161–170 of 436 posts
The null hypothesis (people with symptomatic covid are as likely to get severe symptoms, regardless of whether they received the vaccine) predicts this many cases with severe symptoms: 30 / 185 * 11 = 1.7 1.7 ~= 0, so the sample size is too small to support the headline.
Headline is "no one in the trial developed severe symptom" - i am not sure how your computation proves this wrong.
>>> Anti-vaxxers immediately jump on any report of possible adverse events in a vaccine trial (which are thoroughly investigated, of course). >>> Let’s spare a thought today for the person who signed up for the Moderna vaccine trial, received two placebo shots and died of covid19. https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1333401133260419072 --- edit: Please explain the downvotes. The vaccine volunteer would be alive if he w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it cures late stage cancer a few million per treatment would actually be a bargain. Edit: I have no clue why people would rather something not exist than for something to exist but for it to be too expensive.
Considering that no, we dont have a few million per person than no, its not really a "bargain" unless you mean in the context of a pact with the devil.
e.g. if you want to pay a chemist to synthesise Aspirin in a lab for you it will be very expensive. But it costs pennies in the store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but there have been plenty of people in the US gathering unnecessarily, not for essential work, but in large groups for Halloween parties and bars, with extended family and older relatives for Thanksgiving, and are likely to gather multiple times for Christmas once again. Now unsurprisingly the pandemic is out of control, hospitals in many regions are overcapacity and the overworked essential healthcare workers m…
Most Americans think gathering for Thanksgiving and Christmas is both altruistic and very important. Selfishly, I would have preferred to stay home and call in, but my mom didn't want to be alone on Thanksgiving so I drove down to be with her. They're perhaps not necessary in the strict sense of the word, but health authorities have consistently said that very important gatherings are okay as long as you try to do th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this money spent on? Is it a real cost per dose, or just a made-up number for something made in a research lab? Maybe another way to ask is: On the scale from 400k of white-shoe lawyer-hours, to 400k of custom 7nm silicon-etching, where should I mentally place this? The former isn't going to budge, the latter will cost pennies in a generation's time.
What they charge might be made up, but the costs of developing these drugs are astronomical. My wife is a cancer research scientist in immunotherapies and she can burn through tens of thousands of dollars in materials running a single experiment. And if she makes a mistake - the money is wasted!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an additional question that opens the door to all sorts of hidden exclusions: Were study participants given medical advice prior to participation? If I ask my doctor whether it is a "good idea" for me to participate in an investigational study like this, there are all number of reasons he may advise against. Those reasons form a defacto hidden list of exclusions. Would a doctor advise a patient with diabetes…
Why wouldn’t they? It’s not like the study intentionally infected people with the virus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can read all of them in their published protocol at https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301... under section 5.2.
Relevant criteria for the question "does it it exclude old, fragile people with various common pre-existing conditions?" (not exhaustive, but indicative): Included: Pre-existing conditions are okay as long as they are in a stable condition (defined as no significant change in therapy etc for the 3 months before enrollment). Excluded: Immunosuppressive or immunodeficient state, asplenia, recurrent severe infections (H…
Pregnant women are considered immunosuppressed to a certain extent. I'm a software engineer and not a doctor though, so someone could perhaps shed more light on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they have no way of testing for side-effects that could occur 4 + years down the line. > “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects,”
You don't say? Then why are so many people here criticizing those who want to delay 4 years before testing this vaccine on themselves and on their family?
However, considering that we cannot, there is some threshold level of danger above which society will deem your personal rights forfeit and you will be forced to swallow your personal risk because others do not want to swallow the risk of your externalities. There is no objective coefficient that weights the two things, so you're pretty much subject to the wisdom of the mob.
So far, if it makes you feel happy, it is unlikely that you will be forced to take the vaccine. There will be no TB DOT-equivalent, internet comments notwithstanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Immune suppressed/deficient patients are not good candidates for vaccines in the first place, since they would be unlikely to mount an effective immune response.
I forgot that part. That's the reason why also young healthy people need to take the vaccine in order to stop the spread. It's a solidarity gesture.
Yeah but imagine being dumb enough to get infected and very sick over the next month before you can get both shots next year. Because there are going to be thousands, maybe millions who do that in the USA alone for no good reason.
Dumb people like teachers, doctors, nurses, first responders, the infirm, grocery stockers? Dumb people that have to work to pay their rent, mortgage, put food on the table? I know there are a lot of idiot anti-maskers running around, but being dumb is not a prerequisite to catching covid. Not everyone has the luxury of working from home.