Will Biden ignore science and put second dose of vaccine at risk?

Politics
1

Biden keeps saying he will follow science on the Covid pandemnic . . .

But then his transition team says this:

“The President-elect believes we must accelerate distribution of the vaccine while continuing to ensure the Americans who need it most get it as soon as possible. He supports releasing available doses immediately, and believes the government should stop holding back vaccine supply so we can get more shots in Americans’ arms now,” said TJ Ducklo, a spokesman for Biden’s transition. “He will share additional details next week on how his Administration will begin releasing available doses when he assumes office on January 20th.”

If there is no reserve for the millions to get the second dose – what happens then? Or if they start giving half doses to make sure there is enough? What does science say?

Earlier this week, two top officials from the FDA said anyone who receives those vaccines needs both doses, dismissing the idea of stretching the supply by allowing just one dose or cutting doses in half.

So will Biden follow science and make sure those that get the first dose get the second? Or will he release eveything (leaving nothing in reserve for second doses) and “hope” that a single dose for more people will be the right thing to do – regardless of what the science says?

2

Right now, and this could change at any time as we learn how affective the vaccinations are, the first dose is giving an immunity of 80-85%. Then the second shot bumps it up to 95%. So the question becomes do we strictly stick to the two shot regimen and have a slow distribution to the whole population, or do we quickly start getting the one shot in everybody’s arms and at least get that much an immunity boost?

1 Like
3

There is no contradiction. Check your premise.

4

It’s a trolley problem and does not have an easy or obvious answer.

Rush it out and there will be people getting a single dose who have a delayed second dose and get sick and die in the interim.

Hold it and there will be people who get sick and die just before they would have gotten their first dose.

This element of the distribution strategy, as far as I see it, doesn’t have an easy right answer.

5

We should also revamp the priority list and bump anyone who has actually had COVID within the last six months (at least) to the bottom of the list, instead of the current 90 days.

They are being way too conservative thinking that immunity might wear off after three months. Evidence you can get reinfected that quickly is minimal.

I’m unsure of going to one dose though. The clinical trials were designed for two doses…we don’t know what happens to that initial immunity with a delayed “booster”.

6

Really good post. I don’t think the two tracjs are nearly that close though.

7

Right now, the science says two doses and don’t cut the dose.

Why is he planning on going against science?

8

The science also says vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible.

9

It’s a discussion and it wasn’t his idea, it… get this…came from science.

10

Is Biden getting just one shot so there will be more for others?

1 Like
11

What science? What trials have been done wih the drugs with only a single dose?

12

A discussion means they are exploring the issue, talking about it. Scenarios in which it saves more lives are not unrealistic, making it an ethics question.

13

So lets take numbers from the article.
2 doses 96% effective.
single dose 82% effectrive.
14% difference.

Say 1,000 doses are given. A new 140 now get Covid who wouldn’t and 1 person dies. X that by 100 to get a million doses and 140,000 get it and 100 die. That’s now acceptable?

14

That’s an over simplification. The one thousand doses would have another dose in reserve for them 28 days later which would now be given to others. So now you are giving two thousand doses in a much shorter time span. That’s what they are talking about, and more doses continue to be produced, so the first one thousand will get a second dose but not in the originally planned 28 day time frame. Perhaps three or six months later, but I’m not sure anybody knows if they will end up in the 94th percentile bracket or not.

15

In theory. The 2nd dose being held in reserv is NOW going to be a first dose. So as vaccine is distributed, now a higher percentage will be for second dose instead of 1st done unless we go against science and forget the second dose.

And yes that was over simplification. But it tag right along with those who say if I go out without a mask, I’m going to infect everyone I come in contact with and be a super spreader.

16

And this is the problem. Who knows what delaying the second dose will do. Shouldn’t we follow the science in what has been done in the cinical trials – instead of making everyone who go a dose a clinical trial?

17

So instead of first dose to one thousand, two thousand get it. Some are saying it will save more lives overall. I am skeptical as well and really want no part of it.

18

All of them.

19

The discussion I heard with an originator of the idea was about making it voluntary. Not sure I buy that voluntary ■■■■ and I don’t think this is going to happen

20

It’s more hypocrosy — Trump ignores what people say is science and he gets lambasted. Biden is set to ignore how the vacinne is approved to be given (puting the second dose at risk) and he’s a hero. Thinks that make you go hmmmmmmm.