Vaccine

[dad4]

How did I misunderstand? Both NYT and DM are reporting that the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is based on infections in 3 kids. I can see what your saying in terms of safety, but it clearly is based on 3 kids for efficacy.

Apparently there are a lot of paper clips flying in the Pfizer offices.

There is a huge difference between a study with only three kids, and a study of 10,000 kids where only three kids developed symptomatic infection.

Someone with an anti-vax axe to grind has been pulling the wool over your eyes with that only three kids claim. ”Wait for the placebo group to get sick” is no longer the only way to determine vaccine efficacy. They can measure the immune response directly.

 

[Kicker 2.0]

Yes. The benefits of the vaccine for a ten year old are greater than the risks. This is exactly what the FDA approval process is meant to evaluate, and the evaluation is done by people a hell of a lot smarter and more experienced than Tucker Carlson.

( Insert standard comment from Hound asserting that some non-zero number is actually zero. )

FDA also approved OXY….so there is that. I’m sure there was no manipulation or back room deals made in that process.

For the record, if you want to give your child the. Covid shot, go for it. Just don’t mandate it.

 

[dad4]

FDA also approved OXY….so there is that. I’m sure there was no manipulation or back room deals made in that process.

For the record, if you want to give your child the. Covid shot, go for it. Just don’t mandate it.

Can you see how the claim has drifted?

We started with someone parrotting Tuck’s B.S. about an FDA study with only three kids.

Turns out, it was 10,000 kids.

Then we went to ”well, that proves safety, but not efficacy”

That one fell as soon as someone pointed out that we can and do measure immune response.

Now we are reduced to “the FDA made a mistake on Oxy, therefore it must all be corrupt.”

Oxy? I’m all in favor of third party verification of drug manufacturer claims. But Oxy is very far removed from the covid jab. It is a different product, made by a different company, using a different mechanism, to target a different condition. You’re arguing guilt by association, without the association.

 

[watfly]

There is a huge difference between a study with only three kids, and a study of 10,000 kids where only three kids developed symptomatic infection.

Someone with an anti-vax axe to grind has been pulling the wool over your eyes with that only three kids claim. ”Wait for the placebo group to get sick” is no longer the only way to determine vaccine efficacy. They can measure the immune response directly.

Yeah those anti-vaxxers at the New York Times have really got me bamboozled. Amazing how you can just ignore facts. Or are you claiming the media is misreporting what Pfizer is claiming.

 

[espola]

FDA also approved OXY….so there is that. I’m sure there was no manipulation or back room deals made in that process.

For the record, if you want to give your child the. Covid shot, go for it. Just don’t mandate it.

Oxycontin was approved for the management of pain, at which it is very effective. The tragedy of oxycontin is that it was marketed as non-addictive, which it most certainly is not.

 

[Kicker 2.0]

Can you see how the claim has drifted?

We started with someone parrotting Tuck’s B.S. about an FDA study with only three kids.

Turns out, it was 10,000 kids.

Then we went to ”well, that proves safety, but not efficacy”

That one fell as soon as someone pointed out that we can and do measure immune response.

Now we are reduced to “the FDA made a mistake on Oxy, therefore it must all be corrupt.”

Oxy? I’m all in favor of third party verification of drug manufacturer claims. But Oxy is very far removed from the covid jab. It is a different product, made by a different company, using a different mechanism, to target a different condition. You’re arguing guilt by association, without the association.

You’re combining different arguments but I don’t put cherry picking past you to try to make a point.

The OXY thing show how the FDA can easily be manipulated and does make mistakes (Celebrex, ect) so their Approval still doesn’t mean it’s 100% safe (and with Vaccine Manufacturers protected from liability) the mandating and ostracizing of people who are skeptical isn’t warranted. Especially since it does NOT in fact prevent the spread as was once the battle cry of the Mandate crowd.

 

[watfly]

You’re combining different arguments but I don’t put cherry picking past you to try to make a point.

The OXY thing show how the FDA can easily be manipulated and does make mistakes (Celebrex, ect) so their Approval still doesn’t mean it’s 100% safe (and with Vaccine Manufacturers protected from liability) the mandating and ostracizing of people who are skeptical isn’t warranted. Especially since it does NOT in fact prevent the spread as was once the battle cry of the Mandate crowd.

Don't forget Fen-Phen. For what every reason that's the one that always sticks out in my mind of botched approvals.

Some here mistakenly believe that the FDA determines safety, it's actually long term use that proves a drug's safety. FDA approval is only a preliminary step.

 

[Lion Eyes]

WHO chief 'believes Covid DID leak from Wuhan lab' after a 'catastrophic accident' in 2019 despite publicly maintaining 'all hypotheses remain on the table'

• Director-general Tedros Adhanom confided to a senior European official: source
• The Mail on Sunday first revealed concerns about Wuhan's Institute of Virology
• Worldwide death toll of Covid pandemic now estimated to be above 18million
• WHO initially branded lab leak fears 'a conspiracy theory', accepting China story

By GLEN OWEN POLITICAL EDITOR FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 17:01 EDT, 18 June 2022 | UPDATED: 18:20 EDT, 18 June 2022

The head of the World Health Organisation privately believes the Covid pandemic started following a leak from a Chinese laboratory, a senior Government source claims.

While publicly the group maintains that ‘all hypotheses remain on the table’ about the origins of Covid, the source said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organisation (WHO), had recently confided to a senior European politician that the most likely explanation was a catastrophic accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, where infections first spread during late 2019.

entire article:

WHO chief 'believes Covid DID leak from Wuhan lab' after 'accident'

The head of the WHO believes Covid spread after a leak from a Wuhan lab, a senior Government source claims. Tedros Adhanom publicly maintains that 'all hypotheses remain'

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Happened again]

There is a huge difference between a study with only three kids, and a study of 10,000 kids where only three kids developed symptomatic infection.

Someone with an anti-vax axe to grind has been pulling the wool over your eyes with that only three kids claim. ”Wait for the placebo group to get sick” is no longer the only way to determine vaccine efficacy. They can measure the immune response directly.

Very linear thinking on your part. Sounds like you...after a few years of obvious incomeptenence and activism displayed by the CDC, still believes the CDC is looking out for you and your ulittles best interest.

What the CDC should have tweeted (and what a large portion of the trench dwelling pediatric community believe is that) The CDC endorsed an experimental therapy for developling 6M-5Y based on a study conducted for <3yrs on a ridiculously small sample size becuz long term effects don't matter and you cannot sue for injuries.

If it's in fact true that the trials were done only on COVID naive ulittles, then shame on the CDC. Plenty of serovprevalence in this population - some say at least 2/3.

The ethics are rathe questionable. Can the CDC and your doctor tell you why this vaccine is neccessary for this population? Cart before the horse theory?

 

[Happened again]

Yes.

how?

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Neither you nor I get to be in the room for the discussion.

I just hope it takes place. Some of the mistakes are best described as “you don’t know what you don’t know”.

Others are not so excusable. It took several months to officially recognize the role of aerosol transmission. Part of that was a reluctance to trigger regulations on air-borne pathogens. In effect, we said “hospitals didn’t have enough negative pressure rooms, therefore the disease must not be transmitted by air.”

The “experts” on the other side, such as they are, did worse. Much of their advice was just straight up denialism. It will go away like a miracle. Masks won’t work because the holes are too big. Case numbers are too small to care about. The growth isn’t exponential.

It’s not so easy in a free society to eliminate input in policy from citizens, and you know as well as I do that even the experts can vary widely in their risk assessment.

The biggest problem for “experts” are the mistakes they made that will undermine their credibility in the future.
- Taking the Chinese government’s claims at face value.
- Allowing anyone involved the virus research at the lab to be part of the investigation into the origins.
- Dismissing claims without appropriate evidence and smearing any who suggested otherwise.
- Not following their own advice
- Bowing to political pressure from teachers’ unions
- Being spectacularly wrong in some predictions

I’m not optimistic we’ll get to a point of more unified action next time.

 

[watfly]

It’s not so easy in a free society to eliminate input in policy from citizens, and you know as well as I do that even the experts can vary widely in their risk assessment.

The biggest problem for “experts” are the mistakes they made that will undermine their credibility in the future.
- Taking the Chinese government’s claims at face value.
- Allowing anyone involved the virus research at the lab to be part of the investigation into the origins.
- Dismissing claims without appropriate evidence and smearing any who suggested otherwise.
- Not following their own advice
- Bowing to political pressure from teachers’ unions
- Being spectacularly wrong in some predictions

I’m not optimistic we’ll get to a point of more unified action next time.

It wasn't just their risk assessment, but more so the fact that they ignored the different risk profiles and designed "one size fits all" policies. These policies took the emphasis off the most vulnerable and caused significant collateral damage to the least, or not, vulnerable.

The "boy who cried wolf" is going to be the mentality for the next pandemic which could have catastrophic effects.

 

[Desert Hound]

It wasn't just their risk assessment, but more so the fact that they ignored the different risk profiles and designed "one size fits all" policies. These policies took the emphasis off the most vulnerable and caused significant collateral damage to the least, or not, vulnerable.

The "boy who cried wolf" is going to be the mentality for the next pandemic which could have catastrophic effects.

Terribly misguided policies.

We locked down people with no real risk.
We shut down businesses
We shuttered schools

We know who was at risk within the first 30-45 days and yet shut down everything.

It is fascinating that some people still defend the indefensible.

 

[watfly]

It is fascinating that some people still defend the indefensible.

Some people can't stand in someone else's shoes. Some people (like introverts and those that got paid for not working) weren't impacted by the restrictions. Some fearful adults put their needs above those of children. Some people just liked the power and control. It's incredibly ironic who some think are the selfish people.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

It wasn't just their risk assessment, but more so the fact that they ignored the different risk profiles and designed "one size fits all" policies. These policies took the emphasis off the most vulnerable and caused significant collateral damage to the least, or not, vulnerable.

The "boy who cried wolf" is going to be the mentality for the next pandemic which could have catastrophic effects.

Policy making blurs into expert opinions but we are better off NOT having subject matter experts make policy. The very fact that they are an expert in a given area makes it less likely they are capable of a measured assessment of all risk. Unfortunately, political partisanship is much more common than the wisdom necessary to approach these policy decisions while considering all the risks involved.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

Policy making blurs into expert opinions but we are better off NOT having subject matter experts make policy. The very fact that they are an expert in a given area makes it less likely they are capable of a measured assessment of all risk. Unfortunately, political partisanship is much more common than the wisdom necessary to approach these policy decisions while considering all the risks involved.

The experts consulted with the powers that be at the time. The policy we got sent us down a dark road of denial, deflection, distraction and dewormer.

 

[Kicker 2.0]

The experts consulted with the powers that be at the time. The policy we got sent us down a dark road of denial, deflection, distraction and dewormer.

“Dewormer”. That statement alone proves your ignorance and hypocrisy in terms of denial and disinformation.

 

[dad4]

Policy making blurs into expert opinions but we are better off NOT having subject matter experts make policy. The very fact that they are an expert in a given area makes it less likely they are capable of a measured assessment of all risk. Unfortunately, political partisanship is much more common than the wisdom necessary to approach these policy decisions while considering all the risks involved.

The experts, by and large, did ok.

For example, cloth masks were a quite reasonable measure against the strains in circulation in April of 2020. R0 was only 2-3 back then. You didn’t need much. You just had to do it consistently.

Unfortunately, we had a national disinformation campaign dedicated to talking people out of wearing the masks. A few thousand epidemiologists and air quality engineers aren‘t going to out-shout Fox News. So we had maybe 50% compliance. People would wear a mask at the grocer, but not when friends arrive for dinner.

That doesn’t mean the original advice was bad. Most advice fails when you don’t follow it.

 

[dad4]

“Dewormer”. That statement alone proves your ignorance and hypocrisy in terms of denial and disinformation.

Ivermectin is a deworming agent. It’s also a neurotoxin.

Even if it had turned out to be a great covid treatment, Trump was out of place to be talking it up. He has none of the qualifications needed to evaluate any drug, let alone one with potentially fatal side effects.

 

[Kicker 2.0]

Ivermectin is a deworming agent. It’s also a neurotoxin.

Even if it had turned out to be a great covid treatment, Trump was out of place to be talking it up. He has none of the qualifications needed to evaluate any drug, let alone one with potentially fatal side effects.

OK…..not like Japan, India and several Dr’s in the US weren’t using it as an integral part of their treatments. I guess the FDA never approved it for humans, right?

Trump said this so it must be that….love your logic. You just can’t get past what the mean Orange man says can you.