21–30 of 52 posts
Its simply unethical to start administering booster shots when most people in the world are still waiting for their two doses.
Curious to know why alternatives are still being suppressed as a possible treatment. We need to start talking about covid management. We wouldn’t use it for those with lesser symptoms but for those who are hospitalized who may or may not benefit, it’s worth a try. I can’t see a constant booster shot being the only solution to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Pfizer vaccine has cold chain requirements that mean it can't be used for half the world. It's also not clear if we're better off knocking down cases massively in some countries to prevent mutations or doing a slow (2+ year?) rollout across the world targeting the most at-risk, but at the risk of vaccine-resistant strains. That said, the US is looking like a pretty fertile breeding ground for a vaccine resistant…
Most of the world has no trouble with the cold chain requirements for their urban populations at least. Liquid nitrogen / oxygen is a common industrial good across the world. And vaccine resistant strains aren’t a big deal, as demonstrated in the new article - the vaccines are still 95% effective at preventing severe illness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does ethics play into this at all? Pfizer is delivering vaccines as fast as they can, and at this point the bottleneck is logistics. It’s not exactly easy to set up the infrastructure to administer 14 billion shots. The fact that Pfizer is ready with a booster has little to do with the actual administration of the vaccine.
Sharing IP to allow other countries to manufacture their own doses would be a huge step forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the world has no trouble with the cold chain requirements for their urban populations at least. Liquid nitrogen / oxygen is a common industrial good across the world. And vaccine resistant strains aren’t a big deal, as demonstrated in the new article - the vaccines are still 95% effective at preventing severe illness.
They are still 95% effective after 6 months at preventing death. They are unknown effective against new variants. I've seen a variety of studies with different variants tested against Delta. At best I read 92% for Pfizer (but a previous test had them at 60%), other vaccines as low as 30%. The new variants like lambda have shown it responds to antibiotic poorly, it spreads quickly and is more deadly compared to delta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are still 95% effective after 6 months at preventing death. They are unknown effective against new variants. I've seen a variety of studies with different variants tested against Delta. At best I read 92% for Pfizer (but a previous test had them at 60%), other vaccines as low as 30%. The new variants like lambda have shown it responds to antibiotic poorly, it spreads quickly and is more deadly compared to delta…
Maybe I've misread, but why would you expect a virus to respond to antibiotics at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Pfizer vaccine has cold chain requirements that mean it can't be used for half the world. It's also not clear if we're better off knocking down cases massively in some countries to prevent mutations or doing a slow (2+ year?) rollout across the world targeting the most at-risk, but at the risk of vaccine-resistant strains. That said, the US is looking like a pretty fertile breeding ground for a vaccine resistant…
What we are seeing is new variants coming from large populations around the globe. Delta is here. Lambda has just arrived. The Vietam variant which is delta+the British no one is talking about.. it will soon have a name. Better to lockdown, vaccinate those populations before giving a third or fourth or weekly dose. Saving Pfizer doses means other brands can go to hotter climates.
We won't even be able to vaccinate the rest with basic doses for 7 years at a minimum at this rate.
Alternatively, we produce cheap prophylactic drugs in industrial quantities and flood the battlefield.
Its simply unethical to start administering booster shots when most people in the world are still waiting for their two doses.
How does ethics play into this at all? Pfizer is delivering vaccines as fast as they can, and at this point the bottleneck is logistics. It’s not exactly easy to set up the infrastructure to administer 14 billion shots. The fact that Pfizer is ready with a booster has little to do with the actual administration of the vaccine.
And that's for the original 2 doses only. Pfizer is supposed to have manufacturing capacity open sometimes later this year...
Where they are gonna manufacture the booster ? Good question. So yeah, you can say it's not gonna be that fast.
Curious to know why alternatives are still being suppressed as a possible treatment. We need to start talking about covid management. We wouldn’t use it for those with lesser symptoms but for those who are hospitalized who may or may not benefit, it’s worth a try. I can’t see a constant booster shot being the only solution to this.
Can you specify which alternatives are being suppressed?