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

FloridaYankee · 2021-01-08T19:58:41.816Z

Snow96:

FloridaYankee:

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.

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.

Could be they can start to produce it fast enough for people to get their 28 day second dose out of the shipping stream instead of holding in reserve. If that could be done it would help a helluva lot. It remains a discussion, one that admittedly makes me uncomfortable, but nobody is ignoring science.

FloridaYankee · 2021-01-08T19:59:57.232Z

Snow96:

FloridaYankee:

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

That’s what is voluntarry? Getting the vaccine? Yes it is. But when you get the first dose, will you be given a form enroling you in a new study to see how effective a single dose is? Or will you be given a form enfoling you in a new study to see what happens when your second dose is 3 to 6 months later?

That was all up in the air. It is quite literally a brand new idea.

Snow96 · 2021-01-08T20:04:03.241Z

FloridaYankee:

Could be they can start to produce it fast enough for people to get their 28 day second dose out of the shipping stream instead of holding in reserve.

They are at max production. Any new faclities and equipment will take month if not a year to get up to speed.

FloridaYankee:

If that could be done it would help a helluva lot. It remains a discussion, one that admittedly makes me uncomfortable, but nobody is ignoring science.

They are discussing doing something that goes against science. Using what’s held as reserve for 2nd dose as first dose with the hopes that there will be enough for the second dose. With more first doese,you will need more for second dose. Spiraly down the drain of following science.

FloridaYankee · 2021-01-08T20:13:34.248Z

Snow96:

FloridaYankee:

Could be they can start to produce it fast enough for people to get their 28 day second dose out of the shipping stream instead of holding in reserve.

They are at max production. Any new faclities and equipment will take month if not a year to get up to speed.

FloridaYankee:

If that could be done it would help a helluva lot. It remains a discussion, one that admittedly makes me uncomfortable, but nobody is ignoring science.

They are discussing doing something that goes against science. Using what’s held as reserve for 2nd dose as first dose with the hopes that there will be enough for the second dose. With more first doese,you will need more for second dose. Spiraly down the drain of following science.

I’m not backing it or calling it a good idea, but neither am I calling it a bad idea. Yet. There are other vaccines coming into the pipeline are there not?

I expect there are other variables we haven’t thought of as well.

Biden is not the ultimate arbiter here. Just as Trump was unable to rush approval of the first vaccines until the numbers guys said okay, so will go this discussion. I don’t believe anyone is going to ignore science.

WorldWatcher · 2021-01-08T20:14:18.560Z

Snow96:

FloridaYankee:

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.

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?

Under that mathematical logic (which I don’t agree with) that you applied to the 14%.

Say 1,000 doses are given. That means 500 people don’t get vaccinated. A new 500 now get Covid who wouldn’t and 3.57 people die (using your multiplier for 140 people = 1 dead, then 500 people/140 = 3.57 per 500). X that by 100 to get a million doses (500,00 vaccinations) and 500,000 get it and 357 die. That’s now acceptable?

Do more people die based on vaccinating more people with lowering the overall effectiveness from 96% to 82%?

Or

Do more people die by vaccinating quickly only 50% of the people but to 96% effectiveness?
.
.
.
.
Anyone see the flaw in the mathematical logic above?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

Snow96 · 2021-01-08T20:18:02.578Z

WorldWatcher:

Under that mathematical logic (which I don’t agree with) that you applied to the 14%.

Say 1,000 doses are given. That means 500 people don’t get vaccinated. A new 500 now get Covid who wouldn’t and 3.57 people die (using your multiplier for 140 people = 1 dead, then 500 people/140 = 3.57 per 500). X that by 100 to get a million doses (500,00 vaccinations) and 500,000 get it and 357 die. That’s now acceptable?

Do more people die based on vaccinating more people with lowering the overall effectiveness from 96% to 82%?

Or

Do more people die by vaccinating quickly only 50% of the people but to 96% effectiveness?
.
.
.
.
Anyone see the flaw in the mathematical logic above?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

So does this mean I get to put you down as one vote for going against the science that has been done on the vaccine? You know, getting a second dose at a prescribed time?

WorldWatcher · 2021-01-08T20:19:59.553Z

Snow96:

WorldWatcher:

Under that mathematical logic (which I don’t agree with) that you applied to the 14%.

Say 1,000 doses are given. That means 500 people don’t get vaccinated. A new 500 now get Covid who wouldn’t and 3.57 people die (using your multiplier for 140 people = 1 dead, then 500 people/140 = 3.57 per 500). X that by 100 to get a million doses (500,00 vaccinations) and 500,000 get it and 357 die. That’s now acceptable?

Do more people die based on vaccinating more people with lowering the overall effectiveness from 96% to 82%?

Or

Do more people die by vaccinating quickly only 50% of the people but to 96% effectiveness?
.
.
.
.
Anyone see the flaw in the mathematical logic above?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

So does this mean I get to put you down as one vote for going against the science that has been done on the vaccine? You know, getting a second dose at a prescribed time?

You can’t put me down for anything yet.

Do you recognize the fatal flaw in your math yet?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

Snow96 · 2021-01-08T20:27:23.720Z

WorldWatcher:

You can’t put me down for anything yet.

Do you recognize the fatal flaw in your math yet?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

There is nothing wrong with my math. I’m showing what could happens without second dose. The more people that only get one dose, the higher the possible numbers of my math. Would you say that is correct or in-correct.

Basically what is being done is a big finger to the testing and approval procedure. Guess we can just close down the FDA now since things like that don’t matter anymore.

FloridaYankee · 2021-01-08T20:32:18.157Z

WorldWatcher:

Snow96:

FloridaYankee:

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.

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?

Under that mathematical logic (which I don’t agree with) that you applied to the 14%.

Say 1,000 doses are given. That means 500 people don’t get vaccinated. A new 500 now get Covid who wouldn’t and 3.57 people die (using your multiplier for 140 people = 1 dead, then 500 people/140 = 3.57 per 500). X that by 100 to get a million doses (500,00 vaccinations) and 500,000 get it and 357 die. That’s now acceptable?

Do more people die based on vaccinating more people with lowering the overall effectiveness from 96% to 82%?

Or

Do more people die by vaccinating quickly only 50% of the people but to 96% effectiveness?
.
.
.
.
Anyone see the flaw in the mathematical logic above?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

On both parts, his and yours. You have all 500 people who didn’t get the vaccine getting infected. Eventually perhaps, but not for years.

FloridaYankee · 2021-01-08T20:36:24.072Z

Snow96:

WorldWatcher:

You can’t put me down for anything yet.

Do you recognize the fatal flaw in your math yet?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

There is nothing wrong with my math. I’m showing what could happens without second dose. The more people that only get one dose, the higher the possible numbers of my math. Would you say that is correct or in-correct.

Basically what is being done is a big finger to the testing and approval procedure. Guess we can just close down the FDA now since things like that don’t matter anymore.

Only a small percentage of your 14 percent would become infected in the short term, say the first year. By that time there will be enough for everyone right? Many many variables.

Snow96 · 2021-01-08T20:37:45.517Z

FloridaYankee:

Only a small percentage of your 14 percent would become infected in the short term, say the first year. By that time there will be enough for everyone right? Many many variables.

So screw the clinical trials and emergency approval of how it should be administered? What do we have the FDA for if that’s the case?

WuWei · 2021-01-08T20:42:52.499Z

How do you think they figured out they needed the 2nd dose.

Is it better for you and your neighbor to have 50% protection now or him to have 97% now and you none until whenever?

WorldWatcher · 2021-01-08T20:43:45.728Z

Snow96:

WorldWatcher:

You can’t put me down for anything yet.

Do you recognize the fatal flaw in your math yet?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

There is nothing wrong with my math. I’m showing what could happens without second dose. The more people that only get one dose, the higher the possible numbers of my math. Would you say that is correct or in-correct.

Basically what is being done is a big finger to the testing and approval procedure. Guess we can just close down the FDA now since things like that don’t matter anymore.

We have two different questions going on that will take smarter people than I to answer, but they are mathematical problems. Using your logic I showed that holding back the vaccine to give both shots resulted in more deaths then a single dose at a lower efficacy.

But… moving beyond that.

The problems, as I see it, is thinking of this in terms of a snapshot in time when in actuality we need to examine it in terms of change over time.

There are a couple of different factors that need to be thought through, and it should have already been thought through by this time. One is the medical aspect, 96% v. 82% efficacy. The other is a logistical problem which is a function of manufacturing and distribution.

Manufacturing is being ramped up and millions, hundreds of millions of doses are on the way from both Phizer and Moderna, not counting another vaccine getting a EUA. The manufacturing side of the equation has to determine how many doses can be manufactured over X days, weeks. The logistics side is getting those doses to the place they are needed.

My undergrad degree is in Industrial Technology and part of that was an examination of transition from the traditional manufacturing model (parts on-hand and in local storage) to “Just In Time” manufacturing where the supply line always has product on the way and what is delivered today, is used in manufacturing tomorrow and finished product shipped out. The sample supply chain management principals can be applied to the manufacture of vaccine and its distribution to put doses in the locations they are need to be put in arms.

What that means from a science, manufacturing, distribution perspective is there may not be the need to obtain two doses per person, give one shot and let the other dose sit in a freezer for 3 (Pfizer) or 4 weeks (Moderna) just waiting for the second dose. With a balanced and tuned supply chain a large percentage of those 2nd doses held in reserve can actually be delivered as shots in arms now. That with the understanding that the supply chain will be able to deliver the 2nd dose to be at the correct distributions centers shortly before they are needed for the 2nd dose.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So in actuality, I’m squarely in the 2 dose regiment as the vaccine was tested to produce maximum efficacy. However science, manufacturing, and supply chain management says that not all those 2nd doses need to sit around for weeks.

Follow the manufacturers approved dosage regime, but tune the logistics.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

Snow96 · 2021-01-08T20:44:58.911Z

WuWei:

How do you think they figured out they needed the 2nd dose.

Is it better for you and your neighbor to have 50% protection now or him to have 97% now and you none until whenever?

So put you down in the catagory of screw the clinical trials and FDA approval?

WuWei · 2021-01-08T20:46:54.197Z

Snow96:

WuWei:

How do you think they figured out they needed the 2nd dose.

Is it better for you and your neighbor to have 50% protection now or him to have 97% now and you none until whenever?

So put you down in the catagory of screw the clinical trials and FDA approval?

Yep. Vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Give more people a fighting chance, then increase the chance.

FloridaYankee · 2021-01-08T20:48:26.434Z

Snow96:

FloridaYankee:

Only a small percentage of your 14 percent would become infected in the short term, say the first year. By that time there will be enough for everyone right? Many many variables.

So screw the clinical trials and emergency approval of how it should be administered? What do we have the FDA for if that’s the case?

They are using what they learned in the clinical trials certainly. I already said I don’t like the idea much and have told you what I know about it. We don’t get to decide here lol.

WildRose · 2021-01-08T20:48:47.018Z

That isn’t ignoring the science, the science says vaccinate everyone as quickly as possible.

Production continues and continues to increase so there will be more than enough doses to give the second dose as well.

What data we have shows that even with one dose both are well above 50% efficacy at three weeks.

That percentage increases with time even without the second dose as the body goes through the entire transcription and replication phases of antigen specific antibodies and production of the gamma globulins and other immuno globulins (non specific antibodies) has already been ramped up by the first dose as well.

Even if it takes a few extra weeks to get a second dose to everyone this is the most logical route to take.

bigtwnvin · 2021-01-08T20:49:26.761Z

Whatever J’Biden “decides” is his prerogative. If it’s outside the Operation Warp Speed plan implementation and it goes sideways the next question will be will he and his handlers own it or blame Trump?
It’s a lock if the Covid numbers decline ‘Ol Joey from Scranton will be lauded as a savior of civilization. Lemonhead and Steroid Fredo Cuomo already have the boot licker script written!

SpacemanSpiff · 2021-01-08T21:06:24.132Z

Snow96:

SpacemanSpiff:

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?

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

Why is he planning on going against science?

Right now we’re in uncharted territory with new science being learned every day. Once we have a more firm grasp on how these things work we can adjust accordingly.

WildRose · 2021-01-09T08:02:49.175Z

Of course they’ll blame it on Trump and the media will dive in head first to support the lies the administration tells about it.