Jump to content

More good news on the vaccine front


Recommended Posts

In a minor bit of good news, Pfizer had been running a trail using their mRNA vaccine on kids 12 to 16. They just released trial results indicating it's safe. The announcement pre-dates published and reviewed data so, it's going to be a while before the FDA approves it for use in the US. Small trial size of around 3000 kids. Minor and typical side effects. Pfizer has not released data on how the kids' immune systems responded. 

Still, this is good news. Doomsayers have been bemoaning the difficulty in achieving herd immunity when kids under 16, who can become infected, be generally asymptomatic but still spread the virus, aren't being vaccinated. They can sit down now and be quiet.

Just a gut feeling but back in March of 2020, all the models were predicting pandemic outcomes that were never obtained. Science didn't know much about SARS2 then so, OK. We do know a lot more now but morons within the scientific and medical community with disparate agendas are still talking doom. Take the doomsday talk in but carefully evaluate what is being said and put it in context. We're doing fine and moving to the endpoints I mentioned in a post yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JeffB said:

In a minor bit of good news, Pfizer had been running a trail using their mRNA vaccine on kids 12 to 16. They just released trial results indicating it's safe. The announcement pre-dates published and reviewed data so, it's going to be a while before the FDA approves it for use in the US. Small trial size of around 3000 kids. Minor and typical side effects. Pfizer has not released data on how the kids' immune systems responded. 

Still, this is good news. Doomsayers have been bemoaning the difficulty in achieving herd immunity when kids under 16, who can become infected, be generally asymptomatic but still spread the virus, aren't being vaccinated. They can sit down now and be quiet.

Just a gut feeling but back in March of 2020, all the models were predicting pandemic outcomes that were never obtained. Science didn't know much about SARS2 then so, OK. We do know a lot more now but morons within the scientific and medical community with disparate agendas are still talking doom. Take the doomsday talk in but carefully evaluate what is being said and put it in context. We're doing fine and moving to the endpoints I mentioned in a post yesterday.

I'd like to see more data on that (I'm sure it's out there but there's nothing on the Pfizer site about it).  I see that those in the vaccine group had zero covid case (great of course) but the positivity rate among the placebo group was still only 1.5%.

I'm also curious about the severity of those that got covid in the placebo group. Were they symptomatic at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

I'd like to see more data on that.  Were they symptomatic at all?

This.

The press release lacking any data points is understandable. As I recall Pfizer did the same sort of preliminary press release thing when the trials of their mRNA vaccines were completed. The actual trial data was released about two weeks later. Then the FDA took about a month to complete their review facing a lot of pressure to issue the EUA.

I also recall that when the AZ vaccines were in this circumstance they released preliminary data and NAIAID (Fauci's show) questioned the validity of it. Whatever NIAAID was worried about should not have been made public, especially what it turned out they were worried about (10ths of percentage points). It may have been leaked by interested parties in doing vaccine damage.

Regardless, just another example of poor insight and a broad understanding of statement impacts coming from the faces of our public health policy. Given the probability that there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of the US population who will refuse to get vaccinated for various reasons, some good, some not so good, this kind of thing has the potential of wrongly increasing that pool and gives anti-vaxers more fuel for their fire. Think it through people. 

Anyway, the prelims are good news. Getting the study report containing the data points will be much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

I'd like to see more data on that (I'm sure it's out there but there's nothing on the Pfizer site about it).  I see that those in the vaccine group had zero covid case (great of course) but the positivity rate among the placebo group was still only 1.5%.

I'm also curious about the severity of those that got covid in the placebo group. Were they symptomatic at all?

This would make sense with what my 14 year old's high school has observed.  He has been attending since Sept and although there have been some cases, it has not been a whole lot - very few symptoms in those who did get it.  The reality is that this is not really a group we need to worry about based on the actual case data.

I know we need studies to confirm, but I believe at the end of the day it will be shown that non symptomatic cases generally do not transmit to others because they are not carrying enough viral load. With all things medical, there will always be exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll use COVID data from FL yesterday to illustrate how important it is to contextualize that data. As word11 notes above, the reality is this is not a group (school age kids) we need to worry about ...."

  • New case numbers are up as they are in many states that, like FL, still had a lot of circulating virus even when numbers were trending downward up until two weeks ago. FL is unique in that there has been a large inflow of visitors to the state, especially in S.FL. That new cases haven't jumped off the charts is noteworthy.
  • Positivity is up to 6.7%. It had gotten down to as low as 4.8%. So, yes, there is circulating SARS-2 virus in FL..... there is circulating virus ALL THE TIME and we're not shutting things down over that.
  • 79% of new cases are in the under 65 age group with the biggest percentages of new cases in the 15-34yo range. Over 65s as a group account for just 6%. Under 15 accounts for the rest or about 13%
  • Deaths are stable, hospitalizations are down, ED visits for ILI and CLI are down. This is a clear indication that the virus is no where near as dangerous a it was a year ago and as vaccines continue to roll-out.
  • Upwards of 80% of health care and nursing home staff, first responders and over 65s have received at least one dose of a vaccine. This cohort has been generally rendered safe. 

It does not take a rocket scientist to make rational conclusions based on this data. Here are mine:

  • Most of the 79%'ers are suffering a common cold at worst or are asymptomatic. I don't think we should be concerned about this cohort as no effort whatsoever is made to protect anyone from catching the common cold or influenza. School age kids who get infected are around 98% asymptomatic. 
  • For states that made a concerted effort to prioritize vaccines to the most vulnerable, I can mount a solid argument that both vaccinated, recovered under 65s and unvaccinated under 50s, without other risk factors for COVID complications, can do pretty much what they want taking basic precautions - and in that I would include wearing a mask indoors in public spaces and avoiding congregate settings where social distancing can't be maintained.
  • The rest of the US either doesn't have circulating virus to be concerned about or are in a similar situation to that of FL.

I just don't get the defective and increasingly irrelevant PH guidance and this continuing drum beat of rising case numbers. We're at a point where that kind of data is pretty much useless in a circumstance where vaccines are becoming widely available. Starting yesterday, in FL, if you're 18 or over, you can get the shot. There's plenty of vaccine availability and plenty of places to sign up to register for an appointment and get the shot. The cost of waiting around for more certainty about this and that is just stupid..... and dangerous:

  • Car-jackings by teenagers who are generally out of school and unsupervised during the day are up 300% in some cities.
  • Gun violence, well, all you have to do is tune in to your local news, is out of control.
  • Fentanyl OD is up all over the country and not by small amounts.
  • Child abuse is up - and that's not just recently. It's been surging since last July.

But, yeah, sure, lets just wait for absolute certainty on vaccines, vaccine side effects, all of the pandemic related "science" before we start encouraging people to return to normal activities in ways that incur the lowest risk of catching the virus or spreading it if you do. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, wordell1 said:

The reality is that [school-age kids are] not really a group we need to worry about based on the actual case data.

This may be true from the perspective of potential spread and risk to the general community. But there are starting to be reports of a large number of kids in this cohort who contracted Covid, had only very mild symptoms, but are showing indications of long-haul Covid or other long-term negative health effects. Things like asthma, "brain fog", the bizarre issue with toes that turn blue (indicating circulatory problems), and more.

The disease isn't fatal in kids, and it's rarely severe. And for whatever reason, kids are much less likely to spread it. But they are still vulnerable and at risk of long-term health problems that will impact them for way longer, on multiple levels, than any person in their 40s or 50s. My 20-year old daughter caught it and was lucky to have a very mild case with no apparent after-effects. As a singer and performing artist, her post-college career would have been DOA if Covid had done any major / lasting damage to her lungs. My 17-year old has asthma and was lucky enough to get fully vaccinated last month; I'm very relieved, as she could have been totally wrecked if she got infected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm generally in agreement with you, JLMoran. People who have actually experienced serious illness form COVID or had a friend or relative in that group or worse, someone who died secondary to COVID, have a completely justifiable bias for caution. 

About a month ago when I was writing about this stuff, I listed the probabilities of events like serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident, dying from cancer, a whole bunch of them that I can't recall, compared to the probability of serious complications or death from becoming infected with SARS-2. Most of these bad outcomes had higher probabilities of occurring than serious illness from SARS2.

My thinking was not meant to diminish the terrible impact on humanity of this pandemic but rather to take comparisons to ground and demonstrate that the social and economic costs of heavy handed mitigation measures were not justified by the benefits obtained from them. 

To be clear, I have for along time been an advocate of reopening schools. Not willy-nilly re-opening but doing it safely with all the mitigation measures we understand that work in that environment as part of re-opening. So, I admit a bias less cautious about all of this than some. YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I moved during the pandemic from a lockdown state.  It took me several days to realize there were kids walking somewhere every morning, riding their bikes somewhere, playing outside before it dawned on me... "They're going to SCHOOL!".

Months later and no major outbreaks announced.

I appreciate there are some young and old that are hit with lasting effects that are difficult to understand or even count and I have lost family members from the virus.

I also believe there will be lasting impacts to keeping our children uneducated and unsocialized.  These are equally difficult to categorize and calculate what the lasting impacts will be not only to our children but for the country in the years ahead.  

Initially I did think closing schools was the right call given how little we knew a year ago.  At this point I think keeping schools closed is doing more harm than good even if all virus risk hasn't been fully discovered and accurately quantified.

Remote learning doesn't work very well and has very little socialization rewards.  My kids are grown so I'm not faced with making the decision but if I was I think I would call for schools to open and send my kids.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree - initial closure to figure out what's going on makes sense.  But once you figure it out, put mitigation processes in place, protect those at greatest risk then  move on to normal ops.  At least in our area, parents had the choice of face-to-face or on-line.   We're now seeing that the on line students did not do as well as those who continued to meet F2F. Fortunately more are going back now.  My daughter teaches at a college and noted the incoming freshman  are not ready.  They've had to increase the amount of remedial content to get a larger population up to the right level.

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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...