FDA Approves Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine For Emergency Use in America (theverge.com) 222
Friday night America's Food and Drug Administration finally authorized Pfizer and BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine for emergency use in the United States, reports CNN.
The Verge calls it "a landmark moment in the fight to suppress a virus that has killed nearly 300,000 people in the United States and sickened tens of millions around the world." The vaccine is authorized in the U.S. for people over the age of 16. It was found to be 95 percent effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in clinical trials. "That is extraordinary," Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a press conference at the end of November. It's far better than experts had dared hope for. The FDA was prepared to authorize a vaccine as long as it was at least 50 percent effective. "We were shocked," Pfizer's chief executive officer, Albert Bourla, told The New York Times. "We couldn't believe it."
The shot appears to protect people against the most severe forms of the disease. It is also highly effective in people over the age of 65, who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. Scientists will continue to monitor the vaccine after it's deployed to see how well it works in the real world.... The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine has already been authorized by regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Bahrain.
The authorizations of this vaccine, which have come less than a year after development began, shatter the record for the fastest vaccine developed. The record was previously held by the mumps vaccine, which took four years.
The Verge calls it "a landmark moment in the fight to suppress a virus that has killed nearly 300,000 people in the United States and sickened tens of millions around the world." The vaccine is authorized in the U.S. for people over the age of 16. It was found to be 95 percent effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in clinical trials. "That is extraordinary," Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a press conference at the end of November. It's far better than experts had dared hope for. The FDA was prepared to authorize a vaccine as long as it was at least 50 percent effective. "We were shocked," Pfizer's chief executive officer, Albert Bourla, told The New York Times. "We couldn't believe it."
The shot appears to protect people against the most severe forms of the disease. It is also highly effective in people over the age of 65, who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. Scientists will continue to monitor the vaccine after it's deployed to see how well it works in the real world.... The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine has already been authorized by regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Bahrain.
The authorizations of this vaccine, which have come less than a year after development began, shatter the record for the fastest vaccine developed. The record was previously held by the mumps vaccine, which took four years.
Read the FDA's announcement here (Score:5, Informative)
What does "95 percent effective" mean? (Score:2)
What does "95 percent effective" mean? What happened to the other 5 percent?
Re: (Score:2)
What does "95 percent effective" mean?
It means the vaccinated group had 95% fewer infections than the placebo group.
So, for example, you vaccinate 10,000 people and give placebos to 10,000 more and 200 people in the placebo group get sick, you would expect 10 people in the vaccine group to get sick.
What happened to the other 5 percent?
There is no "other 5%". What there is is R*5% where R is the expected infection rate without the vaccine. But since R is small, that is way less than 5%.
Vaccinated people who do get sick appear to have mostly mild cases with quick recoveries.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever didn't kill the virus in them, made it stronger.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Editor David, for the link. What does "95 percent effective" mean? What happened to the other 5 percent?
You can look it up, but the other 5 percent did end up catching the virus. Not one of them however, became seriously ill.
What does "95 percent effective" mean? (Score:2)
What happened to the 5%? They got sick with Coronavirus Covid-19. Why??? Did they already have a severe medical condition?
Re: (Score:2)
What does "95 percent effective" mean? I should have been more clear.
What happened to the 5%? They got sick with Coronavirus Covid-19. Why??? Did they already have a severe medical condition?
Not got sick. Maintained a risk of getting sick. Most of the people in both groups studied, with vaccine and placebo, never got sick and just continued as normal. Similar numbers in each group got various other disease. In the group with the placebo a number of people got SARS-COV-2. 95% fewer people in the group with the vaccine got SARS-COV-2 than in the group without.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, how dumb are you people?
That is not how it works. You get vaccinated, and after 14 days, 21 days tested if you have antibodies. If you have them: either the vaccine worked or you got the illness in the meantime.
A placebo group is irrelevant as a placebo vaccine can not magically produce an immunization effect. You can take it as reference for above, counting how many got infected and produced antibodies - despite they got a placebo. And thats it.
The case numbers of both groups of getting Covid are on
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, how dumb are you people?
No comment
That is not how it works. You get vaccinated, and after 14 days, 21 days tested if you have antibodies. If you have them: either the vaccine worked or you got the illness in the meantime.
That's only for the stage 1 trials at the start. For the later stages they actually test the effectiveness. You can actually find the original paper online [nejm.org] and you've been spamming Slashdot for long enough to know that I would find it, so I'm guessing that you aren't just an anti-vax troll; you honestly are that stupid. When you read the paper, in the "Efficacy" subsection of the "Method" section they actually describe how they checked how effective the vaccine was with details about how they t
Re: (Score:2)
I've been wondering why the FDA has been bizarrely slow [thedispatch.com] at approving this vaccine which is already being administered to UK residents [cnn.com] and was approved by Canadian authorities 3 days ago. [www.cbc.ca]
Problems with FDA red tape became apparent in February [independent.co.uk], were widely reported by March (while problems with defective test kits became apparent [washingtonpost.com]), and continued being obstinate throughout the year, e.g. blocking efforts at at-home testing backed by Bill Gates [reuters.com]. So I'm wondering (1) why the FDA behaves this way and (2) why t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they'll wipe out a lot of unsuspecting innocents in the process. And it isn't yet clear whether everyone can handle those vaccines given underlying conditions which haven't yet been screened for. But then bumping off innocents never bothered the MAGAs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And those adherents to the alleged president would be lying if the proportion of R's believing that bozo about the election are anything to go by. He can just add Alleged U.S. President to his list of business failures. And it is a business failure given how he attempted to monetize the endeavor. He's on to his new scam, pay me money today for a run at the presidency tomorrow. Whatever happened to "I'm so rich I could fund my own campaign?", just another throwaway phrase for a new set of marks for the grift
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're overestimating the degree to which most people care about what Trump has to say. Even most of his ardent supporters (at least those whom I know) tell me that they pay attention to what Trump does, not what he says.
So if they know about golf, ask them what his handicap his. So far, that's about all I've seen him actually do other than twist McConnell's arm to allow a vote on the First Step Act, appoint a few people, and tweak the tax code to screw over the blue states. Oh, and tweet. I almost forgot about the tweeting. I tried to forget about the tweeting.
Mind you, that one bill was a great improvement, but overall, it seemed like he got about as much done in four years as Obama did in his first hundred days. Pre
Re:Absolutely stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not at all an issue with irrational thinking.
This vaccine is based on new techniques that have never been used before, and it was approved in record time. It was designed and approved in less than year. The previous record was 4 years. People should be questioning if it's safe or not. We need to make sure that there's a proper test plan in place and that the procedures are followed correctly so that we can be confident that it's safe.
Threats of "Approve this today or resign!" are probably the worst thing you could do to get confidence. Based on what we know, it almost certainly was going to get approved tomorrow morning, but now there's a cloud of "Is this safe, or was it approved because of politics?" hovering over it that people looking for an excuse to doubt it can latch on to. And all we got out of that was getting the vaccine approved 12 hours or so earlier than expected. That's not a good trade off.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to make sure that there's a proper test plan in place and that the procedures are followed correctly so that we can be confident that it's safe.
I myself question about its safety but my personal perspective is based on how quick this effective vaccine was developed considering how many other areas of government tend to screw things up. Plus a President who is pushing to dismantle the government (hostile appointees to various agencies) constantly slamming people not loyal to him.
Combined with a very hostile and irrational society in general I've not seen in this country before. Let's say the vaccine is good, but we also got a lot of nutzoid people
Fortunately, it was made by BioNTech (Score:2)
> I myself question about its safety but my personal perspective is based on how quick this effective vaccine was developed considering how many other areas of government tend to screw things up.
Fortunately, the US government didn't create the vaccine. A German company called BioNTech did. They partnered with Pfizer to test and manufacture it.
The vaccine was created in two days, the tested for many months.
Re: (Score:2)
A German company called BioNTech did. They partnered with Pfizer to test and manufacture it.
The vaccine was created in two days, the tested for many months.
wow! seems like the Germans know how to do stuff right.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not at all an issue with irrational thinking.
This vaccine is based on new techniques that have never been used before, and it was approved in record time. It was designed and approved in less than year. The previous record was 4 years. People should be questioning if it's safe or not.
Sure. But whose definition of safety? We've had people wringing their hands over what ends up being a minor annoyance - an allergic reaction that can take place with just about any injection. The problem is that with all the different outlooks and trolls and anti-vaxx karens out there, getting safety info off anyone other than the source is just going to leave people confused. While searching on safety of the vaccine, I've come upon lala land stuff like it's a plot between Dr Fauci and the Chines to destroy
Not totally new [Re:Absolutely stupid] (Score:3)
This vaccine is based on new techniques that have never been used before,
Not quite true. "While an mRNA vaccine has never been on the market anywhere in the world, mRNA vaccines have been tested in humans before, for at least four infectious diseases: rabies, influenza, cytomegalovirus, and Zika."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/i... [medpagetoday.com]
Here's a good 2018 review: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It was designed and approved in less than year.
No it was not. Both BioNtech and Moderna are solely founded for anti corona vaccines/corona research in the 2005s to 2008s
BioNtech is researching vaccines and corona virus structures since 2008.
The Nobel Prize for mRNA based vaccines was granted around 1975 to a German research team.
The only thing "quick" in this case is manufacturing and approval of the concrete vaccine against this particular strain/virus
I'm tired of fear mongering idiots like you.
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing that is 100% reliable from Republicans and their supporters these days is projection. You almost certainly just described your own feelings towards Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
PS, consider this:
The subject line of my post is "absolutely stupid", describing the White House. My post goes into more detail about the White House being absolutely stupid.
Your response was "OMG Trumper!"
Remember I mentioned some people lose their ability for rational thought when they hear the word "Trump"? Yeah .
Re: (Score:2)
If he says he loves oxygen, dig a bit deeper and see if he hasn't cornered a market on oxygen supplies for hospitals and outpatient clinics. He never does anything but for himself.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK had already approved it. The FDA said they approval would probably come today, maybe this weekend. Wtf were they trying to do, hurry it up by a few hours?
You're new here aren't you? They wanted to show the Glorious Leader taking Decisive Action to Make America Great Again. It was pure showmanship, he jumped in at the last minute to make it look like he'd made happen what was already a foregone conclusion. And now he'll take all the credit for it, just give it a day or two.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, there is a sizable selection of American irrationally supporting a business failure, inveterate grifter, and Covid response failure. Nope, nothing irrational about that. The usual refrain from these people is something along the lines of he's the first president actually speaking for "my people". A liar and a cheater at golf is what they are admiring.
Re: (Score:2)
You're aware that if some idiot cut off his right foot, that doesn't make it smart for you to cut off your left foot?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... but people should be suspicious/cautious about "emergency use" approved vaccines.
I'm curious why there's a need to have this "emergency" use in the first place. Is there something going on that we should be aware of? According to comments and actions from the White House, there's nothing going on.
Why this sudden rush to put out a vaccine if there's nothing going on?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for the tip. I just wonder how or why a comment about wanting to see others in greater need of a vaccine go first gets me moderated down.
Yours is a legit troll moderation [slashdot.org]. It's because, if everyone waits, then we don't end up with enough people vaccinated and we won't build up herd immunity and so this thing will keep going on longer and longer. I don't think you wanted to suggest that everyone wait, but someone probably misunderstood you like that and thought you were being an anti-vax troll. Just accept it as an educational mod for an ambiguous comment and move on.
Re: Read the FDA's announcement here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, that's was my interpretation though I wasn't 100% sure and the poster has now confirmed it. It seems, though, that the mods didn't understand the post which shows it wasn't clear enough.
Re: Read the FDA's announcement here (Score:2)
Re:Read the FDA's announcement here (Score:5, Informative)
We don't need vaccines to acquire heard immunity and vaccines have never been proven to provide heard immunity. These are just facts.
Actually you are wrong on both counts. Firstly, only vaccines can provide stable herd immunity (BTW - it's herd - like a herd of cows, not heard). With infection only, the disease dies down once the previously infected population is above the level of herd immunity, but then, gradually new members enter the population, either by being born or by travelling from outside into the area where immunity had been built. Once that happens you go below the level for herd immunity and can get back to disease spread.
Vaccine based herd immunity has been observed repeatedly. Measles is a really interesting case, for example, since it almost completely disappeared after vaccination campaigns, but then there was a period of anti-vaxxer activity which put people off vaccination. The level of population immunity fell and measles came back. Another case is Smallpox which was completely wiped out by herd immunity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to at least one doctor I've seen interviewed on this subject, some other countries follow in real time the data that this approval board began to review after the submissio
Re:Read the FDA's announcement here (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to buy a Coherent Thought for $100, Alex.
Re: (Score:2)
Even our government. I guess that's why governments based on communism killed 100 million people during the last century ...
Any citation for that?
Ah, guessed so
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! I thought it was common knowledge, but sure:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810
And:
"In 1999, the Stéphane Courtois introduction to the Black Book of Communism gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed.[s] In his foreword to the book, Martin Malia noted "a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million".[t]"
From:
ht
Re: (Score:2)
One of my hobbies is road rallying, where cars follow a route out thru the scenic countryside and encounter checkpoints where they get timed, their time being converted to a score based on when they should have arrived at the checkpoint.
Self driving cars should be perfect for that. I prefer the kind where points are awarded for being first.
Re: (Score:2)
And self-driving cars wouldn't work at all, because you give them a destination and they choose a route, wheras the rally car has to follow a set of instruction about where to turn and how fast to go. And when they tell you to average 36 mph, they mean 36.000000 mph. That requires a navigator to calculate the time a
Re:EditorDavid: Why isn't this in the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for the suggestion!
If you're really curious about my thought process, I thought the information in the FDA's announcement was not so much "relevant" as "redundant." (For example, the talk about how it's a "significant milestone" and a "true testament to scientific innovation"...) I read the 15 paragraphs of the FDA's announcement, but didn't see any crucial information that wasn't already included in the CNN and Verge stories.
I thought the true value of the official announcement at FDA.gov was that it made it all feel more real. But that's a fuzzy attribute -- do you really want to point people away from concise summations of the news of the day, and not for the information so much as for the ambience of a government announcement?
So the top of the comments section seemed like the appropriate place for that -- where we discuss the how and all the colorful side details around the main news of the day. Maybe I'm wrong, but that was my thinking.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. One thing I think we don't emphasize enough is that Slashdot is powered by your submissions. Back in the '90s there was a lot of talk about how the smartest person in the room is all of us. It's the community that makes Slashdot what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the '90s there was a lot of talk about how the smartest person in the room is all of us. It's the community that makes Slashdot what it is.
Interesting. Around the 2000’s mark when I started lurking around slashdot, I had the demotivational poster about meetings up in my workplace “Meetings: because not one of us is as dumb as all of us.” Sadly I feel this has become a better representation of America (and thus partly slashdot) today than the idealistic notion of meritocracy.
"Regular people" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably won't see this until July at the very earliest. Winter is probably more realistic.
Pfizer says they will have 50 million doses by the end of the year, 20 days from today. They are still ramping up production.
More vaccines from other manufacturers are already being mass-produced in expectation of approval.
There are huge financial incentives to push these programs forward quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
50 million doses isn't enough to vaccinate 10% of the US population. Remember that each person needs 2 doses.
They didn't just start manufacturing. Those 50 million doses will have taken many weeks (if not months) to manufacture.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just to manufacture - we still need to distribute them to medical facilities, and then get people through the doors to get both doses.
We're having to build the distribution network, because it has to be a robust cold-chain (especially for Pfizer's) that can handle volume. Something like that doesn't exist currently.
I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if 40% of the population refuses to get vaccinated. We'll need to wait until 25-50% of them catch it and have a natural immunity before we'll be
Re: (Score:2)
I think your optimism is very much misplaced.
Pfizer says they will have 50 million doses by the end of the year...
Which is what they say, and not what will happen. Not like a company has ever issued an overly rosy forecast for anything....And their distribution is the hardest, because it needs to be the coldest.
And more importantly, because people need to get two doses, that's enough to vaccinate less than 25m people. I say less than, because not all will get the second dose for various reasons.
25m people is less than 10% of the number we need to reach the tipping point wher
Re: (Score:2)
Which is what they say, and not what will happen. Not like a company has ever issued an overly rosy forecast for anything....And their distribution is the hardest, because it needs to be the coldest.
Imagine if this goes like nvidia's Ampere launch. Sorry about the shortages, it's al unexpected demand guys!
Re: (Score:3)
It would be a disaster if everyone were to be injected en masse with an experimental vaccine and then later find out that, oops, the vaccine has an unforeseen debilitating side effect that only shows up after more extended testing...
There are many different candidate vaccines and it is likely that several of them will be approved.
So only one subset of the population will turn into zombies.
Re: (Score:2)
So only one subset of the population will turn into zombies.
About 47% ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
n my opinion. It would be a disaster if everyone were to be injected en masse with an experimental vaccine and then later find out that, oops, the vaccine has an unforeseen debilitating side effect that only shows up after more extended testing
That's extremely unlikely, and there is no way of determining whether such a problem is more likely from a vaccine than it is from COVID.
Effects that don't show up in the studies are rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the vaccine causes GBS (which was carefully watched during the trials), Coronavirus itself causes GBS [nejm.org], and probably at a higher rate than any vaccine, so you're probably better off getting the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Effects that don't show up in the studies are rare.
In truth that depends on the rarity of the effect, its onset time, the size of the study group and exclusions from it, and luck (randomness). It is for this reason that many medications come with a warning to "report any side effects to your doctor". Side effects caused by vaccinations can also be self-reported at this site [hhs.gov] if you're in the US, or here [mhra.gov.uk] if you're in the UK.
Tell that to all the people who took the botched swine flu vaccine [wikipedia.org]:
In 1976, an outbreak of the swine flu led to a mass immunization program. After the program began, the vaccine was associated with an increase in reports of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which can cause paralysis, respiratory arrest, and death.
For those that can't be bothered to follow the link, or read the entire page, the following excerpt might be of interest: "There is not e
Re: (Score:3)
The more that are immune, the more that are out patronizing stores and restaurants, having a good time, and fighting depression that produces deaths from suicides, overdoses, domestic violence, and so forth. With everyone immune _right now_, these problems would be diminished much faster and dramatically fewer people would die of social side-effects.
But yeah, in the real world with limited supply, those most likely to croak if they get it sho
Re: (Score:2)
That's about what I figure. I'll use my "reverse privilege" (white, male, and rural) to let many others go first and see what the side effects really are.
Given the difficulty of the super cold shipping of this version, it will probably be the Moderna vaccine anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably won't see this until July at the very earliest. Winter is probably more realistic.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine (assuming it is safe) will be the one most of us get. They are already ramping up production, plan on producing a billion doses in the next year, and (assuming it is safe) should be approved around February.
Also, it's only a single dose so if you don't like injections, it's twice as good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Winter is a little more pessimistic than experts like Fauci are suggesting; don't forget that when summer arrives we'll have three or four approved vaccines domestically, and probably twice that number will be in use around the world.
Their big concern for the latter half of 2021 is vaccine refusal.
Still, it's quite possible that we may see delays as unexpected side effects are found for some vaccines. That's not unheard of, so it's conceivable that the mRNA vaccines might, if we're very unlucky, get with
How many doses can they make in a month? (Score:3)
And how many goes to the US?
There are roughly 330 million people in the US. General estimate of 60% immunity is needed to bring R0 to less than 1 without lockdown measures.
How many months until 200 million people in the US got vaccinated? And how many thousands will die until then, with the daily death count just broke 3000?
Re:How many doses can they make in a month? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are a bit mistaken (Score:2, Insightful)
There are MANY Americans who think that the reaction to COVID-19 is excessive, that the policies which are wrapped in a cloak of "science" are in fact not scientific at all, and that many of the policies involving school closures and lockdowns have more politics to them than science-backed sound public safety policy.
This is NOT the same thing as denying that COVID-19 exists, though some people find it politically convenient to pretend that these two different ideas are one idea.
People who believe the disea
Re: (Score:3)
There are MANY Americans who think that the reaction to COVID-19 is excessive, that the policies which are wrapped in a cloak of "science" are in fact not scientific at all, and that many of the policies involving school closures and lockdowns have more politics to them than science-backed sound public safety policy.
When a politician says "we're following the science" it's not as a justification for their actions, it's a means of deflecting the blame should their policies turn out to be incorrect. "Well, don't blame me, blame those pesky scientists..."
If we were truly interested in the Science,
We'd be the first to admit that it's not clear. Within the scientific and medical community there are numerous different opinions, even if they're rooted in the same evidence. Ironically this is why politicians, politics even, exist. To make the final decision. That most
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I think you are a bit mistaken (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite all the noise antivaxxers get, the USA still has +90% vaccination rate for MMR. (In some parts of the Bay Area the rate is below 50%, though).
Re:How many doses can they make in a month? (Score:5, Insightful)
Much less than 60% immunized may be necessary.
1. https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov] About 53 million infected already. (~15%)
2. 1-1/R0 assumes uniform susceptibility and contact graphs. More detailed modelling suggested that herd immunity thresholds from natural infection (which preferentially infects the most susceptible and connected) may be like 25%. Of course, vaccination will not cluster quite the same, but it will focus on those most likely to die and people closer to the middle of the contact networks for awhile.
3. Measures short of lockdown lower Rt. I suspect a lot of us are going to be careful for quite some time.
I believe 20% vaccinated will change the game significantly, and we should be able to be there before late January. Biggest wildcard is whether people get completely reckless (undermining #3) once the vaccine is available but before they are protected.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence do you base you "20% vaccination being useful" statement on? 70-80% is "normal" best case scenario figures, even adding your 15% and 20%, you are not even half that. Not that you could add them anyway, as that assumes only people who have not had it, will get a vaccine, which is not going to be the case.
If Americans were not anti mask and anti lockdown, you may have a point, but they are anti-useful measures, so immunity figures need to be higher, not lower.
Pretending things will "be alright"
Re: (Score:2)
Optimistically, we'll have a critical mass of Americans vaccinated by June. The death toll will probably be rather grim at least until March. Expect the total number of deaths to roughly double between now and the point where the pandemic will be "over", so maybe 600K dead Americans. This assumes nothing goes seriously wrong. Of course, if it was politically feasible to impose a hard lockdown then we could be done in a month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Voting against Trump doesn't make people liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since Biden and Harris are extremely conservative, centrist democrats.
It's shocking how deeply Fox News and the right wing media have twisted reality for so many people. They've made AOC and "The Squad" up to be this far left bogey man, and have made them seem like the face of the democratic party. They're not. They're fringe left.
Bernie lost. Warren lost.
The pro-war-on-drugs, anti-abortion senator and the drugs prosecutor won. Not the socialist, not the backers of the green new deal, not anyone
Re: (Score:2)
Voting against Trump doesn't make people liberal.
They won't learn this until the mid-terms.
Was this approved because safe (Score:2)
or was this approved because the whitehouse demanded the resignation of the FDA chief if it wasn't approved by today?
Even if it happens to be safe, that is some subhuman-level intelligence operating at the whitehouse.
This abuse of process on a safety evaluation will give the anti-vaxxers the fodder they're looking for.
Still, never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Was this approved because safe as proven by due process in the FDA?
or was this approved because the whitehouse demanded the resignation of the FDA chief if it wasn't approved by today?
Damn, Trump does one good thing, and you folks with TDS shit all over it anyway.
Why cares whether this was determined to be safe because of science or political pressure? The important thing is that it was determined to be safe, and we can now give it to all our grandparents and first responders. How can you be so cynical about progress like this?
Wiat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vaccine has already been tested for ~10 months. What do you think will be found in two years that wasn't found in one year?
I am sorry to say, but it means nothing. (Score:2)
There will not be enough people who will take it for herd immunity to work. On the bright? side, it does mean reasonable people (ie those that believe in science and reason) will take it and are less likely to die.
The US is now accurately compared to Rome in it's last days. The US will wane as a superpower until it is no longer, the likelihood of civil war within those years is high. It didn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to be this way, but those in power are too stricken by greed and ignorance to
Re: (Score:3)
The US is now accurately compared to Rome in it's last days.
More accurate than even most realize in that exactly one thing that slid Rome down the tubes was that people became "religious" about politics and they'd give a lot of lip service to the principles of the Republic but in reality were only concerned with their own selfish agendas and willing to put up with populist dictators as long as they seemed to serve their short-sighted short-term goals.
As just one obvious example, cf how many people were grievously upset by the kneeling during the national anthem, som
Disappointed Democrats (Score:2)
Re: Disappointed Democrats (Score:2)
Warp speed had nothing to do with producing the Pfizer vaccine. They took no US money for the development.
Re:Trump supporters (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You have been propagandized (Score:5, Informative)
No, Trump agreed to buy the vaccine if Pfizer was able to manufacture an effective vaccine. That's not funding, since the risk is almost entirely on Pfizer's side.
Wow, you really are bad at math aren't you. Since vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine requires two doses, that's only enough to treat 50M people, which is a lot less than 1/3 of the US population.
Yes, you are, and you are prepared to spout a bunch of falsehoods to suck-up for Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Trump supporters (Score:2)
Heh. Labels suck, huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Will you vax-afraiders ever give up?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-vax isn't a left vs right thing. There's plenty of anti-vaxxers on both sides. Often people that are prone to believe conspiracies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The risks of getting the vaccine are going to be negligible, but not non-existent. There were a couple of people in the UK who had an allergic reaction so don't take it yet if you have an epi-pen. IMHO you will have to wait anyway, since the health authorities will prioritize the vulnerable and health workers. It's kind of like wearing blinders to cross the road. Yes, they will protect you against the small risk of a light flash from a meteorite, and yes, there are people who cross the road without sight e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am fully aware that I'll have to wait regardless. I know that at the top of the list will be people over 70 years old and health care providers. Then comes people meeting other criteria, then another, then another, then I might get a chance to get in line. I'll still not take it for a while because I do not believe I am at risk of death or injury from the COVID-19 virus. It appears you misunderstood my reason for waiting. I don't fear the vaccines. I don't fear the vaccine more than the disease. I
Re: I'll wait. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally I agree with your selflessness. Here in the UK we simply aren't yet getting a choice. The vaccine is being directed to people in order of need. I guess in some cases it will be delivered to people in the order in which they can afford to pay for it and that's a situation where I would definitely support your comment. Donate your dose to someone, like a healthcare worker, who needs it more.
There's one thing though. Especially for active people in the 50 to 70 age group but for people that will t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wont be taking anything until it has a full year of working without issue.
Then it's highly likely that you'll contract COVID after everyone stops practicing social distancing and masking next summer.
The vaccines may have some risk, but given the number of COVID "long haulers" who have strange debilitating symptoms with an unknown prognosis, I'd place my odds on getting the shot.