F.D.A. Grants Full Approval to Pfizer-BioNTech Covid Vaccine
By: Sharon LaFraniere and Noah Weiland (MSN)
This should ease some minds.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Food and Drug Administration on Monday granted full approval to Pfizer-BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine for people 16 and up, making it the first to move beyond emergency use status in the United States.
© Saul Martinez for The New York Times Pfizer said it presented the Food and Drug Administration with data from 44,000 clinical trial participants in United States, the European Union, Turkey, South Africa and South America.
The decision will set off a cascade of vaccine requirements by hospitals, colleges, corporations and other organizations. United Airlines recently announced that its employees will be required to show proof of vaccination within five weeks of regulatory approval.
Oregon has adopted a similar requirement for all state workers, as have a host of universities in states from Louisiana to Minnesota. The Pentagon has said it would mandate the shots for the country's 1.3 million active-duty troops once the Pfizer approval came through.
The approval comes as the nation's fight against the pandemic has intensified again, with the highly infectious Delta variant reversing much of the progress that the country had made over the first half of the year. The Biden administration hopes the development will motivate at least some of the roughly 85 million unvaccinated Americans who are eligible for shots to get them.
Pfizer said it presented the F.D.A. with data from 44,000 clinical trial participants in United States, the European Union, Turkey, South Africa and South America. The company said the data showed the vaccine was 91 percent effective in preventing infection — a slight drop from the 95 percent efficacy rate that the data showed when the F.D.A. decided to authorize the vaccine for emergency use in December. Pfizer said the decrease reflected the fact that researchers had more time to catch people who became infected.
A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has been tracking public attitudes during the pandemic, found that three of every 10 unvaccinated people said that they would be more likely to get vaccinated with a shot that had been fully approved.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine will continue to be authorized for emergency use for children ages 12 to 15 while Pfizer collects the necessary data required for full approval. A decision on whether to authorize the vaccine for children younger than 12 could be at least several months away. So far, more than 92 million Americans — 54 percent of those fully inoculated — have gotten Pfizer shots. Most of the rest received Moderna's vaccine.
The F.D.A. is in the midst of a decision-making marathon related to coronavirus vaccines. The next major one looming for regulators is whether or not to authorize booster shots. The Biden administration said last week that pending the agency's clearance, it will offer third shots to adults who got the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines eight months after their second injection, starting Sept. 20.
Federal health officials said that both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna's vaccines, which rely on similar technology, wane in potency over time. That trend, they said, is converging with the rise of the particularly dangerous Delta variant, making those who completed their vaccinations at the start of the year increasingly vulnerable to infection.
Some health experts have challenged the decision to recommend booster shots as premature, saying the data shows that the vaccines are holding up well against severe disease and hospitalization, including against the Delta variant. Boosters would only be warranted if the vaccines were failing to prevent hospitalizations with Covid-19, some of those experts have said.
Regulators are still reviewing Moderna's application for full approval of its vaccine. That decision could take several weeks. Johnson & Johnson is expected to apply soon for full approval.
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
Think this may affect some fence sitters?
Yep, lets hope so but the problem is. FDA approval ain't what it used to be.
Many FDA approved drugs have significant issues after approval.
Some people have problems with aspirin, no medicine will ever be 100% without issues. All the FDA approval means is that the benefits officially outweigh the risks, and that the drug actually does what it is purported to do.
Always follow the money .... unless it's the FDA and then you don't ever need to ....... /S
Exactly. I see law firm commercials all of the time that will represent people due to problems, including deaths, resulting from certain medications that have been approved for decades.
What a dark, untrusting, pessimistic world you live in.
So you base your world view on commercials?
This vaccine is safer than Tylenol . The resistance to it is one of the more irrational things I have seen in my life.
Nope. What I was saying is that approved medications can take a turn for the worse years later. It doesn't even have to be approved medications. Talcum powder is a prime example.
Friend Ozzwald, that is not what friend Paula meant. I could be wrong, but she could be referring to the bevy of "budget" attorneys (ambulance chasers) gearing up to file adverse reactions and death claims against Pfizer Inc. perfunctorily. Now that the Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer's vaccine has fallen away.
Not at all, just a real one.
You should try it some time.
Just talked to a client in MO who was flat on his back with COVID for ten days, still has headaches and
has zero stamina and refuses to take any government approved vaccines for the "hoax".
Now he felt he had to express his disappointment in Trump for recommending the vaccine in Alabama...
Some people and their arrogance; it will be the death of them—eventually.
You don't know that for sure unless you've been working on the approvals with the FDA and even they don't know that for sure.
Freedom of choice is rarely irrational but of course .... YMMV.
It doesn't even need to be a medication. Are you old enough to have been around in the 70's for the saccharin scare? It was declared a carcinogen and pulled from shelves quicker than toilet paper in the initial covid shortages.
It took a short time for additional information to come out, but by that time it was too late. The lab rats that were fed the saccharin were fed the equivalent of I believe it was two pounds daily for a period of several years to develop cancer. Actually, I'm surprised the rats even survived one year of being fed that much daily.
What most people don't know, understand nor actually care about is that virtually everything we inject of consume if it was factory processed is very likely bad for us in the long term. It's just that we usually survive long enough for it not to be too concerning.
I know that people are documented to die from Tylenol every year and that after literally hundreds of millions of doses, the CDC does not think anyone has died from the Pfizer vaccine.
Freedom is not irrational, but many choices are.
I understand what she was TRYING to say, but basing her outlook on a bunch of ambulance chasers wanting to make names for themselves, instead of the results of those lawsuits, is disingenuous at best.
They don't die from the vaccine right? Or do they? It will be awhile before we know that for sure. Trying to compare a decades old painkiller, with a Virus vaccine that was genetically designed less than a year ago, is a fools errand. Forget the age difference they are two completely different things.
It will be years before we really know what the long term effects of these vaccines are.
Like i said, YMMV. Making a choice, that is a different choice than the herd is making, is the ultimate expression of free choice and liberty.
I am shocked-- totally shocked-- that someone like you continues to be so strongly anti-vax!
I'm not anti-vax. I'm pro choice.
Shocking how many pro choice people here are not pro choice when it comes to COVID-19 vaccinations
And if large numbers of "pro-choice" people refuse to get the vaccine and therefore become super-spreaders-- that's OK with you?
The Pro Choice on vaccination and Pro Choice on abortion positions are confusing to me
No it's not but it's not my choice to make. Just like i won't tell someone else they can't have an abortion. Not my my choice to make either but i still think abortion is an abhorrent practice for all but the most extreme cases.
Understand now?
What's good for the goose is not good for the gander in this case, in some minds .......
SARS-2 does not care about abortions. In fact, SARS-2 does not care about choice. SARS-2 does not care about even about a great set of lungs. It will simply snatch the breath of life away from anybody who can't cope with it's presence and then fall silent too.
If the anecdote to breathlessly dying is an intake of life; the choice is simple: Choose vaccination over SARS-2.
But whose choice should it be?
Well, for example: do you feel the military suddenly has the right to make soldiers get this vaccine?
Perhaps soldiers should stand up for their rights as Americans, their Constitutionally guaranteed personnel freedoms "!
So when when their Sargeants order them to get vaccinated-- they should tell them to "Go Fuck themselves.. after all its their Constituional right to decide whether they want to get vaccinated or not"..(or words to that effect?)
Understand now?
Yes, definitely. And my guess is that most other people here understand your position all too well!
And free choice doesn't care about SARS-2
What's good for the goose is not good for the gander in this case, in some minds .......
But OTOH, in some other minds:
One man's meat is another man's poison!
(Which is why in a democracy we have democratically elected representatives to make laws, and courts to decide what the laws mean).
What kind of taunt is that? Do you mind: Are you vaccinated or unvaccinated? (If it is too personal don't respond to it. It would help move the discussion along however.)
Bad example. One gives up some constitutionally guaranteed freedoms when one signs on the dotted line to join the US military. Kinda ironic isn't it?
When i processed in it was two air shots, one in each arm. God knows what was in those things but shit happens when you join the military.
A family member who got the Anthrax vaccination for the sandbox is on full disability at least partially due to that FDA approved vaccine.
Good times!
Actually the military is about to decide whether to make vaccines mandatory (perhaps they already have decided?):
It's only a taunt if you take it that way. Which you shouldn't.
And mission effectiveness could go down if they give them a choice.
Here's an example where choice shouldn't be an option. Don't like it? Don't join the military.
The Pro Choice on vaccination and Pro Choice on abortion positions are confusing to me
I see your point!
And BTW, what's also confusing to me sare the drunk drivers who are pro-choice (the nerve of the government arresting the for driving while drunk... a real violent of their rights and freedoms!)
Good question!
Actually my favourite question to ask the MAGA cultists is this:
Do you think Trump actually won the election?
Why's its the most important thing... IMO is almost not whether say yes or no-- but rather whether they refuse to answer or whether they do answer!. (For those that refuse to answer-- what are they trying to hide???)
Are you vaccinated or unvaccinated? (If it is too personal don't respond to it. It would help move the discussion along however.)
Do you not understand the difference between military and civilian?
Of course the military has the right to make soldiers get vaccinated. They also have the right to make them hike 20 miles with a 40-pound pack. They have the right to make them go get shot at in God-forsaken shitholes like Afghanistan or Iraq.
They do not have the right to make civilians do any of that. That's how free countries work.
A soldier, sailor, marine, and air personnel must obey a lawful order. Because the vaccine (Pfizer) has received full authorization it can be lawfully ordered to servicemembers. At which point, any personnel not willing to take the shot can be removed from active duty and/or court-martialed.
One man's anecdotal tragedy does not stop a pandemic tragedy in its tracks. Service to the larger cause does! Enough! Making no distinction is idiotic. For example, a bite from a chihuahua does not carry the same impact or shock as that coming from a German shepherd. Distinctions matter.
Nah, we'll stick with my original saying. It's much more informative in this case
Well, i've already answered that question here numerous times here but it really shouldn't matter one way or the other. This is about freedom of choice not about what choice one person makes.
That said, i did get vaccinated as soon as i could and i could care less what anyone thinks about that. I did it less for me and more for aging family and fellow workers on the promise that it would help protect them from possibly contacting the virus from me. So yeah, i made an informed decision with the information available at the time, stood in an uncomfortable public line in the middle of a raging Pandemic, twice, to get my Pfizer shots and now we find out vaccinated people CAN STILL become symptomatic and still pass the virus on to others.
I guess we can flush that promise down the shitter eh? And you wonder why people don't trust government promises?
One man's anecdotal tragedy?
I suggest you drop this topic since you clearly have a very sophomoric understanding of it.
Lest you look even more obtuse.
There is a type of removal from active duty process called an "administrative discharge." It is not a non-punitive procedure to leave the services.
That sounds proper and suitable. I find myself, at hospitals, doctor offices, and dentist offices looking at the quality and quantity of face mask worn by my 'attendant.' Also, I (HA!) once asked confirming questions ahead of my visit about dental staff vaccinations, only to be reminded of HIPPA! Which is ironic, seeing as over the phone I am drilled on my symptom status. I know, it's not a direct comparison. (Smile.)
I need a small surgery and its upcoming and I wonder about going under anesthesia. In the words of the movie, Marathon Man (1976—amazing and memorable movie): "Is it safe?"
Sparty,
Did you know that pregnant women can only take penicillin? Do you know why? It is because before the FDA, people were given drugs whether they were safe, or unsafe. It is only because of unintentional human trials, so to speak, that we know that penicillin is safe for both mom and the fetus. Whatever buffer the FDA gives us, it is still better than none.
You got the vaccination, singular or plural. The 'filler' you piled on around affirmation is a 'so many words' distraction justification that is partially unwarranted.
One significant sentence you wrote is stark:
Translation: You did it for community-at-large.
Sparty On, do not ever diminish the good you do for all of us, by casting it as something begrudging. God only knows whether any of us who are vaccinated (I am too) are yet alive, uncongested, and doing so well because we took time to do all we can to be safe for self and others.
Furthermore, I listen to the experts and I don't envy their dedication to taking on the miserable tasks, plural, of staring down germs and bio-warfare. I listen and extrapolate my stance on an issue. Therefore, though vaccinated "to the hilt" I have not gone unmasked in public since I first masked up. Because I know and have been faced with some dear friends who I trust that are unmasked, unvaccinated, and hiding in plain sight among the vaccinated! I know this because I boldly ask them if they got their shots only to be disappointed by their "no." And then the 'talking points' (FOX NEWS 'edition' begin.) One friend even told me about Ivermectin (horse/cow dewormer) which I just learned the correct spelling of yesterday because it popped up in the news feed. FDA is asking people not to trust or use Ivermectin in their bodies!
Don't get offended. We all have anecdotal stories. They are helpful, informative, and can be instructive. They must be kept within tight parameters to be so, nevertheless. (Smile.)
Not exactly. Here is an interesting article about the smallpox vaccine:
Children have to be vaccinated against a variety of infectious diseases or they are not allowed in American schools , public or private.
How is that any different than requiring that adults be vaccinated against covid, or else they will not be allowed to keep their present jobs or enter restaurants or nightclubs ?
There is no legal issue with vaccine mandates.
People should stop emphasizing their "rights" and start fulfilling their responsibility to society.
Perrie,
I never said it wasn't.
I said it was a fools errand trying to compare a decades old over the counter pain killer successfully taken by billions, maybe trillions, with a genetically engineered Virus vaccine less than a year old. They simple aren't logically comparable that i can see.
We could talk about FDA approvals, years old even decades old, getting removed but i'm afraid that is lost on much of this crowd. I don't think you are one of them but many here are looking for 100% silver bullet guarantee, whether they can admit it or not and FDA approval is simply not that silver bullet.
One can only hope the approval is accurate. No reason to really believe it isn't but one could also ask a question at this point. Would they tell us if it wasn't? Imagine what would happen if that's what came out
Such conspiratorial thinking is not helpful at all. In fact it is why we have so many people refusing the vaccine.
I'm not sure you get what i am saying. If it was only me, no one else to worry about, i likely would not have taken it. That's not a realistic consideration in the real world but honestly I'm just not sure that i would have And then i would accept any consequences that may have arisen from that decision up to and including death.
My personal medical decisions are no one else's business. Not yours, not the governments ..... no ones but mine.
This reminds me a little of the people who always like to tell you that you gave them something like a cold or the flu. I always tell them; using your logic you need to talk to the person that gave it to me first and then the person who gave it to them and then person who gave it to them and then person who gave it to them, etc, etc
Cool, i accept all responsibility for that.
That's how it works with your preferred narrative right John?
I'm not offended. I'm just pointing out that you clearly don't have a good understanding of this issue so perhaps you shouldn't pursue it.
While I agree with your comment overall, we have been using genetically engineer viruses for much longer than most people know. That is what targeted therapy for cancer is. Also, this vaccine is not only a year old. It was based on the SARS vaccine that was done years ago, but not tested.
btw, Tylenol causes renal disease and it is still on the market.
don't tell people that or they won't get cancer treatment
You want to argue scientific facts with people who believe conspiracy theories.
Good luck, lol.
A friend of mine is having troubles with his kidneys because the military used to push Motrin (800 mg) on every body for anything you had
I'm surprised he doesn't have a hole in his stomach, too.
And I remember when doctors used to do that. Same with aspirin.
Those who are claiming individual rights over vaccinations in this case are personalizing SARS-2 as an extension of some harsh feelings they harbor against China and Asians. When a virus is 'interpreted" to be neutral or borderless with no connection to any group, these resistors have noone to focus their discontent or fake outrage against and so they settle in with the rest of us (or go 'dormant.') But this this virus was mislabeled "China virus" by the bully president and his cohorts, there are those who do not plan to assist the China virus in any way to depart the world's stage even though it causes themselves harm deeply.
And Zantac was removed from the market four decades after FDA approval.
This tie breaker could go on for awhile ......
Zantac (name brand and generic) was removed because it had contaminants in it, especially the stuff coming from China (no shock there). I was personally upset since I take the stuff. It's back on the shelves but only as the name brand which is made here.
And honestly, this is not a tit for tat kind of thing. We all know the system is not infallible.
Wow. You're a 'buck' passer. Who knew. As for the personal business, look I don't care who you swat spit with in intimacy or close quarters. However, and I will tell you like I used to speak of North Korea before it went 'dormant' news-wise.
What Kim Jung Un does in North Korea is that nation's business, however, the moment he appears on the world stage talking about how he in anger or revenge wants to hurl a missile up into the air that lands in the United States—especially in California—I have something to say about that. Why? Because I and my family live in California and using the "good neighbor rule" I would suggest to him that he hurl nothing over my backyard fence that could hit me and mine on a foot or harm the hairs on our heads! Because if Kim and his does hurl something in my direction: I have a problem with that!
Same goes with this pandemic, you can't control a damn thing about a microbe set loose in society with a privilege called freedom. The virus, when in you, does not follow your commands nor does it care about patriotism or jingoisms. Moreover, it does not respect boundaries! Namely, mine and my family in this scenario.
And to put this personal freedom hype to rest once and for all hopefully, understand this: Your freedoms in a pandemic are tenuous at best. Your pandemic freedoms end at the threshold of your front door leading outside. Once outside, you enter community access pathways, and conditions and rules have been in place all the days of your existence since leaving the fraternal womb and immediately coming under hospital procedures, policies, and standards.
Any privilege and right you have in the community is bound up by society, government, municipalities, and courts. In conclusion, enough 'stilted' ideology debate. This is real talk for a time when we need help from you and not just 'combat.'
Nope wrong again, on all accounts.
Don't think too highly of yourself on this matter there, Sparty On. Because I can carry my load on SARS-2, bet that! On the other-hand, you keep smartin off about unrelated freedom in a pandemic when that is not relevant. What is relevant is for whatever reason/s you got vaccinated and are enjoying the benefits of the correct choice. A-plenty of your compadres in the freedom movement are currently hospitalized and we are being provided reports from doctors that they are 'begging and pleading' for a vaccination 'round' that is out of step with their current 'situation' and position. Phil Valentine, a 'big wig' in the conservative talk had his jokes about this virus and vaccines. SmartNews reports that after an extended stay in the hospital in isolation, he died recently. You might know the name. Look it up if you want.
I humbly submit to you that this dumb virus eats smartasses and dumbasses up like a sugary treat.
Nah, no ego issues here.
I know exactly where i stand and in the end could care less what anyone here thinks about that one way or another.
On the other hand some folks here who seem to have a need to convince others of their "righteousness", just might want to take a long hard look at their own psyches and worry less about others.
Be about it, then. This discussion is weak at this point. Bulk it up!
Nah, it's fine. That you don't like it is not my issue.
Don't lecture me, when you "clearly" think "suchy much" about your own perspectives, Sparty On! Still, I can be persuaded by others and allow myself the time and space for it on NT. So, . . . there.
Oh you can be reached. All of us have our moments when we can be reached. The trick is putting fact to opportunity! (Disarming Smile.)
I say what i want, how i want, when i want. You've got nothing to say about it. You don't like that? DNE. Do not engage.
Simple.
Drop your 'rocks.' We're fellow travelers in the game of life we find ourselves. We're men! Hate the virus: Not each other! Let's talk it out! We're men. We can do this!
At no point in US history has the United States military been given such authority. That was the "they" in question.
In some cases, yes. But they're not actually required to attend those schools. About 10% of American kids are homeschooled, and that figure is rising.
You don't see the difference between an employment requirement and penalty of law? Really?
For the record, I support the right of any employer to require vaccination.
Those who live in glass house should not throw rocks nor ask visitors to drop theirs. So stop doing that which you accuse others of and perhaps a sincere conversation can occur. However, when i talk to you i sometimes hear more than one voice in what you write.
I would say that was interesting if it were .....
A moment of lightheartedness between strong-minded people. (I told you I can be disarmingly charming!):
Work it Willis
Drop your rocks, come back and let's do this! (Shucks!)
We need to SEE this one, Tessylo! Thank you!
Hopefully it will. I'll probably get the booster shot...which will probably become an annual event
My two ex neighbors were that waiting for approval. They are now almost convinced to get vaccinated with this approval.
Think this may affect some fence sitters?
Definitely. (In fact of the "fence sitters" I know, some of those will be swayed by this.
)
But off course many of the most fanatic MAGA cultists are "pro-choice"... will not care and still resist. Many who selfishly care only about themselves, thereby choosing to become super-spreaders.
May their numbers be small like the knees on a bow-legged mosquito!
Fence sitters are fools.The evidence is irrefutable.
I sure hope it does. With all the doses that have been administrated it's rather clear there are very few immediate problems with the vaccine. While there are some, especially with younger children, there are few issues overall.
I also expect we will see more and more companies starting to mandate that their employees must be vaccinated or risk termination.
But many people would say that that would be a violation of their Constitutionally Protected Rights-- their right to choose, an infringement on their "freedoms"?
And besides-- what company want their employees to come to work with spoons sticking allover them?
So now what’s your excuse for not getting vaccinated?
Unfortunately, now the goalposts will move. The approval won’t mean anything because Biden’s FDA is in cahoots with somebody for some nefarious purpose.
Wow. You were doing so good up until now.
I think he's being sarcastic
Precisely.
You don’t think the “I’m waiting for FDA approval” people will come up with a new excuse?
Of course they will
I hope that was it.
You don’t think the “I’m waiting for FDA approval” people will come up with a new excuse?
Of course some will. Definitely. (Heck, just read some of the comments in discussion right here-- on this very website ! Amazing how many selfish people there are...who only care about themselves.. and/or who only get their news from biased sources so that they are totally in La-la Land!
).
However I'm sure there are also many who are more intelligent, less selfish, and/or well informed who will be swayed by this, and who actually been holding out for approval-- and who will now get vaccinated).
I live in Texas.
I know a lot of people who are uneasy about the mass rush to get vaccinated and want to be a little more cautious before they allow shit to be injected into them.
I know a few people who are legitimate anti-vax nutjobs who will concoct whatever "reason" they believe they can defend.
Do not confuse the two.
I spoke to a client today who just "had COVID" for ten days and went back to work with headaches,
memory loss and zero stamina, did not quarantine, said he wasn't going to get paid so he came back to work.
Said he'll never get vaccinated either now that he is "immune".
Immune? he's a walking talking spreader at this point.
SMH
I hope he at least doesn't deal with the public.
What an idiot.
The newer data seems to be suggesting we're all walking, talking spreaders at this point.
In fact, it's suggesting that much of what we believe about the vaccines isn't very accurate.
Long but interesting scientific read with supporting links to actual studies by reputable people..
No me. I have never had it and always test negative.
It seems some people are determined to make sure everyone gets it...
Which was my exact point.
And yet time is a factor. The rush has a reason behind it. The longer this goes on, the more people die or live with permanent damage, and the more this thing can mutate. You’d think people would be uneasy about that.
At this point, I don’t see what there is to be so uneasy about. The side effects can suck, certainly, but the virus sucks waayy more, and side effects almost always go away pretty quickly.
And though people die after being injected, it’s not from the vaccine. Not one death has been attributed to the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, last I checked, and they have administered hundreds of millions of doses.
Weirdly, though, some of these people will have qualms about ingesting horse de-wormer.
I think you have a wildly unrealistic expectation about how quickly a vaccine can eradicate a disease.
Personally, I agree with you. But it's not our decision to make for other people.
They've been around less than 8 months. We are utterly clueless about the long term side effects. To be fair, we're also utterly clueless about the long term side effects of the virus. For all we know either the virus or the vaccine or both can cause cancer years down the road. We have no way of knowing.
In my personal, un-scientific, anecdotal observations, the ivermectin fans are firmly in the aforementioned "anti-vax nutjob" group and not the "uneasy about the rush" group.
Then you have something in common with most of the anti-vax nutjobs.
There is new data emerging that I think may challenge some of our current ideas. From the link above:
The author (an MD) is clear that the data is early stage, but he stresses that we don't know nearly as much about any of this as we like to think and that a lot of decisions are being made on very limited understanding.
The shortcoming is not in the vaccine. It’s in getting the vaccine into the people.
Good news is you don’t have to worry about long term effects of the vaccine if you get Covid because you might not be alive for the long term.
One common long term effect that we already know about is that Covid lungs are scarred worse than a smoker’s. That doesn’t just go away - at least not quickly. I feel like we could communicate this more, but at this point, it’s hard to believe that people haven’t heard the horror stories yet. Maybe I’m wrong, though.
I know several people who survived hospitalization including a ventilator and they are all mean as junk yard dogs initially
and the changes in personality have not been realized yet by the "victims"
and they are bewildered that people now avoid them as much as possible.
We all know everyone can spread it, thus the use of masks.
You do know it took nearly 25 years to eradicate polio in the US, right?
Unfortunately, the math doesn't really work out that way. Because, you see, 98% of people who contract Covid survive it. With the increasing number of breakthrough infections, it's actually FAR more likely that somebody would get to experience both sets of long-term side effects....if indeed there turn out to be any....which there may not....or there may....we don't know yet.
I don't think you're wrong at all on this point. I think we've got such a cacophony of information going around and that the CDC has been mildly unreliable in many different ways, that some people aren't sure what to believe.
On the other hand some people are simply going to make their decision based on their politics (which has become their new religion) and refuse to look at any data that may overtake their existing beliefs.
Yeah. Guess why?
Therefore what, exactly? We shouldn’t worry about it? 4 and a quarter million deaths is nothing to fret over? We shouldn’t try to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible?
At this date - with everything the human race has gone through - you want to downplay Covid? I don’t know what to fucking say.
It’s only the most deadly viral pandemic in a century. The death rate for Covid is ten times what it is for the flu. And the fucker is mutating. It’s now several times more contagious than it was a year ago. And when you get Covid, even if you survive, you aren’t over it like you are with the flu. I can’t believe this even needs to be said.
Honestly Jack, you need to decide what side you’re on. Where do your priorities lie? With life? Or with political posturing? Fucking around with this virus - and everything we can do to impede it - is costing lives. This isn’t a political science exercise. People are dying and we can stop it.
Interesting and relevant statement for consideration. (Check!)
Oh for fuck's sake.
Therefore you might consider being less hysterical and not desperately clinging to the futile hope that this is going away any time soon.
Sure. But it's not the fucking silver bullet you think it is.
No, we can't. Grow up. People are still going to die. Read some actual data.
Exactly what part of pushing vaccines do you consider hysterical?
What is your point, then? We shouldn’t bother using it?
Really? Tell us about all the young people getting Polio. Diphtheria. Smallpox. Measles. No? You don’t know any? Guess why? Vaccines.
I did. Along the way I learned a few things. I learned about viruses and vaccines. Nothing super advanced, mind you, just the basics. It’s not very complicated for educated grownups. I also learned not to be a selfish prick protesting about my rights when the exercise of those rights is killing people.
Yet it was mass vaccinations that eradicated smallpox. The trick is not to let a virus mutate.
A process that took 184 years.
There was never any chance of keeping that from happening. It started mutating before vaccines were available.
Even if you vaccinated the entire globe, the vaccines don't actually stop people from contracting the virus, which means there will still be hundreds of millions of carriers running around like walking Petri dishes. We might be able to reduce mutation, but we won't be able to stop it.
My point here is simply that we need to be realistic about our expectations and reasonable with our decisions. We need to be adjusting to updated data, even when it tells us what we don't want to hear.
I hate to correct you, but smallpox is not "eradicated". We still suffer about 1000 cases annually. Yes it is rare, but it still exists.
If you don't believe me, please do your own search and validate what I say as I don't want to be accused of providing erroneous information.
Your definition of "pushing".
You're really not stupid enough to imagine that as my point. But since you asked...my point is that we should at least attempt to be realistic, informed, and calculating.
It took 20 years to kill off Polio. It took 184 years to vaccinate smallpox away. You're not going to get rid of Covid in 184 days. People are going to die. Very nearly all of those will be unvaccinated, and very nearly all of those will be unvaccinated by choice.
A very, very few things, which have been overtaken by updated information you refuse to read.
But you haven't ruled out being a selfish prick about demanding other people do something because you're scared and determined to stay ignorant of any new information.
The very same medical experts encouraging everyone to get vaccinated are also saying that none of the ICU beds they attend contain vaccinated people. The most vaccinated country in the world is publishing data that says vaccinated people carry as much virus as the unvaccinated and are likely as contagious, but the virus just doesn't harm them as much.
So wave after wave of data continues to emerge indicating that you don't need to worry about anybody's vaccination status but your own...yet you're clinging to your outdated hysteria.
Yep. I had it and was very sick. Serious rashes. Had two doses of Pfizer and felt much better. Will be first in line for the booster.
I'm sorry you suffered and I'm very glad you're feeling better.
My wife has already had her booster, and I'll be getting mine when I'm eligible.
I do encourage my reluctant friends to get the shot. At this point, there are only a very few holdouts.
My anti-vax nutter friends (I have about 3 women I knew in college who have gone full batshit in their 50s), I just SMH and ask "do you hear yourself"?
I understood your 'message' though it is muddled a bit. You can fix that. In keeping with your concern: I wonder what FOX NEWS' Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham will say in their respective Monday, August 23, 2021 commentaries.
I can tell you what Tucker will say. He’ll say the government is saying you aren’t allowed to ask a questions anymore.
I am going to try to remember to catch the opening of the Big 3 commentators on Fox News this evening (Blah!) just to see what the spinsmeisters pump up from the void. I would be nice to see them 'capitulate' to the truth this time around!
But if they do not, it will be a telling "gotcha" moment for the whole country (and ships at sea) to view.
I think that perhaps you are being too rational!
Remember, many of their viewers are obsessive MAGA cultists who believe anything the "Big 3" say!
(Don't believe me? Just read some of the comments right here on our beloved NT!)
Shocking, isn't it?! The Contrarian Speaks! (You're right! They are already pumpin' on NT!)
They are all scum of the earth. Who gives a fuck what they say?
What's the reasoning behind approving Pfizer? According to what I've been reading, data suggests that Pfizer is the least effective of the group against the delta variant, maybe 42%. Data also suggests that none are effective against the Lambda variant, which is apparently getting after it in south america, and likely crossing the US' south border, unchecked.
I am not sure, but one thing that comes to mind is that despite our assumed expertise in the matter, perhaps the health agencies' scientists, as well as doctors who are actually on the front lines in the hospitals ...might actually know more on the topic than you or I do?
It has to do with safety. Enough people have been given the shot and survived without growing a third arm or turning into a zombie or whatever.
It's also been shown to be effective, certainly against basic Covid, but somewhat effective against delta.
The approval is just about effectiveness and safety. It doesn’t need to be 100% effective for that. However, even though the Pfizer vaccine has proven less effective against preventing Covid infection, it’s still very effective: 80something% against symptomatic infection and 90something% against hospitalization.
Did you just subtly correct, TR?!
While I would agree that 100% effectiveness would be hard to achieve, you glossed right over the part about data showing that the Pfizer vaccine is only 42% effective against the dominant strain that is plaguing us right now. 42 is a long way from 100, and I'd hardly consider anything that is 42% effective actually effective. The only place 42% is good is in baseball. And, again, the word is that the vaccines are not effective against the Lambda variant.
Yeah, no offense Tacos, that's a case of throwing numbers out there, without any context, and claiming victory. According to the CDC's numbers, there have been 37,768,911 cases, and 2,633,567 hospitalizations. That's 6.97%. Stated another way, 93% of people that get covid don't wind up in the hospital. In other words, the government is blowing smoke up my ass, by telling me something is 90% effective, on the premise that it is better for me, when, apparently, my own immune system is already 90% effective.
Since July 11, 34% of the deaths in Massachusetts have been vaccinated people. That's a big percentage. As of August 14, Massachusetts reported a total of 12,641 positive cases among vaccinated people, 496 of those resulted in hospitalizations, or 3.92%. Approximately 1% died. The national case fatality rate stands at 1.65%. Not to sound too crass, but I'm sure that will continue to decline, since the at risk population has is getting smaller.
I'm not going to say that the numbers for vaccinated are not slightly better than the numbers for those that are not vaccinated. But, I'm not wholly sure what the real numbers are. I am going to say that I'm tired of all of the bullshit finger pointing, and required testing for non-vaccinated people. We know that vaccinated people get the virus, and have a viral load that is equivalent to a non-vaccinated person. We know the vaccinated can communicate the virus to others. What we don't know are the real numbers for the vaccinated, since Fauci, Collins, and whatever other knuckleheads the CDC has, decided that tracking the vaccinated cases would not prove beneficial. As I have said before, the only reason you would not track such cases is because you don't want the public informed.
No, what he said was tantamount to telling someone that a half dozen is better than 6.
It's not a lie. Keep up or move on..........................
I am sorry for being blunt: Actually, you're wrong. Moreover, you are being difficult. Because anybody can see @4.3.6 that a willingness to call career infectious disease specialists, "knuckleheads" shows disdain for their positions and responsibilities. It is not helpful and it is not a good look! Hmmph.
I could say more, but I will wait for Tacos!
Let's start here, you're not sorry.
If you can logically explain what the benefit of not tracking breakthrough cases is, I'll sincerely read your thoughts. From where I sit, it makes no sense, and those making such a decision, to me, appear to be knuckleheads. Seems to me you'd want to track whether or not cases are showing up in a population of people you claim cases won't show up in, you'd want to know the frequency of such cases, etc. But no, they're apparently not interested in such things. Why not?
And, point out out which part of my comment is wrong. Is it that the pfizer vaccine is 42% effective, at best, against delta? That's not my number. Is it the percentage of deaths attributable to the vaccinated population in Massachusetts? Again, not my number. Is it the fact that they promote the vaccine as 90% effective against serious illness and hospitalization as the cure, when the overall hospitalization rate is already under 10% without the vaccine? Again, not my number, but square that one.
I noted the presence of slight differences between vaccinated and non-vaccinated numbers. I simply don't believe the difference is enough to justify the disparate treatment of the two groups. If the vaccines were as efficacious as they were touted to be...maybe. But, my previous question still stands. If the FDA was going to approve a vaccine, why Pfizer? Why choose the one that appears to be the least efficacious against the delta variant?
When did we 'jog' to tracking SARS-2 cases?
I can't see the data you are remarking on to know what it is you are accepting as valid. And, at this point, in general I question its relevancy to what works and what does not work.
Fatal error. Pfizer is cleared because it has completed its 'paperwork' submissions and processes. Moderna is still in the submission process.
I assume you mean during the course of this discussion? Tracking is relevant to the conversation, and it should have been a priority at the CDC. Why the hell would the CDC not track all breakthrough cases? They either declared victory prematurely, or they are not interested in the data as it actually stands. Again, we know you can still get it, even though fully vaccinated. What's the rate though? We don't know, since the CDC, and the states following suit, stopped collecting all of that data several months ago. Would have been nice to have tracked such a thing. Certainly would be useful information to share with the public you are attempting to force vaccination on.
Helluva deal. Just turn in the paperwork, and you're in, huh? To hell with the fact that pfizer's efficacy against the delta variant looks to be around 42%. Look, if you want to get the Pfizer vaccine, be my guest. To quote Captain Fletcher from the Outlaw Josey Wales, "don't piss down my back and tell it's raining."
Back to the discussion of testing. Hell, they are not even promoting testing of vaccinated people. Why not? Vaccinated people are continuing to get sick, and continuing to die. Oh, that's right, because they have been vaccinated with something that the FDA has approved, because they got their paperwork turned in, disregarding that it is less than 50% effective.
Yes, the course of this discussion. Tracking is not my scope of interest in this discussion. Although, I have heard from professionals anecdotally that breakthrough infections are tracked as they enter the hospital systems.
At-home breakthrough infections are 'trivial' that is, minor, and just not significant enough to merit or hold up a substantial scrutiny or time investment.
Wow. Is that what you came away with after reviewing @4.3.13. Hey, how about those links in the comment. I know I could have been more plain about them being there, but I took for granted you would be sincere and give them a once over. Did you, perchance? So. Much. In. The. Links. Plural.
Scroll down, you'll see a total confirmed case count of 37,259,886, and total hospitalizations of 2,587,871. That's 6.94%. Twist it how you want to. It means that 93.06% of reported cases don't end up in the hospital.
First one in the list of many of you google it.
I'd like to know when Massachusetts began tracking covid deaths among the vaccinated. You can find reference to a count of 79, as of July 10, 2021. I can't find when the first was recorded. Not surprising, given that the CDC nonchalantly claimed victory over the virus for anyone vaccinated, thus discouraging the states from tracking breakthrough cases. However, as of August 21, 131 vaccinated people have died in Massachusetts.
131 vaccinated people, according to Mass., have died as of August 21.
Click on August, look at the date of death tab. From July 11 to August 21, there were 156 total deaths. From July 11, to August 21, 52 vaccinated people died. That's 33.33%. Slightly adjusted from the last time I looked.
Shitty numbers, if you ask me, for a vaccine that there is talks of mandating. Again, have at it, if you want it. Listen to Joe. Get vaccinated, wear your mask, social distance, etc. Why? Because the bastards know it is not nearly as effective as they'd like it to be.
Yes, that's exactly what I got...from both the site and your comment. They shortened the review period, and gave this thing priority. Again, for what? Something that appears to be 42% effective against delta, and potentially zero precent against lambda. Better push that through.
Sure. That's what the CDC believed in May, or at least it attempted to portray. "Nothing to see here folks." Hear no evil... Vaccinated people are not only getting sick, but they are also dying.
The truth is, the CDC treated tracking breakthrough cases as a fools errand. I don't see how that could be the case. Again, we are dealing with this shit in real time. Seems foolish not to accumulate all of the information you could. Massachusetts information is decently transparent. There may be a couple of other states that are reporting as well as Massachusetts. But even the full numbers for Massachusetts are subtly hidden, as with the first death of a breakthrough case. As mentioned above, I'd like to know when that was.
Why would I, me, want to twist the data? I don't have an agenda regarding SARS-Cov-2. My point, which I admit I should be clearer about, is this: I, me, don't want to be a "reported case" of SARS-Cov-2 at all! Thus, the measures I take to avoid it and 'long covid' as best I can so far. What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.
I presume you are okay with contracting SARS-Cov-2 in mild form? You are putting it out here like that.
Transyferous Rex, what are you doing? This "negative Ned" routine is disheartening. BTW, I have read that Delta Variant changed the outlook for the vaccines. That is, the vaccines were created before Delta variant became 'fashionable' and spreading. I repeat the vaccines were not 'delivered' in answer to SARS-Cov-2 Delta! It is lucky for us that the vaccines works to a high degree on Delta at all!
What are you doing? Why all the negativity? Why are you not celebrating life through the pandemic instead of death from it?! Please respond.
The percentages in this article (below) differ from yours in two out of three studies):
TR - Your 42 percent thereabouts comes from the Israel study? Yes? Why choose the lowest number to broadcast aloud? Especially since the Moderna percentage is 76 percent efficacious in the Israel study? Why not share the 'spread'? Curious.
I don't know about it. I have no position on it.
I haven't been coy in the least here CB, and the only thing disingenuous here is your suggestion that I have been. The comment that got this going, (#4) and every one thereafter, questions the same thing...
Why approve the Pfizer vaccine, which apparently has the lowest efficacy among the vaccines?
What's curious is your jump to accuse me of not reading an article from a link you posted, when clearly you haven't read the comment that got this whole thing started...let me help you. From Comment #4 above:
You must have missed it from above. I'm negative because I'm tired of the CDC pissing down my back, and telling me its raining. Yes, Delta changed the game, and Lambda will apparently rename it. So, I'm tired of the finger pointing at the unvaccinated; while the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil approach is taken with the vaccinated.
High degree? Families of the 34% that have died since July 11 question the degree.
From your post at 4.3.19
CB, I'll admit that I enjoy reading what you write most of the time. I know you didn't write the above, but this? This makes me laugh. The vaccine's effectiveness depends on whether or not the vaccinated avoid the virus? This is anchor man stuff.
My question to you is this: If I can presume what you have read is about Israel's data, why did you not present all sides of the data and not just the least effective of the group against the Delta Virus maybe 42%?
It's not complicated to share comprehensive information and understanding if one has it and wants it delivered. As it were, I had to "go fetch" and return to present for you to 'pony up' in discussion.
@4 (not #4 which goes to nothing meaningful) is not about what you quoted.
Thank you for the compliment! (Smile.)
Well you know what, TR? These are difficult times ala a pandemic is not friendly, timely, or a static thing. Science is like a balance sheet some times; the data you have is only good for the time being. In this way, science is not your friend. What science is -in a pandemic- is the only game in town.
We (you) can snark at science and come out on the short end if you won't be nimble.
All any of us are trying to do is keep most and more of us off the "damn" statistic list! (Until the science can settle down with a semblance of calm and stability).
I am pretty sure (though I did not look back at. . .it. . .for context) that has something to do with vaccinated people sitting around groups of unvaccinated (asymptomatic or symptomatic) people in their mist! That is, if someone is straightway breathing down your neck, kissing, spitting, or otherwise putting concentrated virus into your breathing space. . . the vaccine may 'gap' on you if you don't 'surrender' the space to the infected by taking your leave!
CB, apparently I can't answer your direct question in a way you'd understand or acknowledge. So, let's start over.
Read the article and the study, and tell me why the FDA is approving the Pfizer vaccine, which is apparently the least effective of the vaccines, as data shows its effectiveness declined to around 42% amid a sweeping spread of the delta variant.
Same question presented. You had to "go fetch" nothing, and I have failed to "pony up" nothing during our entire discourse here. The question stands. I don't give a damn about moderna or J&J for the purpose of my question, and neither's efficacy is relevant to my simple question. Why approve a vaccine that data shows is 42% effective against the variant that is now the dominant variant plaguing us?
Well hell. Forgive me, please. How about 4.3? But you are smart enough to surmise which comment of mine I was referring to, yet insist on playing games.
TR, I am not playing any game with you. These threads are becoming convoluted. And, I have a great many windows on my computer open already; sometimes it is just not . . .helpful. . .to open one more to look back at one. more. thing.
I am going to try something (as I am getting little accomplished in two days of trying to read convoluted percentage data):
I have to pull back. In conclusion ,
Israel's study is not the only study in town. And Pfizer requested FDA approved in a proper and timely format. Furthermore, a third 'booster' shot of Pfizer will raise the level of percentage protection HIGHER. (You can look it up or I can provide a link to that discussion later.) However, I have got move on (away) from this minutia-driven area of percentages in the interest of 'better things.'
(Smile.)
I don't wholly disagree with what you are saying here. The irony here is that we are told to "follow the science", but the scientists (at least at the CDC) decided that not collecting all of the available data during this pandemic would result in good "science." That, I don't understand. "Follow the science. Take the vaccine, it prevents infection. (tongue in cheek, we think, but don't know, because we aren't going to track infections amongst the vaccinated, we're just going to continue to claim it prevents infection and works) We're scientists, our methods are sound."
I coach baseball. I used to keep a paper book. Apps have taken the place of the spiral book now, so the numbers are what they are, unless the person inputting the information records a walk as a single. The program calculates the PAs, At-Bats, Averages, Slugging, etc. What if I were to not track plate appearances against certain pitchers, or an entire group of pitchers, let's say left handed pitchers. Such a practice would skew the stats of all the players. No, the good practice is to document it all. Same with the vaccine. It's being sold and touted as a prophylactic. If it doesn't prevent infection, is it really? I guess it is if you don't acknowledge all of the instances where it failed to prevent infection, so that you could promote it as a more efficient vaccine. What other relevant issues are being ignored?
Still part of my problem with giving approval to Pfizer, which will be piggybacked to force vaccines on people. You took the vaccine. Good. I'll not stand in your, or any other's, way. I did not. I'd like to keep it that way. Bring me something that proves more effective than what is being peddled. You may not have read some of my past posts here. I actually know more healthy people that died after getting the vaccine than I do that suffered severe illness from the virus. That's purely anecdotal, I understand. But, I'm hard pressed to buy wholesale what the CDC tells me, considering it made a decision, premature or not, to not track pertinent information. Seems highly irresponsible and unprofessional to ignore an entire group of cases, especially when the notion of mandating vaccinations is being tossed around.
Hell, I think most of us can appreciate that. Good day to you sir.
TR, people who come into the hospital with symptomatic SARS-Cov-2 are tracked by the appropriate government bodies. The asymptomatic persons (at-home and possibly quarantined) are not tracked. Again, I can't take time right now to keep 'pulling' links-but it can be done when opportunity for me presents.
It's being 'sold' to a questioning and suspicious public in the thralls of a pandemic quagmire. Thus, some 'hype' and salesmanship became a vaccine art form. And still certain forces in society bogged it down! . . . That's all I got on this one. (It is routine news now what is going on with this venue.)
I would like to see people (you) stay here. Don't like Pfizer's 'numbers' - try another vaccine! Now, that choices! (Chuckles.)
I just read an article that points out that 42 percentile number is a drop in possible infection rate - not hospitalization or death with the Pfizer vaccine. That is, the Pfizer vaccine still gets high marks for keeping people well overall.
I will post the article (under this comment) later. I need some 'me' time. (Chuckles.)
The 42% represents the chance of preventing an infection with the Delta variant, lower than Moderna and from what I've read so far the J&J, which is what I got. My Mom got the Pfizer when it became available around here, think it was in March or maybe early April. She tested positive yesterday. There are legitimate reasons that people don't trust everything the CDC says.
Greg, the CDC is not putting out data in order to make friends. It puts out SCIENCE data and it changes according to its twists and turns. It behooves the public to try to keep up (as best it can) to current data modifications placed in the public domain. From that data in the public domain, one should wisely read and make extrapolations on how to best manage during this pandemic.
Yes, in an effort to get people to get vaccinated, President Biden took off his mask and ended social distancing around the White House and his visits. But, I feel confident that the people in his immediate presence were vetted on their testing and vaccination statuses. It did not 'take,' however. As the unvaccination simply took off their masks, dropped social distancing, and blended in with the vaccinated general public.
I know, I have friends who are unvaccinated who are pulling off the ruse. Which is why I don't trust people to keep me as safe as I can be out and about. Humbly, I try to do my best to be masked, distanced, washed, and vaccinated.
CB...how many asymptomatic people get tested? More likely, symptoms prompt people to get tested.
Asymptomatic people are not the issue. The CDC does not want to track any infections that don't result in hospitalization or death. Meaning, they don't want to track a 90% or better of infections. That's not how best to analyze data. If you want to spend time pulling articles, pull one that describes how one should go about analyzing data during an experiment or study. I'm sure you will find a suggestion that it's bad science to throw out data that doesn't support your predictions or hypothesis. That's what the CDC is doing. Their "prediction" is that the vaccines are 95% effective in preventing infection.
This is what they were telling us near the beginning of the vaccination process:
From the link:
95% effective in preventing infection? Sure, when you don't count infections that don't result in death or hospitalization. That's a helluva an idea. I'll shave several strokes off of my next round of golf, by not counting any strokes for balls that don't wind up in the fairway.
Straight up question. Yes or no. Do you think it is acceptable to ignore relevant data?
When you are intentionally and publicly disregarding data that cuts against your stated "prediction", you deserve to be questioned. Notice how the CDC has abandoned the 95% effective in preventing infection, and jumped to 90% effective in preventing serious illness or hospitalization? Now we are back to square one. The overall case hospitalization rate has been under 10% the entire time. Shit, I know I guy that had it, got vaccinated, and has it again.
Not true, depending on the vaccine over time and variant type. TR, we have already been over this ground above.
Correct. If serves diminishing purposes with little upside. They are the experts. And, TR, it is time to start allowing the professionals to do their work unless and until you find evidence of malfeasance.
Straight up, I think (and I could be wrong, but am unwilling to keep digressing) you are moving through the data without attention to timeline or political intrigue. That is, in the early days before the variants begin "popping" 95 percent vaccine protection was the high mark feature-leading the medical profession (CDC) to consider not slogging through the political waters end of the pool where people forcefully were resisting masks, vaccinations, and medical professionals (with clipboards and vests) coming to their front doors! As you can imagine, with such resistances from a large segment of the national population, there would be a host of sick people who would not test, would not share results, and finally would not report their test results.
That is what I think: Straight up; no chaser. (Smile.)
All before my coffee!
Anecdotally, without knowing him, his circumstances (comorbiities?), and no evaluations to review, it means little to point out he is "chronically SARS-Cov-2 ridden." Poor man, nevertheless.
I would suggest that whatever his routine is that is allowing for this—change or end it now!
Tackling 4.3.38 and 4.3.39 at the same time.
It's a yes or no question. Is it good science to ignore relevant data?
First, I would hope that the CDC had a sincere interest in tracking everything related to a vaccine that was being administered on emergency use authorization basis...but it doesn't. Second...it serves diminishing purposes? Explain how monitoring the situation, to determine whether the vaccines work or not, could be remotely described as having a diminishing purpose. Understanding whether or not vaccinated people are getting infected serves no purpose? Understanding what percentage of those vaccinated people are getting severely ill serves no purpose?
Has nothing to do with the timeline. If you want to go back in time, be my guest. I'm here and now, and so is the delta variant. Does the vaccine work against the delta variant? Again, tracking is spotty, because the CDC declared that symptomatic infections, that don't kill you or put you in the hospital, are not worth tracking. As we know from the past year, that's over 90% of cases. Cover your ears...that's bullshit. The CDC made the decision not to track relevant data. Doesn't matter when the decision was made, or what variant was out there. That decision has resulted in incomplete data now.
No, 95% was the number given to the vaccines, so that the CDC could consider slogging through the political waters. The decision not to collect all relevant data has put the CDC in the deep end of those waters, and they are now trying to swim out by claiming they meant that the vaccines are 90% effective in preventing serious illness. Again, according to the CDC's website, less than 10% of all cases, going back to 2020, resulted in serious illness. So, what do we have? Incomplete data on the vaccines, because the CDC deemed such data superfluous. And, we have vaccines that apparently prevent serious illness at the same rate as not having the vaccine.
@4.5.41 "It serves diminishing purposes with little upside. They are the experts. And, TR, it is time to start allowing the professionals to do their work unless and until you find evidence of malfeasance."
Yes, the vaccines, plural work against the prevalent Delta Variant that is sweeping our nation. We know what from the past year (2020) about vaccines which 'landed' in the public in 2021?
@4.3.42 "That is, in the early days before the variants begin "popping" 95 percent vaccine protection was the high mark feature-leading the medical profession (CDC) to consider not slogging through the political waters end of the pool where people forcefully were resisting masks, vaccinations, and medical professionals (with clipboards and vests) coming to their front doors! As you can imagine, with such resistances from a large segment of the national population, there would be a host of sick people who would not test, would not share results, and finally would not report their test results."
No.
Are you a scientist? An epidemiologist? A medical professional? If so, explain what is wrong scientifically, epidemically, or medically with CDC's decision based on errors you have found in their logic that is untenable. If not, then like me, you are stuck with their professional actions and your opinion of it.
Finally, CB, you admit it's bad science to ignore relevant data.
Nobody needs to be a scientist, epidemiologist, or have any other advanced degree to understand the fault in the CDC's policy here. It's a simple matter of looking at what something is claimed to do, and looking at what it actually does. And therein lies the problem. The CDCs decision to ignore all vaccinated cases, except those resulting in hospitalization or death, cuts over 90% of cases out of the data that could be used to compare what the vaccines are claimed to do to what they actually do. It presents an incomplete picture of what is actually happening, and prevents a full understanding or study thereof. It is bad science, and bad practice.
Numbers on the ground from England, Feb 1 to August 15:
Finally? I am so so very much pathetically super-upsettingly sorry you feel you had to 'drag' that ignoring relevant data is not good science out of me. /s
Your argument on grounds of "bad science" indicts republicans, libertarians, and conservatives who heavily-laden political rhetoric divided the country over the purposes of vaccines. In addition, the vaccines were always weighed on a type of 'herd immunity' where the bulk of the country would immediately and readily RECEIVE the medicine engineered to save their (damn) lives. Of course, that, and a host of over "bad realities and practices" played out in January 2021 and are yet playing out today. But, I digress.
It is time you, we, talk straight about this issue holistically are let it alone. 'Circling the wagons' and digging trenches around pet information that does not convey the whole story of why the vaccines can't cope (with libertarian freedom and privileges in the U.S.) is "bad communication practices."
Well, I'm sorry if I offended you CB. That wasn't my intention.
No problem. We are men! (Smile.)
Sometimes, and. . . it is my way to not respond to every question that is asked of me in the interest of time conservation and obviousness. (Smile.) Admittedly, the types of questions do 'haunt' me looking for resolution, nevertheless.
On this we clearly disagree. My argument is an indictment on the people promoting the vaccines (CDC). It's not circling the wagons to ask the CDC to monitor the whole situation, and it has nothing to do with politics. I have yet to bring politics into this. You have attempted to make this political on several occasions. It's not. If the CDC is basing its actions on political agenda, or because of some perceived pushback from a certain group or groups, then that is on the folks at the CDC. I'm interested, because I am living in this, not because I have a political narrative to push. To me, the easiest way for the CDC to shut down any such "rhetoric" would have been to collect all of the data, and to put it out in the public. It can't, however, because it collected no such data. My beef is not simply rhetoric. I am not claiming I'll grow a 2nd dick if I take the vaccine. (although depending on the location and size, I might not have any complaints with that)
But I digress, quite a bit there. When I heard the announcement, in May, that the CDC wasn't going to track all vaccinated cases, I questioned it immediately. 20 years from now? Yeah, maybe they don't track everything but the deaths and hospitalizations. But right now? Doesn't make sense not to.
It's been fun CB, seriously. I need to push away from this, and get some bills paid.
Ditto! (Smile.)
One more. I do apologize if I come off as aggressive or blunt. I have an odd combo of sanguine and choleric personalities. So I tend to be loud/blunt, and take for granted that people don't have my thick skin. But, I'm the first to apologize when I do step on somebody's toes.
No sweat. I like talk that 'travels' somewhere. Like you, I desire a breather on this area of thought. Who knows another opportunity may present itself down the line! Peace. 'Grown folks' can handle dealing with 'sacred cows' with straight talk:no chaser.
Unfortunately, now the goalposts will move. The approval won’t mean anything because Biden’s FDA is in cahoots with somebody for some nefarious purpose.
Well, many people are saying that the vaccine is still dangerous. For one or both of these reasons:
1. It will make metal objects stick to you.
2. The government is secretly using the shots to implant electrodes in your brain to control you.
This is not to be taken lightly!
Pelosi donor retreat in Napa. These rich elitists run the country.
Note the lack of diversity and masks.
Looks like you didn't read the title of the video in your own comment:
Just Pelosi Talking To Donors At The Democrat Retreat In Napa, CA
Its one group of political donors-- and I'm pretty sure not the only group of political donors Pelousi (or for that matter any politician) talks to.
And do you really think that "the rich elites that run this country" are only Democrats?
(That the wealthy and powerful CEOS of major corporation-- who are generally YUGE donors to political parties...are all 100% Democrat? You've shown one video-- this is just one group-- and a relatively tiny one at that!)
Because many of the wealthiest CEOs are Republicans! (Strange you didn't know that)
You didn't get the point......
Note the lack of diversity and masks.
Actually I did!
Political parties have many different groups of donors. Some are diverse (by race or ethnicity)-- some are not.
Some are not ethnically or racially diverse-- because they may be , for example, "Asian-Americans for Biden". Some may political groups froma certain town-- or country.
Some are YUGE-- some failry small.
So of the YUGE universe of political contributing groups-- you found one that is not diverse, and fairly small.
Does that "prove" that all donors to the Dems are all White-- and all never wear masks?
I
I don't knock the crowd's appearance as the video pans, and although they are about to dine (no mask required to dine), someone mentioned the brochure for the event did not state mask are required or some such thing. That is bold in this political climate. And Nancy Pelosi should not sport controversy!
What group would attempt to keep their masks on while eating?
(Do you actually believe people should try to eat with their mask on?)
I wonder...perhaps you do?
Interesting. I don't understand any of this! Why I won't change my view of politics over this (there may be a reasonable explanation), I am pissed at the optics. This looks down-right stupid!
A good question to ask is why is Biden not mandating the vaccine to all federal employees, and contractors that receive federal funds, including, and especially the FDA?
After all, he had mandated it with the military and health care workers whose employers receive Medicare and Medicaid funds.
My guess is that because the federal workforce is made up of a large amount of blacks, there would be a mass exodus of workers, as blacks are the least vaccinated race by far.
Probably for the same reason that only the Pfizer vaccine is the only one approved yet. Why haven't they approved the Moderna, J&J, and some of the others. Why only Pfizer? (If anyone is smart enuf to figure that out-- they will know the answer to your question!)
Biden mandated vaccines to the military before today. If you didn't know that, then maybe you need to shy away from left wing sources.
You never answered the rest of my question. We know why.
Really? If that's actually true, you should have no trouble providing many links to prove that (but even one link, from a reliable source, will do!).
Now "the ball's in your court"!
This is too easy.
Members of the U.S. military will be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine beginning next month under a plan laid out by the Pentagon Monday and endorsed by President Joe Biden.
This article was written on August 9th. Biden made it mandatory for military to get the vaccine 2 weeks before the first vaccine was approved by the FDA.
Now, don't move the goalposts.Yes, I know they are not due until the middle of next month, but the fact remains Biden MANDATED they be taken 2 WEEKS BEFORE THEY WERE APPROVED.
Good for him!
Good point!
And after all, everyone knows that there are few if any blacks in the military!
Maybe you need to learn what the military does. They follow orders. They can't just up and whine and liberal away when they are told to do something, even, gasp...blacks.
Now, their civilian federal worker counterparts?
That's a different story.
Good point!
And after all, everyone knows that there are few if any blacks in the military!
(For anyone unfamiliar with that Emoji its called "if you're in a hole, stop digging"!)
African-Americans Are Highly Visible in the Military
The stupidity of some of these comments is staggering.
There are 100 million people who need to get vaccinated,
so when the 57 million white people get vaccinated then maybe you can pull the race card
and tell the black relatives of the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments to trust the government approved vaccines.
You're right. They are. See 7.4 as an example.
I posted facts from a documented factual website. By population percentage, blacks lack faaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr behind everyone else. I never played any card.
If you don't like it, not my problem.
Well remember-- NT is after all a social media site!
Well, one more time for the halibut /s
57 million unvaccinated white people is more important than
any lesser number of black people.
I know you missed this tidbit in your "DOCUMENTED FACTUAL SOURCE" which nullifies all of their assumptions.
Which means that they don't even know the race ethnicity for 42% of the recipients included in the "data".
You cannot prove it by this data. Period
You do it every time you blame blacks...
By the same incomplete data Hispanics are more plentiful and less vaccinated,
yet you are mute about Hispanics or others.
it's understandable that you would want to spin CDC information to try and deflect from the truth that blacks are still faaaaaaarrrrrrr less, by population, to get vaccinated than any other race.
If you don't like what I posted, take a look at 5.2.10 for even more information. Now, the trick is to not spin this either, but, you know...
Let me let you in on a little secret,. Showing that blacks are faaaaaaarrrrrrr less likely to be vaccinated than any other race is not a race card, no matter how much you want it to be. I understand that is the left's go to when they have been shown proof of what they don't like.
That same dog whistle that only leftist racists hear.
What do they sound like?
Same CDC information that says they do not know the race/ethnicity of 42% of one shot recipients.
Their conclusions are assumptions not facts.
There are still more Whites & Hispanics unvaccinated than blacks.
Let it go.
It's not a left right thing
it about being able to interpret the data
You typing?
Never said there wasn't. Stop trying to move the goal posts. I said, BY POPULATION PERCENT, blacks lack far behind all other races in getting vaccinated. If you, and your little buddies that upvoted you think that is racist, then that is yours, and their, problem, not mine.
Again, I never mentioned this being a left/right thing. Maybe you can also explain to your little buddies the same when they try and attempt to make it look like it is Trump supporters that are the cause of the spread.
Never seen you do that.
Wonder why?
No I don't
Why do have to come to your friends' rescue?
She knows what she hears and it isn't typing.
I will hold my peace and let the video do the talking:
Trump Booed For Telling Alabama Crowd To Get Covid Vaccine
Former President Donald Trump was booed while telling a crowd in Alabama to get the Covid-19 vaccine. Alabama is currently struggling with a surge in coronavirus cases. Trump said, "You got your freedoms, but I happen to take the vaccine."
Aw shucky-ducky. (CB.)
And if you persist with the KFF Myth
I will persist in that annoying little detail that the CDC doesn't have race data on 42% of the people that only received one dose.
That nullifies any conclusion about population percentages of any group by KFF.
Recent lies by Laura Ingram and TX LT Governor Dan Patrick and recent FDA approval of Pfizer has produced a surge of black people getting vaccinated.
A recent poll seems to indicate that they now surpass White folks participation.
Data from the CDC is by their own admission incomplete.
Data for the Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey was last updated 08/02.
So true. HERE is a better presentation of the data and a proper conclusion as to what it means.
While it is true that as a percentage of their population demographic Blacks and Hispanics lag behind Whites and Asians in percent vaccinated, there are several reasons for that including less access to the vaccines. And since Whites represent by far the largest percentage of the overall population (61%), they still account for the largest share of unvaccinated people. Most notable is that of the still unvaccinated folks Black and Hispanic people are more willing to consider the vaccination than Whites.
As I have stated before, it is important to understand the disparity in the percent of each demographic that have been vaccinated and those that have not in order to properly address issues of access to the vaccines and provide targeted education to address any hesitancy concerns that each demographic might have. The rest is up to people of all races and ethnicities to support immunization in their communities and see to it that they do not put themselves and their neighbors in harms way.
Here is some more info on my pet peeve with all of this "data".
That's the data breakdown. We know the ethnicity for 148 million doses out of 364 million administered and it is skewed by the different dates or different reports with 4 states not included.
Blaming one race or another is a fools errand with no good consequences.
Agreed. Let's leave that blame game behind and work together toward solutions.
U R welcome, 'bugsy.' I hope setting the record straight helps temper personal resentment a little bit anyway.
You did not post anything of substance. The question I asked is why has Biden not made it MANDATORY for ALL federal workers to get vaccinated, but only choose a select few groups, ie, the military and healthcare workers that work for companies that receive Medicare or Medical. This last one is straight bullshit.
Why hasn't the FDA, you know, the federal department that has approved Phizer vaccine, mandated that all of their employees get vaccinated?
I posted the reason above. If you don't like my response, then too bad for you.
I pretty sure you don't know what the "h" you are talking about! Federal workers and federal contractors (to boot) . . . . You know what? just read the link and note the date July 29, 2021. The military to my knowledge (in mid-August thereabouts) was still preparing its 'order.' I haven't looked, but that order yet may not be complete.
Don't be just a 'foot soldier' in a fool's tirade on governance. Be a positive force for good!
Most likely, the "don't know what the "h" you are talking about" is in your column.
This from your link
"Federal workers will be required to sign forms attesting they’ve been vaccinated against the coronavirus or else comply with new rules on mandatory masking, weekly testing, distancing and more".
NOTHING about mandating, only strongly recommending, but yet, your messiah Biden wants private companies to mandate for their employees, but he is not willing to do the same for federal employees.
There is a reason for that, and I'm sure you don't recognize what that is.
That he does not have to lie down in a field of conservative negative energy to make governmental actions that accomplish and get good-great outcomes?
Do you know how desperate this nuance you are trying to carve out sounds? It's disturbing. You should just stop.
By the way, a "requirement" is type of mandate. And so is ahem: "mandatory."
The president is the public boss of the federal sector. He is the "CEO" of the federal government. Just like the DELTA AIRLINES CEO just told his employees to get shots or 'desist' — these are requirements-mandatories-mandates.
Do you even pay attention to what is in your own link? Do you not understand that the only mandate os for employees to sign that they have had the vaccine, and if not, then they have to wear masks, and do weekly testing, if the left has their way, until perpetuity.
Absolutely NOTHING about mandating VACCINES.
Read and understand your link before you make comments that show you don't know what the "h" you are talking about.
We're talking pass each other. I'm done with this travesty, for now.
This vaccine won't stop you from getting and transmitting the virus. Doesn't stop the delta. Allegedly keeps you out of the hospital but the CDC's own stats are looking a little suspect on that too.
You heard it here first, I got vaccinated but it is not a very good vaccine.
Do you plan on taking the applicable booster shot when the time comes?