Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Personally, yes, I do. Because I think in this particular case the political pressure is on the right side of the issue. 

Ugh. I don't feel like I'm communicating well here. Basically, I believe in objective truth, I guess, and I don't really care about experts. I don't have and never have had any prophets.

Experts are useful when they know more than me -- and that's quite often, because there are many, many fields I haven't studied. This decision is NOT being made along axes on which the FDA actually knows more than me on. In fact, as far as I can tell, with both this and the kid vaccines, they are being willfully obtuse. 

There is no "objective truth" when it comes to a policy decision.

The job of the advisory committee is not to ascertain whether immunity wanes and third shots are effective - it is supposed to make recommendations about public health policy where different factors are weighed against one another.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, regentrude said:

There is no "objective truth" when it comes to a policy decision.

The job of the advisory committee is not to ascertain whether immunity wanes and third shots are effective - it is supposed to make recommendations about public health policy where different factors are weighed against one another.

Sure. That's fine. My point is that disagreeing with the FDA here is different from taking ivermectin. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, it's always "trust but verify," right?? One can have a really healthy respect for experts (I do!) and still feel like one is competent to evaluate things within one's area of expertise. 

OK but it sounds like you are basing your opinion on what you've read so far about a study out of Israel.  Maybe the Israel study is right, but I don't like the idea of basing the whole US health policy on one study out of Israel ... besides which I was not involved in the study and did not see the actual data let alone evaluate it / replicate it.

The FDA has made some blunders, but it has also saved our ass at times.

And I feel like low-risk people just wanting their immunity to be "that much more perfect" are being a bit self-centered.  Breaking rules to get a vax one isn't supposed to get seems a bit unethical.  At some point the whole "I care more about the community" loses credibility.

That said, most likely it is a matter of time before they approve some sort of booster.  I would actually rather they develop one that is more specific to the variants of current/future concern.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

But isn't the committee the fda experts on vaccines? Why wouldn't the multiple votes of these people on this committee carry more weight than just one guy? I am really misunderstanding what's going on I feel like. Do people want political pressure on the fda or cdc to approve the boosters?

There IS political pressure on the FDA — to NOT approve boosters. There is political pressure from the WHO, which has nothing to do with the efficacy of boosters. There is the perception of pressure from antivaxxers, in the sense that some committee members fear that approving a 3rd dose will further discourage anti-vaxxers. That also has nothing to do with the efficacy of boosters. 

There is a reason the committee is called an ADVISORY committee — they provide advice, they do not approve vaccines. The FDA staff then take that advice into account when deciding whether to approve something, but they are free to take other factors into account as well.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, until recently, they weren't even suggesting boosters for the elderly. My in-laws went to their doctor and asked to have Pfizer prescribed, and because they were following CDC guidelines, the doctor refused. 

And now my in-laws have had to spend time in the hospital due to an emergency, and I'm frankly terrified. They are not in a high COVID state right now, but they are in their 70s, and they got their vaccines more than 6 months ago. There's no way it's safe for them to catch COVID right now 😕 . 

So... I'm feeling pretty darn impatient with the whole thing. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Sure. That's fine. My point is that disagreeing with the FDA here is different from taking ivermectin. 

the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The advisory committee is not making a statement about the safety of a medication or approving a substance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

OK but it sounds like you are basing your opinion on what you've read so far about a study out of Israel.  Maybe the Israel study is right, but I don't like the idea of basing the whole US health policy on one study out of Israel ... besides which I was not involved in the study and did not see the actual data let alone evaluate it / replicate it.

No it's not based solely on one study out of Israel. Data from both Pfizer and Moderna show that antibodies wane considerably over time. Moderna is not even used in Israel.

 

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

And I feel like low-risk people just wanting their immunity to be "that much more perfect" are being a bit self-centered.  Breaking rules to get a vax one isn't supposed to get seems a bit unethical.  At some point the whole "I care more about the community" loses credibility.

Pfizer has a full biologics license, which means it is perfectly legal for doctors to use it off label if, in their professional judgement, it would be beneficial. The data show that it is safe and beneficial. Nothing illegal or unethical about it. Wanting to reduce one's own chance of catching and transmitting a deadly disease, and possibly contributing to overwhelmed hospitals, IS about "caring for the community."

Also, at least half the adult population of the US has health issues that put them at additional risk, plus many have relatives who are high risk, and then there are people like teachers and healthcare workers who have additional risks because of their level of exposure. Why would you assume that the only people who want boosters are selfish low-risk people?

 

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

That said, most likely it is a matter of time before they approve some sort of booster.  I would actually rather they develop one that is more specific to the variants of current/future concern.

Pfizer tested boosters that were specifically targeted against Alpha and Delta, and found that the original vaccine worked just as well once the antibody levels were raised sufficiently. They also felt that it provided the broadest protection against the development of future variants since all variants evolved from the original wild strain that the vaccine is based on.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

And I feel like low-risk people just wanting their immunity to be "that much more perfect" are being a bit self-centered.  Breaking rules to get a vax one isn't supposed to get seems a bit unethical.  At some point the whole "I care more about the community" loses credibility.

People can make ethical arguments in both directions for policy, but when studies show that a booster is better, then that would suggest a standard to adhere to.

If we had known from the beginning that three shots would be definitely better than two and three shots had been tested from the very beginning, it's unlikely we'd even be suggesting it's ethically wrong to want all three. 

The current decision is about the policy around which less than ideal way to proceed since no one was omniscient enough to start out with three shots. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kbutton said:

People can make ethical arguments in both directions for policy, but when studies show that a booster is better, then that would suggest a standard to adhere to.

If we had known from the beginning that three shots would be definitely better than two and three shots had been tested from the very beginning, it's unlikely we'd even be suggesting it's ethically wrong to want all three. 

The current decision is about the policy around which less than ideal way to proceed since no one was omniscient enough to start out with three shots. 

I'd honestly guess these are going to have to be like the flu shot -- we'll have to keep getting them 😕 . I am hoping they manage to reduce side effects in the meantime. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The people on the committee each filter the data through their own personal biases and opinions. Some have explicitly stated that they are not in favor of boosters for everyone in the US when other countries have not had first shots yet. Others have said that the focus should be on vaccinating the unvaccinated instead of doing boosters. 

 

Right. None of them have said that there is danger in getting a booster, nor have they said that a booster won't improve immunity. So those of us wanting a booster, and the FDA are in total agreement that it is safe and will improve immunity. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I'd honestly guess these are going to have to be like the flu shot -- we'll have to keep getting them 😕 . I am hoping they manage to reduce side effects in the meantime. 

I do too, but even flu shots get boosted in children when they get them for the first time. It might be something where people have to get 2-3 initial shots for Covid and then yearly shots. 

I suspect we'll start mixing different shots over time and/or have multiple strains in a yearly shot like we do with flu. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kbutton said:

I do too, but even flu shots get boosted in children when they get them for the first time. It might be something where people have to get 2-3 initial shots for Covid and then yearly shots. 

I suspect we'll start mixing different shots over time and/or have multiple strains in a yearly shot like we do with flu. 

I think by next fall we will have several combined covid/flu shots. I really hope Novavax's combo shot is approved by then.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Corraleno said:

I think by next fall we will have several combined covid/flu shots. I really hope Novavax's combo shot is approved by then.

That would be cool, though I wonder if flu plus Covid will have really nasty side effects. I don't usually have any side effects from the flu except for an itchy arm (likely from sensitivity to gelatin). Covid is another story, lol! But if it's not worse than Covid alone, sign me up. Sounds great!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I decided to look up the credentials of the members of the advisory committee — the vast majority are professors of pediatrics, not vaccine experts. Maybe that makes sense when the vaccines under review are designed for young children, but this committee was voting on boosters for adults (16+). Here are the credentials of the committee that just voted to restrict boosters to over 65s:

Professor of Pediatrics, Stanford Medical School
Professor of Pediatrics, Tufts Medical Center
Professor of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati Medical School
Professor of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Professor of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine
Dean, Chicago Medical School, (Specialty: Pediatrics)
Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University
Medical Director, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
Professor, Vaccine & Infectious Diseases Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Professor, Baylor College of Medicine (Specialty: Vaccines)
Associate Dean for Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine

Government Agency Representatives:
Director of Scientific Advisors, FDA
Designated Federal Officer, FDA
Committee Management Specialist, FDA
Chief Medical Officer, CDC
Director of Clinical Innovation, NIH

Industry Representatives:
VP for Medical Affairs, Seqirus
VP of Vaccine Research, Merck

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

They did just have 2 people resign, right? Maybe because they knew it wouldn't get approved?

My understanding is they resigned because of the Biden Asministration's announcimg there should be boosters before waiting for the FDA Advisory committee opinion. I think they disagreed with offering boosters to everyone but I don't know that for sure. https://www.businessinsider.com/2-top-fda-officials-resigned-biden-booster-plan-reports-2021-9%3famp

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Obviously it's OK! Everyone makes their own decisions, and I understand why you feel hesitant. Frankly, I do, too. 

I used to think that everyone in the US was allowed to make their own decisions and would have to live with the consequences, but this country has started to turn topsy-turvy on me. I don't know if that is going to be the case much longer. 

I would frankly not be surprised if the out of the box thinkers in the White House would try to use the Houlahan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2022 to draft any citizen (within the limited ages) to help with the Covid (national) emergency response (medical training, teachers, even truck drivers). And that would require them to be vaccinated, too, since that will soon be required of most government employees & service members.  

Yes, my tin foil hat was definitely on for that last paragraph.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, for anyone who doesn't think political pressure from the WHO had anything to do with yesterday's decision, the anti-booster opinion piece that was published in the Lancet by the two FDA employees who resigned was coauthored by five members of the WHO as well as other coauthors from India, South Africa, Mexico, Jamaica, France, and the UK. 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

So I decided to look up the credentials of the members of the advisory committee — the vast majority are professors of pediatrics, not vaccine experts. Maybe that makes sense when the vaccines under review are designed for young children, but this committee was voting on boosters for adults (16+). Here are the credentials of the committee that just voted to restrict boosters to over 65s:

Professor of Pediatrics, Stanford Medical School
Professor of Pediatrics, Tufts Medical Center
Professor of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati Medical School
Professor of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Professor of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine
Dean, Chicago Medical School, (Specialty: Pediatrics)
Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University
Medical Director, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
Professor, Vaccine & Infectious Diseases Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Professor, Baylor College of Medicine (Specialty: Vaccines)
Associate Dean for Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine

Government Agency Representatives:
Director of Scientific Advisors, FDA
Designated Federal Officer, FDA
Committee Management Specialist, FDA
Chief Medical Officer, CDC
Director of Clinical Innovation, NIH

Industry Representatives:
VP for Medical Affairs, Seqirus
VP of Vaccine Research, Merck

Do you know which specialists voted for the boosters?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Do you know which specialists voted for the boosters?

Bill

No I've been looking for that information but haven't found it. I think it's ridiculous that so many are pediatric MDs though. And the VP of Merck* gets a vote??? Maybe they should have had some pulmonologists, cardiologists, and critical care specialists on the committee instead.

*(Merck is currently developing anti-covid drugs, btw, and would benefit from fewer Americans getting boosters)

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

There IS political pressure on the FDA — to NOT approve boosters. There is political pressure from the WHO, which has nothing to do with the efficacy of boosters. There is the perception of pressure from antivaxxers, in the sense that some committee members fear that approving a 3rd dose will further discourage anti-vaxxers. That also has nothing to do with the efficacy of boosters. 

There is a reason the committee is called an ADVISORY committee — they provide advice, they do not approve vaccines. The FDA staff then take that advice into account when deciding whether to approve something, but they are free to take other factors into account as well.

Wouldn't it have been weird though if the advisory committe advised against the eua, for example, and the executive branch (or whomever) authorized it for the general public anyway? 

There's also political pressure the other way, it seems to me, if the sentiment here is any indication. Their decision can't be entirely based on the WHO and anti-vaxxers can it? They did have to look at other stuff right?  We're saying 14 out of 16 people were somehow cowed by the WHO and a minority who don't/won't take the vaccine? I guess if that is true then the advisory committee is pretty useless. I wonder if approving the vaccine and before that the eua was also politically motivated. This is making me question a lot of assumptions I had about how vaccines are approved at all. I absolutely would not have taken the vaccine without the eua even if I could get one under the radar. I assumed, maybe wrongly, that they were taking all sorts of things into account like what a given does to us medically, what the risks and benefits are, etc. I assumed the same would be true for the 3rd dose. Now I don't know what to believe about the whole process if it's all just based on perception and international pressure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Also, for anyone who doesn't think political pressure from the WHO had anything to do with yesterday's decision, the anti-booster opinion piece that was published in the Lancet by the two FDA employees who resigned was coauthored by five members of the WHO as well as other coauthors from India, South Africa, Mexico, Jamaica, France, and the UK. 

Now I'm totally confused. These scientists agree with each other and some are from different countries so they are not credible? Or because some are members of the WHO? It seems like that would disqualify quite a few public health/vaccine/etc researchers from authoring anything or recommending anything at all.

I think the WHO did a pretty good job of discrediting itself right from the beginning but I don't know that means every researcher or scientist they have must be politically pressuring the fda or the cdc?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The advisory committee is not making a statement about the safety of a medication or approving a substance. 

I'm discussing going against fda/cdc recommendations and using a medication/getting a shot without it being fda approved.

So the advisory committee does not take safety into account when making their recommendations? I feel so dumb that I did not know all this. I thought it was like committee meets, fda takes their advice, issues approvals or disapprovals, but the committee was looking at all the things, safety, efficacy, necessity, etc. I didn't realize it was mostly a political thing for show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In trying to find who votes yes, I found this stated about the discussion surrounding whether to approve the boosters.

"They [committee members] were worried about the safety of the vaccine in younger people, and many said that the situation in Israel did not map to the one in the U.S."

Also, did anyone else read there was a non-committee member (speaker at the meeting) who tried to vote yes in the original question? That was interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

So I decided to look up the credentials of the members of the advisory committee — the vast majority are professors of pediatrics, not vaccine experts. Maybe that makes sense when the vaccines under review are designed for young children, but this committee was voting on boosters for adults (16+). Here are the credentials of the committee that just voted to restrict boosters to over 65s:

Professor of Pediatrics, Stanford Medical School
Professor of Pediatrics, Tufts Medical Center
Professor of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati Medical School
Professor of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Professor of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine
Dean, Chicago Medical School, (Specialty: Pediatrics)
Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University
Medical Director, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
Professor, Vaccine & Infectious Diseases Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Professor, Baylor College of Medicine (Specialty: Vaccines)
Associate Dean for Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine

Government Agency Representatives:
Director of Scientific Advisors, FDA
Designated Federal Officer, FDA
Committee Management Specialist, FDA
Chief Medical Officer, CDC
Director of Clinical Innovation, NIH

Industry Representatives:
VP for Medical Affairs, Seqirus
VP of Vaccine Research, Merck

I see this more as a list of titles of these individuals and not their credentials.  The titles seem to vary from med school to med school, but someone can be a professor of X (title) at a medical school without have the credential of being a medical doctor.  At some schools many people are listed as "professor of pediatrics" but that could range from a highly specialized MD working in cardiology to a PhD in nutritionist studying sugar in diets of children to someone with a degree in public health

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

I believe that boosters are warranted and intend to get one. If the recommendation is broad enough, or I can find a doctor who is flexible enough, I will also try to get boosters for my kids. Other people are free to make their own choices based on their own assessment of risks and benefits as well as their ability to access a provider who can accommodate their wishes.

It seems like you believe there must be a single black/white, right/wrong answer to this question, and you want someone to tell you what to do — or at least tell you which authority you should trust or whose advice you should take. But that's something you're just going to have to work out for yourself.

Well I usually go to my doctor and they have a vaccine schedule. They usually go by what the fda and cdc recommend. I'm not a medical expert or researcher. As a lay person I go to these people because they have years of training that I'm not ever likely going to get. Work out a good vaccine schedule for myself? That doesn't make any sense to me as a liberal arts major who has a lot of trouble with math, especially statistics. That's WHY I go to the doctor. Who in the world thinks it's a good idea to work out a vaccine schedule for themselves?? This is going to give so much ammo to people who think the cdc vax schedule is bunk and already don't want to give their kids their shots on schedule. Work it out for myself? You really think average people should be working out their own vax schedules for themselves and their kids?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I assumed, maybe wrongly, that they were taking all sorts of things into account like what a given does to us medically, what the risks and benefits are, etc. I assumed the same would be true for the 3rd dose.

They are certainly taking all that into account. Except that there's really no safety concern at the moment at all, so that's not the issue, and no one has said that it's the issue. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I see this more as a list of titles of these individuals and not their credentials.  The titles seem to vary from med school to med school, but someone can be a professor of X (title) at a medical school without have the credential of being a medical doctor.  At some schools many people are listed as "professor of pediatrics" but that could range from a highly specialized MD working in cardiology to a PhD in nutritionist studying sugar in diets of children to someone with a degree in public health

All but one of the professors is an MD; the other is a PhD biostatistician. A few also have public health degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Who in the world thinks it's a good idea to work out a vaccine schedule for themselves?? This is going to give so much ammo to people who think the cdc vax schedule is bunk and already don't want to give their kids their shots on schedule. Work it out for myself? You really think average people should be working out their own vax schedules for themselves and their kids?

Again, anti-vaxxers literally do NOT care what I think. I can't possibly give them ammo, because they don't need any. 

Look, if you don't have faith in your own ability to deal with the statistics, then I'm sure the FDA is a fine body to listen to. When I say it's politically motivated, I don't mean they are being corrupt or anything like that -- just that the data is dubious, all this requires some forward thinking, and I think they made the wrong call. But it's not, like, a call I don't understand. I just happen to think they are incorrect, and you're right that you have less reason to believe me than you do the FDA 🤷‍♀️

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Who in the world thinks it's a good idea to work out a vaccine schedule for themselves?? This is going to give so much ammo to people who think the cdc vax schedule is bunk and already don't want to give their kids their shots on schedule. Work it out for myself? You really think average people should be working out their own vax schedules for themselves and their kids?

NO ONE is suggesting that you or anyone else "should" work out your own vaccine schedule. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. If you trust your doctor and want to follow the CDC vaccine schedule, then you should do that! 

I did not follow the CDC recommended vaccine schedule because I have a child who was adopted from an orphanage and did not get any of the normal vaccines in the first 6 months, so after she came home I worked out a schedule to spread them out. My other child was born in the UK, which has a different vaccine schedule — because their scientists and their regulatory board made different decisions  — so I also spread out his vaccines when we moved to the US rather than catching him up all at once. I was comfortable doing that.

YOU should do what YOU are comfortable with, and follow the advice of people YOU trust.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

I'm also feeling this a bit. 

 

9 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

If you trust your doctor and want to follow the CDC vaccine schedule, then you should do that! 

Right. It's a perfectly fine schedule and I basically respect the CDC! It's just that it's been kind of lumbering and bureaucratic in this pandemic instead of being nimble and flexible, and same for the FDA. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

They are certainly taking all that into account. Except that there's really no safety concern at the moment at all, so that's not the issue, and no one has said that it's the issue. 

Exactly. There is ZERO evidence that the 3rd shot causes more adverse events than the first two. In fact the stats were almost identical for the booster and the 2nd shot — it was something like 60% experienced fatigue, 50% headaches, and 40% muscle aches. The one difference was fever — there was a significantly lower incidence of fever with the booster. There is also no evidence of increased risk of myocarditis vs the original shots. There was a single case in Israel out of nearly 3 million booster doses, but the committee said they weren't sure than was enough data to know for certain. So how many people are going to develop myocarditis when they catch covid due to waning immunity?

I feel like they're failing to see the forest for the trees. They are hyper focused on hospitalizations and deaths while ignoring the risks of increased transmission, ignoring the risks of increased long covid and other long-term issues (including myocarditis), and ignoring the impact that even moderate illness (sick enough to miss a lot of work but not sick enough to be hospitalized) will have on working Americans who often live paycheck to paycheck. I'm sure taking a couple of weeks off is NBD if you're a med school professor at Stanford or U Chicago or Duke, but there are a lot of Americans for whom that would be catastrophic.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

It's a perfectly fine schedule and I basically respect the CDC! It's just that it's been kind of lumbering and bureaucratic in this pandemic instead of being nimble and flexible, and same for the FDA. 

This. There are times when being super slow and deliberate and over-the-top cautious is a fine approach. The middle of a pandemic that has killed 670,000 Americans so far, and is currently killing another 1600 every day, is not that time.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Again, anti-vaxxers literally do NOT care what I think. I can't possibly give them ammo, because they don't need any. 

Look, if you don't have faith in your own ability to deal with the statistics, then I'm sure the FDA is a fine body to listen to. When I say it's politically motivated, I don't mean they are being corrupt or anything like that -- just that the data is dubious, all this requires some forward thinking, and I think they made the wrong call. But it's not, like, a call I don't understand. I just happen to think they are incorrect, and you're right that you have less reason to believe me than you do the FDA 🤷‍♀️

I don't have faith in my own ability to deal with statistics, that is my whole point! That's why I get my shots on a schedule from the cdc with fda approved vaccines. I guess I am under some kind of rock because if someone I know is differing from the cdc schedule, if I know about it at all, it's because they're reading Dr. Sears non-science based vax schedule, not because they've evaluated the myriad studies themselves about each vax.

Anti-vaxxers very much care what is happening with all this. They are gaining credibility in corners where they had none before. They are going to make their choices regardless, but they are very much looking at what's happening here with the cdc, the fda, what people are doing. They see people making individual choices, working it out for themselves as it were, and that's exactly what they advocate for.


You can persuade some people who are reluctant to vax but aren't anti-vax, I know this to be true in my own life (not for myself, just in case that needed to be said). But the more illogical and convoluted things seem, the less likely that is. I can think of at least one example of this off the top of my head, and there are likely others.  It's on the news that the fda advisory panel has not recommended boosters for under 65s. If it gets approved anyway and then people try to enforce 3 shots as fully vaxxed, there is definitely credibility lost.

I honestly feel like, after reading a lot of this discussion, that I don't know what to think about a lot of this anymore. I read a lot of news. I have never gotten the idea until now that the fda advisory process would be influenced primarily by the WHO or anti-vax sentiment.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BronzeTurtle said:

Anti-vaxxers very much care what is happening with all this. They are gaining credibility in corners where they had none before. They are going to make their choices regardless, but they are very much looking at what's happening here with the cdc, the fda, what people are doing. They see people making individual choices, working it out for themselves as it were, and that's exactly what they advocate for.

I know they are gaining credibility, but trust me, it’s not because of the vanishingly small subset of people who are reading the studies.

 

1 minute ago, BronzeTurtle said:

If it gets approved anyway and then people try to enforce 3 shots as fully vaxxed, there is definitely credibility lost.

Who’s gonna enforce this??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

NO ONE is suggesting that you or anyone else "should" work out your own vaccine schedule. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. If you trust your doctor and want to follow the CDC vaccine schedule, then you should do that! 

I did not follow the CDC recommended vaccine schedule because I have a child who was adopted from an orphanage and did not get any of the normal vaccines in the first 6 months, so after she came home I worked out a schedule to spread them out. My other child was born in the UK, which has a different vaccine schedule — because their scientists and their regulatory board made different decisions  — so I also spread out his vaccines when we moved to the US rather than catching him up all at once. I was comfortable doing that.

YOU should do what YOU are comfortable with, and follow the advice of people YOU trust.

No need to shout. I simply misinterpreted what you meant in the previous post. I quoted the relevant bit below just because I also feel a bit like I'm finding circles in all of this discussion as well. I thought that's what you meant when you said I'm going to have to work it out for myself, given that many people here are working out a covid vaccine schedule for themselves. I am very obviously not an expert here and you clearly have years of training given your ability to decide for your kids their best spacing and schedules. I'm not similarly equipped or knowledgable. I would have no idea how to create a vaccine schedule for a child who is behind absent a doctor telling me the best way to do it. I feel like it would take me years to acquire that training.

I'm so sorry to frustrate you all. I have a lot of things that I'm reading that seem to conflict. You all seem so sure of yourselves that getting a 3rd shot is the right thing to do no matter what any approval body might say. This is only one corner of the internet I'm on, so I have to say it's not something I've found commonly but I suppose it depends on where one lives and who one talks to. I wish you all well, sincerely.

 

It seems like you believe there must be a single black/white, right/wrong answer to this question, and you want someone to tell you what to do — or at least tell you which authority you should trust or whose advice you should take. But that's something you're just going to have to work out for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I know they are gaining credibility, but trust me, it’s not because of the vanishingly small subset of people who are reading the studies.

 

Who’s gonna enforce this??

It's not that subset specifically. It's about people not trusting the cdc, or at least that is what I was trying to speak to.

Okay, really, I'll go now. I appreciate all the feedback and attempts to set me straight on some of this. I don't claim to understand a lot of the opinions, but I appreciate the conversation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Now I'm totally confused. These scientists agree with each other and some are from different countries so they are not credible? Or because some are members of the WHO? It seems like that would disqualify quite a few public health/vaccine/etc researchers from authoring anything or recommending anything at all.

They agree that the US should not do boosters because they want the US to donate all those doses to the WHO's COVAX program.

If you were debating whether to have a medical procedure, and a bunch of your relatives say you shouldn't have it — because they think you should give the money to them instead — does the fact that they agree you should give the money to them mean the medical procedure is ineffective or unnecessary?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

They agree that the US should not do boosters because they want the US to donate all those doses to the WHO's COVAX program.

If you were debating whether to have a medical procedure, and a bunch of your relatives say you shouldn't have it — because they think you should give the money to them instead — does the fact that they agree you should give the money to them mean the medical procedure is ineffective or unnecessary?

I didn't leave, not a surprise, because I forgot to turn off notifications.

But it's a bit different right? Than what you're saying? Because stopping or slowing global transmission is beneficial to me long term, whereas if someone else gets my donated knee surgery, I just don't get any benefit from someone else having a knee surgery that I can't have. Also, if I'm in a wealthy enough situation (as the US is) I can just buy another surgery, right, maybe a bit later? 

Isn't this exactly what equity is about? Are we only concerned about US deaths? That's an interesting proposition actually. Are other countries donating? Is global transmission in developming nations not a concern? What about variants? I'll have to think on this.

Edited by BronzeTurtle
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Anti-vaxxers very much care what is happening with all this. They are gaining credibility in corners where they had none before. They are going to make their choices regardless, but they are very much looking at what's happening here with the cdc, the fda, what people are doing. They see people making individual choices, working it out for themselves as it were, and that's exactly what they advocate for.

Antivaxxers think vaccines contain microchips and dead babies, make you magnetic and sterile, and are the Mark of the Beast. A handful of people on a homeschooling board opining that the FDA made a mistake will not embolden a single antivaxxer. 

 

19 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

It's on the news that the fda advisory panel has not recommended boosters for under 65s. If it gets approved anyway and then people try to enforce 3 shots as fully vaxxed, there is definitely credibility lost.

There's no way the FDA will totally ignore the committee and approve boosters for everyone. I'm hoping they will include some vague language like "people over 65 and others at increased risk," which will leave room for interpretation that people who are obese or have high blood pressure or are essential workers with a lot of public contact, etc., could technically qualify. I don't think there's much chance they would go any further than that.

 

19 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I honestly feel like, after reading a lot of this discussion, that I don't know what to think about a lot of this anymore. I read a lot of news. I have never gotten the idea until now that the fda advisory process would be influenced primarily by the WHO or anti-vax sentiment.

Well members of the committee have literally said out loud that they think approving boosters for everyone will discourage antivaxxers from getting the shot and that they think we shouldn't do boosters when other countries haven't had first shots. I mean, those aren't things we're just guessing at or trying to read between the lines; they've come right out and said it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Isn't this exactly what equity is about? Are we only concerned about US deaths? That's an interesting proposition actually. Are other countries donating? Is global transmission in developming nations not a concern?

The US has pledged to donate more than half a billion doses — more than the entire EU combined. And those are Pfizer doses, not crap like Sinovax or Sputnik. For the WHO to insist that the US should stop protecting their own citizens and donate an additional 200 million doses to COVAX, on top of what we've already pledged, is unreasonable IMO.

The main bottleneck with getting vaccines to poor countries is that most of the vaccine manufacturers that the WHO contracted with to supply vaccines for COVAX are in India, and India banned exports and decided to keep all the vaccines for themselves. And there have been many cases where tens of thousands of vaccines that were donated to poor countries ended up being wasted because they simply didn't have the infrastructure and staff necessary to carry out an intensive nationwide vaccine campaign. It's not the rich greedy US that's keeping the rest of the world from getting vaxxed.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The US has pledged to donate more than half a billion doses — more than the entire EU combined. And those are Pfizer doses, not crap like Sinovax or Sputnik. For the WHO to insist that the US should stop protecting their own citizens and donate an additional 200 million doses to COVAX, on top of what we've already pledged, is unreasonable IMO.

The main bottleneck with getting vaccines to poor countries is that most of the vaccine manufacturers that the WHO contracted with to supply vaccines for COVAX are in India, and India banned exports and decided to keep all the vaccines for themselves. And there have been many cases where tens of thousands of vaccines that were donated to poor countries ended up being wasted because they simply didn't have the infrastructure and staff necessary to carry out an intensive nationwide vaccine campaign. It's not the rich greedy US that's keeping the rest of the world from getting vaxxed.

Infrastructure is a huge deal. We have friends in D.O.B., and that is the issue where they are serving. They do the best they can to get folks vaccinated, but imagine the logistics when there are hundreds and thousands of square miles without ANY medical infrastructure at all, and you and your underfunded, tiny staffed NGO are trying to reach folks. It is a staggering task and far more vaccine goes to waste than gets distributed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I'm discussing going against fda/cdc recommendations and using a medication/getting a shot without it being fda approved.

So the advisory committee does not take safety into account when making their recommendations? I feel so dumb that I did not know all this. I thought it was like committee meets, fda takes their advice, issues approvals or disapprovals, but the committee was looking at all the things, safety, efficacy, necessity, etc. I didn't realize it was mostly a political thing for show.

There is a HUGE difference between hypothetically approving something that isn't safe vs saying something is safe, but they don't think it is necessary (yet).  They are being uber cautious, which does not mean they would approve things without thinking it was safe - in fact it means the opposite. 

And none of us are second guessing what they are saying about the safety or efficacy of the vaccines. The FDA has accepted that they are safe and do increase immunity - so we really are NOT arguing with them about that, or doubting them. We who are pro booster are in agreement with them as to the safety and efficacy of it. We just disagree on if it that increased immunity is worth the financial and political cost of having everyone get boosters. 

That is VERY different than if they had said that these boosters were not helpful, didn't improve immunity, were probably dangerous, etc and then we all said, "nope, you lie they are fantastic". 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

That is VERY different than if they had said that these boosters were not helpful, didn't improve immunity, were probably dangerous, etc and then we all said, "nope, you lie they are fantastic". 

Right. Whereas the data suggests that they are effective and safe. 

DH said he read the meeting minutes and they basically discounted the Israeli data because it's not peer-reviewed yet 😕 . I don't see why they couldn't have done some kind of review process themselves... that seems so arrogant. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

India’s DNA vaccine is going to be rolled out soon if not already. It’s 67% effective but it’s a first for DNA.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02385-x
 

@Corraleno My understanding is that there is some slight concern about myocarditis, that it’s occurring in 1 out of 1,000 (data gathered from an academic setting), which is higher than what VAERS showed. The myocarditis is manageable and clears up, though, and is far better than damage from a Covid infection. Have you read about this? Thoughts?

Btw, regarding mild to moderate infections, damage has been observed in brain tissue with no virus present in the tissue. So it appears Covid is capable of doing significant damage without actually entering the brain. This was a study done on brains of deceased individuals aged 5 to 70s.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

State of Affairs: Sept 19, 2021 - by Katelyn Jetelina - Your Local Epidemiologist (substack.com)

Right before I hit send, my phone buzzed with some amazing breaking news!! Pfizer just announced promising results for the pediatric (5-11 years) vaccine and will submit their EUA application soon. A pediatric vaccine should come by Halloween!!! Haven’t had time to process the data yet…will of course fill you in with a post. But I’m just so excited. This pandemic will, in fact, end.

 

Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Positive Topline Results From Pivotal Trial of COVID-19 Vaccine in Children 5 to 11 Years | Pfizer

 

 

Pfizer, BioNTech Say Vaccine Is Safe for Young Children (msn.com)

 

Pfizer said a review of data for 2,268 children in the trial showed that those who received two 10 microgram doses had antibody levels one month after the second dose similar to those found in people aged 16 to 25 years who received 30 microgram doses in a separate Pfizer study.

There appeared to be fewer side effects such as fever and chills among younger children who got the vaccine compared with 16-25 year olds, according to Pfizer. There also were no cases of myocarditis, an inflammatory heart condition that has so far been found to be a rare side effect primarily in young men.

Edited by mommyoffive
  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

State of Affairs: Sept 19, 2021 - by Katelyn Jetelina - Your Local Epidemiologist (substack.com)

Right before I hit send, my phone buzzed with some amazing breaking news!! Pfizer just announced promising results for the pediatric (5-11 years) vaccine and will submit their EUA application soon. A pediatric vaccine should come by Halloween!!! Haven’t had time to process the data yet…will of course fill you in with a post. But I’m just so excited. This pandemic will, in fact, end.

 

Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Positive Topline Results From Pivotal Trial of COVID-19 Vaccine in Children 5 to 11 Years | Pfizer

 

 

Pfizer, BioNTech Say Vaccine Is Safe for Young Children (msn.com)

 

Pfizer said a review of data for 2,268 children in the trial showed that those who received two 10 microgram doses had antibody levels one month after the second dose similar to those found in people aged 16 to 25 years who received 30 microgram doses in a separate Pfizer study.

There appeared to be fewer side effects such as fever and chills among younger children who got the vaccine compared with 16-25 year olds, according to Pfizer. There also were no cases of myocarditis, an inflammatory heart condition that has so far been found to be a rare side effect primarily in young men.

Ooooh, that's great!! I'm so glad about the fact there are fewer side effects... it was looking like the side effects got worse and worse as the recipients got younger, so I'm delighted that doesn't hold for the little ones. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Ooooh, that's great!! I'm so glad about the fact there are fewer side effects... it was looking like the side effects got worse and worse as the recipients got younger, so I'm delighted that doesn't hold for the little ones. 

 

Probably fewer side effects because of the much lower dosage. Maybe they will revise dosing for 12-24 year old males.  I could see 20 micrograms being the sweet spot.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...