CDC COVID Vaccine in Nov 2020.

[RocketMan275]

4 hours ago, sanger727 said:

 

No, the randomized controlled trials give half the virus and half a placebo and tell them to continue living their lives. They are not more or less exposed than they would have been without the trial. Yes, I understand the obstacles if people in the trial are not sufficient exposed to the virus, hopefully with the numbers they are using they are able to overcome that. 

 

Same issue, if you ONLY use young and health people in the challenge trial, you DO NOT know if the same dose of vaccination will be effective in elderly/unhealthy people. It could result in you coming out with a vaccine, prioritizing giving it to high risk people only to find out months later that that does did not produce the same effect in that population and your death rate skyrockets. There is no easy answer. Not even for a challenge trial.

Yes, there is an easy answer which I mentioned.  Start with the young and less vulnerable and if successful then include the more vulnerable.  Had we chosen that path months ago, we might already have a widely available safe and effective vaccine and with fewer deaths and illnesses.  

[drvmywifecrzy]

vaccine progress is being made

[winterbliss]

It still amazes me how Big Pharma has such a hold over so many people. If I was to 'do it all over again' as they say, who knows.... perhaps I'd be an 'antivaxer' as they're called. If one looks at the recommended vaccine schedule for the mid 1980s compared to now, I don't know how you can't, at a minimum, look at that with at least a little skepticism.

[MSUjohn]

On 9/27/2020 at 9:46 AM, winterbliss said:

It still amazes me how Big Pharma has such a hold over so many people. If I was to 'do it all over again' as they say, who knows.... perhaps I'd be an 'antivaxer' as they're called. If one looks at the recommended vaccine schedule for the mid 1980s compared to now, I don't know how you can't, at a minimum, look at that with at least a little skepticism.

 

ideally as the years go by, more and more diseases will be defeated by vaccination; starting at year zero when smallpox was inoculated with live cowpox.

 

the addition of vaccines for HIV, herpes, hep C (and any other afflictions starting with "H" ) would be nice.

[PelicanBill]

On 9/25/2020 at 8:51 PM, RocketMan275 said:

Yes, there is an easy answer which I mentioned.  Start with the young and less vulnerable and if successful then include the more vulnerable.  Had we chosen that path months ago, we might already have a widely available safe and effective vaccine and with fewer deaths and illnesses.  

 

Standard protocol on vaccine testing is to test with ADULTS ONLY until deemed safe, then test with children.  Not being discussed much right now:  If we get a vaccine certified soon, like November, it will be late next year before we have one for children.  

[HowardK]

With the testing, they are measuring people but these people are either going to social distance and/or wear masks. So how can the vaccine be measured against a return to a future life where people don't social distance and wear masks?

Also, the control and test groups naturally won't be the same or behave the same. 

[ziggyuk]

1 hour ago, PelicanBill said:

 

Standard protocol on vaccine testing is to test with ADULTS ONLY until deemed safe, then test with children.  Not being discussed much right now:  If we get a vaccine certified soon, like November, it will be late next year before we have one for children.  

 

Oxford have been testing on 5-12 year olds and over 70's for some time, the expanded the age groups to over 55 and under 18 back in May.

[logan25]

12 minutes ago, HowardK said:

With the testing, they are measuring people but these people are either going to social distance and/or wear masks. So how can the vaccine be measured against a return to a future life where people don't social distance and wear masks?

Also, the control and test groups naturally won't be the same or behave the same. 

One answer is a challenge trial.  Most trials count on exposure by chance.  A challenge trial exposes subjects to the virus after vaccination.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, PelicanBill said:

 

Standard protocol on vaccine testing is to test with ADULTS ONLY until deemed safe, then test with children.  Not being discussed much right now:  If we get a vaccine certified soon, like November, it will be late next year before we have one for children.  

If the virus is such a threat then shouldn't we be looking at ways to speed up the process? 

[njhorseman]

19 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

If the virus is such a threat then shouldn't we be looking at ways to speed up the process? 

Not at the cost of safety. 

[Sweetnspicy]

19 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Not at the cost of safety. 

Exactly. I’m young but I spoke to my grandmother about the horrible effects of Thalidomide on pregnant women and infants in the 1960’s. I’m pro vaccination but more than that I am for safe, thought out trials. Rushing something like this is scary to watch. The US FDA blocked this particular drug in the 60’s because it wasn’t tested enough, and hadn’t been tracked correctly by physicians prescribing it. 
 

https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation

[PelicanBill]

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

If the virus is such a threat then shouldn't we be looking at ways to speed up the process? 

The cure can't be worse than the illness....  or have so much risk that people refuse it.

[RocketMan275]

3 hours ago, njhorseman said:

Not at the cost of safety. 

Safety for who?  How about the safety of billions of people worldwide who will not have the benefit of a vaccine while we worry about the ethics of challenge trials?  Those in the challenge trials would be a small number of carefully selected volunteers.  Safety would be emphasized in the earlier cohorts.  Forgoing challenge trials means that billions of people won't have the choice of a vaccine for months.  How is needlessly exposing them to the virus more ethical?

[RocketMan275]

34 minutes ago, PelicanBill said:

The cure can't be worse than the illness....  or have so much risk that people refuse it.

Participation in a challenge trial and the standard testing protocols would face the same risks.  The challenge protocol would expose fewer people reducing the risks.  The potential outcomes would be the same.  Catching the virus from the challenge trail would be no worse than catching the virus in the standard trials.  Any side-effects would be the same.  

[njhorseman]

41 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Safety for who?  How about the safety of billions of people worldwide who will not have the benefit of a vaccine while we worry about the ethics of challenge trials?  Those in the challenge trials would be a small number of carefully selected volunteers.  Safety would be emphasized in the earlier cohorts.  Forgoing challenge trials means that billions of people won't have the choice of a vaccine for months.  How is needlessly exposing them to the virus more ethical?

No, sorry. There are reasonable  and effective ways to significantly lower the chances of becoming infected by wearing masks and social distancing, so there's no need to compromise safety.  In the event that one becomes infected despite having taken precautions treatment protocols have continued to advance, including the antibody cocktail and remdesivir that are being used to treat President Trump, as well as the steroid dexamethasone that has shown to significantly reduce mortality in critically ill patients. Dexamethasone is a long-established steroid that is authorized for use worldwide, inexpensive and readily available, so one doesn't have to be one of the rich and famous in order to be treated with it.

[RocketMan275]

2 hours ago, njhorseman said:

No, sorry. There are reasonable  and effective ways to significantly lower the chances of becoming infected by wearing masks and social distancing, so there's no need to compromise safety.  In the event that one becomes infected despite having taken precautions treatment protocols have continued to advance, including the antibody cocktail and remdesivir that are being used to treat President Trump, as well as the steroid dexamethasone that has shown to significantly reduce mortality in critically ill patients. Dexamethasone is a long-established steroid that is authorized for use worldwide, inexpensive and readily available, so one doesn't have to be one of the rich and famous in order to be treated with it.

Challenge trials can speed up the vaccine development process significantly resulting in fewer infections, the fewer people fall ill, and the fewer deaths.  Those 'reasonable and effective ways' haven't produced the kinds of results that a quickly available vaccine would produce.  If this 'CV pandemic' was as big a threat as claimed, then we would be expediting the vaccine using any means necessary including challenge trails.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

Challenge trials can speed up the vaccine development process significantly resulting in fewer infections, the fewer people fall ill, and the fewer deaths.  Those 'reasonable and effective ways' haven't produced the kinds of results that a quickly available vaccine would produce.  If this 'CV pandemic' was as big a threat as claimed, then we would be expediting the vaccine using any means necessary including challenge trails.

The vaccine research and trials are already proceeding at a record pace so I'm not sure challenge trials would speed the development enough to warrant the additional risk they carry. The physicians and scientists doing this work apparently don't think challenge trials are warranted either as I haven't heard any great outcry for them in the medical and pharmaceutical communities for them. 

 

So unless you're able to convince me that your experience and expertise is superior to all of those doing the actual work, I'll side with the medical and scientific communities, not you. 

[ziggyuk]

12 hours ago, njhorseman said:

The vaccine research and trials are already proceeding at a record pace so I'm not sure challenge trials would speed the development enough to warrant the additional risk they carry. The physicians and scientists doing this work apparently don't think challenge trials are warranted either as I haven't heard any great outcry for them in the medical and pharmaceutical communities for them. 

 

So unless you're able to convince me that your experience and expertise is superior to all of those doing the actual work, I'll side with the medical and scientific communities, not you. 

 

I'm sorry but I have to disagree, scientists doing this work are keen to start challenge testing and are doing so here in the UK from December, they already have thousands of young healthy volunteers, volunteers they started recruiting two months ago.

[njhorseman]

39 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

 

I'm sorry but I have to disagree, scientists doing this work are keen to start challenge testing and are doing so here in the UK from December, they already have thousands of young healthy volunteers, volunteers they started recruiting two months ago.

The possible UK challenge trial actually arose from an effort by a US-based advocacy group 1Day Sooner . The reports I've read all stem from a single article in the Financial Times about 10 days ago . There are a few issues however making it far from certain that this trial will take place.

 

The government hasn't approved the trial as of yet.

 

No one seems to know what vaccine would be tested. AstraZeneca and Sanofi both said their vaccines are not involved. There has been some work done in the US on a vaccine specifically for use in a challenge trial but there's no indication that vaccine is anything more than a back burner project.

 

The reports I've read state a possible January start, by which time there's every expectation that one or more vaccines will already have been approved, raising the question of why would one bother to start a challenge trial for the purpose of hastening development of a vaccine when it wouldn't .

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RocketMan275]

15 hours ago, njhorseman said:

The vaccine research and trials are already proceeding at a record pace so I'm not sure challenge trials would speed the development enough to warrant the additional risk they carry. The physicians and scientists doing this work apparently don't think challenge trials are warranted either as I haven't heard any great outcry for them in the medical and pharmaceutical communities for them. 

 

So unless you're able to convince me that your experience and expertise is superior to all of those doing the actual work, I'll side with the medical and scientific communities, not you. 

Based upon the post below, it would appear that my 'experience and expertise' might be 'superior'.

2 hours ago, ziggyuk said:

 

I'm sorry but I have to disagree, scientists doing this work are keen to start challenge testing and are doing so here in the UK from December, they already have thousands of young healthy volunteers, volunteers they started recruiting two months ago.

Thanks for the update.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

The reports I've read state a possible January start, by which time there's every expectation that one or more vaccines will already have been approved, raising the question of why would one bother to start a challenge trial for the purpose of hastening development of a vaccine when it wouldn't .

It's always a good idea to have a Plan B.

[Trimone]

There’s an old saying “Right first time for profit” 

Until the vaccine is 100% and cruises and are 100% 

There’s no point 

[RocketMan275]

On 9/2/2020 at 8:37 PM, BirdTravels said:

The challenge is that if a vaccine is made available, a large proportion of the population of the United States couldn't be bothered getting it. You see that blatant disregard of the virus coast to coast every day. And that's why the US infection rates continue to be high. People don't care. 

Perhaps the people understand that this virus isn't the apocalypse and refuse to cower in their basements.