2 2
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Wrong...it takes years because we have too many lawyers looking for something to do.

I know -- how hard can it be just to develop a silly old vaccine? We've done it before. As long as you say it works, it works. Then, later, one can say "who knew how hard it would be?"

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Wrong...it takes years because we have too many lawyers looking for something to do.

In a free market with limited regulations, that is the only way society can protect itself. What other option do you suggest? You want small government, little to no regulation and also limit the ability to sue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Wrong...it takes years because we have too many lawyers looking for something to do.

Spoken like someone with no knowledge of how medical trials work.

You remind me more and more of Trump every day.  He's been promising a vaccine real soon for months now.  And when a vaccine is rushed to placate an angry Trump, and people die as a result, he'll say something like "no one could have foreseen this happening!  No one!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Wrong...it takes years because we have too many lawyers looking for something to do.

Have you ever written a single peer-reviewed study? Have you ever reviewed any studies (as an academic peer)?

Data takes a lot of time to gather and analyse. Even with lawyers out of the equation.

It's like saying 9 women can make a baby in 1 month - there are some things you can't accelerate.

Try out some interactive timelines here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

I know -- how hard can it be just to develop a silly old vaccine? We've done it before. As long as you say it works, it works. Then, later, one can say "who knew how hard it would be?"

Hi Wendy,

Or the better one:  'We never said it would work for everyone.'

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Wrong...it takes years because we have too many lawyers looking for something to do.

 Easy.

''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,''  Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, Act IV, Scene II by Shakespeare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now we know that the President knew about the seriousness of the Coronavirus, but decided to downplay it for political reasons. Tens of thousands dead, because the president thought it would suit him better politically if he downplayed it.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2020-09-09T15%3A53%3A23&utm_term=image

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

at the minimum there is no reason why phase 3 trials shouldent be open to all volunteers. if you dont want to risk it, fine but I am of the firm blief that if the CDC says it's okay to administer this vaccine to 50,000+ people than the risk of me dying from a complication of it is but a small, very small fraction of the risk of me dying because I did not get it and I caught Covid. it's like the argument that you shouldent wear a seatbelt in case your car flips over and catches on fire and you cant release the belt while ignoring the fact that you're 1,000x more likely to die because you dident wear a belt than because you did.

you are far more likely to die because you did not take a trial vaccine than because you did. initial results of the vaccines are very good showing that they are 4x more effective than your own antibody response from people who have actually been infected.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Westerly said:

at the minimum there is no reason why phase 3 trials shouldent be open to all volunteers.

The one problem is that they still have to make sure they have a representative sampling of ethnic origins in the test; there are differences in how some people react to things based on ethnic origin. Because of our mixed-up ancestry for so many Americans, that doesn't mean that a vaccine that works best on white people (white males have traditionally been the "gold standard" for medical trials) is the best for everyone.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westerly said:

at the minimum there is no reason why phase 3 trials shouldent be open to all volunteers.

A few reasons.

1) All trials are blind.  So you might get the vaccine - but you also might get a placebo or a flu vaccine (or other known treatment.)

2) They need to hit a representative group of people.  So if they are planning a trial with 10K participants, and 20K white males want the vaccine, then not everyone who wants it may be able to get it.

3) Within that representative group they have to be as random as possible in who they give each trial arm to.  Simple example - if high risk people demanded that they get the actual trial vaccine, and the study allowed that, then the study would likely show that the vaccine killed people, because high risk people tend to die more often, and may do so even if they have been administered a partially effective vaccine.  The fatality rate in the high risk group may be 2% instead of the 20% you'd expect without the vaccine, but it would still be higher than the 1% you'd expect from a healthy placebo group.  So the only supportable conclusion would be the the vaccine is deadly, which means it would not be approved.  And then no one would get it.

4) They may exclude certain conditions that are likely to confound the result.  So if you're diabetic (for example) they may exclude you from the study, because the confounding effects of diabetes may make the data less robust both from the trial group and the control group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, airdvr said:

Wrong...it takes years because we have too many lawyers looking for something to do.

As usual, there's an answer that's simple, sounds good, attacks an unpopular group...

And is completely and totally wrong.

Ryoder posted the link about 'Big Pharma' and their immunity to lawsuits over vaccines. 

Finding out if the vaccine triggers the immune system into creating antibodies takes time. 
Finding out if those antibodies will remain viable and active takes time.
Finding out what all of the side effects are, and how often they occur takes multiple studies of increasing numbers of participants. 
A 'one in a hundred thousand' chance (0.00001% chance) will affect over 3000 Americans, and 60,000 around the world.

That sort of occurrence rate won't show up in anything but the biggest study. 
Sometimes it doesn't show up until the vaccine is released and given to large numbers of people.
The Dengue Fever vaccine is a good example of this. Only after it was given to a large number of people did the potential side effect of more severe cases occurring in people who hadn't previously had it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, airdvr said:

Wrong...it takes years because we have too many lawyers looking for something to do.

Spoken like someone who has no idea about the process.

Isn't your wife  a doctor? Maybe ask her to educate you about the biotech stuff before posting.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:


A 'one in a hundred thousand' chance (0.00001% chance) will affect over 3000 Americans, and 60,000 around the world.
 

Which is completely inconsequential compared to what continuing to wait does. The Coronavirus kills that many people in 12 hours worldwide. You guys speak like vaccine research is lives lost if we rush it vs no lives lost if we don't rush it. That's not what is at stake here. For every HOUR that goes by without a vaccine, 300 people die worldwide. Think about that. 300 people PER HOUR who die. NO vaccine no matter how untested, not ever in the history of the known planet has caused that being 100% sure.

Sometimes the reward so substantially outweighs the risk that taking on more risk than normal is the correct choice. You might not jump in 30 MPH winds with overcast skies, but what about if I offered you $100k to do it? Then you probably would. In this case, the reward of advancing this as soon as the evidence shows that it is most likely safe and effective (which it already does) far exceeds the risk of losing so many people per day from something that we literately have the ability to control to some degree right now.

I mean shit where are all these safety and conservative folks when it comes to the virus? We dont want to roll out an early vaccine that is already showing promising results but we are okay with saying fuck wearing masks because this is Merica and it's too much of an inconvenience for me to cover my face even if that means I infect and kill you? I think these safety-concuss people could direct their effort toward more concerning matters that are firmly known to be costing lives right now--like literately this very second.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westerly said:

Which is completely inconsequential compared to what continuing to wait does. The Coronavirus kills that many people in 12 hours worldwide. You guys speak like vaccine research is lives lost if we rush it vs no lives lost if we don't rush it. That's not what is at stake here. For every HOUR that goes by without a vaccine, 300 people die worldwide. Think about that. 300 people PER HOUR who die. NO vaccine no matter how untested, not ever in the history of the known planet has caused that being 100% sure.

Sometimes the reward so substantially outweighs the risk that taking on more risk than normal is the correct choice. You might not jump in 30 MPH winds with overcast skies, but what about if I offered you $100k to do it? Then you probably would. In this case, the reward of advancing this as soon as the evidence shows that it is most likely safe and effective (which it already does) far exceeds the risk of losing so many people per day from something that we literately have the ability to control to some degree right now.

I mean shit where are all these safety and conservative folks when it comes to the virus? We dont want to roll out an early vaccine that is already showing promising results but we are okay with saying fuck wearing masks because this is Merica and it's too much of an inconvenience for me to cover my face even if that means I infect and kill you? I think these safety-concuss people could direct their effort toward more concerning matters that are firmly known to be costing lives right now--like literately this very second.

Patience Grasshopper. And try to remember that the process to achieve a Covid-19 vaccine is already being fast tracked, and with parallel efforts, in unprecedented ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westerly said:

Sometimes the reward so substantially outweighs the risk that taking on more risk than normal is the correct choice. You might not jump in 30 MPH winds with overcast skies, but what about if I offered you $100k to do it? Then you probably would. In this case, the reward of advancing this as soon as the evidence shows that it is most likely safe and effective (which it already does) far exceeds the risk of losing so many people per day from something that we literately have the ability to control to some degree right now.

I'd turn you down. All that cash would be eaten up by the bills I'd need to pay if I broke my leg. Especially if I was subjected to the American healthdon'tcaresystem.

As to vaccines and "what could possibly go wrong", do not forget the potential risks to the next generation. Thalidomide comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yoink said:

Spoken like someone who has no idea about the process.

Isn't your wife  a doctor? Maybe ask her to educate you about the biotech stuff before posting.

You're thinking of Kallend.

Don't you think rushing a vaccine to market will void the protections offered under the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ryoder said:

An even more recent and more relevant example:

https://www.history.com/news/swine-flu-rush-vaccine-election-year-1976

"The administration can tolerate unnecessary health expenditures better than unnecessary deaths and illness" - How quaint!  Putting human lives above money.

It should be noted that in that case the vaccine already existed; it just had never been used on a large scale.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ryoder said:

An even more recent and more relevant example:

https://www.history.com/news/swine-flu-rush-vaccine-election-year-1976

Interesting article, with more in the links.

Unfortnately I haven't got the time to read it in depth at work, but at first glance it looks like Fords' reaction to the swine flu was the exact opposite of the international COVID-response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2