Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Your argument is not his. He’s simply interfering at this point in order to take credit. In addition I understand you wanting to revamp the system, but that’s very different from threatening the FDC in order to achieve a certain result no matter how desirable. 

So?  The whole point of democracy is that it creates an incentive for politicians to do objectively good stuff even if they're doing it for the wrong reasons.

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is going to be a one off post because I don't want to get trolled or banned but if I were American, the context of Canada would be the biggest damning fact of how things have been handled in the

Australia has had months of little to no community spread and even then it was confined to one state. By and large Australians are running around doing the right thing, sport was and is still hap

I am confident we are going to hit >750K deaths.  I think it might be a million.  I don't post a ton but I'm an ER doc in a big city. This is by far the worse I've seen since the pandemic star

4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I get that it's fun to get mad at mayors, governors, etc. for mismanaging the pandemic.  We're all acclimated to criticizing elected officials, and it's our god-given right to do so.  No problem at all with that on my end.

On the other hand, it's maddening to see so many otherwise intelligent people not just fail to hold career bureaucrats accountable for similar mismanagement, but actually to go to bat for these people.  The FDA is the reason why we don't have a good testing regime in the US.  The FDA is the reason why we don't have at-home tests.  The FDA is the reason why people in the UK can be vaccinated but we can't.  None of these things has anything to do with Trump or DeSantis or Cuomo or any other elected leaders.  It's 100% due to an agency that has a long-standing culture of standing in the way of innovation.  Other developed countries handle drug approvals better than the US does -- it's been that way for decades, and it's amazing that people haven't noticed that during the pandemic.

This is news to me.  Thanks for posting. :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JAA said:

I've been thinking about this.

I think I understand why Trump and his political supporters don't take necessary precautions.  The answer?  Rudy.

Why would anyone close to President Trump, including himself, take any precautions?  I mean, if any of them contract CV, like Rudy or POTUS, they get immediately transferred to one of the best hospitals in the world and immediately get medication and treatment not available to anyone else in the world.  This being the case, why would any of them be afraid to contract COVID?

Makes me sad.

I'm not buying this.  There have been wealthy people that have passed away that I'm sure also had access to top notch healthcare similar to Rudy and Trump.  

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I get that it's fun to get mad at mayors, governors, etc. for mismanaging the pandemic.  We're all acclimated to criticizing elected officials, and it's our god-given right to do so.  No problem at all with that on my end.

On the other hand, it's maddening to see so many otherwise intelligent people not just fail to hold career bureaucrats accountable for similar mismanagement, but actually to go to bat for these people.  The FDA is the reason why we don't have a good testing regime in the US.  The FDA is the reason why we don't have at-home tests.  The FDA is the reason why people in the UK can be vaccinated but we can't.  None of these things has anything to do with Trump or DeSantis or Cuomo or any other elected leaders.  It's 100% due to an agency that has a long-standing culture of standing in the way of innovation.  Other developed countries handle drug approvals better than the US does -- it's been that way for decades, and it's amazing that people haven't noticed that during the pandemic.

This would be an interesting topic of discussion.  I've read harsh criticisms of the FDA and have also read about how valuable they can be.  I know they're not perfect, but how do we find a balance between the safeguards they are supposed to provide and the roadblocks they create?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dickies said:

This would be an interesting topic of discussion.  I've read harsh criticisms of the FDA and have also read about how valuable they can be.  I know they're not perfect, but how do we find a balance between the safeguards they are supposed to provide and the roadblocks they create?

One idea that I've always been partial to is the notion of establishing some type of international reciprocity for drug approvals.  The basic idea is that we select a whitelist of other developed, scientifically-advanced nations with FDA-like agencies that we trust.  If a particular drug, treatment, or medical device is approved for use in one of those whitelisted countries, it's automatically approved here unless our own FDA specifically acts to block it.  (In other words, drugs coming out of whitelisted countries are approved unless the FDA says otherwise instead of being illegal unless the FDA says otherwise).

Obviously the catch here is which countries go on the whitelist.  Nobody that I know of is arguing that we should provide blanket approval for drugs that have been approved by, say, Uruguay.  But I honestly don't think there's a defensible argument for why Americans should be blocked from voluntarily following treatments that have been approved in the UK, EU, Canada, Japan, and similar nations.  

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

One idea that I've always been partial to is the notion of establishing some type of international reciprocity for drug approvals.  The basic idea is that we select a whitelist of other developed, scientifically-advanced nations with FDA-like agencies that we trust.  If a particular drug, treatment, or medical device is approved for use in one of those whitelisted countries, it's automatically approved here unless our own FDA specifically acts to block it.  (In other words, drugs coming out of whitelisted countries are approved unless the FDA says otherwise instead of being illegal unless the FDA says otherwise).

Obviously the catch here is which countries go on the whitelist.  Nobody that I know of is arguing that we should provide blanket approval for drugs that have been approved by, say, Uruguay.  But I honestly don't think there's a defensible argument for why Americans should be blocked from voluntarily following treatments that have been approved in the UK, EU, Canada, Japan, and similar nations.  

I can think of a reason why this might not work.  One supposes such an arrangement would almost certainly be reciprocal (although technically it would not necessarily be required, I suppose).  For sake of argument, suppose one of the nations on the list elected a corrupt, narcissistic fool to a leadership position.  In such an event, it might not be wise to whitelist approvals given by staff who report to such an individual.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

One idea that I've always been partial to is the notion of establishing some type of international reciprocity for drug approvals.  The basic idea is that we select a whitelist of other developed, scientifically-advanced nations with FDA-like agencies that we trust.  If a particular drug, treatment, or medical device is approved for use in one of those whitelisted countries, it's automatically approved here unless our own FDA specifically acts to block it.  (In other words, drugs coming out of whitelisted countries are approved unless the FDA says otherwise instead of being illegal unless the FDA says otherwise).

Obviously the catch here is which countries go on the whitelist.  Nobody that I know of is arguing that we should provide blanket approval for drugs that have been approved by, say, Uruguay.  But I honestly don't think there's a defensible argument for why Americans should be blocked from voluntarily following treatments that have been approved in the UK, EU, Canada, Japan, and similar nations.  

I like this until i realize its possible we become the country no one trusts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

One idea that I've always been partial to is the notion of establishing some type of international reciprocity for drug approvals.  The basic idea is that we select a whitelist of other developed, scientifically-advanced nations with FDA-like agencies that we trust.  If a particular drug, treatment, or medical device is approved for use in one of those whitelisted countries, it's automatically approved here unless our own FDA specifically acts to block it.  (In other words, drugs coming out of whitelisted countries are approved unless the FDA says otherwise instead of being illegal unless the FDA says otherwise).

Obviously the catch here is which countries go on the whitelist.  Nobody that I know of is arguing that we should provide blanket approval for drugs that have been approved by, say, Uruguay.  But I honestly don't think there's a defensible argument for why Americans should be blocked from voluntarily following treatments that have been approved in the UK, EU, Canada, Japan, and similar nations.  

I like this.  I think it would be even better if we pooled our resources with an international coalition so that there is limited overlap in testing/research during the approval process.

Edited by Dickies
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

I like this until i realize its possible we become the country no one trusts. 

"Reciprocity" was the wrong word -- I mean we defer to other countries' agencies, not that they necessarily defer to ours.

Think of how some Latin American countries adopted the dollar as their national currency as a means of credibly taking monetary policy out of the hands of their own government.  It would be like that, only for drug approvals.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Austrian PM tests a glass of Coca Cola and it's positive for Covid

LINK

 

58 minutes ago, tymarsas said:

Honest question. What does this prove? Or what is the point?

I realize this might come across as flippant so let me clarify.

I don't speak German so I don't know if that was even a covid test or that it came out positive. Even if it was true, there is no control on that test at all. He puts the swab on the podium at the start. He also touches the end of the swab with his hand. There is no proof that that is actually Coca Cola in the glass. If the point is to prove that it is easy to get false positives, he did a very poor job of proving that.

I believe the point of this was just to score political points with those people that already believe the same things as he does.

Edited by tymarsas
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 1:22 PM, IvanKaramazov said:

I get that it's fun to get mad at mayors, governors, etc. for mismanaging the pandemic.  We're all acclimated to criticizing elected officials, and it's our god-given right to do so.  No problem at all with that on my end.

On the other hand, it's maddening to see so many otherwise intelligent people not just fail to hold career bureaucrats accountable for similar mismanagement, but actually to go to bat for these people.  The FDA is the reason why we don't have a good testing regime in the US.  The FDA is the reason why we don't have at-home tests.  The FDA is the reason why people in the UK can be vaccinated but we can't.  None of these things has anything to do with Trump or DeSantis or Cuomo or any other elected leaders.  It's 100% due to an agency that has a long-standing culture of standing in the way of innovation.  Other developed countries handle drug approvals better than the US does -- it's been that way for decades, and it's amazing that people haven't noticed that during the pandemic.

I completely disagree   The FDA in the last decade has been attempting to speed approvals and IMO has swung the pendulum too far already.  They are approving drugs based on less and less evidence and due to the fact that medicare requires payment for any FDA approved drug, we are potentially wasting billions of dollars on expensive drugs that years later are determined not to improve outcomes.  They have often been approving drugs on the condition of post marketing studies being done by manufacturers and often these studies don't get done or are delayed.  I could provide a ton of links from the NEJM, but they are behind paywalls so I cut and pasted a paragraph from a 2017 editorial about a specific example, but there are literally dozens:

The case of Folotyn (pralatrexate) provides an example of delayed postapproval requirements that are central for assessing benefit. The drug was conditionally approved for relapsed or resistant peripheral T-cell lymphoma under the accelerated-approval pathway, which allows the FDA to approve drugs for serious conditions for which there are few treatment options on the basis of limited, preliminary evidence, but contingent on subsequent trials confirming benefit.3 Pralatrexate was approved on the basis of a single-group trial of 111 patients in which 26% had a complete or partial response and 44% experienced a serious adverse event. When the FDA approved the drug, it required two randomized trials to confirm clinical benefit, defined as longer progression-free survival (even though that measure is not consistently related to overall survival). Seven years later, one trial had missed deadlines for two milestones and had enrolled 30 patients; the other was still ongoing. The FDA also required two additional postapproval studies to fulfill requirements for accelerated approval; both were delayed. Consequently, the labeling for pralatrexate still warns prescribers that clinical benefit has not been demonstrated.

September 21, 2017
N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1114-1117
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1705800

As a patient, I want an FDA that rigorously evaluates new drugs and devices to make sure they are safe and effective.  As a taxpayer, I want an FDA that doesn't rubber stamp drug company applications and approve drugs that cost thousands of dollars, such as biologicals that can be >$100K a year without being certain than are effective (within the limitations of well designed studies).  It's easy to say "well let's reduce red tape and get these drugs approved faster" but unless you have a true appreciation of all the factors and nuances involved you can't have an informed opinion.  And even among experts within and outside the FDA, these issues are hotly debated.  And the last thing I want is to have a reciprocal agreement with other countries.  The vast majority of the world goes by decisions made by the US FDA and don't rigorously evaluate applications.   Pharmaceutical companies have a long history of shady practices, ranging from faking data to paying generic companies to not manufacture generics when patents are done, to changing a formulation in a minor way to extend exclusivity to other major dubious practices.   

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I'm unclear what the issue is with this specific one, if I'm reading it correctly.

NY is struggling, restaurants are closed, people are out of work, kids can't go to school - and this guy throws a birthday party and raises money for himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Austrian PM tests a glass of Coca Cola and it's positive for Covid

LINK

This is an antigen test, not a PCR test.   It is designed to turn a color when it is positive.  Part of that is obviously being designed to turn that color when tested in saliva or mucosal fluid that is at a specific pH, etc.  Not a brown liquid at unknown temperature with multiple ingredients and an acidic pH.

 I'm sure if you put a rapid strep swab into gasoline, or cranberry juice, or battery acid, or red bull the results are inaccurate too.   This was a stunt, not unlike that idiot that brought a snowball to congress to 'prove" global warming isn't real, to dupe conspiracy theorists and scientifically ignorant people.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

NY is struggling, restaurants are closed, people are out of work, kids can't go to school - and this guy throws a birthday party and raises money for himself.

This almost sounds like an argument that the wealthy shouldn't enjoy their wealth while others are suffering.  Not the argument I was expecting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, growlers said:

As a patient, I want an FDA that rigorously evaluates new drugs and devices to make sure they are safe and effective.  As a taxpayer, I want an FDA that doesn't rubber stamp drug company applications and approve drugs that cost thousands of dollars, such as biologicals that can be >$100K a year without being certain than are effective (within the limitations of well designed studies).  It's easy to say "well let's reduce red tape and get these drugs approved faster" but unless you have a true appreciation of all the factors and nuances involved you can't have an informed opinion.  And even among experts within and outside the FDA, these issues are hotly debated.  And the last thing I want is to have a reciprocal agreement with other countries.  The vast majority of the world goes by decisions made by the US FDA and don't rigorously evaluate applications.  

This sounds fine under normal circumstances.  I don't agree with the tradeoff you're making, but I can see why a person might want a slow-moving FDA that places a high priority on avoiding Type I errors at the cost of a large number of Type II errors.   

The a pandemic comes along that starts killing thousands of people per day, and we get to watch other people in other countries get vaccinated while our own FDA takes nearly three weeks to evaluate an afternoon's worth of data.  ("Look and see if there are any statistically significant differences in means between these two populations" is an afternoon's worth of work, assuming that you took a long lunch and cut out of the office a little early for happy hour).  As I've argued before, I'm basically okay with the FDA testing drugs for safety.  Once you get past that hurdle, it's really tough to argue in favor of denying treatment to consenting adults when they're literally dying by the thousands while the FDA sits around.  On a pragmatic level, it's a bad tradeoff.  On a moral level, how dare you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This sounds fine under normal circumstances.  I don't agree with the tradeoff you're making, but I can see why a person might want a slow-moving FDA that places a high priority on avoiding Type I errors at the cost of a large number of Type II errors.   

The a pandemic comes along that starts killing thousands of people per day, and we get to watch other people in other countries get vaccinated while our own FDA takes nearly three weeks to evaluate an afternoon's worth of data.  ("Look and see if there are any statistically significant differences in means between these two populations" is an afternoon's worth of work, assuming that you took a long lunch and cut out of the office a little early for happy hour).  As I've argued before, I'm basically okay with the FDA testing drugs for safety.  Once you get past that hurdle, it's really tough to argue in favor of denying treatment to consenting adults when they're literally dying by the thousands while the FDA sits around.  On a pragmatic level, it's a bad tradeoff.  On a moral level, how dare you.

You’re missing a few big points on the desire to rush a vaccine to market after proving safety.

1. mRNA technology has never been used before and one of the reasons was because they had to figure out how to protect the mRNA long enough in the body to do it’s job. Efficacy data is needed prove, it won’t show up is safety testing.

2. We need around 70% of the population to get vaccinated to reach herd immunity. We’re already going to have problems reaching that. We really have one chance for this. If you give out vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested, the skepticism would make that impossible. Myself and many other health care professionals would not have taken the vaccine if it was rushed.

And if they start giving it to everyone and it proved to not be effective, you’ve destroyed the confidence in all future vaccines and in the bigger picture, vaccines in general. The anti-vax movement would be huge after that.

I get the frustration in the delays but it’s needed for consumer and provider confidence in the vaccine and you need a ton of it to be fully effective. When you’re looking at the few day delay we’ve had vs. other countries, that can easily be made up with efficient distribution and administration. I don’t see that happening but a couple days isn’t going to make that much of a difference. It’s going to take several months before we see any major benefits from the vaccine.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Love 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

As I've argued before, I'm basically okay with the FDA testing drugs for safety.  Once you get past that hurdle, it's really tough to argue in favor of denying treatment to consenting adults when they're literally dying by the thousands while the FDA sits around. 

What about the erosion of trust in the medical system when a bunch of safe, but ineffective treatments are approved?  Will efficaciousness studies be performed by the drug companies after approval?  How will doctors know what to prescribe if there are lots of ineffective drugs available and a lack of good data to determine a course of action?

This sounds like a pretty bad situation if a vaccine is safe but ineffective and there's a mass vaccination campaign that is essentially useless.  Do we just continue with mass vaccinations until we hit on the one that works? I think the public would sour on that quickly and getting large scale buy-in (necessary for herd immunity) might be impossible after even one failed vaccination campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Outdoor schooling. 1918-19.

The subsequent New England winter was especially unforgiving, but children stayed warm in wearable blankets known as “Eskimo sitting bags” and with heated soapstones placed at their feet. The experiment was a success by nearly every measure — none of the children got sick. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

What about the erosion of trust in the medical system when a bunch of safe, but ineffective treatments are approved? 

How about the erosion of trust when health care authorities tell people not to wear masks?  Or when they scream at people for going to half-empty beaches but give a thumbs-up to mass protests? Or when they drag their feet on approving a vaccine, opting for theater instead?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

How many are dying each day to covid?  Why are those people's lives worthy of sacrifice?

Thats not an actual data point for this discussion. Youre assuming that the rollout would always be linear regardless of available doses, logistics, etc. 

You are dismissing what % of the early vaccine receivers would have been sick and died, which of course would be magnitudes lower. 

And also again you are making an assumption that the safety profile is irrefutably known to be safe and there are zero long term consequences. 

And of course none of this touches on the debate of rollout strategy re:confidence from the public. I dont think that should be the job of the FDA, but I dont dismiss the viewpoint as some sort of mathematical certainty that I am correct. 

Edited by parasaurolophus
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

How about the erosion of trust when health care authorities tell people not to wear masks?  Or when they scream at people for going to half-empty beaches but give a thumbs-up to mass protests? Or when they drag their feet on approving a vaccine, opting for theater instead?

Oh for sure there were a lot of missteps by many.  The reticence to embrace universal mask wearing early and the inability to get testing ramped are glaring.

But a mass vax campaign that foes nothing would be far more damaging, IMO, and have deleterious knock-on effects for other vaccinations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

the debate of rollout strategy re:confidence from the public. I dont think that should be the job of the FDA, but I dont dismiss the viewpoint as some sort of mathematical certainty that I am correct. 

No, it's the job of the CDC and related public health authorities in conjunction with the executives of federal, state, and municipalities.  This is about messaging.  Let's look at vaccine participation rates in Canada, AUS/NZ, and UK to evaluate confidence from the public. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuine question......how many places are even ready to receive this vaccine?

Countries have been putting this infrastructure in place for months.  Have we?  I dont know the answer to that, but i havent heard about it if we have been. 

I understand IKs point and agree with most of it, but the "confidence" part is lacking IMO as confidence has been an issue unaddressed this whole time and its not a switch that just gets flipped fromnoconfidence to complete confidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

How many are dying each day to covid?  Why are those people's lives worthy of sacrifice?

You continue to make the assumptions that deaths will just fall off a cliff as soon as the vaccine is approved. It will take months to make any dent and during that time the mitigation steps will continue to be multitudes more important.

You essentially want the US to take the same approach that Russia and China did with their vaccine. Would you have given those vaccines to your family? I know I wouldn’t and I’d venture to say that most health care professionals share that opinion.

You can armchair QB this all you want and try and make the emotional argument but none of that matters if people don’t want to get the vaccine. Polling suggests that 60% of people will get the vaccine now. I’m more optimistic and think it will end up closer to 70-80% as long as there’s no hiccups. If the vaccine had come out several months ago prior to phase 3 trials, I doubt you reach even 40%. And if the vaccine proves not be effective you destroy the confidence in any future vaccine as well.

Phase 3 trials are absolutely necessary in this vaccines especially considering it’s a new technology. Not only do you need it for proof of concept but also for the confidence of the public and the providers. The goal they set for an effective vaccine was only 60% (I believe). These first two vaccines are showing 95%. That’s going to go a long way to getting us the confidence needed to herd immunity and that doesn’t happen without the phase 3 trials.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Genuine question......how many places are even ready to receive this vaccine?

Countries have been putting this infrastructure in place for months.  Have we?  I dont know the answer to that, but i havent heard about it if we have been. 

I understand IKs point and agree with most of it, but the "confidence" part is lacking IMO as confidence has been an issue unaddressed this whole time and its not a switch that just gets flipped fromnoconfidence to complete confidence. 

I doubt we’re anywhere close to ready. I’ve been trying to find information about how health care professionals will apply to get the vaccine. We’ve been told that we (pharmacy personnel) would be part of Phase 1A but all we really know is where the potential sites will be and a tentative timeline that appears to have already changed several times.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

No, it's the job of the CDC and related public health authorities in conjunction with the executives of federal, state, and municipalities.  This is about messaging.  Let's look at vaccine participation rates in Canada, AUS/NZ, and UK to evaluate confidence from the public. 

I think some are looking at this wrong. A lot of the FDA’s job is to instill confidence in the drugs and vaccines they approve. They do that by requiring significant  safety and efficacy testing and comprehensive reviews before approving it for use in the general public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biff84 said:

I doubt we’re anywhere close to ready. I’ve been trying to find information about how health care professionals will apply to get the vaccine. We’ve been told that we (pharmacy personnel) would be part of Phase 1A but all we really know is where the potential sites will be and a tentative timeline that appears to have already changed several times.

Is your store specific ready with freezers and all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Is your store specific ready with freezers and all?

The coolers transporting the vaccine can continue to be used in the pharmacies without the ultra cold freezers. We will have to follow very specific restrictions - only opening for a minute at a time and a maximum of twice a day. Then ever 5 days they need to be ‘recharged’ with dry ice. I heard the cooler being described as being a long, flat box like a pizza box.

The actual administration is crazy too. It needs to be warmed up to room temperature which I believe takes 3 hours. It comes in multi-dose vials that need to be reconstituted to make a total of 10 doses. There’s time limits at fridge temps (3 or 5 days), room temp (~5 hours) and after reconstituted. So planning needs be top notch to avoid wasting doses.

To add to the pressure I’ve heard that each cooler has a large number of doses, like 900 and they can’t be split up. So if you mess up, you really mess up.

I don’t have the fact sheet in front of me, so the numbers might be off a little bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

The coolers transporting the vaccine can continue to be used in the pharmacies without the ultra cold freezers. We will have to follow very specific restrictions - only opening for a minute at a time and a maximum of twice a day. Then ever 5 days they need to be ‘recharged’ with dry ice. I heard the cooler being described as being a long, flat box like a pizza box.

The actual administration is crazy too. It needs to be warmed up to room temperature which I believe takes 3 hours. It comes in multi-dose vials that need to be reconstituted to make a total of 10 doses. There’s time limits at fridge temps (3 or 5 days), room temp (~5 hours) and after reconstituted. So planning needs be top notch to avoid wasting doses.

To add to the pressure I’ve heard that each cooler has a large number of doses, like 900 and they can’t be split up. So if you mess up, you really mess up.

I don’t have the fact sheet in front of me, so the numbers might be off a little bit.

Someone in one of these threads asked why Canada was "hoarding" doses and the bold is why.  That's exactly what I've heard too sans the being able to keep it in the fridge.  I'd heard once thawed, they had to be used in 6ish hours.  I don't envy anyone who's going to have to administer this thing...sounds like a nightmare, and that's WITH proper planning, which I doubt we have.  Incidentally....if one wants a good stock tip, the dry ice market is about to get HOT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Someone in one of these threads asked why Canada was "hoarding" doses and the bold is why.  That's exactly what I've heard too sans the being able to keep it in the fridge.  I'd heard once thawed, they had to be used in 6ish hours.  I don't envy anyone who's going to have to administer this thing...sounds like a nightmare, and that's WITH proper planning, which I doubt we have.  Incidentally....if one wants a good stock tip, the dry ice market is about to get HOT.

Yeah it’s going to be a long couple of months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the county (Maricopa) voted to change the plan and now we’re not likely see to the Pfizer vaccine at all and we’ll start with Moderna once it is approved and phase 1A is finished likely December 26th or early January. This is what I expected and it makes a lot more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like my wife will be getting one at the end of December if it plays out. She works at a skilled nursing facility whose population is geriatric. They had CV run through there back in May with something like 23 deaths. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JAA said:

It looks like my wife will be getting one at the end of December if it plays out. She works at a skilled nursing facility whose population is geriatric. They had CV run through there back in May with something like 23 deaths. 

Yikes, how many residents? My mom said the nursing home in my hometown had 40 out of 48 residents tested positive along with several staff members and 10 deaths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

Folks in the White House are getting priority on getting the vaccine. Normally I would agree with our politicians getting vaccinated first, but not the guys who have downplayed it and refuse to take any precautions. So cynical.

Put them in the with essential workers...after healthcare workers and the most high risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Biff84 said:
2 hours ago, JAA said:

It looks like my wife will be getting one at the end of December if it plays out. She works at a skilled nursing facility whose population is geriatric. They had CV run through there back in May with something like 23 deaths. 

Yikes, how many residents? My mom said the nursing home in my hometown had 40 out of 48 residents tested positive along with several staff members and 10 deaths

Wife says a population of like 110-ish.  It was brutal, people dying everyday.  One weekend 5 folks died. She had a coworker and their family die (coworker, coworker mom and coworker brother) and they couldn’t even find a next of kin.  Full disclosure I’m about an hour west of Boston, MA. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gianmarco said:

Australia with zero cases a couple days ago

And that's how you can open things back up.

 

I mean, sure.  Australia’s approach has “worked.”  
 

My BFF lives in Melbourne.  He’s barely left his condo in 5 months.   Basically, they completely shut down Victoria for 4 months (111 days per the article).  We aren’t talking US-style lockdown.  This is more like Singapore.

No judgment here, that’s basically the life I’ve been living for 9 months now.  But Americans just aren’t willing to make that level of sacrifice (or tradeoff, depending on the words you prefer).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GroveDiesel said:

Folks in the White House are getting priority on getting the vaccine. Normally I would agree with our politicians getting vaccinated first, but not the guys who have downplayed it and refuse to take any precautions. So cynical.

Trump says he's canceling plans to vaccinate White House staff

On the one hand, I think this is a good gesture. But on the other hand, I think he could convince many of his supporters to get vaccinated if they saw Trump and/or his staff get it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alex P Keaton said:

I mean, sure.  Australia’s approach has “worked.”  
 

My BFF lives in Melbourne.  He’s barely left his condo in 5 months.   Basically, they completely shut down Victoria for 4 months (111 days per the article).  We aren’t talking US-style lockdown.  This is more like Singapore.

No judgment here, that’s basically the life I’ve been living for 9 months now.  But Americans just aren’t willing to make that level of sacrifice (or tradeoff, depending on the words you prefer).

Exactly...same thing happened in China.  Those were actual "lockdowns".  Have a friend living by the South China Sea....they were in their homes from beginning of March through June...ONE person was allowed out ONCE a week to get food for the first two months.  Only other time people left were for medical emergencies.  After that they started letting people leave with masks on and temp checks every couple blocks.  They've been back to "normal" for a couple months now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...