Coronavirus news

[RogerMartim]

I still don't understand why there is resistance to the vaccine. It is estimated that as many as 20,000,000 lives have been saved. I guess it is still this Me, Myself and I crap.

[Charles Austin]

No, Roger Martim, it’s the odd truth that some people don’t want to do something just because they don’t like the people telling them to do it. And people with perverse political leanings ganged up on those telling us about the vaccines.

[peter_speckhard]

I still don't understand why there is resistance to the vaccine. It is estimated that as many as 20,000,000 lives have been saved. I guess it is still this Me, Myself and I crap.

"I still don't understand. I guess it is crap." Hmmm. You're right to admit you don't understand. You're wrong to leap to an especially silly guess.

[Brian Stoffregen]

For both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines, the data from the CDC always indicated that the vaccines were not perfect and you could still be infected with SARS-CoV-2 after you were vaccinated.  I don't recall the CDC or the vaccine companies ever claiming that the vaccine was permanent - I even remember very early discussion of how likely it was that it would or would not be.

On the other hand, if you listened uncritically to politicians or the media, you would have quickly gotten the impression that the vaccines were nearly perfect.

The body of evidence for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was primarily informed by one large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II/III clinical trial that enrolled >43,000 participants (median age = 52 years, range = 16–91 years) (5,6). Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was 95.0% effective (95% confidence interval = 90.3%–97.6%) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.Although numbers of observed hospitalizations and deaths were low, the available data were consistent with reduced risk for these severe outcomes among vaccinated persons compared with that among placebo recipients.

The body of evidence for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was primarily informed by one large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trial that enrolled approximately 30,000 participants aged 18–95 years (median = 52 years) (6–9). Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine efficacy after 2 doses was 94.1% (95% confidence interval = 89.3%–96.8%) in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was the primary study endpoint. High efficacy (≥86%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Ten hospitalizations due to COVID-19 were documented; nine in the placebo group and one in the vaccine group (9). Preliminary data suggest that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine might also provide some protection against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (7).

Oops.  Edited because I forgot the link on the second quote.

Which is why we should listen to the scientists (in the field being studied) rather than the politicians. It seems that they seldom keep their campaign promises. Or, in other words, they stretch the truth to get people to vote for them.

[peter_speckhard]

For both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines, the data from the CDC always indicated that the vaccines were not perfect and you could still be infected with SARS-CoV-2 after you were vaccinated.  I don't recall the CDC or the vaccine companies ever claiming that the vaccine was permanent - I even remember very early discussion of how likely it was that it would or would not be.

On the other hand, if you listened uncritically to politicians or the media, you would have quickly gotten the impression that the vaccines were nearly perfect.

The body of evidence for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was primarily informed by one large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II/III clinical trial that enrolled >43,000 participants (median age = 52 years, range = 16–91 years) (5,6). Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was 95.0% effective (95% confidence interval = 90.3%–97.6%) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.Although numbers of observed hospitalizations and deaths were low, the available data were consistent with reduced risk for these severe outcomes among vaccinated persons compared with that among placebo recipients.

The body of evidence for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was primarily informed by one large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trial that enrolled approximately 30,000 participants aged 18–95 years (median = 52 years) (6–9). Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine efficacy after 2 doses was 94.1% (95% confidence interval = 89.3%–96.8%) in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was the primary study endpoint. High efficacy (≥86%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Ten hospitalizations due to COVID-19 were documented; nine in the placebo group and one in the vaccine group (9). Preliminary data suggest that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine might also provide some protection against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (7).

Oops.  Edited because I forgot the link on the second quote.

Which is why we should listen to the scientists (in the field being studied) rather than the politicians. It seems that they seldom keep their campaign promises. Or, in other words, they stretch the truth to get people to vote for them.

Which scientists? The ones the politicians point us to or the ones they silence?

[Charles Austin]

We make our decisions about scientists, Peter. And we base much upon them.
   You say your guys got the real deal.
   I think my gals and guys are getting it right; and I may think your guys are inept, slackers, fools or blindly driven by a perverse ideology and should not be believed.
   Or maybe your guys are just nice, hard-working, well-meaning scientists who unfortunately aren't that skilled or up to date with their test tubes, petri dishes and Bunsen burners.
   Just like our various theologians, right?


 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Which scientists? The ones the politicians point us to or the ones they silence?

The ones I'm willing to trust with my life. Primary is my primary physician. (If I don't like what he says, I would seek a second opinion.


I have more confidence in the experts who have nothing to gain by their opinions based on the science.

[MaddogLutheran]

The ones I'm willing to trust with my life. Primary is my primary physician. (If I don't like what he says, I would seek a second opinion.

My mother did that.  It turned out be a mistake.  It cost her her life, by way of a painful death.  Sometimes the problem is that the issue doesn't seem like it requires a second opinion, until it's too late.

I have more confidence in the experts who have nothing to gain by their opinions based on the science.

You obviously haven't been listening to what others here have been saying:  it's wrong to assume experts have nothing to gain by their opinions.  Being an expert doesn't make one necessarily altruistic.  The potential for corruption is universal.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The ones I'm willing to trust with my life. Primary is my primary physician. (If I don't like what he says, I would seek a second opinion.

My mother did that.  It turned out be a mistake.  It cost her her life, by way of a painful death.  Sometimes the problem is that the issue doesn't seem like it requires a second opinion, until it's too late.

My mother died last February. Could steps have been taken earlier to prevent it? Probably. We can't change the past. My brothers and I made the best decisions we could have with the information we had at the time. Hindsight says that I could have done some things months before that would have changed the outcome. I didn't know what I didn't know.

My wife just tested positive for covid, while we are on a four week vacation. Our plans to go to Canada were scrapped. Our plans to gather for a family reunion are on hold until after the isolation period and further testing. She apparently caught it at a birthday party that was part of our trip from someone who had no symptoms, but later tested positive. We don't know what we don't know. Fortunately, all of the pre-paid housing and travel was refunded. We can't change what we did in the past.

I have more confidence in the experts who have nothing to gain by their opinions based on the science.

You obviously haven't been listening to what others here have been saying:  it's wrong to assume experts have nothing to gain by their opinions.  Being an expert doesn't make one necessarily altruistic.  The potential for corruption is universal.

Experts who do not gain personally from their opinions nor do their companies gain from their opinions are more trustworthy than those whose opinions bring financial gain to themselves. Although I haven't subscribed in years, I liked Consumer Reports because they do not accept any advertising so as to skew or even give the impression that results were skewed in favor of an advertiser. Granted, there have been products we bought on their recommendations that didn't work out well - and often a follow-up report indicated something they missed on their first testing. Scientist will change their minds as further evidence comes forth.

[peter_speckhard]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/fauci-reports-covid-rebound-says-its-much-worse-than-initial-illness/

Fauci's second course of treatment conflicts with the stance of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a May 24 health advisory, the CDC wrote, "There is currently no evidence that additional treatment for COVID-19 is needed for COVID-19 rebound. Based on data available at this time, patient monitoring continues to be the most appropriate management for patients with recurrence of symptoms after completion of a treatment course of Paxlovid."


Fauci, the man who claims that to disagree with him is to disagree with science, takes a course of treatment for his Covid that is not recommended by the CDC or FDA.

[Jeremy_Loesch]

Fauci has had four shots and two doses of the paxlovid. He said the vaccines were enough. Yet he takes paxlovid. It's made by Pfizer. Guess who gets paid by Pfizer? Fauci should have taken ivermectin as a prophylactic and he'd have been just fine. The only person who's been right about covid is Joe Rogan. 

Jeremy

[James S. Rustad]

New vaccine news!

A new type of vaccine developed at Caltech aims to ward off novel coronaviruses even before health officials are aware that they exist. When tested in mice and monkeys, it trained the animals' immune systems to recognize eight viruses at once — and induced immunity to viruses they had never encountered.

[JEdwards]

Fauci should have taken ivermectin as a prophylactic and he'd have been just fine. The only person who's been right about covid is Joe Rogan. 

Jeremy

Probably not:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Peace,
Jon

[J. Thomas Shelley]

Multiple news sources are reporting that President Biden has tested positive for COVID and is experiencing "mild symptoms".

From the Great Ektania:

For our country, the president, all those in public service, and for our armed forces everywhere, let us pray to the Lord.

( Lord, have mercy. ) ...

For those who travel by land, sea, and air, for the sick, the suffering, the captives and for their salvation, let us pray to the Lord.

( Lord, have mercy. )

For our deliverance from all affliction, wrath, danger and distress, and from the peril of the coronavirus against us, let us pray to the Lord.

( Lord, have mercy. )

For our brethren, those who lead the fight against the coronavirus, the doctors, the medical workers and the scientists, let us pray to the Lord.

( Lord, have mercy. )

Help us, save us, have mercy on us, and protect us, O God, by Your grace.

( Lord, have mercy. )

[James S. Rustad]

The "gain-of-function" argument heats up again.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) accused White House coronavirus adviser Anthony Fauci of misleading the public about the U.S. government's funding of gain-of-function research.

"When Dr. Fauci said that this research was reviewed and found to be safe by experts, that was also a lie," said Paul in an interview on Thursday.