Covid Vaccine

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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

[Alan Klein]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[TechTalk]

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

[TechTalk]

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.

[TechTalk]

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

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.

[armand]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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?   

[TechTalk]

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

[jrsforums]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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   

[jeremyrh]

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   

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!!

[faberryman]

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   

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.

[jrsforums]

I don't think you are following along closely enough.

I agree, but it’s not worth ‘reviewing the bidding’. 😀

[jrsforums]

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!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...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?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Do you have your beloved science to support such a bold statement?

A selective/partial quote doesn't warrant a serious response.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A selective/partial quote doesn't warrant a serious response.

 

In other words, you can not support such a statement.

[jeremyrh]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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..."