Lefties and lockdowns

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

That's hilarious.

You were arguing that they should have released the vaccines very early, when they 'didn't have much data' on them.

[sfzombie13 307]

13 hours ago, Westerly said:

There are only two vaccines approved under an EUA in the USA, and both require two. 

new one just getting ready to roll out, or so it seems, with just one dose.  maybe they're figuring it out.

 

[billvon 2,400]

9 hours ago, Westerly said:

The manufacturer of the drug--the literal CEO of Moderna--argues otherwise.

The manufacturer of the drug tells you to use it . . . exactly like they tell you to?  Not exactly breaking news.

Let's look at what Moderna said when they actually submitted the data for approval of the vaccine:

"According to a document the company submitted to the FDA, the Moderna vaccine can provide 80.2% protection after one dose, compared to 95.6% after the second (in people aged 18 to 65 – it's 86.4% in those over 65)."

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210114-covid-19-how-effective-is-a-single-vaccine-dose

Let's look at independent research for other vaccines:

"Clinical trials evaluating the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which requires two shots given 21 days apart, reported an efficacy of 52 percent after the first dose."

https://www.newsweek.com/covd-19-vaccines-effectiveness-first-dose-immunity-pfizer-moderna-1565759

I think I will stick with the science.

[billvon 2,400]

15 hours ago, headoverheels said:

As important is the fact that pretty much zero people die from Covid that have had one shot (plus a few weeks), and few are hospitalized.  They still may get sick, but not as sick. 

Exactly.  And that symptomatic infection may become an asymptomatic infection which effectively variolates the person.  That can actually be a downside because asymptomatic carriers are more likely to spread infection.  But at the same time, the person is less likely overall to have any level of infection.

[Westerly 61]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

 

I think I will stick with the science.

Yea, and the science says it works correctly when you use it correctly, not when you use it incorrectly. If you're a man of science I would expect you're a man of doing things correctly--which is taking two doses, not one.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Westerly

[nwt 131]

6 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Yea, and the science says it works correctly when you use it correctly, not when you use it incorrectly. If you're a man of science I would expect you're a man of doing things correctly--which is taking two doses, not one.

You haven't actually refuted anything he's said. You seem to think you have, but you haven't. Here's the data: https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download

[billvon 2,400]

4 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Yea, and the science says it works correctly when you use it correctly, not when you use it incorrectly. If you're a man of science I would expect you're a man of doing things correctly--which is taking two doses, not one.

No, it doesn't say that at all.  It does NOT work "correctly" when you use it "correctly."   It will not protect you from COVID-19 100% even if you follow the dosing to the letter.  The best you can do is express the odds of infection after one or two doses.  And per the company that protection is 80.2% protection after one dose, 95.6% after the second.  And independent research has verified that.

Remember back when you were saying that the unapproved vaccine should be released immediately without waiting for approval?  "It should be released immediately. Every day they are screwing around trying to make 'sure, super sure sure' that it's effective and safe is another day thousands die. Sometimes you just have to call it good enough and move forward."

Funny.

[Westerly 61]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

No, it doesn't say that at all.  It does NOT work "correctly" when you use it "correctly."   It will not protect you from COVID-19 100% even if you follow the dosing to the letter.  The best you can do is express the odds of infection after one or two doses.  And per the company that protection is 80.2% protection after one dose, 95.6% after the second.  And independent research has verified that.

Remember back when you were saying that the unapproved vaccine should be released immediately without waiting for approval?  "It should be released immediately. Every day they are screwing around trying to make 'sure, super sure sure' that it's effective and safe is another day thousands die. Sometimes you just have to call it good enough and move forward."

Funny.

Yes, I do remember that and as I said then, I was right. The vaccines turned out to be safe and effective, exactly as I predicted. If we would have started this months ago we would have saved countless lives already.

However, it's not relevant to this discussion. I understand the vaccination is not 100% perfect. I never said it was. However, at 95% effective that's more than good enough. At that point your chances of getting covid are less than that of the flu and if you do get it there is very little chance you'll die. Most likely it will be mild. So that's good enough I'd say.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, Westerly said:

However, it's not relevant to this discussion. I understand the vaccination is not 100% perfect. I never said it was. However, at 95% effective that's more than good enough. At that point your chances of getting covid are less than that of the flu and if you do get it there is very little chance you'll die. Most likely it will be mild. So that's good enough I'd say.

I agree.  It is more than good enough to reduce Re below 1 (which is the goal.)  

IF we did not have enough vaccine for everyone (which is not the case) then it would make a lot of sense to give everyone one dose, because 80% immunity is also enough to get Re below 1.

To put it another way, we would be better off having the population be 80% (on average) immune from one dose, rather than the population be 55% immune (on average) due to a combination of fully vaccinated people and people with natural immunity only.

However, since we WILL have enough vaccine for everyone, our best bet is to go full speed with vaccinating everyone we can with the vaccine we have.

[Westerly 61]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

best bet is to go full speed with vaccinating everyone we can with the vaccine we have.

Yep, but that is not happening. There are many places that are still throwing doses away for one reason or another and others that are holding too many in reserve. Overall, there has not been much coordination. It's all just do it however you want and figure things out as you go. No plan jam.

[nwt 131]

3 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Yep, but that is not happening. There are many places that are still throwing doses away for one reason or another and others that are holding too many in reserve. Overall, there has not been much coordination. It's all just do it however you want and figure things out as you go. No plan jam.

Are you advocating for something or just complaining?

[Westerly 61]

Just now, nwt said:

Are you advocating for something or just complaining?

I'd advocating for creating a plan, which we still dont really have. When pharmacies are throwing vaccines away but somehow also not accepting appointments at the same time because they are 'fully booked' that tells me there is a disconnect and the end result is vaccination waste.

[nwt 131]

2 minutes ago, Westerly said:

I'd advocating for creating a plan, which we still dont really have. When pharmacies are throwing vaccines away but somehow also not accepting appointments at the same time because they are 'fully booked' that tells me there is a disconnect and the end result is vaccination waste.

Do you have evidence that doses have been wasted recently because we are lacking a plan?

[sfzombie13 307]

30 minutes ago, Westerly said:

I'd advocating for creating a plan, which we still dont really have. When pharmacies are throwing vaccines away but somehow also not accepting appointments at the same time because they are 'fully booked' that tells me there is a disconnect and the end result is vaccination waste.

i'd like to see a source on the throwing away, since i recall hearing about a place that had to get rid of a bunch due to a freezer failure.  had them all gone between 11 pm and 2 am with folks in jammies coming in.  no waste at all.  i know of one who sabotaged a bunch, but don't recall hearing of any ruined and thrown away.

[headoverheels 291]

2 hours ago, Westerly said:

Yea, and the science says it works correctly when you use it correctly, not when you use it incorrectly. If you're a man of science I would expect you're a man of doing things correctly--which is taking two doses, not one.

Here ya go:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268

Ultimate efficacy is way better if there is a longer interval before the second dose (more than 6 weeks).

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by headoverheels

[billvon 2,400]

2 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

i'd like to see a source on the throwing away, since i recall hearing about a place that had to get rid of a bunch due to a freezer failure.  had them all gone between 11 pm and 2 am with folks in jammies coming in.  no waste at all.  i know of one who sabotaged a bunch, but don't recall hearing of any ruined and thrown away.

Yeah, the percentages I've heard have been very low (<.1%) - and those are mostly due to:

-Refrigeration failures
-Mislabeling
-Problems during vaccinations (faulty/dropped syringe, balks etc)

The problem that Westerly was alluding to, where vaccination centers have doses available and just don't want to, or are unwilling to, administer them (or schedule vaccinations) is almost nonexistent as far as I can tell.

[wmw999 2,123]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

The problem that Westerly was alluding to, where vaccination centers have doses available and just don't want to, or are unwilling to, administer them (or schedule vaccinations) is almost nonexistent as far as I can tell.

Kind of like voter fraud. 
Wendy P. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, Westerly said:

I'd advocating for creating a plan, which we still dont really have. When pharmacies are throwing vaccines away but somehow also not accepting appointments at the same time because they are 'fully booked' that tells me there is a disconnect and the end result is vaccination waste.

Hi Westerley,

Re:  I'd advocating for creating a plan

So would I.  However, we ( and the entire world ) are in unchartered waters simply because this is all new to us.

I fully understand & accept that there will be mistakes as we go forward.  Life is like that.

As a young man, I served in the US military & worked in military hospitals.  I remember when they first explained battlefield triage procedures to us.  I thought that was a brutal plan.  But, you do what you can with what you are faced with.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 384]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

I think I will stick with the science.

What do you do when one epidemiologist says two doses another says one dose and they both claim the mantle of “science”?  That is not a hypothetical it is actually happening.

[kallend 1,625]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What do you do when one epidemiologist says two doses another says one dose and they both claim the mantle of “science”?  That is not a hypothetical it is actually happening.

No, the science is clear. 

It's a matter of setting priorities and choosing between a  good outcome for many or a better outcome for a few.  That is politics, not science. 

.

Edited February 3, 2021 by kallend

[nwt 131]

19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is not a hypothetical it is actually happening.

If you think that's profound, then you misunderstand science.

[billvon 2,400]

27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What do you do when one epidemiologist says two doses another says one dose and they both claim the mantle of “science”?  That is not a hypothetical it is actually happening.

?? Why do you see that as a conflict?  That's not a disagreement on the science, that's a disagreement on their estimates of what will happen in the future.

Will vaccine accessibility be poor and remain poor?  Then getting one dose to everyone makes more sense.

Will vaccine accessibility continue improving as more vaccines are approved, supply chains become more efficient and more vaccine sites open?  Then planning on two doses (for vaccines that require that) makes more sense.

Personally I think the best plan is to get the initial vaccine to everyone as quickly as possible, relying on that future improvement to get the second dose to people in a timely (or even delayed) manner.  That gets the most benefit to the most people most quickly.

[Westerly 61]

Here is your source. if you dident find any sources, it was because you dident look...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/health/covid-19-vaccine-unused/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/thousands-covid-19-vaccines-wind-garbage-because-fed-state-guidelines-n1254364

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/nyregion/new-york-vaccine-guidelines.html

https://www.azfamily.com/news/continuing_coverage/coronavirus_coverage/maricopa-county-had-to-throw-away-more-than-500-doses-of-covid-19-vaccine/article_7cdf6c5e-6577-11eb-a136-cf731ccb8231.html

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/1100-doses-of-the-covid-19-vaccine-thrown-away-statewide/275-daba61ea-c657-4d4f-85c9-5ae2722b4a3e

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/l-a-county-tells-health-care-providers-not-to-throw-away-unused-covid-19-vaccine-doses/

https://www.10tv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/walgreens-confirms-it-had-to-throw-out-vials-of-unused-vials-of-covid-19-vaccine/530-5aeda34d-400d-42af-9598-3f91de5f3977





Also, how exactly do you think people under 60 who are not front line workers are getting the vaccination? I know four people who are under 35 with no health conditions who got it. They got it because they show up at the end of the day to random pharmacies and hope they have left over doses that are going to be discarded. They found it was not that hard to get when I asked them about it.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Westerly

[nwt 131]

3 minutes ago, Westerly said:

Here is your source:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/thousands-covid-19-vaccines-wind-garbage-because-fed-state-guidelines-n1254364
 

That article is 2 weeks old--practically an eternity these days.

4 minutes ago, Westerly said:

They got it because they show up at the end of the day to random pharmacies and hope they have left over doses from people who skipped their appointments.

And guess what? You've actually just stumbled upon the solution to the problem you were complaining about. So we're done here?

[Westerly 61]

1 minute ago, nwt said:

That article is 2 weeks old--practically an eternity these days.

And guess what? You've actually just stumbled upon the solution to the problem you were complaining about. So we're done here?

Irrelevant. The claim was 'throwing vaccinations in the trash never happens'. I just posted like 50 stories that took me 60 seconds to find saying it happens all the time. Dont change the subject.