12-18-2020, 12:07 PM
I’m sure this will draw strong opposition
12-18-2020, 12:18 PM
(12-18-2020, 12:07 PM)lex24 Wrote: But perhaps worthy of discussionThe problem seems to me to be with identifying the 'most vulnerable'.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-end-...mail_share
But some debate on the issue is a good idea.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
(12-18-2020, 12:07 PM)lex24 Wrote: But perhaps worthy of discussionThe problem seems to me to be with identifying the 'most vulnerable'.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-end-...mail_share
But some debate on the issue is a good idea.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
12-18-2020, 12:28 PM
This Stanford quack's reputation was shredded months ago. He is jumping on the vaccine bandwagon to try to rehabiilitate his reputation.
He is claiming the lockdown should have been ended months ago. He is propping up a straw man. The US has not been in anything resembling a lockdown since April. On the other hand, the US cannot go wide open in a month. All of the vulnerable people cannot be vaccinated in a month and since vulnerable people are generally not the superspreaders, the general population cannot continue to act as irresponsibly as it has in the last few months.
If this guy a shred of decency, he would be pleading with people to act responsibly rather than promoting the possibility to do anything you want in a month. Quacks never learn.
He is claiming the lockdown should have been ended months ago. He is propping up a straw man. The US has not been in anything resembling a lockdown since April. On the other hand, the US cannot go wide open in a month. All of the vulnerable people cannot be vaccinated in a month and since vulnerable people are generally not the superspreaders, the general population cannot continue to act as irresponsibly as it has in the last few months.
If this guy a shred of decency, he would be pleading with people to act responsibly rather than promoting the possibility to do anything you want in a month. Quacks never learn.
This Stanford quack's reputation was shredded months ago. He is jumping on the vaccine bandwagon to try to rehabiilitate his reputation.
He is claiming the lockdown should have been ended months ago. He is propping up a straw man. The US has not been in anything resembling a lockdown since April. On the other hand, the US cannot go wide open in a month. All of the vulnerable people cannot be vaccinated in a month and since vulnerable people are generally not the superspreaders, the general population cannot continue to act as irresponsibly as it has in the last few months.
If this guy a shred of decency, he would be pleading with people to act responsibly rather than promoting the possibility to do anything you want in a month. Quacks never learn.
He is claiming the lockdown should have been ended months ago. He is propping up a straw man. The US has not been in anything resembling a lockdown since April. On the other hand, the US cannot go wide open in a month. All of the vulnerable people cannot be vaccinated in a month and since vulnerable people are generally not the superspreaders, the general population cannot continue to act as irresponsibly as it has in the last few months.
If this guy a shred of decency, he would be pleading with people to act responsibly rather than promoting the possibility to do anything you want in a month. Quacks never learn.
(12-18-2020, 12:28 PM)chrisk Wrote: This Stanford quack's reputation was shredded months ago. He is jumping on the vaccine bandwagon to try to rehabiilitate his reputation.
He is claiming the lockdown should have been ended months ago. He is propping up a straw man. The US has not been in anything resembling a lockdown since April. On the other hand, the US cannot go wide open in a month. All of the vulnerable people cannot be vaccinated in a month and since vulnerable people are generally not the superspreaders, the general population cannot continue to act as irresponsibly as it has in the last few months.
If this guy a shred of decency, he would be pleading with people to act responsibly rather than promoting the possibility to do anything you want in a month. Quacks never learn.
I love opened minded well reasoned responses. The “other”aspects of this virus include the possibility of a major increase in world hunger. At least according to Oxfam. But I guess that’s quackery as well. The ONLY answer are these shutdowns. Nothing else is worthy of discussion. Everyone that dares to discuss a more targeted approach is to be immediately shut down.
BTW- they suggest lifting the lock down after 50,000,000 of the most vulnerable have been inoculated.
Question: Are the Harvard and Oxford folks also “quacks”. How bout the thousands that signed on. And when please tell, did you get your credentials.
No opening in the US is going to be close to complete anytime soon. But if we get the over 65 crowd and health care workers vaccinated we should be able to begin opening things back up in large part. I doubt that will be by end of Jan. Maybe end of Feb.
(12-18-2020, 12:28 PM)chrisk Wrote: This Stanford quack's reputation was shredded months ago. He is jumping on the vaccine bandwagon to try to rehabiilitate his reputation.
He is claiming the lockdown should have been ended months ago. He is propping up a straw man. The US has not been in anything resembling a lockdown since April. On the other hand, the US cannot go wide open in a month. All of the vulnerable people cannot be vaccinated in a month and since vulnerable people are generally not the superspreaders, the general population cannot continue to act as irresponsibly as it has in the last few months.
If this guy a shred of decency, he would be pleading with people to act responsibly rather than promoting the possibility to do anything you want in a month. Quacks never learn.
I love opened minded well reasoned responses. The “other”aspects of this virus include the possibility of a major increase in world hunger. At least according to Oxfam. But I guess that’s quackery as well. The ONLY answer are these shutdowns. Nothing else is worthy of discussion. Everyone that dares to discuss a more targeted approach is to be immediately shut down.
BTW- they suggest lifting the lock down after 50,000,000 of the most vulnerable have been inoculated.
Question: Are the Harvard and Oxford folks also “quacks”. How bout the thousands that signed on. And when please tell, did you get your credentials.
No opening in the US is going to be close to complete anytime soon. But if we get the over 65 crowd and health care workers vaccinated we should be able to begin opening things back up in large part. I doubt that will be by end of Jan. Maybe end of Feb.
12-18-2020, 01:09 PM
(12-18-2020, 12:28 PM)chrisk Wrote: This Stanford quack's reputation was shredded months ago. He is jumping on the vaccine bandwagon to try to rehabiilitate his reputation.
ChrisK, I suggest you reword your posting ASAP. Just because you don't agree with his ideas (and I don't either) doesn't mean you are invulnerable to a defamation suit.
On the topic of priority of vaccination, here's another OpEd...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousd...id19/90125
I will point out that I believe this point is irrelevant now. The first round was (I believe primarily) given to health personnel this week (incl. my 2 relatives that work in a hospital) with some patients. Next week the doses should cover a large share of the SNF & some of the LTCF facilities. I believe I saw an estimate of 2M Pfizer doses for the 2nd week (I'm not sure if that is 1M or 2M first doses). We've already seen larger numbers (6M first doses) for the first allotment of Moderna vaccine, should it be approved as we expect.
(12-18-2020, 12:28 PM)chrisk Wrote: This Stanford quack's reputation was shredded months ago. He is jumping on the vaccine bandwagon to try to rehabiilitate his reputation.
ChrisK, I suggest you reword your posting ASAP. Just because you don't agree with his ideas (and I don't either) doesn't mean you are invulnerable to a defamation suit.
On the topic of priority of vaccination, here's another OpEd...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousd...id19/90125
I will point out that I believe this point is irrelevant now. The first round was (I believe primarily) given to health personnel this week (incl. my 2 relatives that work in a hospital) with some patients. Next week the doses should cover a large share of the SNF & some of the LTCF facilities. I believe I saw an estimate of 2M Pfizer doses for the 2nd week (I'm not sure if that is 1M or 2M first doses). We've already seen larger numbers (6M first doses) for the first allotment of Moderna vaccine, should it be approved as we expect.
(12-18-2020, 01:09 PM)M T Wrote:(12-18-2020, 12:28 PM)chrisk Wrote: This Stanford quack's reputation was shredded months ago. He is jumping on the vaccine bandwagon to try to rehabiilitate his reputation.
ChrisK, I suggest you reword your posting ASAP. Just because you don't agree with his ideas (and I don't either) doesn't mean you are invulnerable to a defamation suit.
On the topic of priority of vaccination, here's another OpEd...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousd...id19/90125
I will point out that I believe this point is irrelevant now. The first round was (I believe primarily) given to health personnel this week (incl. my 2 relatives that work in a hospital) with some patients. Next week the doses should cover a large share of the SNF & some of the LTCF facilities. I believe I saw an estimate of 2M Pfizer doses for the 2nd week (I'm not sure if that is 1M or 2M first doses). We've already seen larger numbers (6M first doses) for the first allotment of Moderna vaccine, should it be approved as we expect.
It’s not just “his” ideas. It’s a group. I don’t agree or disagree. I don’t know. I just think discussion is a worthy thing. And there’s is, IMO, a lack of any real debate on this board. You either tow the line, or your slammed.
(12-18-2020, 01:09 PM)M T Wrote:(12-18-2020, 12:28 PM)chrisk Wrote: This Stanford quack's reputation was shredded months ago. He is jumping on the vaccine bandwagon to try to rehabiilitate his reputation.
ChrisK, I suggest you reword your posting ASAP. Just because you don't agree with his ideas (and I don't either) doesn't mean you are invulnerable to a defamation suit.
On the topic of priority of vaccination, here's another OpEd...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousd...id19/90125
I will point out that I believe this point is irrelevant now. The first round was (I believe primarily) given to health personnel this week (incl. my 2 relatives that work in a hospital) with some patients. Next week the doses should cover a large share of the SNF & some of the LTCF facilities. I believe I saw an estimate of 2M Pfizer doses for the 2nd week (I'm not sure if that is 1M or 2M first doses). We've already seen larger numbers (6M first doses) for the first allotment of Moderna vaccine, should it be approved as we expect.
It’s not just “his” ideas. It’s a group. I don’t agree or disagree. I don’t know. I just think discussion is a worthy thing. And there’s is, IMO, a lack of any real debate on this board. You either tow the line, or your slammed.
12-18-2020, 02:01 PM
Suppose a large number of people chose to voluntarily forego or delay their 2nd shot, putting themselves as a cohort of people only getting the single dose. Say, they wait 3 months or 6 months for their 2nd dose.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
Suppose a large number of people chose to voluntarily forego or delay their 2nd shot, putting themselves as a cohort of people only getting the single dose. Say, they wait 3 months or 6 months for their 2nd dose.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
12-18-2020, 02:20 PM
(12-18-2020, 02:01 PM)M T Wrote: Suppose a large number of people chose to voluntarily forego or delay their 2nd shot, putting themselves as a cohort of people only getting the single dose. Say, they wait 3 months or 6 months for their 2nd dose.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
What does the current science suggest for the effectiveness of just one dose? I’m assuming it reduces risk by some factor. Is that correct?
(12-18-2020, 02:01 PM)M T Wrote: Suppose a large number of people chose to voluntarily forego or delay their 2nd shot, putting themselves as a cohort of people only getting the single dose. Say, they wait 3 months or 6 months for their 2nd dose.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
What does the current science suggest for the effectiveness of just one dose? I’m assuming it reduces risk by some factor. Is that correct?
12-18-2020, 02:25 PM
(12-18-2020, 02:20 PM)lex24 Wrote:Something around 1100 people in each of the vaccine & placebo arms of the Moderna trial did not get a 2nd dose. Many were removed for cause. But of what was left, Moderna had a handful of cases. Their very weak numbers had a 54% effectiveness but a 95% confidence interval from -300% to 95%.(12-18-2020, 02:01 PM)M T Wrote: Suppose a large number of people chose to voluntarily forego or delay their 2nd shot, putting themselves as a cohort of people only getting the single dose. Say, they wait 3 months or 6 months for their 2nd dose.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
What does the current science suggest for the effectiveness of just one dose? I’m assuming it reduces risk by some factor. Is that correct?
Even so, that's better numbers than those doing Moderna's trial knew when they started.
(12-18-2020, 02:20 PM)lex24 Wrote:Something around 1100 people in each of the vaccine & placebo arms of the Moderna trial did not get a 2nd dose. Many were removed for cause. But of what was left, Moderna had a handful of cases. Their very weak numbers had a 54% effectiveness but a 95% confidence interval from -300% to 95%.(12-18-2020, 02:01 PM)M T Wrote: Suppose a large number of people chose to voluntarily forego or delay their 2nd shot, putting themselves as a cohort of people only getting the single dose. Say, they wait 3 months or 6 months for their 2nd dose.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
What does the current science suggest for the effectiveness of just one dose? I’m assuming it reduces risk by some factor. Is that correct?
Even so, that's better numbers than those doing Moderna's trial knew when they started.
12-18-2020, 04:20 PM
(12-18-2020, 02:20 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-18-2020, 02:01 PM)M T Wrote: Suppose a large number of people chose to voluntarily forego or delay their 2nd shot, putting themselves as a cohort of people only getting the single dose. Say, they wait 3 months or 6 months for their 2nd dose.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
What does the current science suggest for the effectiveness of just one dose? I’m assuming it reduces risk by some factor. Is that correct?
For the Pfizer vaccine, the infection curves started to deviate at about the 10 day mark (after the first vaccine) and some people have suggested it is better to go for imperfect efficacy but get twice as many people vaccinated early. Unfortunately we don't have enough data to know for sure. The Moderna vaccine is similar, though not quite as clear (they were slow to accrue events in both arms until about day 20 so it's hard to tell if the vaccine is making a difference, but there's no reason why a single dose wouldn't offer at least partial protection).
The big unknowns are about how much protection it offers and how long the protection lasts. Officially, the FDA has said that there isn't enough evidence about two doses, and certainly I wouldn't encourage anyone to engage in a high-risk activity until at least seven days after their second dose.
BC
(12-18-2020, 02:20 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-18-2020, 02:01 PM)M T Wrote: Suppose a large number of people chose to voluntarily forego or delay their 2nd shot, putting themselves as a cohort of people only getting the single dose. Say, they wait 3 months or 6 months for their 2nd dose.
They would provide 3 benefits, at a risk to themselves,
1) More people would get at least the first dose more quickly simply by their delay
2) They could provide evidence for whether a single dose is effective.
3) #2 could conceivable allow first doses to be declared sufficient, in time to finish vaccinations earlier.
Among the people that might decide this are health care workers who got their first dose first. By being among the first, evidence from their experience would be available most quickly.
What does the current science suggest for the effectiveness of just one dose? I’m assuming it reduces risk by some factor. Is that correct?
For the Pfizer vaccine, the infection curves started to deviate at about the 10 day mark (after the first vaccine) and some people have suggested it is better to go for imperfect efficacy but get twice as many people vaccinated early. Unfortunately we don't have enough data to know for sure. The Moderna vaccine is similar, though not quite as clear (they were slow to accrue events in both arms until about day 20 so it's hard to tell if the vaccine is making a difference, but there's no reason why a single dose wouldn't offer at least partial protection).
The big unknowns are about how much protection it offers and how long the protection lasts. Officially, the FDA has said that there isn't enough evidence about two doses, and certainly I wouldn't encourage anyone to engage in a high-risk activity until at least seven days after their second dose.
BC
12-18-2020, 06:46 PM
BC, I do not think we disagree in the least.
I am suggesting a trial with volunteers that did receive the first dose in which the 2nd dose is delayed 3 or 6 months. Of course I expect the volunteers to be warned of the experimental nature, etc, as with any trial. As a potential volunteer, I might be MUCH more inclined to delay a second dose (compared to the unknown nature for the original trial volunteers) to help give better understanding as to whether delaying the 2nd dose could get all of the world to a single dose level and reduce COVID prevalence among a larger population faster.
From a transcript you posted of an interview with a Pfizer person, it was unclear what trials they may be doing or planning.
I am suggesting a trial with volunteers that did receive the first dose in which the 2nd dose is delayed 3 or 6 months. Of course I expect the volunteers to be warned of the experimental nature, etc, as with any trial. As a potential volunteer, I might be MUCH more inclined to delay a second dose (compared to the unknown nature for the original trial volunteers) to help give better understanding as to whether delaying the 2nd dose could get all of the world to a single dose level and reduce COVID prevalence among a larger population faster.
From a transcript you posted of an interview with a Pfizer person, it was unclear what trials they may be doing or planning.
BC, I do not think we disagree in the least.
I am suggesting a trial with volunteers that did receive the first dose in which the 2nd dose is delayed 3 or 6 months. Of course I expect the volunteers to be warned of the experimental nature, etc, as with any trial. As a potential volunteer, I might be MUCH more inclined to delay a second dose (compared to the unknown nature for the original trial volunteers) to help give better understanding as to whether delaying the 2nd dose could get all of the world to a single dose level and reduce COVID prevalence among a larger population faster.
From a transcript you posted of an interview with a Pfizer person, it was unclear what trials they may be doing or planning.
I am suggesting a trial with volunteers that did receive the first dose in which the 2nd dose is delayed 3 or 6 months. Of course I expect the volunteers to be warned of the experimental nature, etc, as with any trial. As a potential volunteer, I might be MUCH more inclined to delay a second dose (compared to the unknown nature for the original trial volunteers) to help give better understanding as to whether delaying the 2nd dose could get all of the world to a single dose level and reduce COVID prevalence among a larger population faster.
From a transcript you posted of an interview with a Pfizer person, it was unclear what trials they may be doing or planning.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »