COVID-19 vaccine discussion

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

You got the placebo. Thanks for helping!

actually, that has me thinking.  What's the process after a clinical trial like Pfizer and you got the placebo.  Do they let you know and then get you an actual vaccine or do you have to go through life not knowing for longer term study?

2 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

actually, that has me thinking.  What's the process after a clinical trial like Pfizer and you got the placebo.  Do they let you know and then get you an actual vaccine or do you have to go through life not knowing for longer term study?

yes you got the vaccine(assuming you asked for it once you found out you were placebo).  that is somewhat part of the issue of not getting longer term information.

18 minutes ago, Foosters said:

FWIW, I was in Denver last week and went into a whole foods before hitting the road to the mountains. Maybe 10-20% mask usage. I was very surprised.

Our new case rates are nowhere near where they are in Texas, but they are going up.  Mask usage is steadily increasing as cases increase.

16 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

At least you're not double fucked like I am with J&J

18 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

At least you're not double fucked like I am with J&J

To quote myself:

 

Quote

My wife and I previously got the J&J back in March (was the only vax they were offering that day).  Obviously since then, i have been looking for information on/possibility of getting Pfeizer or Moderna given the reports of less effectiveness and especially since the Delta variant.  We were shopping in Target today and I decided to go ask the pharmacist.   Was upfront and told her that we previously got J&J but wanted Moderna.  After initially working through the semantics of her response that "well...we are not recommending that J&J folks get another and the CDC is not recommending same" I responded with "yes but the CDC is not prohibiting us getting another, right?"  She asked if we were concerned and were planning on traveling which I said we were since our daughter is a senior and we will be taking college visits (please oh please UT accept her!).  She then agreed we could get the "supplemental" shot (not a "booster").

We both got the Moderna and are also scheduled to go back in a month for a second Moderna shot.  I actually hadn't though about that as I assumed if were able to get a non-J&J shot it would just be one "booster" instead of two new shots  They gave us both new Vax cards also.

Figured this info would be helpful for those similarly in the J&J position.  Good luck!

 

 

TLDR:  HEY YOU OTHER UNFORTUNATE SOULS WHO PREVIOUSLY GOT J&J - YOU CAN GET MODERNA AT TARGET!!!!!!!!

 

1 minute ago, mdleast said:

To quote myself:

 

 

One of my friend is a pharmacist at HEB.  I'm going to give him a call and ask him for advice.

7 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

One of my friend is a pharmacist at HEB.  I'm going to give him a call and ask him for advice.

If they are open...

3 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

The jury is still out on that right? It seems it’s worth seeing the outcomes of all the current clinical trials under way.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

“Taken together these results demonstrate that ivermectin has antiviral action against the SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate in vitro, with a single dose able to control viral replication within 24–48 h in our system.”

Before wildcat shows up in hysterics: I also think everyone should get vaccinated, and myself and my whole family got vaccinated as soon as we could. We took my 12 year old three days after his birthday.

In vitro, ie experimental. As I’ve said upthread, one retrospective study in mild covid showed a few days decrease in duration of symptoms. If you are betting your life on this medication over the vaccine you are a fucking moron.

I’m glad you are vaxed btw. These people though are idiots and many will die

Edited August 12, 2021 by Sawbonz
Fing autocorrect

Is this just Darwin doing his thing?

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

I dont recall a logic-based rationale to refusing vaccination in this or any other thread. At least if improved health outcomes is the desired outcome.

Need to know absolute risks of each subgroup to figure out number needed to treat and that study doesn’t provide those numbers

Edited August 12, 2021 by Sawbonz

FWIW, I was in Denver last week and went into a whole foods before hitting the road to the mountains. Maybe 10-20% mask usage. I was very surprised.

I’m hiking the Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest in two weeks. Hopefully, air travel not impacted.

3 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

All of the new concert protocols that I’ve seen require a vax card or negative test plus an ID.

So not the govt right? Sounds like a ticket to ride not “papers please”

 

 

So you believe that vaccines work, but you just like posting and repeating antivax talking points and analysis. Is this like a both sides thing or something? I don't get it. 

Show me where I said anything anti-vax.

I agree we should be following the ivermectin trials as well - I saw one the other day that said it is ineffective, but trying to find it just led to conspiratard sites all over.  We need good care options on top of the vaccines.  But for the people who really want to believe in the ivermectin trials (that aren't done yet AFAIK), but dismiss the vaccine trials (and the 4.5 billion shots that have been administered to date) can fuck right off because they're not interested in science or finding the truth, they're interested in supporting a belief they have in lieu of actual science.

No argument here.

EMTALA says you can’t have such mandate.

Yeah but I can DREAM

All of this.  I would love for an easy, existing medication to be an effective therapy against COVID.  Fuck, I'd love it if it was aspirin, invermectin, or vagisil.  IDGAF.  Run trials, test them.
But just understand, the science and study behind the vaccines -- of which literally BILLIONS of shots have been administered -- is overwhelming.  If you are going to believe real-world study on one, got to believe the other.

Why can’t I quote what you said about me before the Ricky Bobby pic?

Oh and lick my taint Brisket. I know you live on the ledge but I didn’t think you were one of the absolutists around here.

3 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Why can’t I quote what you said about me before the Ricky Bobby pic?

Oh and lick my taint Brisket. I know you live on the ledge but I didn’t think you were one of the absolutists around here.

What am I being absolutist about, Ricky Bobby?

Those damn activist justices

SIAP, but I saw some statistics yesterday in this incredibly frustrating article that truly shocked me, which I didn't think was possible any more.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-08-09/la-na-least-vaccinated-covid-coronavirus
Miller County, Arkansas (Texarkana) has 9% of its population vaccinated. Dodge County, GA is at 5%!
I mean, I assumed there were places with like 20% vax rates, but dear God, I didn't think it was possible, in August 2021, to be at or below 10% in even the poorest rural shithole.

I’ve lived in Georgia for 49+ years and don’t recall hearing of Dodge County. Middle/South Georgia, per capita income is $16K, 70% white. That’s the sweet spot for unvaxxed.

10 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I’ve lived in Georgia for 49+ years and don’t recall hearing of Dodge County. Middle/South Georgia, per capita income is $16K, 70% white. That’s the sweet spot for unvaxxed.

Shit, they’re so poor they can’t afford the shot at its current price. 

Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'

Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had "no effect whatsoever" on the disease, according to a large patient study.
That's the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil.
One of the trial's principal investigators, Edward Mills of McMaster, presented the results from the Ivermectin arms of the study at an Aug. 6 symposium sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
Among the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, Ivermectin showed "no effect whatsoever" on the trial's outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.
"In our specific trial," he said, "we do not see the treatment benefit that a lot of the advocates believe should have been" seen.
The study's results on Ivermectin haven't been formally published or peer-reviewed. Earlier peer-reviewed results from the Together Trial related to the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which had been touted as a miracle treatment for COVID by then-President Trump, were published in April; they showed no significant therapeutic effect on the virus.
The findings on Ivermectin are yet another blow for advocates promoting the drug as a magic bullet against COVID-19. Ivermectin was developed as a treatment for parasitical diseases, mostly for veterinarians, though it's also used against some human parasites.
Its repurposing as a COVID treatment began with a 2020 paper by Australian researchers who determined that at extremely high concentrations it showed some efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID, in the lab. But their research involved concentrations of the drug far beyond what could be achieved, much less tolerated, in the human body.
The Ivermectin camp, as I reported earlier, is heavily peopled by anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy mongers. They maintain that the truth about the drug has been suppressed by agents of the pharmaceutical industry, which ostensibly prefers to collect the more generous profits that will flow from COVID vaccines.
The problem, however, is that the scientific trials cited by Ivermectin advocates have been too small or poorly documented to prove their case. One large trial from Egypt that showed the most significant therapeutic effect was withdrawn from its publishers due to accusations of plagiarism and bogus data.
Nevertheless, the advocates have continued to press their case — without necessarily observing accepted standards of scientific discourse. During the symposium, Mills complained that serious researchers looking into claims for COVID treatments have faced unprecedented abuse from advocates.
"I've had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing Ivermectin," he said. "Others working in this area have been threatened, their families have been threatened, they've been defamed," he said.
"I can think of no circumstances in the past where this kind of abuse has occurred to clinical trialists," he added. "We need to figure out a system where we have each others' backs on these issues, because the abuse that certain individuals have received is shocking." He referred to "accusations" and "swearing," though he gave no specific examples.
Mills said that his team's Ivermectin trial was altered after advocacy groups complained that it was too modest to achieve the results they expected. The trial originally tested the results from a single Ivermectin dose in January this year, but was later changed to involve one daily dose for three days of 400 micrograms of the drug for every kilogram (about 2.2 pounds) of the patients' weight, up to 90 kilograms.
Half the subjects received a placebo tablet. No clinical results were detected at either dosage, Mills said.
Asked whether he expected further criticism from Ivermectin advocates, he said it was all but inevitable. "The advocacy groups have set themselves up to be able to critique any clinical trial. They've already determined that any valid, well-designed critical trial was set up to fail."

 

Thanks for posting. That’s a terrible article and Hiltzik is a hack. But that doesn’t take away from the results of the study.

I look forward to it being published and peer-reviewed. More data is good.

Also people who harass scientists can diaf.

actually, that has me thinking.  What's the process after a clinical trial like Pfizer and you got the placebo.  Do they let you know and then get you an actual vaccine or do you have to go through life not knowing for longer term study?

Apparently in a lot of cases the long term placebo crew went out and got vaxxed anyway.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni

Is this just Darwin doing his thing?

We’re the only species that perpetually gives Darwin the finger.

So not the govt right? Sounds like a ticket to ride not “papers please”
 
 

I answered the question that was asked. It didn’t have anything to do with the government.

I’m all for private businesses making whatever rules the law allows.

What am I being absolutist about, Ricky Bobby?

I started drinking 2.5 hrs ago, but basically you equated me being curious, nay hopeful, about ivermectin with being anti-vax despite no evidence. That’s some lazy-ass thinking. “He said X therefore he thinks Y.”

That was a terrible explanation. Tequila!

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

I started drinking 2.5 hrs ago, but basically you equated me being curious, nay hopeful, about ivermectin with being anti-vax despite no evidence. That’s some lazy-ass thinking. “He said X therefore he thinks Y.”

That was a terrible explanation. Tequila!

Edited August 12, 2021 by Brisketexan

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

All of this.  I would love for an easy, existing medication to be an effective therapy against COVID.  Fuck, I'd love it if it was aspirin, invermectin, or vagisil.  IDGAF.  Run trials, test them.

The advent of an effective therapeutic would nullify the vaccines emergency use status and force them through the natural and lengthy testing parameters that take on average many, many years to get formal FDA approval.  

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

The advent of an effective therapeutic would nullify the vaccines emergency use status and force them through the natural and lengthy testing parameters that take on average many, many years to get formal FDA approval.  

That’s actually not true, though.

1 hour ago, tbone_ said:

Is this just Darwin doing his thing?

No, unfortunately most of these people have already passed on their genes.

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The advent of an effective therapeutic would nullify the vaccines emergency use status and force them through the natural and lengthy testing parameters that take on average many, many years to get formal FDA approval.  

The advent of an effective therapeutic would nullify the vaccines emergency use status and force them through the natural and lengthy testing parameters that take on average many, many years to get formal FDA approval.  

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The advent of an effective therapeutic would nullify the vaccines emergency use status and force them through the natural and lengthy testing parameters that take on average many, many years to get formal FDA approval.  

Except, umm, I mean.....

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That’s actually not true, though.

Seriously.  WTF?  

That's not how it works.  Least of all, because for even that CONCEPT to be correct, the "effective therapeutic" would have to be WILDLY effective.  Like, not "reduces mortality by 20%, or even 50% [which would be fucking AWESOME, by the way, and I pray that we eventually DO find a therapeutic that's that effective]," but rather "readily and widely available, affordable, and reduces severe illness and mortality by over 90%."  And again, that's pretending that the scenario you proposed is how things work.....which it isn't, based on anything I can see.

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The advent of an effective therapeutic would nullify the vaccines emergency use status and force them through the natural and lengthy testing parameters that take on average many, many years to get formal FDA approval.  

23 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

We’re the only species that perpetually gives Darwin the finger.

But just like every other species, we don’t as a whole seem to have a grasp on the phenomenon Darwin actually described. It wasn’t stupid birds doing stupid things to get killed and eliminating a degree of stupid from the gene pool. 

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Topol is angling for 3rd boosters for everything.  I think that in the long run they will be needed, but he overemphasizes the data on PFE in drawing some of his conclusions and applying broadly to mRNA as a class.  There appear to be meaningful differences between PFE and MRNA (dose and interval most notably). Moderna leet level mRNA peoples gonna be last ones standing. 

 

 

Team Moderna FTW!

Damn. Buzzrock posting like it’s 1:00 am on a weekend after the horns game.

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The advent of an effective therapeutic would nullify the vaccines emergency use status and force them through the natural and lengthy testing parameters that take on average many, many years to get formal FDA approval.  

Ok I’ll bite on a different angle than those above. I agree that it usually takes years for new drug approval. Not sure what the average is, but I’d love for you to share that information with me. My question to you is does it have to take years?  Or can drug companies fast track their own development and clinicals, at an additional cost of money, manpower, and resources, to deliver a NDA packet to fda much faster than average if the need arose?  And could fda jump on that NDA and turn it around quicker than their usual timeline or even their fast track timeline?

I'm not stating that these things can happen, but I am postulating such. Do you have any information that says otherwise, that the system is running at peak efficiency already and doesn’t have another couple of gears if an emergent situation presented itself?  Does anyone?  I haven’t looked and I don’t plan to, just challenging the assertion. 

12 minutes ago, sidis said:

An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. 

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. 

That's the crucial distinction being missed in this exchange. 

30 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The advent of an effective therapeutic would nullify the vaccines emergency use status and force them through the natural and lengthy testing parameters that take on average many, many years to get formal FDA approval.  

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Ok I’ll bite on a different angle than those above. I agree that it usually takes years for new drug approval. Not sure what the average is, but I’d love for you to share that information with me. My question to you is does it have to take years?  Or can drug companies fast track their own development and clinicals, at an additional cost of money, manpower, and resources, to deliver a NDA packet to fda much faster than average if the need arose?  And could fda jump on that NDA and turn it around quicker than their usual timeline or even their fast track timeline?

I'm not stating that these things can happen, but I am postulating such. Do you have any information that says otherwise, that the system is running at peak efficiency already and doesn’t have another couple of gears if an emergent situation presented itself?  Does anyone?  I haven’t looked and I don’t plan to, just challenging the assertion. 

The average time I've seen is close to a decade and upwards of 2 billion per drug.  For a corona virus, after decades of trying, there was never a successful vax created (we all know why) for any of COVID's ancestors.  

Why?  I don't know, but my guess is the myriad of trials each drug must pass.  Trials and time in this litigious time we live in.  Trials we have.  Time we do not.  We have billions of doses, and but less than 18 months worth of data.  

They only granted this preliminary approval because they perceived that they had no alternatives and the global nature of the virus.  

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Is there anything in there breaking down effectiveness after 4 months or 5 months vs after 6?

Not that I am aware of. 

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

The average time I've seen is close to a decade and upwards of 2 billion per drug.  For a corona virus, after decades of trying, there was never a successful vax created (we all know why) for any of COVID's ancestors. 

Umm, I don't know why. Are you referring to SARS? Common colds? Something else? 

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's the crucial distinction being missed in this exchange. 

And it begs the obvious question about "approval" for an untested alternative.  FDA approval seems very selective.  In the end, both seem effective.  Many of our poorer, black and brown brethren around the world are seeing positive results using therapeutics.  The state of Delhi with a vax rate of 6+% saw a 97% reduction in their cases (P-1 variant).  Mexico.  Argentina.  Parts of Africa.  Venezuela.   It's been around for four decades and treated billions upon billions of people and is one of the safest drugs around.  Combined with other measures and the vaccines, it seems like a slam dunk?

3 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Umm, I don't know why. Are you referring to SARS? Common colds? Something else? 

There was not the amount of global pressure and resources poured into earlier vax options for early virus strains like SARS and others - it's not nefarious.  The demand was just less.  

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

For a corona virus, after decades of trying, there was never a successful vax created (we all know why) for any of COVID's ancestors.  

The reason that no successful vax has been created is because the 4 most common coronaviruses simply cause the common cold, and even if you successfully VAX against them there’s about 40 other non-coronavirus causes of the common cold so it would be pointless. SARS and MERS were both contained with contact tracing and isolation (and a good thing because SARS had about a 30% mortality rate, MERS 60), thus the need for a vaccine went away.

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's been around for four decades and treated billions upon billions of people and is one of the safest drugs around. 

Ivermectin has never been used at the doses required to achieve the in vitro concentration that inhibits RNA replication

To my knowledge are no prospective studies of ivermectin at any dose that show decreased rate of serious illness and death. If you have one post it

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The average time I've seen is close to a decade and upwards of 2 billion per drug.  For a corona virus, after decades of trying, there was never a successful vax created (we all know why) for any of COVID's ancestors.  

Why?  I don't know, but my guess is the myriad of trials each drug must pass.  Trials and time in this litigious time we live in.  Trials we have.  Time we do not.  We have billions of doses, and but less than 18 months worth of data.  

They only granted this preliminary approval because they perceived that they had no alternatives and the global nature of the virus.  

Go fuck yourself you lying duplicitous piece of shit. 

Effective Monday August 16, 2021 the City of New Orleans will require proof of vaccination or a current negative Covid test for ALL bars, restaurants and breweries.

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And it begs the obvious question about "approval" for an untested alternative.  FDA approval seems very selective.  In the end, both seem effective.  Many of our poorer, black and brown brethren around the world are seeing positive results using therapeutics.  The state of Delhi with a vax rate of 6+% saw a 97% reduction in their cases (P-1 variant).  Mexico.  Argentina.  Parts of Africa.  Venezuela.   It's been around for four decades and treated billions upon billions of people and is one of the safest drugs around.  Combined with other measures and the vaccines, it seems like a slam dunk?

Go fuck yourself you lying duplicitous piece of shit.