Wow. That’s a lot of irrelevant informattion in regards to vaccine efficacy. Seems much more like using past issues to muddy the water and get more people killed.
Yes, when 90% of the hospitalized cases nationwide are of unvaccinated, it’s totally logical to pretend that it’s the vaccinated that are the biggest issue and not, oh, say this nonsense.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/27/ozarks-lake-covid-unvaccinated-500784
You’ll be that guy looking for a lawyer in 5 years against a company that lied to you. But hey, you do you.
So much hard evidence for your nonsense that all you have is “You’ll see, in a few years something something you’ll be sorry”
The first link is 2 journalists talking, the second is based on the EUA submission (I was reading it, that why I was delayed). It was released based on some short term studies, the numbers that the CDC cite seem from that paper though it hasn’t been fully reviewed.
Here’s the story of thalidomide. It had gone through clinicals but it was later discovered there was a flaw in the study. It’s one of the reasons why they put the drug review process in place.
~https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation
You do understand that it was rushed for a reason, right? You do recall what happened last year, correct?
And I mean this WITHOUT the politics that distracted us: you do understand how many deaths occurred from all of this last year, right?
Because sometimes I think people don’t try to think in those terms.
I’m assuming you have never read The Stand. That book didn’t scare me for years. However, it does now.
Yes, because it was effective at what it did, but they didn’t test it on pregnant women where it caused birth defects. The vaccines are going through rigorous scientific testing, and much of the FDA approval process has been gone through, but as part of it is time based that’s why it’s a few months out from being able to get it. And we see that it’s not just darts thrown at a board like the various quackeries promoted by right wing politicians who ignored science to try and shore up their political power by appearing to come up with cures. Different national agencies are evaluating the various vaccines and only approving certain varieties that meet their criteria, as well as staggering approval for age groups as they undergo further testing.
I think there’s only one that’s been fully submitted and one due next month, I believe it’ll be the 1st mRNA vaccine approved. They actually noted that they tested Thalidomide on pregnant women in the article, the error was they didn’t follow up where they would have noted an increase in birth defects. Similarly, the Covid vaccine was released based on initial results, the data was incomplete at the time of the EUA and is unreviewed and unapproved at the time of this discussion.
You know they’re getting way more data during this than most drugs do? I mean, they shut down J&J over a potential blood clot issue that was apparently much lower than some birth control drugs.
And the cdc is getting much of this info on side effects directly.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vsafe.html
They were released in a state before we answered some questions and the full audit. Granted, if there were an extreme reaction noted they would have likely pulled the vaccines like with J&J but until the submission has gone through the full review it’s still an investigational drug. They’re likely to review hard since the technology is new for release.
EDIT CDC still lists J&J as available, in fact they extended the shelf life just a day ago. It looks like it was a contamination issue that led to the shutdown, assuming it’s the same event.
~https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/07/29/johnson-johnson-vaccine-fda-emergent/
Oh, they had a link to it in the same article. Looks like it was only suspended 9 days to review the data.
~https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/13/johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-blood-clots/?itid=lk_inline_manual_19
Yes, there was a concern, it was halted for a week or two while they reviewed the facts, then put back up when they figured out what the issue was.
Yeah, I saw that at the end of the article and edited my post. They are monitoring the situation but there are still some questions they’ll likely need to answer before final approval given it’s emerging technology. It’s more the government making the call when the agency would not have otherwise approved its marketing that concerns me. They voted in a loophole and applied it, not a good precedent.
Hopefully we dodge the bullet, Pfizer is a big company and are competent at drug discovery. I was laid off by a company that Pfizer later bought, first thing to go is R&D when they’re trying to sell profitability. I was working on a project, engineering had designed it and began manufacturing and distribution using some existing patents. It was also emergency use authorized based on QC testing but there was a flaw in the study design. It had some serious problems when we tested it in R&D. They continued distribution for over a year and a half after we discovered it didn’t work as advertised. It kind of worked but I don’t think I can talk in much more detail than that.
Point being, EUA doesn’t mean the drugs are safe nor effective. The government shouldn’t step in except in enforcing regulations designed to ensure a safe and effective drug supply.
I’d say it’s more that EUA shows that they seem safe and effective in tests to this point. It isn’t just Dr. Nick’s latest treatment he pulled out of thin air, it has to have met some significant hurdles before it can get that authorization. And from what I understand, right now the main thing holding up FDA approval is requirements that are time based.
Also, again, these are probably some of the most scrutinized treatments in history, we’re all watching everything that is going on, the regulators are clearly closely monitoring the vaccines and have shown, at least in the US that they are willing to step in and stop usage if something shows up.
It’s probably mostly safe. My mom died but I just got a sore arm, it worries me that maybe there was an answer that they didn’t know in March which might have saved her. That’s why I’m grumpy about the situation. The vaccine program does have its issues but I trust the FDA and believe they are monitoring the roll out. I think it was a big risk to vaccinate en masse with an unapproved drug but would not venture a guess as to whether the cure is worse than the disease as I proposed earlier. Maybe something we can answer in hind sight.
It’s just a bigger risk to not vaccinate, it’s a respiratory disease that spreads pretty easily, and increasingly contagious. I’m pretty worried about what’s coming up as these things tend to be seasonal and some of the curves we’re seeing are a little steeper looking than the ones from the last surge in August of last year. I mean, if you look at the flu pandemic that happened at the end of WWI, it came back worse and killed more people, including ones who overcame it the prior year, in a second year.
And you have my condolences for your mother.
Sorry to bring her up but I felt you needed to understand my PoV better. She had a preexisting condition that weakened her so it wasn’t the vaccine directly but she didn’t survive the reaction. I’m not trying to play the sympathy card but thank you for your thoughts.
I get where you’re coming from, not everyone is able to take a vaccine for various reasons. That’s one of the reasons why healthy people should vaccinate, is that high rates help shield the people who can’t get them.
This is why I took the vaccine despite my concerns.
The article linked was from the MSM, as some of those posting here insist that all of the news in the MSM is fake I’m linking the section about the Massachusetts outbreak in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report the article was referring to.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w
facts:
The lack of history in the use of these particular kinds of vaccines is not because of the companies involved, it is simply because it is new technology.
It is well established that the spread can, and dose, go both ways.
Not sure what point the second half of your sentence is trying to make.