Ok so reduce the number by 12k. What does that mean and why make the argument? It does contribute to the hoax conspiracy theory.I am not say it isnt deadly by any means. I worked in hospitals in the beginning as saw how jammed they were. I know it is real. However even on the CDC website it has over 12,000 deaths from Intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events that is counted as a Covid death. Has nothing to do with the letter Q
Wait ...a yearlong Hansel & Gretel trail of deleted fake news, walked back tweets and sound bites that required subsequent apologies.Wait a peer reviewed study in a major medical journal
It's "peer reviewed" but that is nowhere near a major medical journal - the Elsevier journals are considered, collectively to be fairly lightweight by serious scientists. Again, I'm not making this stuff up. I guarantee you that paper will make zero impact, given the far more rigorous RCTs that have already been completed on that patient population, showing no clinical benefit. This is not hard stuff, but you simply don't seem willing to learn or listen to scientific experts.Wait a peer reviewed study in a major medical journal
I read it that they’ll start the analysis sometime in the next few weeks. If efficacy will hit the press shortly after that, then that’s good. Was thinking we’d have to wait another 2 weeks once they finish the analysis.Article said we'd have trial data by the last week in Jan or the first week in Feb, which I don't think is a change - that's when we'll see press releases. Just like for Pfizer/Moderna, it'll take a few weeks to a month to get an EUA.
Ivermectin is looking a bit like HCQ looked to me (scientifically, not politically) before the larger RCTs were completed, i.e., it shows mixed results across a bunch of clinical trials, which is what often happens when a drug is ineffective and the trials are small and not always well controlled, as per the NIH guidance, below.Anyone who has been following the controversy regarding ivermectin might be interested in this video. I don't particularly care for some of the views of the host (James Lyons-Weiler) but most of the video is a presentation by Pierre Kory. I don't claim to know what the "truth" is regarding ivermectin but the evidence he presents seems pretty solid and the NIH has even changed their guidelines from "not recommended" to "neither for nor against". Baby steps... From what I'm hearing the WHO is looking at the ivermectin studies in detail and we may be seeing significant changes in guidance before long.
Anyway...Pierre Kory on ivermection (Jan 16)
To be clear, what will happen, assuming this goes like the other vaccines, is that the data will be unblinded to the company in the next 2 weeks and they'll do a quick analysis and issue a press release. The company will then do a much more thorough data analysis and put together their case for why an EUA should be issued and then meet with the FDA, probably in late February on that. The FDA will then likely take several days to a week (depending on how strong the data look) to approve the EUA (or not, which usually means a company has to gather more data, not that the vaccine is dead, unless there were simply no efficacy, which nobody expects given the immune responses in the early trials).I read it that they’ll start the analysis sometime in the next few weeks. If efficacy will hit the press shortly after that, then that’s good. Was thinking we’d have to wait another 2 weeks once they finish the analysis.
So refreshing. Fauci said they want to immunize 100 million people in 100 days in that interview. The 100 million shots seems like an easy hurdle. So I am confused by the goal. Realizing they are just uncovering what dismal planning we’ve had at this point but we need to do as least 2 million a day in shots.
I mean that tracks with everything we've known. Lots of gatherings over Christmas/NYE lead to a spike in cases. Now with vaccinations starting, better weather around the corner, we should realistically be plateauing soon
when the virus is back to minor numbers, Bac will post that trump was right when he said “one day - poof - it will be gone” last February (paraphrasing the quote).I mean that tracks with everything we've known. Lots of gatherings over Christmas/NYE lead to a spike in cases. Now with vaccinations starting, better weather around the corner, we should realistically be plateauing soon
Ivermectin is looking a bit like HCQ looked to me (scientifically, not politically) before the larger RCTs were completed, i.e., it shows mixed results across a bunch of clinical trials, which is what often happens when a drug is ineffective and the trials are small and not always well controlled, as per the NIH guidance, below.
As I've said before, having worked on this drug very early in my career, I'd love to see it truly be effective, but I'm skeptical, as it's an anti-parasitic being used as an antiviral. We need a well run large randomized, controlled trial (like the ones that have been run on the monoclonal antibodies or HCQ) to make some sense of all this. It's disappointing to me, at least, that most of the "breakthrough" COVID clinical trials have been in the UK and not in the US (on HCQ, dexamethasone, lopinavir/ritonavir, etc.).
And as if on cue, a small (24 patients) randomized, controlled trial was just published showing encouraging, but not statistically significant benefits from ivermectin in very mildly ill COVID patients. The study says we need larger RCTs to determine if ivermectin is effective or not. Sounds familiar.
Since the last revision of the Ivermectin section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or made available as preliminary, non-peer-reviewed reports. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,11-14 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19,15-18 greater reduction in inflammatory markers,16,17 shorter time to viral clearance,11,16 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.11,16,18
However, most of the studies reported to date had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. The missing information and limitations include the following:
Because of these limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions about the clinical efficacy or safety of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
- The sample size of most of the trials was small.
- Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
- Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
- In addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug, patients also received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids), confounding assessment of the true efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
- The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
- The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
Yeah, we're seeing decreasing case counts and positive rates here over the past week or two. Everything you described should be leading to a leveling off or decreasing trend (except for weather, at least up here...plenty of winter ahead) - the big unknown is the potential impact of the new variants which appear to be more transmissible.I mean that tracks with everything we've known. Lots of gatherings over Christmas/NYE lead to a spike in cases. Now with vaccinations starting, better weather around the corner, we should realistically be plateauing soon
Careful there buddy, you are treading on thin ice. That crazy Bob guy is going to call you an elitist.You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, it's a medical journal, but it's not a high quality one and their peer review sucks if they let this be published. I've published about a dozen peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature (not medical, but the systems are similar), so I know what I'm talking about. To publish that article without referencing/discussing the "gold standard" RCTs showing no efficacy in mildly ill COVID outpatients is an egregious error. Full stop. Now go find some even worse nonsense and post it breathlessly, as if it means something. I haven't put anyone on ignore on this site, but you're close - if it weren't for hoops, I think you'd be the first. If I could do it by thread that would be nice.
I would like to see some definitive evidence from the WHO backing up these claims. An organization who botched the recommendations that mask wearing was not necessary, seemingly has coddled China for over a year, and still has failed to inspect the Wuhan lab gets very little credibility in my opinion as a world authority.
It is a coincidence. Back in Dec, I predicted we'd see the plateau in cases about a week after New Year's and then a peak in deaths a few weeks later, which is what we're seeing now. Cases are on their way down, hospitalizations just peaked and are starting to decline and deaths are peaking now and should start declining pretty rapidly, IMO, given that most of the LTC population has been vaccinated now (that group has had ~40% of all deaths). This wasn't that hard to predict. The only major unknown out there, IMO, is whether the new variants might lead to another spike upwards (my guess is it's already mostly here and we won't see a new spike).
I agree with Fauci here. The CNN reporting and whoever from the Biden Admin overstated the lack of a vaccine plan from the previous Admin. The plan has certainly been pretty poorly executed though, given vaccine rates vs. what was promised and the need to greatly improve the distribution is pretty clear.
That evidence is a real stretch. Boris is a moron for announcing that unless he wanted to unnecessarily spread fear.Johnson saying some evidence new strain has a higher mortality but that the mRNA vaccines still effective against it.
There is "some evidence" a new Covid variant first identified in the U.K. could be more deadly than the original strain, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Friday.www.cnbc.com
Well I’m assuming he got that info from his science advisors and he’s not just going off on his own.That evidence is a real stretch. Boris is a moron for announcing that unless he wanted to unnecessarily spread fear.
I’m still waiting for better proof that the UK strain really is more transmissible.
It was nice of @bac2therac to confirm that you were right!It is a coincidence. Back in Dec, I predicted we'd see the plateau in cases about a week after New Year's and then a peak in deaths a few weeks later, which is what we're seeing now. Cases are on their way down, hospitalizations just peaked and are starting to decline and deaths are peaking now and should start declining pretty rapidly, IMO, given that most of the LTC population has been vaccinated now (that group has had ~40% of all deaths). This wasn't that hard to predict. The only major unknown out there, IMO, is whether the new variants might lead to another spike upwards (my guess is it's already mostly here and we won't see a new spike).
Higher transmission rates mean more infected people per day, such that even if the death rate per infected person is unchanged, there will be more deaths per day. My guess is that's what they're seeing - and we could see the same, although both in the UK and here, vaccinations of LTC residents are well underway and would counter any rise in deaths given they're ~40% of total deaths.Well I’m assuming he got that info from his science advisors and he’s not just going off on his own.
Don’t they say they’re finding higher viral loads with these new strains? I was thinking that might be the reason for the increased mortality if it’s true.
Was looking at the study and there are a ton assumptions. Crazy he would share something like that broadly.Well I’m assuming he got that info from his science advisors and he’s not just going off on his own.
Don’t they say they’re finding higher viral loads with these new strains? I was thinking that might be the reason for the increased mortality if it’s true.
Have not seen any reports that J&J will have 100MM doses ready to go this month and, in fact, they've reported manufacturing delays. Latest report was 12MM doses by the end of February and 60MM by the end of February. Also, while it's highly likely the vaccine will be pretty effective (70-80%?), nobody actually knows that yet and we won't know that until the data are unblinded around the end of January.
Under the terms of that deal, announced in August, the company agreed to deliver 100 million doses of its vaccine to the U.S. government for $1 billion. The company did not disclose specific production timeline targets at the time, but the New York Times reported Wednesday that it was meant to have 12 million doses ready by the end of February.
The Times says that the production schedule is now delayed by two months. A Johnson & Johnson official interviewed by the Times did not comment on production, but an Operation Warp Speed official confirmed a delay to the paper. The Times reports that the company is now expected to catch up to its original production schedule by the end of April. By then, it had planned to deliver more than 60 million doses.
Very encouraging news that came out today, i.e., 100MM doses by May. As of last week (my post above), the best case scenario was #1, with 100MM doses by end of June and maybe 12MM by the end of Feb (earliest EUA is likely) and 60MM by the end of April. Presumably, this means their production issues were fixed.Anyone know what the real story is with the production schedule of the J&J vaccine? Assuming that the Phase 3 results show the hoped for efficacy, FDA approval could come shortly thereafter. I have read two very conflicting tales of its availability:
1) 100 mil doses were promised (to the US gov) by the end of June, but production is two months behind schedule, and
2) 100 mil doses will be available by May.
Anyone know whether #1 or 2 above is the more likely scenario?
But Moderna and pFizer will have 200 million each by June. That’s about 30 million a month for each. Just to admin those doses we need to be at 2 million a day. How are we even going to inject JJ?Very encouraging news that came out today, i.e., 100MM doses by May. As of last week (my post above), the best case scenario was #1, with 100MM doses by end of June and maybe 12MM by the end of Feb (earliest EUA is likely) and 60MM by the end of April. Presumably, this means their production issues were fixed.
Geese I wonder what changed in the last few days?Very encouraging news that came out today, i.e., 100MM doses by May. As of last week (my post above), the best case scenario was #1, with 100MM doses by end of June and maybe 12MM by the end of Feb (earliest EUA is likely) and 60MM by the end of April. Presumably, this means their production issues were fixed.
The the CDC altered its dosing recommendations yesterday to say second doses of the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines can be given up to 6 weeks after the first if getting the 2nd doses on the prescribed 3/4 weeks later schedule is infeasible. Part of this this is a nod to the fact that it's possible some areas might not have enough 2nd shots to meet those original schedules and most experts doubt this will affect vaccine efficacy in any way. It's still way better to get the 2nd shot a few weeks late than not at all.
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series consist of two doses administered intramuscularly:
Persons should not be scheduled to receive the second dose earlier than recommended (i.e., 3 weeks [Pfizer-BioNTech] or 1 month [Moderna]). However, second doses administered within a grace period of 4 days earlier than the recommended date for the second dose are still considered valid. Doses inadvertently administered earlier than the grace period should not be repeated.
- Pfizer-BioNTech (30 µg, 0.3 ml each): 3 weeks (21 days) apart
- Moderna (100 µg, 0.5 ml): 1 month (28 days) apart
The second dose should be administered as close to the recommended interval as possible. However, if it is not feasible to adhere to the recommended interval, the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may be scheduled for administration up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose. There are currently limited data on efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered beyond this window. If the second dose is administered beyond these intervals, there is no need to restart the series.
More on vaccines and their likely ability to still be able to protect against the new variants from the UK, South Africa and Brazil in the article below from Nat Geo. The article is really well done with interviews featuring a number of leading scientists in the vaccine field. One key issue is that the faster we can vaccinate people, the faster we can reduce viral transmissions and the faster we can reduce mutations producing more variants. In addition the article talks about how it should be relatively easy to produce new vaccines if variants eventually "escape" existing vaccines.Update on SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccines. Preliminary work shows that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine will very likely still be effective against both the UK and South Africa variants that are circulating and appear to be more transmissible (more work remains to be 100% sure on this). And even if we eventually see variants that "escape" the vaccine, modifying the RNA sequence used in the mRNA vaccines to provide effectiveness for new strains, should only take 6-12 weeks (it would take longer in other vaccines that use viral vectors to deliver the RNA; same for protein-based vaccines). It's still likely that vaccine immunity will last a few to several years, barring many more major mutations than we've seen to date (which should take years given the fairly slow evolution rate of this virus).
In addition, work was done with the UK and South African variants and polyclonal antibodies from convalescent patients (infected with COVID and recovered) and this work showed the antibodies generally neutralized the UK variant, but had some reduced neutralization of the SA variant, which has an additional mutation (E484K, an amino acid on the spike protein of the virus) the UK variant does not have. However, immune responses from the vaccine are more robust and broader, so the authors of this study said that they didn't think this variant would have a serious effect on vaccine efficacy - and that further mutations over time would likely be needed to erode vaccine immunity.
“I’m quite optimistic that even with these mutations, immunity is not going to suddenly fail on us,” Bloom said. “It might be gradually eroded, but it’s not going to fail on us, at least in the short term.”
Having said all of the above, this is why getting the world vaccinated fairly quickly, especially those countries with high infection rates is so important, since evolutionary changes are far more likely when more people are being infected (just rolling the dice more). What would also suck is if the virus were largely eliminated from a bunch of countries, but then a new variant that somewhat or even largely escapes the vaccines (since they're all targeting the spike protein, although not 100% identically, so eluding all of them is unlikely) developed elsewhere and started infecting vaccinated people. That's why vigilance on strains and immune responses to those strains induced by vaccines are so important to identify quickly to allow modified vaccines to be developed quickly.