51–60 of 274 posts
66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.
66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.
Sorry, but I take issue with that statement: 100% protection against death and hospitalization for a tiny minority that are susceptible. Your statement makes it sound like everyone that gets it will die when that is absolutely not true. In fact, the statistics show the exact opposite: here in the UK, for example, only around 400 people under the age of 70 (I think!) that have no underlying symptoms, have actually die…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/26/fac...
There are things that can make living quite uncomfortable. So while yes not everyone will be hospitalized and die, there is still a lot of reasons to get any decently effective vaccine.
Edit:
"Bankhead-Kendall, who has treated thousands of patients since the pandemic began last March, says patients who had COVID-19 symptoms show a severe chest X-ray every time, and those who were asymptomatic show a severe chest X-ray 80 percent of the time."
66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.
I can give you a laundry list right now. For example, millions of vials are cracking around the rim, several of the filling rooms have mold issues, one of the vial hoppers is leaving metal particulates in the vials, weekly OOS for manufacturing impurities..I think the public would freak out if they knew what was happening in the supply chain.
These are pretty extraordinary claims.
66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.
Personally, I’d rather take the J&J which uses old, proven tech. In 5 years we will know a lot more about nRNA vaccine long-term safety, and I’ll be much more comfortable taking an nRNA vaccine at that point. When I’m eligible, I still may take the nRNA, but my preference is on older tech at this point. I fully acknowledge that the nRNA is extremely likely to be safe, but it’s just my preference
66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.
Sorry, but I take issue with that statement: 100% protection against death and hospitalization for a tiny minority that are susceptible. Your statement makes it sound like everyone that gets it will die when that is absolutely not true. In fact, the statistics show the exact opposite: here in the UK, for example, only around 400 people under the age of 70 (I think!) that have no underlying symptoms, have actually die…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent time at a large medical device company. I'm lightly familiar with the FDA submission process. I would not refer to it as rigorous. We were encouraged to keep the information light or the FDA would be easily confused and reject. Rejection had more to do with giving the FDA simple warm fuzzies rather than rigorous data analysis. The FDA process is more an exercise in paperwork, not in rigorous drug/device perfo…
I suggest you read up on the history of medicine prior to creation of the FDA, and similar agencies world wide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but I take issue with that statement: 100% protection against death and hospitalization for a tiny minority that are susceptible. Your statement makes it sound like everyone that gets it will die when that is absolutely not true. In fact, the statistics show the exact opposite: here in the UK, for example, only around 400 people under the age of 70 (I think!) that have no underlying symptoms, have actually die…
"Chest X-rays of asymptomatic patients – those infected but without symptoms – exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time, but those with COVID-19 symptoms had one every time, she also added." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/26/fac... There are things that can make living quite uncomfortable. So while yes not everyone will be hospitalized and die, there is still a lot of reasons to get a…
With a sample size of what? That's a nonsense statement that can't be scrutinised.
Edit, found this: The finding is promising but will require further research given the small size of the study with only 82 patients, mostly male and average age over 50
82 people over the age of 50. It also doesn't mention how healthy these people were.
This is typical of pretty much all media coverage: very little facts but also very little to throw back at them...
66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.
The UK versus FDA Thalidomide experience is at least one good reason.
Back to J&J. How old were the 15% that did develop the most serious symptoms? The article says that "more than 40 per cent had other illnesses [...] including obesity, diabetes and HIV." Isn't the base rate for obesity in a population something like that or higher? Finally, if we just look at the numbers (if they are even comparable), can we objectively rank these vaccines by how good they are? No ones feelings should be hurt if we can conclude that their vaccine is close to useless (think of how vaccinated population will demand loose measures although 40% of them are still at risk).
[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210114-covid-19-how-eff...