9 ms·

Pfizer and Moderna each are lined up to produce 100 million doses each by end of the year. Pfizer’s CEO thinks we can get approval by October. https://www.wash

Pfizer and Moderna each are lined up to produce 100 million doses each by end of the year. Pfizer’s CEO thinks we can get approval by October. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/washington-post-live/wplive/october-is-coming-pfizer-ceo-says-the-company-could-begin-seeking-approval-for-vaccine-in-october/2020/08/06/f216f295-eade-44d5-8b87-a59e7c15c59e_video.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/washington-post-live/wp... AstraZenica also to provide 300 million doses starting in October. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/05/21/trump-administration-accelerates-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-to-be-available-beginning-in-october.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/05/21/trump-administrati...

djsumdog 6y ago
I can only see this as being a disaster. Vaccines need very careful testing before administering them to millions of people.
- PakG1 6y ago
  The worst part is that anti-vaxxers would be able to say, "See??? I was right!!!! You're all idiots!!!!!!"
  - tux1968 6y ago
    The worst part would be the negative effects visited upon the people taking the unproven vaccine.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Saying “vaccines are safe” is like saying “drugs are safe”. Without qualification it’s a lie. Drugs tested to be safe are safe. Vaccines tested to be safe are safe. The problem with the whole anti-anti-vaxxer thing is that any nuance gets lost. I’ve been called an antivaxxer (on the internet) for stating that I don’t want to take a poorly tested vaccine candidate. Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. BTW, because both the mortality and unproven (and imo nonexistent) “long term impacts” of COVID-19 are so dramatically overblown, the threshold for “this vaccine is safe” will be very loose IMO. Especially simce you can argue that the societal benefit of the vaccine means it’s worth more risk than the risk of COVID infection. Fortunately, most of the US is practically begging for a vaccine and will take it as soon as available, so at least we’ll have great data. (Provided negative reactions aren’t suppressed as censored the way legitimate scientific papers have been)
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      > Saying “vaccines are safe” is like saying “drugs are safe”. Without qualification it’s a lie. Drugs tested to be safe are safe. Vaccines tested to be safe are safe. > The problem with the whole anti-anti-vaxxer thing is that any nuance gets lost. I’ve been called an antivaxxer (on the internet) for stating that I don’t want to take a poorly tested vaccine candidate. > Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. > BTW, because both the mortality and unproven (and imo nonexistent) “long term impacts” of COVID-19 are so dramatically overblown, the threshold for “this vaccine is safe” will be very loose IMO. Especially simce you can argue that the societal benefit of the vaccine means it’s worth more risk than the risk of COVID infection. It's statements like this and the one above why you get called an antivaxxer i suspect. Both the mortality rate and the long term impacts of COVID19 are both real and have not been overblown, there is a lot of evidence out there, but you just need to talk to any medical professional who has worked in the hospitals that treated patients to hear how bad this virus is. But it sounds like you have made up your mind already even though you say they are unproven (which they are not) , so you I guess you're making this assessments based on idiology not evidence.
      - iateanapple 6y ago
        > Both the mortality rate and the long term impacts of COVID19 are both real and have not been overblown The mortality rate for healthy people is incredibly low. For example Singapore has had ~54,000 cases with a death count of only 27 since it was mostly young healthy people who got it. Likewise there has been basically no excess deaths in many European countries for <65 years olds. This is not at all how the media is treating covid.
        PakG1 6y ago
        The mortality rate may be low over the long run. But certainly over the short run, it was very very high. It is not a normal thing for city morgues to run out of room such that they need to truck in refrigeration units to hold dead bodies. This has happened in multiple American cities. That cannot be called a low rate by any stretch of the imagination, unless taking an average over a very long length of time.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Who said anything about administering the vaccines before they are tested? Governments and philanthropists are pouring money into vaccine production to have doses ready immediately in case the tests go well. If the tests don't go well, they will not be administered.
  - kalleboo 6y ago
    You won't learn about long-term side effects in 6 months of testing. The accelerated testing should still make them safe enough to administer to the risk groups where the risk of catching the virus is higher than the risk of the vaccine.
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      The #1 group who needs the vaccine more than anyone else is a group of young, extremely healthy, low-risk individuals. Paramedics, nurses, doctors. The "front-line" to the COVID19. Even before the "at risk" population gets the vaccine, nurses and doctors (who will be treating the at-risk population) need to first be immunized... otherwise the nurses/doctors risk spreading the virus to the at-risk population. Fauci was very careful to say that this isn't any decision he will make on the matter. But it is extremely likely that nurses / doctors will get the first dose of vaccines.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      How can you decide who is at what risk from the vaccine with only an accelerated test?
    - sroussey 6y ago
      No one is testing at-risk groups. Early trials are with health young people. You don’t put sick 80yo people into early trials, even these accelerated ones.
      - enjo 6y ago
        Every phase three trial is testing at risk groups.

djsumdog 6y ago

I can only see this as being a disaster. Vaccines need very careful testing before administering them to millions of people.

PakG1 6y ago
The worst part is that anti-vaxxers would be able to say, "See??? I was right!!!! You're all idiots!!!!!!"
- tux1968 6y ago
  The worst part would be the negative effects visited upon the people taking the unproven vaccine.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Saying “vaccines are safe” is like saying “drugs are safe”. Without qualification it’s a lie. Drugs tested to be safe are safe. Vaccines tested to be safe are safe. The problem with the whole anti-anti-vaxxer thing is that any nuance gets lost. I’ve been called an antivaxxer (on the internet) for stating that I don’t want to take a poorly tested vaccine candidate. Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. BTW, because both the mortality and unproven (and imo nonexistent) “long term impacts” of COVID-19 are so dramatically overblown, the threshold for “this vaccine is safe” will be very loose IMO. Especially simce you can argue that the societal benefit of the vaccine means it’s worth more risk than the risk of COVID infection. Fortunately, most of the US is practically begging for a vaccine and will take it as soon as available, so at least we’ll have great data. (Provided negative reactions aren’t suppressed as censored the way legitimate scientific papers have been)
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    > Saying “vaccines are safe” is like saying “drugs are safe”. Without qualification it’s a lie. Drugs tested to be safe are safe. Vaccines tested to be safe are safe. > The problem with the whole anti-anti-vaxxer thing is that any nuance gets lost. I’ve been called an antivaxxer (on the internet) for stating that I don’t want to take a poorly tested vaccine candidate. > Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. > BTW, because both the mortality and unproven (and imo nonexistent) “long term impacts” of COVID-19 are so dramatically overblown, the threshold for “this vaccine is safe” will be very loose IMO. Especially simce you can argue that the societal benefit of the vaccine means it’s worth more risk than the risk of COVID infection. It's statements like this and the one above why you get called an antivaxxer i suspect. Both the mortality rate and the long term impacts of COVID19 are both real and have not been overblown, there is a lot of evidence out there, but you just need to talk to any medical professional who has worked in the hospitals that treated patients to hear how bad this virus is. But it sounds like you have made up your mind already even though you say they are unproven (which they are not) , so you I guess you're making this assessments based on idiology not evidence.
    - iateanapple 6y ago
      > Both the mortality rate and the long term impacts of COVID19 are both real and have not been overblown The mortality rate for healthy people is incredibly low. For example Singapore has had ~54,000 cases with a death count of only 27 since it was mostly young healthy people who got it. Likewise there has been basically no excess deaths in many European countries for <65 years olds. This is not at all how the media is treating covid.
      - PakG1 6y ago
        The mortality rate may be low over the long run. But certainly over the short run, it was very very high. It is not a normal thing for city morgues to run out of room such that they need to truck in refrigeration units to hold dead bodies. This has happened in multiple American cities. That cannot be called a low rate by any stretch of the imagination, unless taking an average over a very long length of time.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
Who said anything about administering the vaccines before they are tested? Governments and philanthropists are pouring money into vaccine production to have doses ready immediately in case the tests go well. If the tests don't go well, they will not be administered.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  You won't learn about long-term side effects in 6 months of testing. The accelerated testing should still make them safe enough to administer to the risk groups where the risk of catching the virus is higher than the risk of the vaccine.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    The #1 group who needs the vaccine more than anyone else is a group of young, extremely healthy, low-risk individuals. Paramedics, nurses, doctors. The "front-line" to the COVID19. Even before the "at risk" population gets the vaccine, nurses and doctors (who will be treating the at-risk population) need to first be immunized... otherwise the nurses/doctors risk spreading the virus to the at-risk population. Fauci was very careful to say that this isn't any decision he will make on the matter. But it is extremely likely that nurses / doctors will get the first dose of vaccines.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    How can you decide who is at what risk from the vaccine with only an accelerated test?
  - sroussey 6y ago
    No one is testing at-risk groups. Early trials are with health young people. You don’t put sick 80yo people into early trials, even these accelerated ones.
    - enjo 6y ago
      Every phase three trial is testing at risk groups.