|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 15, 2021 20:54:33 GMT -6
Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots.Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant. The Mayo Clinic and Cambridge-based biotech company Nfrence conducted the study, posted in medrvix last week, by analyzing samples of delta variant prevalence in Minnesota from January to July. When asked if this indicated that individuals should seek a Moderna dose for the booster shot, Fauci disagreed. www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-study-delta-efficacy-moderna-pfizer-boosterFauci used the often cited defense that the paper was only a pre-print study and not fully peer-reviewed for his selective science. More likely is Fauci wants to protect any future consulting fees he might might get from Pfizer after he leaves the US government. He wouldn't want to piss-off a future potential revenue stream.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 15, 2021 21:46:38 GMT -6
Don't you think people not getting vaccinated at all is a bigger problem?
You say it's reasonable for people criticize emergency use vaccine at all as rushed and untested, not officially approved by FDA standards. OK to avoid the first shot.
Yet you now want Fauci to advise people to use booster doses without the official approval process for this use?
AND you suggest it's for an evil motive he's following the rules?
Take off your tinfoil hat and vest and tune out those internet conspiracy websites, take a break from paranoia.
This is red tape maybe, caution maybe, not an evil plot, and not causing much harm anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 15, 2021 22:27:59 GMT -6
One more go at a comparison of the effects of Covid-19 vs. influenza for children under the age of 18.Let's use the 2018-2019 flu season; a season of moderate severity not influenced by Covid-19. www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.htmlIf you add the the deaths for 0-4 years and 5-17 years the result is 477 deaths of children under the age of 18 from influenza for the 8 month long flu season. Next, let's pull-up the CDC data on Covid-19 deaths in children. www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htmFor ages 0-17 (all sexes) all deaths involving Covid-19 the CDC lists 354 deaths for 2020/21 ( over 18 months). If you note footnote 1, these are labeled as confirmed or presumed Covid-19 deaths. I wonder how many are actually confirmed vs. presumed. This has always been the problem with Covid-19 death counts from the get go; victims who have a number of maladies as to which one actually killed them. But we will assume for sake of argument that all were correctly coded. So there you have it, 477 deaths from the 2018-19, 8 month long flu season vs. 354 deaths for over 18 months of Covid-19. And if you want to more compare apples to apples, cut the 354 Covid-19 deaths in half to 177 (comparing 8 months of flu to 9 months of Covid-19). 477 is approximately 3 times 177. So yes, for children under the age of 18 Covid-19 isn't as dangerous as the seasonal flu. To say anything else is Panic Porn which you seen to specialize in.
If you want to delve further into the CDC statics, the CDC says that out of every 1,738 Covid-19-related deaths in the U.S. in 2020 and 2021, just one has involved someone under 18 years of age; and out of every 150 deaths of someone under 18 years of age, just one has been Covid-related. Shouldn't we really be worried about what those other 149 adolescents died of? As for your other arguments, the Delta Variant is more transmissible, but it's less deadly so it shouldn't be as bad as last year. It should also peak and die out in another 2 to 3 months. Teachers and parents should all be vaccinated by now, right? So that should lessen your worry about the little one bringing it home. Thanks for motivating me to do this deeper dive into the numbers. I'm more convinced as ever you are wrong on this issue. P.S. I didn't find the 4-year-old Pew study that informative on the current demographics of the border surge. The end date of that study, 2017 was when Trump was in charge, before Joe Biden invited everyone to come all in. The reasonable demographics depicted in that study has nothing to do with the current reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 15, 2021 23:04:07 GMT -6
Don't you think people not getting vaccinated at all is a bigger problem? You say it's reasonable for people criticize emergency use vaccine at all as rushed and untested, not officially approved by FDA standards. OK to avoid the first shot. Yet you now want Fauci to advise people to use booster doses without the official approval process for this use? AND you suggest it's for an evil motive he's following the rules? Take off your tinfoil hat and vest and tune out those internet conspiracy websites, take a break from paranoia. This is red tape maybe, caution maybe, not an evil plot, and not causing much harm anyway. I think you are missing my point on my last Fauci post. It's not about booster shots or vaccinations. It's about why he is being selective on what science research he promotes and which he disparages. In other words, he is selective on his science. I don't think Covid is ever going away. What the CCP gave the world is here to stay. We just have to learn to live with it the best we can which will probably mean a booster every fall. The drug companies will make a guess as to what variants will be present in the upcoming year and shoot their best guess into your arm just like they do for the flu. My point is, I think it's becoming pretty clear that Moderna is the better of the two (three if you want to count Johnson and Johnson) vaccines. There was a study recently out of I believe Israel (not going to look for the article right now) where the Pfizer vaccine was found only 47% effective in blocking Covid-19 infection. Luckily, I got the Moderna, but both my wife and daughter got Pfizer. Fauci should just come out and say that folks should focus on getting the Moderna vaccine. Is he afraid to offend Pfizer? We can export our Pfizer shots like we do the company that Western Europe relies on (can't remember the name just now). P. S. Astrazeneca, the one that gives those wonderful blood clots. That's the one vaccine basket Western Europe put all their eggs into and we only export (never even gave it emergency use in the USA). |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 15, 2021 23:41:46 GMT -6
Tell me about Moderna why is it better? That's what I received are the legit numbers from at least a somewhat unbiased source
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 16, 2021 6:41:13 GMT -6
I agree it's recent history in tests like the Mayo test he cited is a little better.
I have seen no explanation exactly what is different about it. The science and production almost identical.
The testing isn't conclusive, pretty close call as these things go, when they test the same vaccine two or three times they get variation in results.
Whether it's better for the next variant or longer term, say a year out, isn't certain.
Somebody getting a first shot with a choice maybe better with it. If you get one vaccine, couldn't get the same one the second shot they probably are interchangeable.
But Fauci and the scientists don't have full trials showing that. No adequate trials on third shots for the whole population, limited data.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 16, 2021 6:53:01 GMT -6
Fauci is not "selective" or biased in his advice.
There's not sufficient safety data on mixing vaccines for him and he's sticking to the FDA rules.
As a practical matter we need to use all the vaccines to meet world demand. The 3 we have approved all are good as vaccines go on current data.
It certainly has nothing to do with corruption. There is a political effort to discredit Fauci. bsutrack is influenced by conspiracy theories on that part I suggest.
|
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Aug 16, 2021 10:24:57 GMT -6
Fauci is not "selective" or biased in his advice. There isn't a person anywhere on Earth who isn't both biased and selective in their advice. Seriously WTF............... Is Fauci a God or something. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 16, 2021 11:20:18 GMT -6
Fauci is not "selective" or biased in his advice. There isn't a person anywhere on Earth who isn't both biased and selective in their advice. Seriously WTF............... C'mon. Look at the context of my statement. It was suggested he was improperly influenced and biased by consulting contracts he hopes to gain. Fauci is 80 years old has no consulting business, and it is extremely unlikely he plans to leave government for consulting.
Fauci's opinions are constrained by his position. His professional judgement and opinion when addressing the public has to represent his position as an agency head and his adherence to scientific principles. Call that "bias" if you want, it is "biased" by those constraints and also no doubt by intellectual bias at some level, for example favoring evidence based reasoning over unsupported opinion.
That is usually not considered "bias" or "selective" decision making as presented in the post to which I responded.
|
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Aug 16, 2021 11:34:54 GMT -6
There isn't a person anywhere on Earth who isn't both biased and selective in their advice. Seriously WTF............... C'mon. Look at the context of my statement. You of all people should never use that as a defense. Your next 600 words I didn't read. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 16, 2021 13:24:42 GMT -6
That clarifies your incoherent response a little. You're not necessarily an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by bleadingcardwhite on Aug 17, 2021 21:52:54 GMT -6
Firs rule of science academia and research is to write your peer review paper so that it pleases the grant provider you’re trying to receive…
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 18, 2021 0:56:32 GMT -6
Firs rule of science academia and research is to write your peer review paper so that it pleases the grant provider you’re trying to receive… I'd be more worried about that in social science than with NSF and NIH funding. More likely funding is available in areas of interest to the funding source than that the results are biased. The peers who review and determine final content and publication are not on the grant and not known to the author or the source of funding. Fauci and coauthors and his research have been cited and honored by literally hundreds of scientists and his work independently replicated. There is no professional concern about the integrity of his work. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 18, 2021 20:02:26 GMT -6
This will knock back delta community spread a small amount. It will protect the most vulnerable. That's good.
What it will not do is end the threat of new variations which may evade even the heightened antibody response that has worked against the past and current variants.
It is important we vaccinate the currently unvaccinated and try to reduce the pool of people who may be hosts to incubate a variant.
And until then we have to stop community spread by masks and social distance which probably requires a better mask and greater distance than the last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 19, 2021 8:24:03 GMT -6
Since we are apparently not going to eradicate the risk of infection in the future, it seems to me very likely now insurance companies will begin to exclude coverage for people who can get vaccinated but choose not to do so. We now facing shortages of ability to care for some patients.
If they want the right to choose, seems to me they have to take on the cost of the choice when they choose to take a risk and lose. It looks like insurance companies either have to raise rates for everyone to pay for the extra care of those not vaccinated voluntarily.
OR just like smokers, or drivers with DUI on the record, they can raise rates for the group that choose risky behavior.
I can't really support the idea of denying medical care at the hospital as a solution, but if there are two Covid cases and only one ventilator both need...the patient who voluntarily and knowing the risk, decided to take it, he sure seems to be asking for being the one not treated.
Many get ill and then change their minds about it too late, but there are also cases who are hospitalized and tested and confirmed as Covid cases and are very ill and still deny they have the virus and can't consider they made the wrong choice.
The worse case for me is seeing DeSantis in Florida who expects to get expensive Regeneron treatment and advocates putting money into treatment rather than relatively inexpensive prevention. Fine if you have insurance and the costs are paid by others with their premiums. Which will go up...
Not a bad idea to invest in treatment, but it will be expensive if needed and we also need expand hospital staffing and ICU capacity. If there is a cheap preventive measure that has to be done too in order to minimize the cost of treatment and keep it manageable.
|
|
