5 ms·

I hope they learned some lessons here and seek to accelerate lifting the ban on the Johnson & Johnson and Astrazeneca vaccines. Work they can do to get those ap

I hope they learned some lessons here and seek to accelerate lifting the ban on the Johnson & Johnson and Astrazeneca vaccines. Work they can do to get those approved in the next few weeks are what can end the pandemic in Q1. In the US, given by Feb, there will have been about 100M infected, It really only takes about 100M vaccines to hit herd immunity. Between Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and Astrazeneca it's reasonable to expect/demand 100M out by Feb. The FDA's approach of "moving slow to give confidence" cost lives and does not actually build confidence. Allowing this vaccine to be taken by the willing was among the easiest decisions ever made, and their pretending otherwise was absurd. It would have built more confidence if they said within 24 hours of the EUA filing "hey public, this was an easy call. We already looked at all this data over months, cut no corners. This isn't a borderline approval, this looks amazing."

tppiotrowski 6y ago
How are you arriving at 100M infected by February? The current case count is at around ~15M with ~250,000 cases being reported yesterday. To reach 100M by February you would need close to ~2M cases a day for every day between today (Dec 11th) and February 1st.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/11/26/939365087/government-model-suggests-u-s-covid-19-cases-could-be-approaching-100-million https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/1... > The actual number of coronavirus infections in the U.S. reached nearly 53 million at the end of September and could be approaching 100 million now, according to a model developed by government researchers. > The model, created by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, calculated that the true number of infections is about eight times the reported number, which includes only the cases confirmed by a laboratory test.
- ummonk 6y ago
  Infection count is a lot higher than case count. If you divide the number of deaths by an IFR of 1% you get 30 million infected so far, while with an IFR of 0.5% you get 60 million. There are probably half a million infections every day right now, so 100 million by February doesn't seem that far fetched. Though I see no reason to complain about the FDA dragging its feet, given that the bottleneck to vaccinating the populace is manufacturing, not authorization.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
> It really only takes about 100M vaccines to hit herd immunity. Citation please? Dr. Fauchi says we need 70% innoculations to achieve herd immunity. https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-america-reach-herd-immunity-004356332.html https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-america-reach-herd-immunity-004... From the numbers I've been able to gather, you need 200M vaccinated people to achieve herd immunity, which is 400M doses. Sources: Wikipedia gives the US population as 308,401,808. Seventy percent of that is 215,881,266. Latest COVID-19 infection totals come to about 16 million. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-c... Unclear why I'm being downvoted.
- aqme28 6y ago
  He's saying that if 100M already have natural immunity, then 100M with a vaccine brings us closet to that 70%.
  - FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
    100M doses brings us closer to 17%. We need 400M doses to innoculate 200M people, which is what we need to achieve 70%, counting the 16M people that have been diagnosed with the disease.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Except we don't know who those 100M people are so we can't exclude them from the vaccination pool.
- tppiotrowski 6y ago
  I believe the author meant 100M infected by February (and assumed immune) + 100M more vaccinated is about 66% of the current US population of 328M.
  - ummonk 6y ago
    They can't be added up like that though, since some of the previously infected will still be vaccinated. So it'll be more like 170 million total with 100 million vaccinated.
pilsetnieks 6y ago
When did the FDA ban Johnson&Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines? Why?
- ummonk 6y ago
  Enrollment of people into the studies had been paused after some people in the respective studies had suffered health issues that needed to be investigated to determine whether they were adverse reactions or not. As I understand it, both pauses ended over a month ago, and there hasn't been any "ban".
  - manacit 6y ago
    As someone who just received a J&J vaccine or a placebo, I can definitively say that at least the one is not banned currently. Both studies were paused, as is customary, due to medical complications from someone in the study. Upon investigation it was deemed in both cases to likely have not come from the vaccine, and the trials were resumed.
- tssva 6y ago
  Your and likely most people's interpretation when they hear "ban" is that the FDA took some active step to specifically ban the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines. The other interpretation is that all pharmaceutical drugs are banned by default and that approving a drug is actually removing that ban. I suspect the original commenter was using "ban" in this context.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
I’m not sure how many people fall into “high risk”, but after everyone who needs the vaccine gets one we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief. For vast amount of people living in the United States the virus isn’t going to be dangerous. But for certain groups it’s extremely dangerous.
djsumdog 6y ago
I'm very weary of this approval. This is the first messenger RNA .. thing (this isn't a vaccine; not like any attenuated or inactivated virus vaccines that have come before it. This is something very different in the way it works). There are no Longitudinal studies. This will be a significant increased risk for people under 40. We shouldn't see to fast track any drug, vaccine or treatment outside of the normal process. I wish the inhaled steroid controlled studies had completed because I was curious of that would have been a useful treatment (a lot of doctors are using them off label) and we wouldn't need something this untested. Fast tracking medications is how mistakes are made. Let's be critical of how these emergency powers are used.
- divbzero 6y ago
  No mRNA vaccine has been approved before, but from clinical trials of mRNA vaccines dating back to 2008 [1] there’s evidence of short-term side effects but no reason to suspect long-term safety concerns. mRNA vaccines don’t present the risk that attenuated vaccines pose to immunocompromised individuals or pregnant women, and they don’t stay in the body long enough to be a long-term threat. We can’t guarantee 100% because our bodies are complex, but I wouldn’t characterize it as “significant increased risk” for people under (or over) 40. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2

tppiotrowski 6y ago

How are you arriving at 100M infected by February? The current case count is at around ~15M with ~250,000 cases being reported yesterday. To reach 100M by February you would need close to ~2M cases a day for every day between today (Dec 11th) and February 1st.

ceejayoz 6y ago
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/11/26/939365087/government-model-suggests-u-s-covid-19-cases-could-be-approaching-100-million https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/1... > The actual number of coronavirus infections in the U.S. reached nearly 53 million at the end of September and could be approaching 100 million now, according to a model developed by government researchers. > The model, created by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, calculated that the true number of infections is about eight times the reported number, which includes only the cases confirmed by a laboratory test.
ummonk 6y ago
Infection count is a lot higher than case count. If you divide the number of deaths by an IFR of 1% you get 30 million infected so far, while with an IFR of 0.5% you get 60 million. There are probably half a million infections every day right now, so 100 million by February doesn't seem that far fetched. Though I see no reason to complain about the FDA dragging its feet, given that the bottleneck to vaccinating the populace is manufacturing, not authorization.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago

> It really only takes about 100M vaccines to hit herd immunity. Citation please? Dr. Fauchi says we need 70% innoculations to achieve herd immunity. https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-america-reach-herd-immunity-004356332.html https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-america-reach-herd-immunity-004... From the numbers I've been able to gather, you need 200M vaccinated people to achieve herd immunity, which is 400M doses. Sources: Wikipedia gives the US population as 308,401,808. Seventy percent of that is 215,881,266. Latest COVID-19 infection totals come to about 16 million. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-c... Unclear why I'm being downvoted.

aqme28 6y ago
He's saying that if 100M already have natural immunity, then 100M with a vaccine brings us closet to that 70%.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  100M doses brings us closer to 17%. We need 400M doses to innoculate 200M people, which is what we need to achieve 70%, counting the 16M people that have been diagnosed with the disease.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Except we don't know who those 100M people are so we can't exclude them from the vaccination pool.
tppiotrowski 6y ago
I believe the author meant 100M infected by February (and assumed immune) + 100M more vaccinated is about 66% of the current US population of 328M.
- ummonk 6y ago
  They can't be added up like that though, since some of the previously infected will still be vaccinated. So it'll be more like 170 million total with 100 million vaccinated.

pilsetnieks 6y ago

When did the FDA ban Johnson&Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines? Why?

ummonk 6y ago
Enrollment of people into the studies had been paused after some people in the respective studies had suffered health issues that needed to be investigated to determine whether they were adverse reactions or not. As I understand it, both pauses ended over a month ago, and there hasn't been any "ban".
- manacit 6y ago
  As someone who just received a J&J vaccine or a placebo, I can definitively say that at least the one is not banned currently. Both studies were paused, as is customary, due to medical complications from someone in the study. Upon investigation it was deemed in both cases to likely have not come from the vaccine, and the trials were resumed.
tssva 6y ago
Your and likely most people's interpretation when they hear "ban" is that the FDA took some active step to specifically ban the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines. The other interpretation is that all pharmaceutical drugs are banned by default and that approving a drug is actually removing that ban. I suspect the original commenter was using "ban" in this context.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

I’m not sure how many people fall into “high risk”, but after everyone who needs the vaccine gets one we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief. For vast amount of people living in the United States the virus isn’t going to be dangerous. But for certain groups it’s extremely dangerous.

djsumdog 6y ago

I'm very weary of this approval. This is the first messenger RNA .. thing (this isn't a vaccine; not like any attenuated or inactivated virus vaccines that have come before it. This is something very different in the way it works). There are no Longitudinal studies. This will be a significant increased risk for people under 40. We shouldn't see to fast track any drug, vaccine or treatment outside of the normal process. I wish the inhaled steroid controlled studies had completed because I was curious of that would have been a useful treatment (a lot of doctors are using them off label) and we wouldn't need something this untested. Fast tracking medications is how mistakes are made. Let's be critical of how these emergency powers are used.

divbzero 6y ago
No mRNA vaccine has been approved before, but from clinical trials of mRNA vaccines dating back to 2008 [1] there’s evidence of short-term side effects but no reason to suspect long-term safety concerns. mRNA vaccines don’t present the risk that attenuated vaccines pose to immunocompromised individuals or pregnant women, and they don’t stay in the body long enough to be a long-term threat. We can’t guarantee 100% because our bodies are complex, but I wouldn’t characterize it as “significant increased risk” for people under (or over) 40. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2