3 ms·

If they stopped banning Astrazeneca too, and stopped vaccinating people who already had COVID, we could be done within 60 days. Astrazeneca is well above the FD

If they stopped banning Astrazeneca too, and stopped vaccinating people who already had COVID, we could be done within 60 days. Astrazeneca is well above the FDAs original safety and efficacy guidance and something I'd be glad to take and give my family.

apsec112 6y ago
The AstraZeneca vaccine doesn't have enough supplies for that when you count all the countries that have ordered it, and isn't effective enough to create herd immunity by itself (most likely 60-70%).
ganeshkrishnan 6y ago
I don't think Astrazeneca is banned. maybe they dont have FBA approval. Also they illegally marketed their psychotic drugs to children under kickbacks from doctors https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-pay-520-million-illegally-marketing-seroquel-schizophrenia/story?id=10488647 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-pay-520-m...
eganist 6y ago
> and stopped vaccinating people who already had COVID How would you propose doing this without drawing blood from every single person getting a vaccine?
- enchiridion 6y ago
  Seem like a good option. I'd imagine it's a parallel supply chain, so it would speed things up.
  - eganist 6y ago
    it's most definitely not. The application and collection points aren't even the same because there's a time delay in antibody testing.
- blhack 6y ago
  There are people I am personally acquainted with who have been PCR positive for COVID, who are now also receiving the vaccine.
  - tertius 6y ago
    If they haven't been proven to be infected why should it matter?
    - blhack 6y ago
      What? They have been proven to be infected (PCR positive) and they are now receiving the vaccine.
      - tertius 6y ago
        PCR positive doesn't mean infected. You'll need an high amount in PCR, i.e. low cycle threshold for the probability to be high. Antigen tests will show if there was/is an infection. PCR does not show infection only presence. (WHO has now put out guidance about this. They don't have to it's well known.) If you're European this may be strange to you but I'm the U.S. we don't receive the cycle count when the RNA for the virus is detected. Here's Fauci talking about it a little: https://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=4m30s https://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=4m30s
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Simply tell people, "if you've had COVID, don't get the vaccine" or maybe "go to the end of the line"
  - m-ee 6y ago
    That’s terrible messaging given that reinfection is rare but possible and occasionally deadly. We want everyone to take it.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      Hard to imagine that infection and recovery from the actual virus confers less immunity than the vaccine, but even without knowing that, it seems reasonable that people who have already recovered should be a lower priority for vaccination than more at-risk groups.
      - m-ee 6y ago
        It’s not hard to imagine, it’s a well observed phenomenon in other diseases like HPV. Antibody titers were higher for the mRNA covid vaccines than convalescent plasma if I remember right. Most people probably are at lower risk, but some people are dying from reinfection. They certainly weren’t.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Nothing is "banned". AZ accidentally ran their first trial with only half the intended dose. For some reason, this turned out to work better than the intended regimen (90 % vs 60 % in the other trial). When they noticed the mistake, they pretended it had been their intention all along. That's one troubling error, one surprising result that doesn't fit expectations and could, therefore, indicate other, potentially dangerous, problems in thinking or execution, and one deliberate lie. Personally, I'd tend to agree with you and would probably take their vaccine if offered. But that's something entirely different than allowing it to be given to millions of people. Getting this wrong would lead to a total breakdown of trust in institutions, and, in due course, a few democracies as well. To insinuate some conspiracy given these circumstances is evidence for the mechanism of that breakdown, as well as irresponsible and, frankly, amateur populism.
- chromatin 6y ago
  And it turns out the cohort who received the half dose was on average younger than the total study population, this explaining the apparent improvement in efficacy
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    As far as I can tell, the virus is more prevalent among younger people. Since infection, not death, was the primary endpoint, and also because medicine hasn't used that sort of wishful reasoning for about a hundred years, the age difference doesn't explain anything.
    - BillyTheKing 6y ago
      it certainly does, younger people have stronger immune systems, and therefore generally react better to vaccines than older people. The stronger the immune system reacts to a vaccine the better, since that usually ensures that there will be an immune-response to the actual virus as well.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  > For some reason, this turned out to work better than the intended regimen (90 % vs 60 % in the other trial). The difference isn't actually statistically significant. It's probably 60-70% effective overall.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
None of what you said is true...

apsec112 6y ago

The AstraZeneca vaccine doesn't have enough supplies for that when you count all the countries that have ordered it, and isn't effective enough to create herd immunity by itself (most likely 60-70%).

ganeshkrishnan 6y ago

I don't think Astrazeneca is banned. maybe they dont have FBA approval. Also they illegally marketed their psychotic drugs to children under kickbacks from doctors https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-pay-520-million-illegally-marketing-seroquel-schizophrenia/story?id=10488647 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-pay-520-m...

eganist 6y ago

> and stopped vaccinating people who already had COVID How would you propose doing this without drawing blood from every single person getting a vaccine?

enchiridion 6y ago
Seem like a good option. I'd imagine it's a parallel supply chain, so it would speed things up.
- eganist 6y ago
  it's most definitely not. The application and collection points aren't even the same because there's a time delay in antibody testing.
blhack 6y ago
There are people I am personally acquainted with who have been PCR positive for COVID, who are now also receiving the vaccine.
- tertius 6y ago
  If they haven't been proven to be infected why should it matter?
  - blhack 6y ago
    What? They have been proven to be infected (PCR positive) and they are now receiving the vaccine.
    - tertius 6y ago
      PCR positive doesn't mean infected. You'll need an high amount in PCR, i.e. low cycle threshold for the probability to be high. Antigen tests will show if there was/is an infection. PCR does not show infection only presence. (WHO has now put out guidance about this. They don't have to it's well known.) If you're European this may be strange to you but I'm the U.S. we don't receive the cycle count when the RNA for the virus is detected. Here's Fauci talking about it a little: https://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=4m30s https://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=4m30s
throwaway201103 6y ago
Simply tell people, "if you've had COVID, don't get the vaccine" or maybe "go to the end of the line"
- m-ee 6y ago
  That’s terrible messaging given that reinfection is rare but possible and occasionally deadly. We want everyone to take it.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    Hard to imagine that infection and recovery from the actual virus confers less immunity than the vaccine, but even without knowing that, it seems reasonable that people who have already recovered should be a lower priority for vaccination than more at-risk groups.
    - m-ee 6y ago
      It’s not hard to imagine, it’s a well observed phenomenon in other diseases like HPV. Antibody titers were higher for the mRNA covid vaccines than convalescent plasma if I remember right. Most people probably are at lower risk, but some people are dying from reinfection. They certainly weren’t.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Nothing is "banned". AZ accidentally ran their first trial with only half the intended dose. For some reason, this turned out to work better than the intended regimen (90 % vs 60 % in the other trial). When they noticed the mistake, they pretended it had been their intention all along. That's one troubling error, one surprising result that doesn't fit expectations and could, therefore, indicate other, potentially dangerous, problems in thinking or execution, and one deliberate lie. Personally, I'd tend to agree with you and would probably take their vaccine if offered. But that's something entirely different than allowing it to be given to millions of people. Getting this wrong would lead to a total breakdown of trust in institutions, and, in due course, a few democracies as well. To insinuate some conspiracy given these circumstances is evidence for the mechanism of that breakdown, as well as irresponsible and, frankly, amateur populism.

chromatin 6y ago
And it turns out the cohort who received the half dose was on average younger than the total study population, this explaining the apparent improvement in efficacy
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  As far as I can tell, the virus is more prevalent among younger people. Since infection, not death, was the primary endpoint, and also because medicine hasn't used that sort of wishful reasoning for about a hundred years, the age difference doesn't explain anything.
  - BillyTheKing 6y ago
    it certainly does, younger people have stronger immune systems, and therefore generally react better to vaccines than older people. The stronger the immune system reacts to a vaccine the better, since that usually ensures that there will be an immune-response to the actual virus as well.
SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
> For some reason, this turned out to work better than the intended regimen (90 % vs 60 % in the other trial). The difference isn't actually statistically significant. It's probably 60-70% effective overall.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

None of what you said is true...