also said the government will stop holding back the required second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, practically doubling supply. Both those shots require two doses to achieve optimum protection.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar says the government will no longer hold back second doses of the COVID vaccines, practically doubling supply. He’s also urging states to immediately start vaccinating people age 65 and older. (Jan. 12)
Additionally, Washington is urging states to immediately start vaccinating other groups lower down the priority scale, including people age 65 and older and younger people with certain health problems...”
Apparently NJ was “silly” enough to to believe add’l supply was available (which it wasn’t) and to fully open the gates as Azar recommended, causing, as you report, massive demand without any means to prioritize appointments.
NC only “opened the gates” to include 65+ (to the existing healthcare providers). The two major healthcare centers in the state had already set up very efficient scheduling operations and injection centers. Each county is setting up add’l operations beyond that. My county has an appointment system where you register and they will prioritize scheduling based on risk factors such as age, comorbidities, and zip code (Covid reporting density).
Thanks for reminding me. Yes, the CDC now recommending this younger age policy, is the same group who told us masks aren't needed for the general public. They also had the testing procedures all fowled up because the testing chemicals had either expired or were just ineffective. So now these same 'experts" have opened the flood gates so the old people who most need the vaccine stand online before behind younger people who need it less. That's criminal, not disorganized.
And now, the federal government says is going to jump into the fray and control the giving of these shots over the states and local communities and local medical establishments and hospitals. Are they kidding? I know we can't talk about politics here. But this isn't medicine.
-
Just to be fair about the second shot. When my wife and I got our first shots yesterday, I asked the nurse if she has our second shots knowing what the government is up to. She smiled knowingly and said "yes" they're keeping all of them in reserve. But I think that's their local policy. They're not following any CDC requirements by shifting the second to first. I just hope that holds.
-
Just to be fair about the second shot. When my wife and I got our first shots yesterday, I asked the nurse if she has our second shots knowing what the government is up to. She smiled knowingly and said "yes" they're keeping all of them in reserve. But I think that's their local policy. They're not following any CDC requirements by shifting the second to first. I just hope that holds.
Me, too. My wife & I are due for 2nd on Thursday.
-
Thanks for reminding me. Yes, the CDC now recommending this younger age policy, is the same group who told us masks aren't needed for the general public. They also had the testing procedures all fowled up because the testing chemicals had either expired or were just ineffective. So now these same 'experts" have opened the flood gates so the old people who most need the vaccine stand online before behind younger people who need it less. That's criminal, not disorganized.
And now, the federal government says is going to jump into the fray and control the giving of these shots over the states and local communities and local medical establishments and hospitals. Are they kidding? I know we can't talk about politics here. But this isn't medicine.
I think the states are still in control and the federal govt is offering more planning &resource assistance.
-
I am 81 years old and recovering from a kidney transplant last March. By the current Massachusetts schedule I would be eligible for my first Covid vaccination in February. However, I just received a notice from Mass General Hospital that I can make an appointment now, because organ transplant patients are eligible a month after their surgery.
I will get my first shot next Friday, and at that time my second shot will be scheduled.
On the whole, I'd rather live here than in New Jersey. ;)
-
Just to be fair about the second shot. When my wife and I got our first shots yesterday, I asked the nurse if she has our second shots knowing what the government is up to. She smiled knowingly and said "yes" they're keeping all of them in reserve. But I think that's their local policy. They're not following any CDC requirements by shifting the second to first. I just hope that holds.
Well, that's jolly nice for you. I trust, as you receive your second dose, you will give a thought to the 80-year-old who may die because you are depriving him of his first.
The job of public health officials is to maximise public health. That is done by using a finite resource in the most efficient way, by vaccinating those most at risk of death or serious disease as a result of infection, not by giving second doses to people who selfishly think they are more deserving than others.
Jeremy
-
On the whole, I'd rather live here than in New Jersey. ;)
Understandable given the neighbourhood Sopranos and Kleins!
-
Well, that's jolly nice for you. I trust, as you receive your second dose, you will give a thought to the 80-year-old who may die because you are depriving him of his first.
The job of public health officials is to maximise public health. That is done by using a finite resource in the most efficient way, by vaccinating those most at risk of death or serious disease as a result of infection, not by giving second doses to people who selfishly think they are more deserving than others.
Jeremy
I am afraid, Mr. Aministrator, that your statement is opinion and not based on any scientific fact. I do not believe there have been any peer based studies on the efficacy of only one shot of either Pfizer or Moderna. Nor any studies of extending 2nd shot from 3/4 weeks to 6 weeks. (Edit: plus you made a personal attack, which is against the rule, isn’t it? “ people who selfishly think they are more deserving than others.”)
In addition, if you give current 2nd shots to first timers, there is concern on what the supply will be down the road as the need for 2nd shots is increased at the same time need for 1st shots has not diminished. I have not seen any numbers on future deliveries, but they do not seem to be ramping up. In fact, in Europe, Pfizer will be delivering less until Feb. due to rebuild of plant.
Alan’s main complaint was the inclusion of the 16-64 group which swelled the NJ demand to 4 million people. If you read my earlier post & referenced article, the 65+ group has 80% of the deaths. Including the 16-64 group diminishes the “80-year-old who may die” from getting the vaccine, much more than Alan having gotten his.
Public health officials, I am sure, are trying to do their best. However, they are also under tremendous pressure from people, businesses, and political.
-
Well, that's jolly nice for you. I trust, as you receive your second dose, you will give a thought to the 80-year-old who may die because you are depriving him of his first.
The job of public health officials is to maximise public health. That is done by using a finite resource in the most efficient way, by vaccinating those most at risk of death or serious disease as a result of infection, not by giving second doses to people who selfishly think they are more deserving than others.
Jeremy
You're conflating the issues. The problem is that they opened up the younger group of people who aren't as affected. There would be enough shots for the 80-year-old otherwise. The original plan was to vaccinate everyone over 65 first, not 16-year-olds who are overweight. If they wanted to move up the younger group, fine. But they should arrange the appointments so the older group gets the injections first. Right now it's whoever calls in first.
Additionally, what you're recommending is to effectively do away with the second shot. No one will get it until everyone gets their first shot. Well, how many old people will die because they only got the first shot? What will a program like that do to the plan for herd immunity? Will anyone actually start living normally knowing they only had one shot so our lives and the economies can get back to normal?
I haven't heard any discussion in public about this new plan. It was instituted by some unknown people without the public being informed, all at the last minute, just as the first doses were being given. It makes the CDC and governments seem like they again don't know what they're doing. Who could trust them? Everyone was told you'll be about 95% safe when you get two shots, which is what everyone is counting on.
Would you want to only get one shot after being told you need two?
-
Understandable given the neighbourhood Sopranos and Kleins!
You're nasty and personally insulting and have been added to my Ignore list.
-
Would you want to only get one shot after being told you need two?
Why all the fuss and whining? They can take the vaccine dose for the second shot from the next shipment, One or two weeks delays don't matter.
-
Why all the fuss and whining? They can take the vaccine dose for the second shot from the next shipment, One or two weeks delays don't matter.
That's not what Jeremy suggested. He suggested giving up the second shot entirely and settle with some benefit less than the vaccine manufacturers' studies provided and with doses less than recommend by them. Apparently, the CDC knows more than the pharmaceutical companies.
-
Why all the fuss and whining? They can take the vaccine dose for the second shot from the next shipment, One or two weeks delays don't matter.
Also, it won't be one or two weeks of delay. If they're going to give out first doses to everyone first, it could be months up to a year before they have enough supply to start giving second shots. Meanwhile, there are 80-year-olds who can't get their first shots because 16-year-olds are now in the same group. Many of the old people I know where I live, are still trying to figure out email and messaging. Meanwhile, the 16-year-olds, are on the web making appointments for their shots thumbing away on their phones. I spoke to my friend last night trying to help him out to get an appointment. He doesn't know all the ins and outs. He's 80+ and has Parkinson's. So if he gets on a list now, he's going to be weeks if not months away from his first shot. Meanwhile the fat 16 year old will get theirs, and stop for a Dunkin' Donut on the way home.
-
That's not what Jeremy suggested. He suggested giving up the second shot entirely
No, I didn't. I suggested that it might be appropriate to use a finite resource to maximise the benefit to be derived. That may mean delaying the second dose to some in order that others can get a first. I have neither the knowledge of vaccines nor the background in public health necessary to reach a decision as to which course of action would be preferable from a public health point of view. Of course, those individuals who are able to obtain a second dose benefit themselves; but the purpose of public health is to benefit the population, not individuals. Comments on obesity are moral judgments, implying that those who are at risk because of their self-indulgence (if that is the cause of their obesity) despite their youth are somehow less entitled to protection. There are no doubt some who hold this view - Alan clearly does - but it's not universal and again is not the concern of public health decision-makers.
Jeremy
-
No, I didn't. I suggested that it might be appropriate to use a finite resource to maximise the benefit to be derived. That may mean delaying the second dose to some in order that others can get a first. I have neither the knowledge of vaccines nor the background in public health necessary to reach a decision as to which course of action would be preferable from a public health point of view. Of course, those individuals who are able to obtain a second dose benefit themselves; but the purpose of public health is to benefit the population, not individuals. Comments on obesity are moral judgments, implying that those who are at risk because of their self-indulgence (if that is the cause of their obesity) despite their youth are somehow less entitled to protection. There are no doubt some who hold this view - Alan clearly does - but it's not universal and again is not the concern of public health decision-makers.
Jeremy
I’m sorry, but I read your response the same way. In addition, without an increase in weekly supply, delaying 2nd dose for 2/3 weeks only gives a short term advantage to 1st dose supply, but creates, then, an expansion of 2nd dose demand, downstream, which will reduce doses available for 1st shot.
While Alan’s example could be chosen better (😀 he’s from Jersey, so English is not his first language 😀 ), the fact is ‘...the single largest predictor of death is clearly age, and single comorbidities are lower than that...” (https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/deciding-who-should-be-vaccinated-first)
-
Would you want to only get one shot after being told you need two?
Because the second shot would do more good to someone else than to you. If there are (for now) only 2 shots available, shall we give one each to you and your wife, or shall we give both to you?
-
I’m sorry, but I read your response the same way.
I’m not Jezza’s biggest fan but I dont see how you get there. NOBODY has suggested not giving the second dose, and I think it would be grossly unethical to do so.
-
I’m not Jezza’s biggest fan but I dont see how you get there. NOBODY has suggested not giving the second dose, and I think it would be grossly unethical to do so.
You get there by looking forward, as I said in my post, that without increased supply, delaying only gives a very short interval of increased 1st shots, which must be ‘paid back’ a few weeks later.
The statement was “... I trust, as you receive your second dose, you will give a thought to the 80-year-old who may die because you are depriving him of his first.
The job of public health officials is to maximise public health. That is done...not by giving second doses to people who selfishly think they are more deserving than others.”
Without further explanation or statement of near term supply increase, one must assume that his statement was recommending long term delay of second shot....or the statement was improperly stated or thought out.
EDIT: while I have not followed the reporting, I believe the UK JCVI has suggested doses should be given 12 weeks apart in order to give the maximum number of people some protection while supplies are limited. This is based a small Israeli study on people over the age of 60 suggested a first dose gave just 33% protection from coronavirus. The Israeli data is preliminary data. It does involve PCR testing, which is of course asymptomatic cases as well as symptomatic cases. They have not followed up for more than three weeks and the statistical methods they used are not clear.
-
Because the second shot would do more good to someone else than to you. If there are (for now) only 2 shots available, shall we give one each to you and your wife, or shall we give both to you?
Personally, I’d give it to my wife. There is no data on the efficacy of a single shot, nor if that shot will diminish any symptoms of a COVID-19 infection.
-
No, I didn't. I suggested that it might be appropriate to use a finite resource to maximise the benefit to be derived. That may mean delaying the second dose to some in order that others can get a first. I have neither the knowledge of vaccines nor the background in public health necessary to reach a decision as to which course of action would be preferable from a public health point of view. Of course, those individuals who are able to obtain a second dose benefit themselves; but the purpose of public health is to benefit the population, not individuals. Comments on obesity are moral judgments, implying that those who are at risk because of their self-indulgence (if that is the cause of their obesity) despite their youth are somehow less entitled to protection. There are no doubt some who hold this view - Alan clearly does - but it's not universal and again is not the concern of public health decision-makers.
Jeremy
I'll accept that's not what you meant. However, giving first shots to everyone before anyone gets a second shot means delays of many months not a couple of weeks. My hyperbolic comment of an obese 16-year-old was not to besmirch that person. It was to satirize the foolishness of placing a 16-year-old ahead of 65 year old who most also have comorbidities as well by the time they reach that age.
There was no effort it seems by the CDC or others to triage the appointments and order. By lumping all the younger people who are less vulnerable even with these comorbidities, than older people, they put the most vulnerable at risk. If you care about your fellow man so much, and I'm sure you do, then you'd want to apply the best methods. The ones we're currently working on were made at the last minute, with no public discussion, no advice as to triage to the organizations directly responsible for vaccinating people, and no peer-reviewed studies as to the efficacy of this new plan. At least in the US, it was unilateral declared by President Biden, that all second shots would be used as first shots. While there's to be no politics in this thread, one can't escape the fact the decision seems to hinge on politics, not good epidemiology.
-
I’m sorry, but I read your response the same way. In addition, without an increase in weekly supply, delaying 2nd dose for 2/3 weeks only gives a short term advantage to 1st dose supply, but creates, then, an expansion of 2nd dose demand, downstream, which will reduce doses available for 1st shot.
While Alan’s example could be chosen better (😀 he’s from Jersey, so English is not his first language 😀 ), the fact is ‘...the single largest predictor of death is clearly age, and single comorbidities are lower than that...” (https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/deciding-who-should-be-vaccinated-first)
I only recently moved to Nu Joisey. I was raised in Da Bronx and lived in Nu Yoik all my life. Now my wife who's from Brooklyn, now she's the one who speaks a foreign language. Fergetaboutit.
-
I'll accept that's not what you meant. However, giving first shots to everyone before anyone gets a second shot means delays of many months not a couple of weeks. My hyperbolic comment of an obese 16-year-old was not to besmirch that person. It was to satirize the foolishness of placing a 16-year-old ahead of 65 year old who most also have comorbidities as well by the time they reach that age.
I should think that might depend on whether vaccine production remained level or was increasing.
-
Because the second shot would do more good to someone else than to you. If there are (for now) only 2 shots available, shall we give one each to you and your wife, or shall we give both to you?
That actually came up before the first shot and there may have been only one for both of us. At first, I was the only one who got the appointment. They called me to set it up and I told the girl that my wife needs one too and she filed for an appointment. I asked to set it up for her as well, which she did, at the same time. They were very nice about it. The whole process was done very well at the hospital as well.
Had that not happened, I planned to give her mine. I'm sure you would have done the same for your wife. However, despite what the Administrator says, I don't think anyway else would give up their shot for you or my wife. :)
-
I only recently moved to Nu Joisey. I was raised in Da Bronx and lived in Nu Yoik all my life. Now my wife who's from Brooklyn, now she's the one who speaks a foreign language. Fergetaboutit.
Love it, buddy 😀
-
At least in the US, it was unilateral declared by President Biden, that all second shots would be used as first shots. While there's to be no politics in this thread, one can't escape the fact the decision seems to hinge on politics, not good epidemiology.
I have not seen any declaration such as that. Do you have a reference?
Best I have seen is a restatement of the prior administration’s info that there was no reserve of 2nd shots at the federal level.
The states control the supply at their level and, I believe, are expected to balance supply for 1st & 2nd doses. Each state does it different, but I suspect all/most have some herky-jerky aspects to their implementation. Just this weekend, a ‘surprise’, aka new news, mass vaccination event in the Charlotte area caused a last minute redistribution of supply, which caused the Cone Medical center to cancel 10K appts (unknown if just 1st or if 2nd included).
In addition, on 1/21, the CDC updated their vaccine guidance “... The second dose should be administered as close to the recommended interval as possible. However, if it is not feasible to adhere to the recommended interval, the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may be scheduled for administration up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose...”
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html
-
Gee, you guys are lucky. You make appointments. In Belgrade, lines are half a mile long:
P.S. To be fair, we also make appointments. So, there are two lines actually, those who made appointments and those without :D
-
I have not seen any declaration such as that. Do you have a reference?
Best I have seen is a restatement of the prior administration’s info that there was no reserve of 2nd shots at the federal level.
The states control the supply at their level and, I believe, are expected to balance supply for 1st & 2nd doses. Each state does it different, but I suspect all/most have some herky-jerky aspects to their implementation. Just this weekend, a ‘surprise’, aka new news, mass vaccination event in the Charlotte area caused a last minute redistribution of supply, which caused the Cone Medical center to cancel 10K appts (unknown if just 1st or if 2nd included).
In addition, on 1/21, the CDC updated their vaccine guidance “... The second dose should be administered as close to the recommended interval as possible. However, if it is not feasible to adhere to the recommended interval, the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may be scheduled for administration up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose...”
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html
I heard him say it on TV weeks ago. Here's an article. There was no real public discussion; it was unilateral on his part. Where are the peer-reviewed studies?
Biden Says He Will Release All Vaccine Doses After Taking Office
FRIDAY, Jan. 8, 2021 (HealthDay News) -- President-elect Joe Biden plans to release nearly all available doses of COVID-19 vaccine when he takes office, reversing the Trump administration's strategy of holding back half the supply to ensure second doses are available.
The potentially risky move is meant to boost a nationwide COVID-19 vaccination program that has gotten off to a slow start, with only about 5.9 million doses administered out of 29.4 million distributed, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The President-elect believes we must accelerate distribution of the vaccine while continuing to ensure the Americans who need it most get it as soon as possible," T.J. Ducklo, a spokesperson for Biden's transition, told CNN.
Biden "will share additional details next week on how his administration will begin releasing available doses when he assumes office on January 20th," Ducklo added.
One infectious diseases expert noted that supply is not the only issue hampering the vaccine rollout.
"I do think it is important to get all of those out as fast as possible so we can accelerate the process of vaccination," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in Baltimore. "However, it's not just an issue of doses, it's about turning those doses into actual vaccinations, so we do still need more support at the state level to actually implement vaccination programs. We are in a race with this virus, so anything that speeds vaccination should be applauded."
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require two doses administered a few weeks apart. The risk is that some people will get their first dose, then be unable to find a follow-up dose.
[/b]https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-01-08/biden-says-he-will-release-all-vaccine-doses-after-taking-office
-
I'll accept that's not what you meant. However, giving first shots to everyone before anyone gets a second shot means delays of many months not a couple of weeks. My hyperbolic comment of an obese 16-year-old was not to besmirch that person. It was to satirize the foolishness of placing a 16-year-old ahead of 65 year old who most also have comorbidities as well by the time they reach that age.
There was no effort it seems by the CDC or others to triage the appointments and order. By lumping all the younger people who are less vulnerable even with these comorbidities, than older people, they put the most vulnerable at risk. If you care about your fellow man so much, and I'm sure you do, then you'd want to apply the best methods. The ones we're currently working on were made at the last minute, with no public discussion, no advice as to triage to the organizations directly responsible for vaccinating people, and no peer-reviewed studies as to the efficacy of this new plan. At least in the US, it was unilateral declared by President Biden, that all second shots would be used as first shots. While there's to be no politics in this thread, one can't escape the fact the decision seems to hinge on politics, not good epidemiology.
I put the worry about not getting the second shot into the same category as worrying about running out of the toilet paper. Both are totally irrational.
The new doses are now being manufactured in large volumes and are shipped to most countries every few weeks. If anything, then a fresh vaccine bottle is more effective than an old one, stored somewhere for weeks under questionable conditions.
I haven't received my shot yet and don't fret whether I get it in February or March. I am being careful, keep away from crowded places and so far, I managed to avoid the virus. There are many other individuals who are not as careful or get exposed more frequently to possible virus carriers, I'd rather see them getting vaccinated first.
-
So now, millions of people will never see their second doses because a political decision was made backed up by CDC bureaucrats who don't want to go against the new president.
-
I put the worry about not getting the second shot into the same category as worrying about running out of the toilet paper. Both are totally irrational.
The new doses are now being manufactured in large volumes and are shipped to most countries every few weeks. If anything, then a fresh vaccine bottle is more effective than an old one, stored somewhere for weeks under questionable conditions.
I haven't received my shot yet and don't fret whether I get it in February or March. I am being careful, keep away from crowded places and so far, I managed to avoid the virus. There are many other individuals who are not as careful or get exposed more frequently to possible virus carriers, I'd rather see them getting vaccinated first.
Apparently you know more than Pfizer and Moderna. Their protocol is for two shots. Would you think this plan for releasing the second does as the first was so good if Trump did it? Be honest. :)
I agree that those most vulnerable should get it first. That's the old, not the young. But the CDC set up no procedure for giving shots within the same group based on susceptibility and outcome. They're all lumped together. Typical government incompetence.
Regarding toilet paper, half my garage is full of it. Along with paper towels. It's my wife, though. I swear. :)
-
That actually came up before the first shot and there may have been only one for both of us. At first, I was the only one who got the appointment.
That’s not at all the situation that I hypothesised. I asked what you’d do if you had TWO shots for you and your wife.
-
So now, millions of people will never see their second doses because a political decision was made backed up by CDC bureaucrats who don't want to go against the new president.
Why do you say "never"?
-
So now, millions of people will never see their second doses because a political decision was made backed up by CDC bureaucrats who don't want to go against the new president.
Wrong on every point. Good going!!
-
That’s not at all the situation that I hypothesised. I asked what you’d do if you had TWO shots for you and your wife.
We'd take both doses. We currently have appointments for our second doses in four weeks, the recommended wait period for the Moderna vaccine we were given. But who knows if we'll get the second dose. The nurse said they're holding those for us and everyone else who got the first shots. But I suppose that could change.
-
We'd take both doses.
I despair.
-
I also have a second first shot that was scheduled for me at another place for Feb 10th. I filed at a number of places as was recommended and two places made appointments for me. But I haven't cancelled the other one yet. Monday when their office opens, I'm going to try to get them to change it to my 80 year-old friend who hasn't been able to get an appointment and there are no shots available at this time anywhere. I doubt if I'll be able to make the switch for him. But I'm going to try.
-
So now, millions of people will never see their second doses because a political decision was made backed up by CDC bureaucrats who don't want to go against the new president.
I don’t think you read my post on 1/21 CDC guidance. They did not say that.
-
I despair.
You'd give up your second dose to unknown people to get their first dose? You're a better man than I am.
-
I don’t think you read my post on 1/21 CDC guidance. They did not say that.
I don't know what the CDC said about this. It's just my opinion that the switching of second doses to first doses is going to cause a shortage. Many people are not going to get their second dose. Hopefully, I'm wrong and the manufacturers can get more doses out quickly. Now, Johnson and Johnson's vaccine only requires one dose. If they get theirs out, that could help the situation a lot.
-
I heard him say it on TV weeks ago. Here's an article. There was no real public discussion; it was unilateral on his part. Where are the peer-reviewed studies?
Biden Says He Will Release All Vaccine Doses After Taking Office
FRIDAY, Jan. 8, 2021 (HealthDay News) -- President-elect Joe Biden plans to release nearly all available doses of COVID-19 vaccine when he takes office, reversing the Trump administration's strategy of holding back half the supply to ensure second doses are available.
The potentially risky move is meant to boost a nationwide COVID-19 vaccination program that has gotten off to a slow start, with only about 5.9 million doses administered out of 29.4 million distributed, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The President-elect believes we must accelerate distribution of the vaccine while continuing to ensure the Americans who need it most get it as soon as possible," T.J. Ducklo, a spokesperson for Biden's transition, told CNN.
Biden "will share additional details next week on how his administration will begin releasing available doses when he assumes office on January 20th," Ducklo added.
One infectious diseases expert noted that supply is not the only issue hampering the vaccine rollout.
"I do think it is important to get all of those out as fast as possible so we can accelerate the process of vaccination," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in Baltimore. "However, it's not just an issue of doses, it's about turning those doses into actual vaccinations, so we do still need more support at the state level to actually implement vaccination programs. We are in a race with this virus, so anything that speeds vaccination should be applauded."
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require two doses administered a few weeks apart. The risk is that some people will get their first dose, then be unable to find a follow-up dose.
[/b]https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-01-08/biden-says-he-will-release-all-vaccine-doses-after-taking-office
Biden’s comment was made when the world believed that 2nd dose supply was being held back. Azar, on 1/12, said he would begin releasing the supply.
On 1/15, we were told that the reserve supply had been released starting in late December. The reason initial supply had been held back was to buffer manufacturing unknowns. They said that was no longer necessary as they had confidence in the continuity of supply.
None of these statements said anything about changes to dose schedules. The states and providers within the states were to adher to CDC guidelines, which had not....and except, where necessary due to short term shortages, have not changed
-
I don't know what the CDC said about this. It's just my opinion that the switching of second doses to first doses is going to cause a shortage. Many people are not going to get their second dose. Hopefully, I'm wrong and the manufacturers can get more doses out quickly. Now, Johnson and Johnson's vaccine only requires one dose. If they get theirs out, that could help the situation a lot.
Well, shucks, read my post (above) and referenced CDC article before making such statements, ok.
-
Biden’s comment was made when the world believed that 2nd dose supply was being held back. Azar, on 1/12, said he would begin releasing the supply.
On 1/15, we were told that the reserve supply had been released starting in late December. The reason initial supply had been held back was to buffer manufacturing unknowns. They said that was no longer necessary as they had confidence in the continuity of supply.
None of these statements said anything about changes to dose schedules. The states and providers within the states were to adher to CDC guidelines, which had not....and except, where necessary due to short term shortages, have not changed
Biden's comment about releasing the second doses was made on Jan 6th before Azar's comment on 1/12 and the other comment on 1/15. Biden made the comment without any virus scientist next to him. It appeared to me he was doing it unilaterally and politically. I think Azar and the other followed his order being the good soldiers they are and came up with justifications to his order.
Trump was castigated for unilaterally recommending testing antiseptics internally, even with doctors standing nearby. But when Biden recommends something unilaterally that's medical, he's given a pass.
There are two issues on the table that may be conflating as well. One is opening up second doses for the first dose. The second related issue is opening up age group 65-74 to include people from 16-64 who have certain medical issues. It's too complicated for regular people to sort out, especially seniors. All we know is at the last moment, the government changed the protocol in two different ways without discussion or public comment. That wasn't right. I have loads of friends who can't get their first shot because of it who are in anguish. They are at wit's end not knowing what to do and scared sh!tless for being left out in the cold not being able to get the shot. That's Biden's fault.
-
Well, shucks, read my post (above) and referenced CDC article before making such statements, ok.
Read my last post. The proof will be in the pudding. Let's see if all people who had their first shot get their second shot or whether someone in CDC or elsewhere screwed it up again as I suspect. I really hope I'm wrong because we want to get our second shots in four weeks.
-
Biden's comment about releasing the second doses was made on Jan 6th before Azar's comment on 1/12 and the other comment on 1/15. Biden made the comment without any virus scientist next to him. It appeared to me he was doing it unilaterally and politically. I think Azar and the other followed his order being the good soldiers they are and came up with justifications to his order.
Trump was castigated for unilaterally recommending testing antiseptics internally, even with doctors standing nearby. But when Biden recommends something unilaterally that's medical, he's given a pass.
There are two issues on the table that may be conflating as well. One is opening up second doses for the first dose. The second related issue is opening up age group 65-74 to include people from 16-64 who have certain medical issues. It's too complicated for regular people to sort out, especially seniors. All we know is at the last moment, the government changed the protocol in two different ways without discussion or public comment. That wasn't right. I have loads of friends who can't get their first shot because of it who are in anguish. They are at wit's end not knowing what to do and scared sh!tless for being left out in the cold not being able to get the shot. That's Biden's fault.
This is edging on the political, where I do not want to tread.
However, you have no idea who Biden consulted before making that statement on 1/8. He could not have any of the CDC scientist or Fauci on the broadcast because they did not report to him until noon 1/21.
Azar didn’t “follow his orders” because he did not report to Biden (and doesn’t now, he is no longer in the job). Azar should have been aware of the supply situation, which he obviously wasn’t. Who knows why that admin kept it quite.
Taking bleach as a cure and recommending supply release (which was being done, but hidden) are worlds apart and I question how they can be included in the same paragraph, much less same room...??
The issue on 2nd doses is not supply, but how the supply is managed weekly to balance 1st and 2nd dose needs.
-
This is edging on the political, where I do not want to tread.
However, you have no idea who Biden consulted before making that statement on 1/8. He could not have any of the CDC scientist or Fauci on the broadcast because they did not report to him until noon 1/21.
Azar didn’t “follow his orders” because he did not report to Biden (and doesn’t now, he is no longer in the job). Azar should have been aware of the supply situation, which he obviously wasn’t. Who knows why that admin kept it quite.
Taking bleach as a cure and recommending supply release (which was being done, but hidden) are worlds apart and I question how they can be included in the same paragraph, much less same room...??
The issue on 2nd doses is not supply, but how the supply is managed weekly to balance 1st and 2nd dose needs.
That was my point. When I heard Biden say it on TV at the time, it sounded political. He didn't refer to any medical guidance he received that I recall. It came out of the blue as if he just thought it was a good idea to release second shots as first shots. After that, I heard nothing from him although he could have made statements that I missed, of course. But I do recall hearing afterwards Azar and others recommending the change as well.
But there were no coordinated meetings. You're right that Azar and others still worked for the last administration. So they wouldn't appear with Biden. Well, that made his recommendation even more unilateral and less medically guided to the public. That's why I'm so distrustful of the whole thing. And both protocol changes were made just as the last administration was ending, too coincidental and even more suspicious. It all seems like a political afterthought, and dangerous.
-
That was my point. When I heard Biden say it on TV at the time, it sounded political. He didn't refer to any medical guidance he received that I recall. It came out of the blue as if he just thought it was a good idea to release second shots as first shots. After that, I heard nothing from him although he could have made statements that I missed, of course. But I do recall hearing afterwards Azar and others recommending the change as well.
But there were no coordinated meetings. You're right that Azar and others still worked for the last administration. So they wouldn't appear with Biden. Well, that made his recommendation even more unilateral and less medically guided to the public. That's why I'm so distrustful of the whole thing. And both protocol changes were made just as the last administration was ending, too coincidental and even more suspicious. It all seems like a political afterthought, and dangerous.
Never mind....not getting in to that. If you would like to discuss factual matters, I am glad to do so. I’ll not get into conspiracy theories.
EDIT: BTW, the issue being discussed, is not one of dosage timing, but one of supply chain management. If you know you need sets amounts of dosages for 2nd dosage and you have an unproven manufacturing line, you need to build a supply buffer so you can provide the ‘on time delivery’ within the 3/4 week window. As you improve reliability, you can lower the buffer. Apparently the people in charge of logistics ( General Perna) had confidence in manufacturing to lower the buffer to zero at the federal level. Obviously, points of distribution (states, medical centers, pharmacies, etc) would need to manage theirs. However, having multiple levels of supply buffers is inefficient and keeps supply from getting used on a timely basis.
-
Apparently you know more than Pfizer and Moderna. Their protocol is for two shots. Would you think this plan for releasing the second does as the first was so good if Trump did it? Be honest. :)
I never disputed the two-shot method, if Pfizer and Moderna say so, I am all for it. I said that there is no need to hoard the available vaccines in a special location or cupboard for the second shot. The doses can be taken when required from just one inventory location which is constantly used and replenished - first in, first out. Or in other words like what Toyota does with their car parts - Just In Time Inventory.
-
Never mind....not getting in to that. If you would like to discuss factual matters, I am glad to do so. I’ll not get into conspiracy theories.
EDIT: BTW, the issue being discussed, is not one of dosage timing, but one of supply chain management. If you know you need sets amounts of dosages for 2nd dosage and you have an unproven manufacturing line, you need to build a supply buffer so you can provide the ‘on time delivery’ within the 3/4 week window. As you improve reliability, you can lower the buffer. Apparently the people in charge of logistics ( General Perna) had confidence in manufacturing to lower the buffer to zero at the federal level. Obviously, points of distribution (states, medical centers, pharmacies, etc) would need to manage theirs. However, having multiple levels of supply buffers is inefficient and keeps supply from getting used on a timely basis.
Your explanation is getting into the weeds. The average senior only knows he can't get an appointment for the shot. Maybe the senior's worried that he may die because of it. Maybe the fact the new administration changed the protocol has something to do with it. He isn't concerned with "on-time deliveries" or "lowering the buffer", whatever that means. He just wants his shot.
-
I never disputed the two-shot method, if Pfizer and Moderna say so, I am all for it. I said that there is no need to hoard the available vaccines in a special location or cupboard for the second shot. The doses can be taken when required from just one inventory location which is constantly used and replenished - first in, first out. Or in other words like what Toyota does with their car parts - Just In Time Inventory.
Just in time only works when the supplier or manufacturer can guarantee the supply. That's not the case with the vaccine. They're already out of doses and no one can get an appointment for a shot.
Here's another example in Pennsylvania. When they changed the protocol to include 16-64-year-olds with 65 and older, 3 1/3 million more Pennsylvanians wound up in that group. The vaccine there is now as rare as a Northern Hairy-Nosed Wombat.
Philadelphia’s health commissioner, Dr. Tom Farley, told state lawmakers Friday that he understood the frustration among people who want the vaccine but can’t get it.
“Information is confusing, you don’t know where to call, you don’t get good answers, you’re told you gotta wait, but you don’t know how long you’re going to wait, so I really share that frustration,” Farley said.
Interest in the vaccine surged this week after Pennsylvania greatly expanded eligibility to include people age 65 and over, as well as younger people with serious health conditions that put them at higher risk. The expansion means that some 3.5 million people are now eligible to receive one of the two approved vaccines. The state had previously been directing the vaccine to health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities.
“We did see a massive influx of additional demand,” said Dr. Jaewon Ryu, president and chief executive officer of Geisinger, one of the state’s largest health networks.
https://www.abc27.com/news/this-week-in-pennsylvania/democratic-lawmaker-slams-pennsylvania-over-vaccine-rollout/
-
Just an update on the effect of the Moderna shot. (first). My shoulder where I was injected still hurts a little especially when I raise my arm, but not as much as this afternoon. My wife complained earlier today that her shoulder hurt too. We both had the shots at the same time. It's been two days and six hours.
-
You'd give up your second dose to unknown people to get their first dose? You're a better man than I am.
Let me put the question a different way - you have had one shot, your wife none. Now you two get another shot to use - do you use it to get your second shot, or give it to your wife for her first shot?
-
Let me put the question a different way - you have had one shot, your wife none. Now you two get another shot to use - do you use it to get your second shot, or give it to your wife for her first shot?
I told you already that I was ready to give my first shot to my wife if they only had one appointment for us.
Here's one for you. Would you give up your second shot so I could get my first shot? :)
-
I told you already that I was ready to give my first shot to my wife if they only had one appointment for us.
That was not the question I asked, which was "you have had one shot, your wife none. Now you two get another shot to use - do you use it to get your second shot, or give it to your wife for her first shot?"
So your statement is not relevant.
-
That was not the question I asked, which was "you have had one shot, your wife none. Now you two get another shot to use - do you use it to get your second shot, or give it to your wife for her first shot?"
So your statement is not relevant.
If I'm willing to give up my first shot, of course, I'd be willing to give up my second shot.
So now answer the question I asked. Would you be willing to give your second shot to me for my first shot?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/opinion/covid-vaccine-ethics.html?referringSource=articleShare
-
If I'm willing to give up my first shot, of course, I'd be willing to give up my second shot.
So now answer the question I asked. Would you be willing to give your second shot to me for my first shot?
No of course I wouldn't.
But I see you now accept the logic of providing more people with a first shot. Progress.
-
Just an update on the effect of the Moderna shot. (first). My shoulder where I was injected still hurts a little especially when I raise my arm, but not as much as this afternoon. My wife complained earlier today that her shoulder hurt too. We both had the shots at the same time. It's been two days and six hours.
My shoulder has been hurting for a month now, and I haven't even been vaccinated yet. The left hip has been also bothering me lately.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/opinion/covid-vaccine-ethics.html?referringSource=articleShare
Interesting moral dilemmas discussed. The medical people say get the shot and don't turn it down figuring someone more vulnerable will get it. Someone less vulnerable could get it. There's no rhyme or reason to how they allocate the shots. Of course, the article didn't address the scenario of using 2nd shots as 1st shots so more people get their first shots yet leaving many who might not get their 2nd shots.
My wife and I wound up with appointments for two first shots because we filed at a number of places. I tried to get the extra switched to my friend. But they wouldn't do it. So we would up cancelling our second appts and they went back into a general pool at the hospital we had the second set of appts with.
Regarding pain, I woke up with none this morning. So I'd say my shoulder hurt for about 2 1/2 days after the Moderna first shot.
-
Just in time only works when the supplier or manufacturer can guarantee the supply. That's not the case with the vaccine. They're already out of doses and no one can get an appointment for a shot.
If they can make and replenish the toilet paper rolls, they will be for sure be able to make new vaccines. If anything, vaccine manufacturing has been steadily ramping up.
-
No of course I wouldn't.
But I see you now accept the logic of providing more people with a first shot. Progress.
Well, we're even. I wouldn't give you my shot either. :)
But I don't understand your second sentence. I still don't believe second shots should be given as first shots unless there's a guarantee they'll be enough second shots for the people who already got their first ones.
They also should triage the selection process to include the oldest people first. By opening it up to younger less vulnerable people, many older more vulnerable people are not getting their first shot. That's just wrong knowing what we know about who's the most vulnerable. In my town, two-thirds of the people who died were over 65.
-
My shoulder has been hurting for a month now, and I haven't even been vaccinated yet. The left hip has been also bothering me lately.
Both my hips have been hurting since I lifted my new 4x5 LF pack a couple of weeks ago. I'm really worried I might have to give it up along with MF equipment as well.
-
If they can make and replenish the toilet paper rolls, they will be for sure be able to make new vaccines. If anything, vaccine manufacturing has been steadily ramping up.
New Jersey is receiving around 100,000 doses a week. There are around 4 million Jerseyites currently qualified to get the vaccine. That's 40 weeks or 10 months. That's without considering second shots which will double that time frame. It also doesn't include the rest of the people in the state who would qualify later in the rest of the groups. I think we're in big trouble as is the rest of the world. This reminds me of those videos decades ago of food shortages around the world where people would be fighting over rice bags being thrown from trucks in the town centre.
-
New Jersey is receiving around 100,000 doses a week. There are around 4 million Jerseyites currently qualified to get the vaccine. That's 40 weeks or 10 months. That's without considering second shots which will double that time frame. It also doesn't include the rest of the people in the state who would qualify later in the rest of the groups. I think we're in big trouble as is the rest of the world. This reminds me of those videos decades ago of food shortages around the world where people would be fighting over rice bags being thrown from trucks in the town centre.
So what you are saying is Operation Warp Speed is a rousing success. Thank God we had Trump spearheading the effort.
-
Moderna chief is now saying that Covid-19 will stay with us forever. Should be good for the pharma companies.
“I believe SARS-Cov-2 is going to stay with humans forever,” Bancel said in an interview with Yahoo Finance Live. “We're going to have to have boosts adapted to a virus, like we have for flu. It's the same thing, they are both mRNA viruses, and we're going to have to live with it forever.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-is-going-to-stay-with-us-forever-moderna-ceo-224622557.html
-
Moderna chief is now saying that Covid-19 will stay with us forever. Should be good for the pharma companies.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-is-going-to-stay-with-us-forever-moderna-ceo-224622557.html
This is a surprise? Scientist have been saying this was probable for almost a year.
-
Moderna chief is now saying that Covid-19 will stay with us forever. Should be good for the pharma companies.
Since my first shot was with Moderna, it's comforting at least to know they're working on it.
-
This is a surprise? Scientist have been saying this was probable for almost a year.
The statement was made after they actually found a variant that has developed and is more dangerous than the current variety. However, the CEO went on to say that a booster should be able to handle it. I hope so.
-
Since my first shot was with Moderna, it's comforting at least to know they're working on it.
I would expect that a booster would not be specific to only those who originally received the Moderna vaccine.
-
The statement was made after they actually found a variant that has developed and is more dangerous than the current variety. However, the CEO went on to say that a booster should be able to handle it. I hope so.
The expectation of it “being with us” was two fold. First, the expectation that over time (still to be determine) the benefit of the original vaccine would wear off and need a ‘boost’.
Second, as was said, RNA viruses, by their nature, mutate on almost a constant basis as they multiply. The more hosts, the more replication, the more mutation. Just based on the large numbers, some of those changes are going to ‘stick’. The mRNA vaccine is meant to replicate certain aspects of the virus so the body learns to recognize and more quickly respond to it. If the pieces ‘replicated’ change, the body will not recognize the new ‘variant’.
The good news is the mRNA vaccines are polyclonal so can stand some level of changes....but only so many. The other good news is the mRNA process allows the vaccine to be quickly updated. Open question is what level of testing will be required to roll out. Plus, how do you roll out a booster, while you are still inoculating first time people? Quite a conundrum!!
-
The expectation of it “being with us” was two fold. First, the expectation that over time (still to be determine) the benefit of the original vaccine would wear off and need a ‘boost’.
Second, as was said, RNA viruses, by their nature, mutate on almost a constant basis as they multiply. The more hosts, the more replication, the more mutation. Just based on the large numbers, some of those changes are going to ‘stick’. The mRNA vaccine is meant to replicate certain aspects of the virus so the body learns to recognize and more quickly respond to it. If the pieces ‘replicated’ change, the body will not recognize the new ‘variant’.
The good news is the mRNA vaccines are polyclonal so can stand some level of changes....but only so many. The other good news is the mRNA process allows the vaccine to be quickly updated. Open question is what level of testing will be required to roll out. Plus, how do you roll out a booster, while you are still inoculating first time people? Quite a conundrum!!
I get this feeling that Covid will become like the regular flu. New varieties every year going forward. We may have to gear up to regularly updated boosters and annual injections for the populace. Thank you, China.
-
I get this feeling that Covid will become like the regular flu. New varieties every year going forward. We may have to gear up to regularly updated boosters and annual injections for the populace.
I think that is because you read the news, where a lot of experts have said that, so it is not so much a feeling as a regurgitation.
-
COVID Vaccine Dosing FAQs
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/944321?src=mkm_covid_update_210126_MSCPEDIT&uac=361207FJ&impID=3154953&faf=1
-
The expectation of it “being with us” was two fold. First, the expectation that over time (still to be determine) the benefit of the original vaccine would wear off and need a ‘boost’.
Second, as was said, RNA viruses, by their nature, mutate on almost a constant basis as they multiply. The more hosts, the more replication, the more mutation. Just based on the large numbers, some of those changes are going to ‘stick’. The mRNA vaccine is meant to replicate certain aspects of the virus so the body learns to recognize and more quickly respond to it. If the pieces ‘replicated’ change, the body will not recognize the new ‘variant’.
The good news is the mRNA vaccines are polyclonal so can stand some level of changes....but only so many. The other good news is the mRNA process allows the vaccine to be quickly updated. Open question is what level of testing will be required to roll out. Plus, how do you roll out a booster, while you are still inoculating first time people? Quite a conundrum!!
Depends how serious the resurgence will be. A huge problem is that in the last year the hospitals drastically reduced surgeries and other treatments. If the C-19 virus stays around for the foreseeable future, this could affect for years the whole medical system and general population unless additional facilities are built.
-
The Biden administration faces what my colleague Robinson Meyer terms “a race of vaccination versus variants.” On one side: a country trying to halt the outbreak through vaccination. On the other: a virus swiftly accumulating mutations that could allow it to move even faster.
He explains: “The winner of this race will depend on three unknowns: mitigation, evolution, and vaccine distribution.”
1. Mitigation efforts (such as social distancing)
“Those high levels of ongoing infection make the standard tools of mitigation—social distancing, masks, and work-from-home orders—even more important to avoid continued deaths. Yet the allure of vaccination is beginning to stymie mitigation policy in some places.”
2. The evolution of the virus itself
“The most immediate risk is that these new variants cause another surge of infection, and death, before mass vaccination can increase the number of Americans with protective immunity.”
3. How quickly vaccines are distributed
“The U.S.’s vaccine supply … is uneven at the moment, although the Biden administration has vowed to invoke the Defense Production Act to strengthen the supply and distribution operation.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/01/biden-is-now-in-a-race-vaccination-vs-the-variants/617810/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20210126&silverid=MzEwMTkwMTE4ODUwS0
-
Depends how serious the resurgence will be. A huge problem is that in the last year the hospitals drastically reduced surgeries and other treatments. If the C-19 virus stays around for the foreseeable future, this could affect for years the whole medical system and general population unless additional facilities are built.
If medicine and vaccines are developed to treat those infected better or prevent infection in the first place, hospitalizations may not be required to the same extent. We are better at it now than when COvid 19 first hit.
Also, and this may be morbid, the large number of deaths of older people due to Covid who have the highest hospitalization rates from other diseases, has lowered the number of regular illness cases that would have had to be treated.
-
If medicine and vaccines are developed to treat those infected better or prevent infection in the first place, hospitalizations may not be required to the same extent. We are better at it now than when COvid 19 first hit.
Not true.
Jan 5, 2021: In response to the recent increase in COVID-19 cases, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has issued an executive order for area hospitals to postpone elective surgeries and procedures to reserve capacity for COVID-19 patients from the community..
https://www.whs.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2462468/san-antonio-military-health-system-delays-elective-surgeries/
-
If medicine and vaccines are developed to treat those infected better or prevent infection in the first place, hospitalizations may not be required to the same extent. We are better at it now than when COvid 19 first hit...
Indeed.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB1d7bFv?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
-
Not true.
https://www.whs.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2462468/san-antonio-military-health-system-delays-elective-surgeries/
Of course, if the system is overwhelmed with so many cases, then improved procedures to eliminate hospitalizations and getting people with Covid out of hospitals quicker won't matter. But the advances in anti-viral medicine and procedures have helped a lot. It makes more room in hospitals for other illnesses to be treated.
-
Indeed.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB1d7bFv?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
It's not only antiviral drugs that are helping. Remember in the beginning how ventilator shortage was a big issue? We found out that ventilators kill more possibly than save. Turning patients over instead of making them breathe on their backs have helped a lot too. Due to the nature of Covid clogging lungs and breathing passages, laying on your back was strangling people. Like photography, we get better with practice. We learn shortcuts and what works or doesn't work even before we shoot.
-
You're conflating the issues. The problem is that they opened up the younger group of people who aren't as affected. There would be enough shots for the 80-year-old otherwise. The original plan was to vaccinate everyone over 65 first, not 16-year-olds who are overweight. If they wanted to move up the younger group, fine. But they should arrange the appointments so the older group gets the injections first. Right now it's whoever calls in first.
I haven't heard any discussion in public about this new plan. It was instituted by some unknown people without the public being informed, all at the last minute, just as the first doses were being given. It makes the CDC and governments seem like they again don't know what they're doing. Who could trust them?
I posted a reply to this over in The Bear Pit as I felt it might be a more appropriate place.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1205930#msg1205930 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1205930#msg1205930)
-
Your explanation is getting into the weeds.
Where the truth is often found.
Maybe the fact the new administration changed the protocol has something to do with it.
That's the opposite of a fact. It's a falsehood.
-
France's Sanofi to help rival Pfizer-BioNTech make vaccines
French drug maker Sanofi says it will help prepare 125 million doses of the coronavirus vaccine developed by rivals Pfizer and BioNTech, while its own vaccine candidate faces delays
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/frances-sanofi-make-vaccines-rival-pfizer-biontech (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/frances-sanofi-make-vaccines-rival-pfizer-biontech-75509202)
PARIS -- In an unusual and potentially groundbreaking decision, French drugmaker Sanofi said Wednesday it will help bottle and package 125 million doses of the coronavirus vaccine developed by its rivals Pfizer and BioNTech, while its own vaccine candidate faces delays.
The announcement came as delays or production problems for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and a vaccine from Britain's AstraZeneca have caused political uproar across the European Union. The EU's 27-nation vaccination effort has struggled to pick up steam, while more contagious virus variants are spreading fast and COVID-19 deaths are surging anew.
Sanofi's Frankfurt facilities will help with late-stage production of vaccines prepared by Germany-based BioNTech, including bottling and packaging, starting in the summer, according to a Sanofi official. Sanofi did not reveal financial details of the agreement.
According to Thomas Cueni, director of the International Federation of Vaccine Manufacturers, 76% of the world’s major vaccine manufacturing capacity is in Europe.
The French government has pressed Sanofi to use its facilities to help make vaccines from its rivals, given the high demand and supply problems.
“We are very conscious that the earlier vaccine doses are available, the more lives can potentially be saved,” Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson said in a statement.
-
It's not only antiviral drugs that are helping. Remember in the beginning how ventilator shortage was a big issue? We found out that ventilators kill more possibly than save. Turning patients over instead of making them breathe on their backs have helped a lot too. Due to the nature of Covid clogging lungs and breathing passages, laying on your back was strangling people. Like photography, we get better with practice. We learn shortcuts and what works or doesn't work even before we shoot.
Can you please keep yourself to things you know, whichever those might be, because medicine it's not one of them.
-
Can you please keep yourself to things you know, whichever those might be, because medicine it's not one of them.
Why don't you withhold your snide comments and treat others with respect?
-
We found out that ventilators kill more possibly than save.
Killer ventilators?
There is actually an anti-venter conspiracy theory it appears. I stumbled across this interesting video that explores the intersection of ventilators, medicine, Dunning-Kruger expertise, social media, conspiracy movements, and scientific evolution of understanding and uncertainty.
https://www.youtube.com/The Great Ventilator Fiasco of COVID19 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2gyhto-iI)
-
Pfizer Inc. PFE, -2.87% and German partner BioNTech SE BNTX, -0.30% said Friday an in vitro study found that their COVID-19 vaccine neutralizes the two new highly infectious variants that have emerged in the U.K. and South Africa. The results were published on the preprint service bioRxiv and have not yet been peer-reviewed. "Though these two rapidly spreading viruses are different, they share the N501Y mutation, which is located in the receptor binding site of the spike protein and results in the virus's spike protein binding more tightly to its receptor.," the companies said in a joint statement. "It has been shown to infect mice more efficiently." The trial found the sera of 20 participants in the Phase 3 trials neutralized the virus with the mutation as well as they neutralized the virus without the mutation, said the statement. "Pfizer, BioNTech, and UTMB are encouraged by these early, in vitro study findings," said the statement, although further research is needed.
-
... That's the opposite of a fact. It's a falsehood.
It is quite amusing to observe the dynamic in this group. All those who ganged up on Alan for his complaint about the second dose did so thinking they are defending Bided administration's decision. Now when it turns out it was actually Trump administration's decision, the gang will have to realize they were defending the enemy and that they should have to then side with Alan (gasp!) in criticism of the decision ;D ;D ;D
-
It is quite amusing to observe the dynamic in this group. All those who ganged up on Alan for his complaint about the second dose did so thinking they are defending Bided administration's decision. Now when it turns out it was actually Trump administration's decision, the gang will have to realize they were defending the enemy and that they should have to then side with Alan (gasp!) in criticism of the decision ;D ;D ;D
I had the impression that there are 2 decisions :
1. Enlarge the target group to include 16 year old smokers (Trump)
2. Give all the available doses as first vaccinations (Biden)
Is that wrong? As usual, Alan was screwed by both these decisions - he really is the world's unluckiest man!!
-
It is quite amusing to observe the dynamic in this group. All those who ganged up on Alan for his complaint about the second dose did so thinking they are defending Bided administration's decision. Now when it turns out it was actually Trump administration's decision, the gang will have to realize they were defending the enemy and that they should have to then side with Alan (gasp!) in criticism of the decision ;D ;D ;D
I don't think you are following along closely enough.
Alan is against expanding the patient pool to include people, including young people, who have certain comorbidities, and releasing the second doses, both of which were Trump decisions. He has articulated that he is against expanding the patient pool because he thinks old people like him should get the vaccine first, and he is against releasing the second doses because, having gotten his first dose, he wants to make sure he gets his second dose. Alan's positions are basically me now, me later, which is okay if you can justify them.
I have asked Alan why he thinks old people should get the vaccine first, and he has responded because old people are more likely to die if they get COVID. My response is: "So what?" I'd at least like to hear an argument from him about why his life is more valuable than the life of a little girl, with or without a comorbidity. So far, crickets.
I haven't been involved in the argument about releasing second doses, except to the extent of noting that when Secretary Azar announced on January 12, 2021 they were releasing the second doses, there weren't any because someone somewhere in the Trump administration had already released the second doses at the end of December, so it was clear that Azar, the head of HHS, didn't have any idea what was going on with respect to the distribution of vaccines, which I deemed a shortcoming. It was also an admission that we were out of vaccine, which I deemed a shortcoming as well. Others have argued that it is better to have twice as many people with 80% immunity than half as many people with 95% immunity. I haven't weighed in on that discussion. Neither has Alan. As far as I can tell, he just wants his second dose because he wants his second dose.
My arguments are independent of whether they are Trump policies or Biden policies. The primary problem with Alan's positions is that they are frequently based on false facts and supported by arguments riddled with logical fallacies. They also happen to parrot Trump's positions, but that's not the primary reason I disagree with Alan. It's the false facts and logical fallacies. Oh, and maybe because Alan's positions start out as bald assertions, and we don't get the false facts and logical fallacies until we point out that his bald assertions are nonsense. Then we get the false facts and logical inconsistencies, and when we point out that they are false facts and logical fallacies, Alan tries to change the subject, usually with the logical fallacy of whataboutism.
I think Biden's positions were to release the second doses and not expand the patient pool, but I couldn't swear to it. Maybe it is the other way around. It being a Trump position or a Biden position is irrelevant in my discussions with Alan on these topics. Of course I did note that it was out of character for Alan to be anti-Trump, but I don't think he knew which positions were Biden's and which were Trump's to begin with, probably because Trump's positions changed and Alan didn't keep up.
-
I don't think you are following along closely enough.
I agree, but it’s not worth ‘reviewing the bidding’. 😀
-
I had the impression that there are 2 decisions :
1. Enlarge the target group to include 16 year old smokers (Trump)
That, I believe, is his biggest problems. Based on data showing 80% of deaths in 65+, it was imprudent to give that advice. Unfortunately, NJ & PA implemented it. Many other, such as NC, did not. Each state could make their own decisions on implementation.2. Give all the available doses as first vaccinations (Biden)
Remember, the President-elect’s team was kept at arms length by the Prior admin as far as information was concerned. At the time, the public info was that the federal govt was holding supply in reserve. It was a good idea to release it, so, based on the info he had, Biden recommended it. Azar, picked up on it and announced as their idea. Azar, being on the inside, should have known better about the supply reserve, which didn’t exist since late December.
So, the states got a statement of (nonexistent) add’l supply and recommendation to open to 16-64 with comorbidities. Not surprising some of the states erred.Is that wrong? As usual, Alan was screwed by both these decisions - he really is the world's unluckiest man!!
-
...it is better to have twice as many people with 80% immunity than half as many people with 95% immunity...
Do you have your beloved science to support such a bold statement?
-
Do you have your beloved science to support such a bold statement?
A selective/partial quote doesn't warrant a serious response.
-
A selective/partial quote doesn't warrant a serious response.
;D ;D ;D
In other words, you can not support such a statement.
-
Do you have your beloved science to support such a bold statement?
If you make the giant leap that people are equal, then you just need simple arithmetic. If you want to make the assumption that it's better to save all, say, middle aged white men, then you'd have an argument for giving the 2 doses to the favoured demographic.
I pose that flippantly but you could run the numbers in Excel with some simple assumptions - efficacy of one dose, efficacy of 2 doses, age profile of population, risk for different ages. I'm sure that this informs the decision to concentrate on first doses.
-
Do you have your beloved science to support such a bold statement?
When you quoted his post, you left out the intro to his sentence "Others have argued..."
-
I don't think you are following along closely enough.
Alan is against expanding the patient pool to include people, including young people, who have certain comorbidities, and releasing the second doses, both of which were Trump decisions. He has articulated that he is against expanding the patient pool because he thinks old people like him should get the vaccine first, and he is against releasing the second doses because, having gotten his first dose, he wants to make sure he gets his second dose. Alan's positions are basically me now, me later, which is okay if you can justify them.
I have asked Alan why he thinks old people should get the vaccine first, and he has responded because old people are more likely to die if they get COVID. My response is: "So what?" I'd at least like to hear an argument from him about why his life is more valuable than the life of a little girl, with or without a comorbidity. So far, crickets.
I haven't been involved in the argument about releasing second doses, except to the extent of noting that when Secretary Azar announced on January 12, 2021 they were releasing the second doses, there weren't any because someone somewhere in the Trump administration had already released the second doses at the end of December, so it was clear that Azar, the head of HHS, didn't have any idea what was going on with respect to the distribution of vaccines, which I deemed a shortcoming. It was also an admission that we were out of vaccine, which I deemed a shortcoming as well. Others have argued that it is better to have twice as many people with 80% immunity than half as many people with 95% immunity. I haven't weighed in on that discussion. Neither has Alan. As far as I can tell, he just wants his second dose because he wants his second dose.
My arguments are independent of whether they are Trump policies or Biden policies. The primary problem with Alan's positions is that they are frequently based on false facts and supported by arguments riddled with logical fallacies. They also happen to parrot Trump's positions, but that's not the primary reason I disagree with Alan. It's the false facts and logical fallacies. Oh, and maybe because Alan's positions start out as bald assertions, and we don't get the false facts and logical fallacies until we point out that his bald assertions are nonsense. Then we get the false facts and logical inconsistencies, and when we point out that they are false facts and logical fallacies, Alan tries to change the subject, usually with the logical fallacy of whataboutism.
I think Biden's positions were to release the second doses and not expand the patient pool, but I couldn't swear to it. Maybe it is the other way around. It being a Trump position or a Biden position is irrelevant in my discussions with Alan on these topics. Of course I did note that it was out of character for Alan to be anti-Trump, but I don't think he knew which positions we Biden's and which were Trump's to begin with, probably because Trump's positions changed and Alan didn't keep up.
Unfortunately, current data does not support 80% after only one dose. It is thought to be around 30%. This is data from early phase 1/2 testing for dosage and has not been subject to thorough testing or peer review. This is the reason the US CDC continues to recommend 21/28 day intervals for 2nd dose.
-
Do you have your beloved science to support such a bold statement?
If you had read my post carefully, you would have noted that I said I didn't weigh in on that aspect of the issue of releasing second doses, but that other people had made that argument. You need to ask the other people to disclose the science upon which their argument is based.
-
Unfortunately, current data does not support 80% after only one dose. It is thought to be around 30%. This is data from early phase 1/2 testing for dosage and has not been subject to thorough testing or peer review. This is the reason the US CDC continues to recommend 21/28 day intervals for 2nd dose.
Like I said, I didn't weigh in on that aspect of the issue of releasing second doses. I was providing a summary of the discussion to Slobodan, and explicitly said that while I hadn't, others had advanced that argument. I think Alan wants second doses withheld so he can get his second dose whether first dose immunity is 30% or 80%, or anywhere in between. Certainly, he has made no argument to support why he thinks it is better that he get his second dose than another person get a first dose.
-
It is quite amusing to observe the dynamic in this group. All those who ganged up on Alan for his complaint about the second dose did so thinking they are defending Bided administration's decision. Now when it turns out it was actually Trump administration's decision, the gang will have to realize they were defending the enemy and that they should have to then side with Alan (gasp!) in criticism of the decision ;D ;D ;D
You mean Trump made this decision. Oh then. It must be right and I'm wrong! ;)
-
You mean Trump made this decision. Oh then. It must be right and I'm wrong! ;)
I am not sure why you added a smiley face emoticon.
-
I had the impression that there are 2 decisions :
1. Enlarge the target group to include 16 year old smokers (Trump)
2. Give all the available doses as first vaccinations (Biden)
Is that wrong? As usual, Alan was screwed by both these decisions - he really is the world's unluckiest man!!
I'll be 76 in a couple of days. So, I think I'm pretty lucky. I'm still here, thank God. Plus I had two appts for my first shot (canceled one) and will have my second shot Feb 19th. How many did you have? ;) PS Although I quit smoking 26 years ago, I did smoke 35 years. So that just adds to the danger of the virus for me as I have a touch of emphysema.
-
When you quoted his post, you left out the intro to his sentence "Others have argued..."
It's just another attempt to get the thread closed.
-
I'll be 76 in a couple of days. So, I think I'm pretty lucky. I'm still here, thank God. Plus I had two appts for my first shot (canceled one) and will have my second shot Feb 19th. How many did you have? ;) PS Although I quit smoking 26 years ago, I did smoke 35 years. So that just adds to the danger of the virus for me as I have a touch of emphysema.
How is that relevant to why you should get a first dose, much less a second dose? Statistically speaking, as a 76 year old white male in the United States with heart disease and diabetes, and, as you say, perhaps a touch of emphysema, you are either already dead or will be shortly. Why are we wasting vaccine on you? I know a little girl with a comorbidity who has her whole life ahead of her.
-
If you make the giant leap that people are equal, then you just need simple arithmetic. If you want to make the assumption that it's better to save all, say, middle aged white men, then you'd have an argument for giving the 2 doses to the favoured demographic.
I pose that flippantly but you could run the numbers in Excel with some simple assumptions - efficacy of one dose, efficacy of 2 doses, age profile of population, risk for different ages. I'm sure that this informs the decision to concentrate on first doses.
The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally. There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority. His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else. So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump. Making uninformed layman decisions. Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump. It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.
-
Unfortunately, current data does not support 80% after only one dose. It is thought to be around 30%. This is data from early phase 1/2 testing for dosage and has not been subject to thorough testing or peer review. This is the reason the US CDC continues to recommend 21/28 day intervals for 2nd dose.
Well, it's nice to have your support, John. Thank you.
-
I wonder if anyone who insulted me calling me an old fart who only cares about himself and not little girls has the guts to apologize for their meanness and insensitivity as well as being just wrong about the facts?
-
The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally. There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority. His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else. So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump. Making uninformed layman decisions. Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump. It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.
You didn’t see the basis for Biden’s decision therefore there was none. Alanlogic.
-
I wonder if anyone who insulted me calling me an old fart who only cares about himself and not little girls has the guts to apologize for their meanness and insensitivity as well as being just wrong about the facts?
Which facts?
-
Like I said, I didn't weigh in on that aspect of the issue of releasing second doses. I was providing a summary of the discussion to Slobodan, and explicitly said that while I hadn't, others had advanced that argument. I think Alan wants second doses withheld so he can get his second dose whether first dose immunity is 30% or 80%, or anywhere in between. Certainly, he has made no argument to support why he thinks it is better that he get his second dose than another person get a first dose.
In the US, the CDC has made the determination that the 2nd dose WILL be given 21/28 days after the first. Only in exceptional circumstances (supply problems, patient unable to be there, etc.), they allow clinicians to extend to 6 weeks.
Neither Alan, nor any of us, have the ability to change this, one way or the other. (BTW, I believe it is the correct decision, even though there are those in my family who I would wish could gain 1st shot 30% benefit)
-
The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally. There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority. His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else. So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump. Making uninformed layman decisions. Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump. It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.
As I stated earlier, you have no idea who Biden consulted before making the statement. That he appeared by himself, does not make it a “unilateral” decision. Biden has a history of “doing his homework” before coming to a decision, vs his predecessor who was know for ‘hip shooting’.
-
You didn’t see the basis for Biden’s decision therefore there was none. Alanlogic.
You didn't know the basis of many of Trump's decisions either. After all, there were economic experts who advised him as well as his medical experts. After all, a healthy economy is his responsibility as well as a healthy populace. Yet you spared no time to insult him complaining about his lack of expert advice. In addition, Biden wasn't even president yet when he gave his speech in early January before the inauguration. So he had no official inside advice from any of the government experts who directly advised Trump. And if he did get them, he never mentioned it during his speech and recommendations. Hs recommendation just came out of the blue.
Double standard.
-
The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally. There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority. His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else. So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump. Making uninformed layman decisions. Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump. It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.
You certainly do make a lot of unwarranted assumptions.
Setting aside for the moment the issue of applause and castigation, which of Biden's COVID related decisions do you disagree with, and how do they differ from those of Trump?
Now, taking up the issue of applause and castigation, just looking at the 2020 election results, it seems to me that slightly less than half the country applauds Trump and slightly more than half the country castigates Trump. Correspondingly, slightly more than half the country applauds Biden and slightly less than half the country castigates Biden. So what's the problem? Seems like both Trump and Biden are getting their fair share of applause and castigation. If you want to hear more praise of Trump and more castigation of Biden, you need to watch and read conservative news sources. You are suffering from a self-inflicted wound if you watch and read commie/lib news sources. What's that old advice about if you have a headache, stop banging your head against the wall? I think maybe that applies here.
-
The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally. There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority. His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else. So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump. Making uninformed layman decisions. Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump. It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.
Both, Biden and Trump had advisors and experts who made their recommendations to them. The difference is that Biden listened and acted wisely and responsibly whereas the other didn't listen and acted irresponsibly. Or didn't act at all.
-
In the US, the CDC has made the determination that the 2nd dose WILL be given 21/28 days after the first. Only in exceptional circumstances (supply problems, patient unable to be there, etc.), they allow clinicians to extend to 6 weeks.
Neither Alan, nor any of us, have the ability to change this, one way or the other. (BTW, I believe it is the correct decision, even though there are those in my family who I would wish could gain 1st shot 30% benefit)
As I said previously, I was ready to give up my first shot so my wife could get it. At the time, we weren't sure both of us had an appointment. But frankly, I'm not willing to give up my second shot for an unknown stranger.
I think if the people here complaining that if they were 75 with four or five of the comorbidities like I have that makes Covid even riskier for old people, they might think differently as well. Regardless, like you said there's nothing anyone of us could do about it. I had an extra appointment for my first shot that I tried to get transferred to my 80 year-old friend with Parkinson's. But they wouldn't;t allow it. So I had to cancel the appointment. It went back into the general pool.
If people here are so unselfish about these things, let them not ask for an appointment until everyone else got their shot. That's the only way they could prove to me their heart is bigger than their mouth.
-
You didn't know the basis of many of Trump's decisions either. After all, there were economic experts who advised him as well as his medical experts. After all, a healthy economy is his responsibility as well as a healthy populace. Yet you spared no time to insult him complaining about his lack of expert advice. In addition, Biden wasn't even president yet when he gave his speech in early January before the inauguration. So he had no official inside advice from any of the government experts who directly advised Trump. And if he did get them, he never mentioned it during his speech and recommendations. Hs recommendation just came out of the blue.
Double standard.
True enough - I can't be sure that experts didn't suggest to him that injecting bleach was a good idea. My bad.
-
As I stated earlier, you have no idea who Biden consulted before making the statement. That he appeared by himself, does not make it a “unilateral” decision. Biden has a history of “doing his homework” before coming to a decision, vs his predecessor who was know for ‘hip shooting’.
I believe Biden made the decision more for political reasons than medical. He wanted to show his upcoming administration would be pro-active. I don't fault him for that. In fact, it might turn out to be a good recommendation in the end. If people look fairly at the Warp SPeed program I posted earlier, they'll see the Trump was very pro-active as well. It's why here we're so far ahead of most countries in getting our shots. They're way behind except for GB, Israel, and a few others.
But we didn't know how Biden worked at the time. That was before the inauguration. No one ever gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 5 years. Yet with Biden, everyone just goes along with what he says with smiles and approval and no real hard questions.
-
Both, Biden and Trump had advisors and experts who made their recommendations to them. The difference is that Biden listened and acted wisely and responsibly whereas the other didn't listen and acted irresponsibly. Or didn't act at all.
Let me post the Warp Speed timeline of what Trump accomplished last year. It's a different link than I posted earlier. But it summarizes so it's easier to read than the first. How didn't he act at all? How were these things irresponsible?
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/Coronavirus/Operation-Warp-Speed/Operation-Warp-Speed-Timeline/
-
As this is now nothing more than a political thread, maybe you should consider moving the conversation.
-
True enough - I can't be sure that experts didn't suggest to him that injecting bleach was a good idea. My bad.
He put that in question form directing it to the experts who were present at his conference. It was just an idea that I feel is perfectly acceptable. If antiseptics work on the surface, can they be adapted to work inside as well. It's up to the scientists to figure out how to do that safely. But it's a perfectly acceptable out-of-the-box concept that's worthy of discussion. After all, when I went to the dentist, I gargled with an antiseptic wash before he worked on me to kill any viruses. Could there be some way of reducing the danger from poisoning so it can be applied to areas in the throat and lungs to kill the virus there? A very logical and astute suggestion. Only a political enemy would knock the concept. Of course, his presentation was distorted by the press as they have been for 5 years.
-
No, his statement was what he would do when he became President. It was common sense and something (reserving full 2nd dose supply) that I had been upset about. Anyone with any appreciation supply chain management would understand you do not need to buffer 100% of supply.
One would think it must have be3n a good idea....or why would Azar say he was going to do it 6 days later. Unfortunately he wasn’t aware of the supply situation, which he should have. The supply logistics director (General Perna) had already released it in late December.
At the COVID briefing yesterday, it was confirmed that all supply was being release, except for 2-3 days worth, to provide a slight buffer to cover any minor glitches in manufacturing. States are responsible to manage their allotments to cover both 1st & 2nd dose requirements, per CDC instructions.
When Azar came out with the same recommendation a few days after Biden, all I could think of he was protecting his job so he wouldn't be fired by the new administration when they took over. It's always good to agree with your boss. I think Fauci parroted it as well a few days later but he was more circumspect.
It may have been common sense. But the argument against Trump was he shouldn't use common sense. That he should be listening to his experts only to make decisions, only the medical ones. Ignore the economic experts. Yet this standard was not applied to Biden's "Common sense" recommendation. It's the double standard I'm complaining about, not whether the recommendation is a good one or not.
-
I wonder if anyone who insulted me calling me an old fart who only cares about himself and not little girls has the guts to apologize for their meanness and insensitivity as well as being just wrong about the facts?
You were bitching and moaning about the patient pool being expanded to include those younger than 65 with comorbidities. I asked you why you thought you should get your vaccine first ahead of them. In other words, discuss the trolley problem adapted to setting vaccination preferences. Instead, you offered no response. Then we get this:
As I said previously, I was ready to give up my first shot so my wife could get it. At the time, we weren't sure both of us had an appointment. But frankly, I'm not willing to give up my second shot for an unknown stranger.
You may have an elaborate moral and ethical rational for your position, but in the absence of your articulating it: res ipsa loquitur.
If people here are so unselfish about these things, let them not ask for an appointment until everyone else got their shot. That's the only way they could prove to me their heart is bigger than their mouth.
Kind of sounds like a Lord of the Flies, doesn't it?
-
He put that in question form directing it to the experts who were present at his conference. It was just an idea that I feel is perfectly acceptable. If antiseptics work on the surface, can they be adapted to work inside as well. It's up to the scientists to figure out how to do that safely. But it's a perfectly acceptable out-of-the-box concept that's worthy of discussion. After all, when I went to the dentist, I gargled with an antiseptic wash before he worked on me to kill any viruses. Could there be some way of reducing the danger from poisoning so it can be applied to areas in the throat and lungs to kill the virus there? A very logical and astute suggestion. Only a political enemy would knock the concept. Of course, his presentation was distorted by the press as they have been for 5 years.
Was it his own idea or did he heard it somewhere? Have you tried that perfectly acceptable remedy? With ideas like that Trump could open a university to promote such teachings.
But to be on the safe side, I would recommend to gargle with an industrial grade toilet cleaner, that would kill more germs than just the regular antiseptic. Very logical and astute method.
-
I haven't heard any compliments from Democrats for a job well done.
So what? What is this obsession of yours with Trump getting praise?
-
Maybe the fact the new administration changed the protocol has something to do with it.
That's the opposite of a fact. It's a falsehood.
It is quite amusing to observe the dynamic in this group. All those who ganged up on Alan for his complaint about the second dose did so thinking they are defending Bided administration's decision. Now when it turns out it was actually Trump administration's decision, the gang will have to realize they were defending the enemy and that they should have to then side with Alan (gasp!) in criticism of the decision ;D ;D ;D
I have no idea what relevance your reply has to my post which you quoted. My primary interest in participating in an online forum is the separation of fact from fiction. The fact is that both decisions—to advise states to expand vaccinations to virtually everyone and to ship out the vaccine reserves—were made by the prior administration. That's a fact. There's nothing to defend or support regarding a decision that Biden was unable to make before taking office. Biden did vocally oppose the former and supported the latter. That is also a fact. They were recommendations and not decisions as neither he nor his team were in a position to make decisions before taking office.
As for myself, I don't view the world in simplistic, ideological, black and white terms. Specifically, as this thread is about vaccines, I think that it makes sense to vaccinate the most vulnerable first. That would include the elderly and front line workers that are exposed to patients with Covid-19. In addition to those two groups, I think it reasonable for medical professionals to have the flexibility to vaccinate others that are especially vulnerable due to compromised immune systems, as an example chemotherapy patients or possibly others based solely on rational medical practice. As for distribution, that requires a granular knowledge of several factors to which no one here has access. Distribution decisions likely don't lend themselves well to black and white thinking like always keeping half in reserve for a second dose or shipping every dose as soon as it arrives for distribution. There is likely a more effective and rational middle course of keeping a reserve buffer amount that would fluctuate based on several considerations that include, but are not limited to,: current manufacturing output; a buffer to cover temporary variations or interruptions; and planned expansions of production.
And as for smiley faces, I suspect that they are directed toward ones ego and not outward bound.
-
I believe Biden made the decision more for political reasons than medical. He wanted to show his upcoming administration would be pro-active. I don't fault him for that. In fact, it might turn out to be a good recommendation in the end. If people look fairly at the Warp SPeed program I posted earlier, they'll see the Trump was very pro-active as well. It's why here we're so far ahead of most countries in getting our shots. They're way behind except for GB, Israel, and a few others.
But we didn't know how Biden worked at the time. That was before the inauguration. No one ever gave Trump the benefit of the doubt in 5 years. Yet with Biden, everyone just goes along with what he says with smiles and approval and no real hard questions.
I agree making the ANNOUNCEMENT was probably political. In addition, it was not really a medical decision as much as a suppy chain (aka inventory management) decision.
We had 36 years of Biden in the senate and 8 years as VP, so had a track record. His record is one of making thoughtful decisions and based on the needs of the country. He has not always made correct decisions (a decision being a judgement call which can go either way), but has been honest when his decision has been proven wrong and has been will to change it.
We had 40+ years to know Trump....which showed that his primary decision making was based on what was best for him. One only needs to look at Atlantic City, where he arrange to unload his debt to shareholders, who got left holding the bag in bankruptcy. In 2020, his winning strategy was a strong economy. Had he managed the pandemic, vs trying to keep pushing the economy, we might still be stuck with him. With the Washington Post final fact check poll of 32K+ lies over his presidency, it is difficult to know how anyone could not doubt him.
-
I believe Biden made the decision more for political reasons than medical.
It is no surprise that you believe that.
-
It's just another attempt to get the thread closed.
Enough. I have suspended the ability of several people to post and this thread is locked. Genuine discussion of vaccines is perfectly acceptable; political discussions are not.
Jeremy