Vaccine/Antibody updates

[The Sultan]

When Harris or Biden said they wouldn't take the "Trump Vaccine" what exactly do you think they meant? There was never going to be a "Trump Vaccine". No vaccine was going to be developed, approved and distributed by Trump. Development, approval and distribution were about drug companies and the FDA - whether Trump or Biden was President mattered not at all. What if Pfizer and Moderna had announced a month earlier? And the FDA set their approval date at Nov 1? And if Fauci gave his blessing? That was the scenario that would have resulted in what Harris and Biden were falsely calling the Trump Vaccine. And had that been the timeline, Because of the election they would have gone after the FDA and Fauci - because any vaccine that stood in the way of their election had to be so characterized. They admitted as much in their statements.

Keep it up Lenny!!  Someday you'll get there!!!

[wadesworld]

For month Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and their supporters banged the drum: "Don't trust the vaccine that's coming! It's the 'Trump Vaccine' - it is political, not based in science! I wouldn't take it, it's too dangerous!!

Now that the election is over, of course they're changing the tune. The damage to public confidence, though, has been done. As Reverend Wright was fond of saying, "The chickens have come home to roost!"

Oh Jesus...

[forgetful]

When Harris or Biden said they wouldn't take the "Trump Vaccine" what exactly do you think they meant? There was never going to be a "Trump Vaccine". No vaccine was going to be developed, approved and distributed by Trump. Development, approval and distribution were about drug companies and the FDA - whether Trump or Biden was President mattered not at all. What if Pfizer and Moderna had announced a month earlier? And the FDA set their approval date at Nov 1? And if Fauci gave his blessing? That was the scenario that would have resulted in what Harris and Biden were falsely calling the Trump Vaccine. And had that been the timeline, Because of the election they would have gone after the FDA and Fauci - because any vaccine that stood in the way of their election had to be so characterized. They admitted as much in their statements.

I'm going to try to keep this simple.

The bolded would violate the FDA and independent advisory board requirement of 2-months of data. Pfizer/Moderna said they were going to follow the FDA and independent advisory board requirements. So there was no situation where Pfizer and Moderna would announce earlier with Fauci's approval.

But...

Trump tried to circumvent that to reach his "promised timeline," and called the FDA and independent advisory board's requirements a "political move" by the "deep-state" trying to hurt his re-election.

Biden and Harris said if Trump did so (e.g. Trump's vaccine), they wouldn't trust it, as they shouldn't because the safety profile wouldn't have been vetted yet.

This article provides context.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/519841-fda-asking-covid-19-vaccine-developers-for-safety-data-likely-pushing

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

By the way, while we all wait to hear about where the bogeyman statements came from, this person is invited to capital hill to testify. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/doctor-critical-vaccine-mandates-testify-senate-covid-treatments-n1250260

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Lenny, will it make you feel better if I say the vaccine was 100% developed while Trump was president?

Now, what exactly does that now change to our current situation? Does that make the vaccine more effective to you? Are you less likely to get it because the results were announced after the election?

Shut up, mask up

[Jockey]

Pretty sure Biden is going to join Clinton, Bush, and Obama and publicly get the vaccine, if Fauci says it safe.   Oh, poor Lenny.


Lenny, I have so much respect for you.    Please don't turn into one of those people who post links that say the opposite of what you claim thinking you are making a point.   A la, Chicos, Warriordad, PA2, Guru.

1. To your 1st point, what do you think the over/under will be (in hours) until the right says that it's a hoax and they just got a placebo? I'd put the number at 1 and take the under.

2. I think almost to a man we respect Lenny on this board. A quality poster for a long time. But like all of us have done on more than one occasion, he made a dumb post and took flak for it. No harm / no foul.

[forgetful]

2. I think almost to a man we respect Lenny on this board. A quality poster for a long time. But like all of us have done on more than one occasion, he made a dumb post and took flak for it. No harm / no foul.

This. And I point out clarifications not to give flak, but on the honest belief that sometimes people simply misunderstand something said/done, or were misled.

[The Sultan]

Great.  How incompetent.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12/07/world/covid-19-coronavirus?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes#trump-administration-officials-passed-when-pfizer-offered-in-late-summer-to-sell-the-us-more-vaccine-doses

[MU82]

Great.  How incompetent.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12/07/world/covid-19-coronavirus?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes#trump-administration-officials-passed-when-pfizer-offered-in-late-summer-to-sell-the-us-more-vaccine-doses

Classic.

All happening while patting themselves on the back.

[GooooMarquette]

2. I think almost to a man we respect Lenny on this board. A quality poster for a long time. But like all of us have done on more than one occasion, he made a dumb post and took flak for it. No harm / no foul.

Agreed. Good quality poster who seems to have been misled on this issue. I value Lenny's contributions to Scoop, and hope he's here for a long time to come.

[reinko]

Oh look, Dick Uihlein and his funded rag going full anti-vaxx.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/07/science-says-im-in-the-back-of-the-covid-vaccine-line-but-government-and-corporations-will-force-me-through-it/

[TSmith34, Inc.]

https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/22/biden-challenge-vaccine-messaging/

Here's another. Biden, Harris, et al absolutely cast doubts on any vaccine developed under Trump's watch. Of course (duh) they've walked back their knowingly false statements made during the campaign. But to say those statements had no consequences is purely partisan.

Providing links that actually disprove your point? Check
Doubling down after being shown that you are wrong? Check

You're acting like Chicos. Don't be a Chicos.

[Lennys Tap]

I'm going to try to keep this simple.

The bolded would violate the FDA and independent advisory board requirement of 2-months of data. Pfizer/Moderna said they were going to follow the FDA and independent advisory board requirements. So there was no situation where Pfizer and Moderna would announce earlier with Fauci's approval.

But...

Trump tried to circumvent that to reach his "promised timeline," and called the FDA and independent advisory board's requirements a "political move" by the "deep-state" trying to hurt his re-election.

Biden and Harris said if Trump did so (e.g. Trump's vaccine), they wouldn't trust it, as they shouldn't because the safety profile wouldn't have been vetted yet.

This article provides context.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/519841-fda-asking-covid-19-vaccine-developers-for-safety-data-likely-pushing

Forgetful

I very much respect your knowledge in the these matters, but (IMO) when Kamala Harris says, "If Donald Trump says take the vaccine, I ain't takin' it" (direct quote) she's being disingenuous and undermining faith in a vaccine developed while Trump is president. She (and everybody else) knows that a vaccine can't be approved without the drug companies, FDA, etc. putting their stamp of approval on it. It's not like we'd get a vaccine based on Trump's senseless ramblings (hydroxy, bleach, etc.). It'll only be available when it's proven safe and effective, regardless of who is President. Suggesting a scenario under which an unsafe, ineffective vaccine would be available because the Donald wanted it that way was (IMO) bullish!t. And she knew that. On all of this, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Thanks for the kinds words. Thanks, too, to Tower, Goooo, Jockey and 82 (and anyone else I'm missing). Sticking up for me even when you think I've driven off the rails is kind and very much appreciated.

[MUDPT]

Found out today that I'm in Tier 1 at work.  Wisconsin is expecting about 50k at first and our hospital is expecting that health care workers will get the first doses.

[Jockey]

Forgetful

I very much respect your knowledge in the these matters, but (IMO) when Kamala Harris says, "If Donald Trump says take the vaccine, I ain't takin' it" (direct quote) she's being disingenuous and undermining faith in a vaccine developed while Trump is president. She (and everybody else) knows that a vaccine can't be approved without the drug companies, FDA, etc. putting their stamp of approval on it. It's not like we'd get a vaccine based on Trump's senseless ramblings (hydroxy, bleach, etc.). It'll only be available when it's proven safe and effective, regardless of who is President. Suggesting a scenario under which an unsafe, ineffective vaccine would be available because the Donald wanted it that way was (IMO) bullish!t. And she knew that. On all of this, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Thanks for the kinds words. Thanks, too, to Tower, Goooo, Jockey and 82 (and anyone else I'm missing). Sticking up for me even when you think I've driven off the rails is kind and very much appreciated.

A word in your defense, Lenny. Libs all knew what Kamala meant - she would not take a virus if trump put his thumb on the scales to get it approved. But,.... we dont all use the same news sources and many reported it the way you wrote about.

[The Sultan]

Forgetful

I very much respect your knowledge in the these matters, but (IMO) when Kamala Harris says, "If Donald Trump says take the vaccine, I ain't takin' it" (direct quote) she's being disingenuous and undermining faith in a vaccine developed while Trump is president. She (and everybody else) knows that a vaccine can't be approved without the drug companies, FDA, etc. putting their stamp of approval on it. It's not like we'd get a vaccine based on Trump's senseless ramblings (hydroxy, bleach, etc.). It'll only be available when it's proven safe and effective, regardless of who is President. Suggesting a scenario under which an unsafe, ineffective vaccine would be available because the Donald wanted it that way was (IMO) bullish!t. And she knew that. On all of this, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Thanks for the kinds words. Thanks, too, to Tower, Goooo, Jockey and 82 (and anyone else I'm missing). Sticking up for me even when you think I've driven off the rails is kind and very much appreciated.

So you are quadrupling down on this?  Are you trying to out-stupid your "BLM is Marxist" statements over the summer?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Lots of good vaccine news.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/health/covid-vaccine-pfizer.html


https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-set-to-release-analyses-of-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-11607423403

[GooooMarquette]

Great to hear the Pfizer vaccine can confer some protection after the first dose. I just hope that doesn't lead to large numbers skipping the second dose, assuming they're all protected.

[forgetful]

Great to hear the Pfizer vaccine can confer some protection after the first dose. I just hope that doesn't lead to large numbers skipping the second dose, assuming they're all protected.

Its a shame that the WH turned down buying more of these vaccines to ensure American's got it first. Now, Europe is already being vaccinated by the Pfizer vaccine, while there will be shortages in the US.

[GooooMarquette]

Its a shame that the WH turned down buying more of these vaccines to ensure American's got it first. Now, Europe is already being vaccinated by the Pfizer vaccine, while there will be shortages in the US.

Yep. I have long believed that it will likely be late spring or early summer before vaccines are widely available to the general public. And even that may be optimistic if the federal government doesn't wake up and provide resources for distribution and administration.

OWS was a good and necessary thing, but the execution seems questionable. If they were only going to choose to support and purchase from one mRNA vaccine manufacturer, it makes no sense to choose an unproven company like Moderna over a company with a long and successful track record like Pfizer.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Great to hear the Pfizer vaccine can confer some protection after the first dose. I just hope that doesn't lead to large numbers skipping the second dose, assuming they're all protected.

Here is a good explanation as to why that's bad (or conversely the suggestions to one-dose more people rather than full dose less)

https://twitter.com/virusesimmunity/status/1336323008755978241?s=21

[forgetful]

Yep. I have long believed that it will likely be late spring or early summer before vaccines are widely available to the general public. And even that may be optimistic if the federal government doesn't wake up and provide resources for distribution and administration.

OWS was a good and necessary thing, but the execution seems questionable. If they were only going to choose to support and purchase from one mRNA vaccine manufacturer, it makes no sense to choose an unproven company like Moderna over a company with a long and successful track record like Pfizer.

I agree, and a certain contingent will blame it all on the new administration and claim that if the other party was in power everyone would have been vaccinated by the end of February with no problems.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Yep. I have long believed that it will likely be late spring or early summer before vaccines are widely available to the general public. And even that may be optimistic if the federal government doesn't wake up and provide resources for distribution and administration.

OWS was a good and necessary thing, but the execution seems questionable. If they were only going to choose to support and purchase from one mRNA vaccine manufacturer, it makes no sense to choose an unproven company like Moderna over a company with a long and successful track record like Pfizer.

Gottlieb who carries a lot of weight in general but even more so as a board member of Pfizer confirming the reports.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529212-trump-officials-passed-on-multiple-offers-to-buy-more-pfizer-vaccine

I get the position by Slaoui we could be fine without more from Pfizer. But if Moderna has production problems or either Oxford or J&J have issues getting approved it's not going to look good at all. 

[Jockey]

So you are quadrupling down on this?  Are you trying to out-stupid your "BLM is Marxist" statements over the summer?

Shocking that you are the one trying to keep the argument going.

[MUBurrow]

Its a shame that the WH turned down buying more of these vaccines to ensure American's got it first. Now, Europe is already being vaccinated by the Pfizer vaccine, while there will be shortages in the US.

Forgetful, could you (or anyone else) explain a little about how these pre-purchases work?  I'm generally far from a Trump administration apologist, but it seems like a really tough spot to determine how to purchase/reserve from a number of competing vaccines, all before any have received any approvals and it seems even before release of sufficient testing data to project which will be the most successful?  I'm not jazzed about what I'm hearing about the untested nature of the Moderna technology nor their track record of bringing products to market, but was the alternative to put all of our eggs in the Pfizer basket? In that case, would it have been possible that another vaccine proved more effective than Pfizer, and we'd be blaming the administration for just throwing gobs of money at Pfizer without sufficient evidence that it shouldn't have been diversifying among the vaccine candidates?