CDC Notifies States, Large Cities To Prepare For Vaccine Distribution As Soon As Late October

[Jonfw2]

Because you wouldn’t have that info. You would see that 1.8% of those in the study have Bells Palsy but no way to compare that to what number of non-Pfizer vaccined developed it. (General public numbers might give you an approximate, but it’s not a true control).

It's not a true control, but based on scale, it's going to be awfully accurate.

 

[amylevan]

It's not a true control, but based on scale, it's going to be awfully accurate.

I don’t want to keep hijacking this thread, but how? The general public’s numbers are going to include all those who got the Pfizer vaccine. We’re looking at 1.8 billion doses by the end of 2021. All 1.8 billion doses inflate the general public’s average numbers so now you don’t have a true “without Pfizer” rate that is developing Balls Palsy.
It’s hard enough to show causality versus coincidence in science when it’s done by the book. Throwing the control out is throwing the book out.

 

[aggiedog]

If after two years, you see that 1.8% of people who got the Pfizer vaccine developed Bell's Palsy vs, say, .4% of the general population, why is that not an effective means of tracking side effects?

That's just not the way scientific research works. There's an assumption and there's proof, similar to the question of "do people who get the vaccine, get less Covid (the disease that is caused by the novel coronavirus) still shed transmissable virus?" Good scientific studies can offer proof. Assumptions and generalizations are nice, but not at the best for making planet wide decisions.

 

[Jonfw2]

That's just not the way scientific research works. There's an assumption and there's proof, similar to the question of "do people who get the vaccine, get less Covid (the disease that is caused by the novel coronavirus) still shed transmissable virus?" Good scientific studies can offer proof. Assumptions and generalizations are nice, but not at the best for making planet wide decisions.

Here's a point with scientific proof behind it: the more people willing to get vaccinated, the quicker covid can be managed and/or eradicated.

Correct?

 

[DopeyDame]

That's just not the way scientific research works. There's an assumption and there's proof, similar to the question of "do people who get the vaccine, get less Covid (the disease that is caused by the novel coronavirus) still shed transmissable virus?" Good scientific studies can offer proof. Assumptions and generalizations are nice, but not at the best for making planet wide decisions.

Yes and no. Sure it wouldn't be a double blind study, but there are definitely times when scientists use the general population (or specific naturally occurring populations) to do research. I am certain they will be tracking people to watch for effects. And given there are at least 3, probably more like 5 vaccines that will be in wide spread use, that will help with tracking and comparisons too.
Of course "correlation isn't causation" but in this situation it would be a red flag for further research.

 

[Jonfw2]

Yes and no. Sure it wouldn't be a double blind study, but there are definitely times when scientists use the general population (or specific naturally occurring populations) to do research. I am certain they will be tracking people to watch for effects. And given there are at least 3, probably more like 5 vaccines that will be in wide spread use, that will help with tracking and comparisons too.
Of course "correlation isn't causation" but in this situation it would be a red flag for further research.

Not only that but new research on existing medications happens all the time long after they are out of their study protocols.

 

[amylevan]

Not only that but new research on existing medications happens all the time long after they are out of their study protocols.

But that’s after the FDA already approves them based on previous research.

Here we’d basically be asking the FDA to grant full approval (not talking EUA here) on a study that isn’t fully complete. Yes, there are ethical/moral reasons why that may make sense, but consider the Sheldon Coopers of the pharmaceutical world. Scientifically speaking ONLY, it’s a flawed study. We can discuss ways around it, the why’s we need to go around it, but the Sheldon Coopers are still going to stay that it’s a flawed study.

 

[Jonfw2]

Dr. Paul Offit just now:

"The benefits of this clearly and definitively outweigh what at this point are theoretical risks".

 

[mefordis]

Here's a point with scientific proof behind it: the more people willing to get vaccinated, the quicker covid can be managed and/or eradicated.

Correct?

Only if the vaccine is effective in preventing the spread of covid. I keep reading that they don't know if the vaccine will prevent covid or prevent the spread of covid.

And you need a proper study, preferably one that doesn't throw out the placebo group after 6 months.

 

[Jonfw2]

Only if the vaccine is effective in preventing the spread of covid. I keep reading that they don't know if the vaccine will prevent covid or prevent the spread of covid.

And you need a proper study, preferably one that doesn't throw out the placebo group after 6 months.

I guess I don't understand why preventing covid isn't enough...and if it prevents covid, by definition, it will help prevent the spread of covid.

 

[mefordis]

https://www.menshealth.com/health/a33970628/covid-19-vaccine-rush-risks-history/

I guess I don't understand why preventing covid isn't enough...and if it prevents covid, by definition, it will help prevent the spread of covid.

They have no evidence so far that the vaccine will prevent the transmission of covid. That's why they want people to keep wearing masks and social distancing even after they get their 2nd shot.

 

[Jonfw2]

https://www.menshealth.com/health/a33970628/covid-19-vaccine-rush-risks-history/


They have no evidence so far that the vaccine will prevent the transmission of covid. That's why they want people to keep wearing masks and social distancing even after they get their 2nd shot.

Right...but every month that goes by, millions more people will be vaccinated, thus reducing the pool of people who can get it.

 

[aggiedog]

I get that you are pro-vaccine. I am pro-vaccine. And I'm currently on a waiting list to get whichever one shows up at the Houston hospital where my partners are on staff as soon as I can get it, hopefully getting umbrella-ed in as an "essential worker" in their practice. My small local rural hospital where I'm predominantly based doesn't have the freezer capacity to be on the first list of locations.

But you make false assumptions about science. Fact. I can't state it any plainer.

Someone well upstream commented that you use words that don't mean what the rest of the scientific community would use them as. And I suspect as you are not coming from a medical field, that seems ok to you. For those in medicine, it just muddies the water. Eradicate does not equal not endemic. Covid does not equal novel coronavirus-19. Asymptomatic does not equal nontransmissable. Assumption does not equal provable fact.

Here's a point with scientific proof behind it: the more people willing to get vaccinated, the quicker covid can be managed and/or eradicated.

Correct?

That statement has no bearing on whether a retrospective population analysis can prove the same points as a double blind study, which is what I was addressing.

 

[aggiedog]

Right...but every month that goes by, millions more people will be vaccinated, thus reducing the pool of people who can get it.

How many times does anyone need to say it, we don't KNOW that getting vaccinated will do anything about how the virus moves around the population. So far, all we know is that those who are vaccinated don't get as sick with Covid (the name of the disease the coronavirus causes.) We don't know if they are transmitting the coronavirus. Since there will be people that can't get vaccinated, wearing masks, until someone has proven the virus is not jut being transmitted thru all kinds of simply asymptomatic carriers, will still be recommended.

 

[Jonfw2]

I get that you are pro-vaccine. I am pro-vaccine. And I'm currently on a waiting list to get whichever one shows up at the Houston hospital where my partners are on staff as soon as I can get it, hopefully getting umbrella-ed in as an "essential worker" in their practice. My small local rural hospital where I'm predominantly based doesn't have the freezer capacity to be on the first list of locations.

But you make false assumptions about science. Fact. I can't state it any plainer.

Someone well upstream commented that you use words that don't mean what the rest of the scientific community would use them as. And I suspect as you are not coming from a medical field, that seems ok to you. For those in medicine, it just muddies the water. Eradicate does not equal not endemic. Covid does not equal novel coronavirus-19. Asymptomatic does not equal nontransmissable. Assumption does not equal provable fact.



That statement has no bearing on whether a retrospective population analysis can prove the same points as a double blind study, which is what I was addressing.

True. But as an additional argument to unblind the studies, you've got tens of thousands of people who are clearly willing to get the vaccine. Give it to them and there's reduced exposure.

And I am most definitely not a scientist or a doctor nor have I claimed to be. I am certain I have used terms incorrectly- you are absolutely right.

But, if we're being honest here, my stuff has been generally pretty good here. And overall, I stand by what I've posted.

 

[Jonfw2]

How many times does anyone need to say it, we don't KNOW that getting vaccinated will do anything about how the virus moves around the population. So far, all we know is that those who are vaccinated don't get as sick with Covid (the name of the disease the coronavirus causes.) We don't know if they are transmitting the coronavirus. Since there will be people that can't get vaccinated, wearing masks, until someone has proven the virus is not jut being transmitted thru all kinds of simply asymptomatic carriers, will still be recommended.

As I've said here numerous times, I will continue to wear a mask as required until everyone who has had an opportunity to get vaccinated and those who have chosen to do so have done so.

 

[Farro]

How many times does anyone need to say it, we don't KNOW that getting vaccinated will do anything about how the virus moves around the population. So far, all we know is that those who are vaccinated don't get as sick with Covid (the name of the disease the coronavirus causes.) We don't know if they are transmitting the coronavirus. Since there will be people that can't get vaccinated, wearing masks, until someone has proven the virus is not jut being transmitted thru all kinds of simply asymptomatic carriers, will still be recommended.

Just to your bolded, I disagree. When the vaccine is available to all, at some point mask wearing won't be a requirement anymore. There will always be people who can't get the (any) vaccine, but that will be a small percentage compared to the whole.

 

[aggiedog]

farro, I agree. That will eventually happen, like all the other vaccine prevented diseases we have. But that will be a while from now, when we can get 90+% of people vaccinated. That's what it takes to protect those that can't. See "measles outbreaks." And only once we know that coronavirus vaccinated individuals are really not transmitting virus while being asymptomatic.

Honestly, I'm pretty confident they will be able to prove that, and will be seriously bummed if they can't. But as a doctor, I can't use "hope" for my patients. I need facts/science/proof.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Just to your bolded, I disagree. When the vaccine is available to all, at some point mask wearing won't be a requirement anymore. There will always be people who can't get the (any) vaccine, but that will be a small percentage compared to the whole.

During my metro's COVID-19 briefing the doctors at one of the main hospital systems in our metro stated: "at least 70% of people need to be vaccinated before the world can go back to life without masks and social distancing."

I suspect the pressure to remove such mandates from multiple angles, especially in countries and regions where vaccination is more readily available, will happen before that benchmark quoted. But that also seems to only be speaking towards those two things not the threat of the virus itself being in existence.

 

[Jonfw2]

During my metro's COVID-19 briefing the doctors at one of the main hospital systems in our metro stated: "at least 70% of people need to be vaccinated before the world can go back to life without masks and social distancing."

I suspect the pressure to remove such mandates from multiple angles, especially in countries and regions where vaccination is more readily available, will happen before that benchmark quoted. But that also seems to only be speaking towards those two things not the threat of the virus itself being in existence.

there may very well be two distinct worlds in which the vaccinated and non-vaccinated have totally different things open to them.