Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

I would like to know what "altered" their plan.

I assume the FDA is seeing the Israeli data for sure. Still don't like what Pfizer is doing with their trial.

 

Maybe they are worried about results not being good so they decided to "rig" the trial with younger people. Again, this speculation could've been avoided if Pfizer included the elderly in their phase 2/3 trial. It brings more questions than answers to me.

 

Analysis: Exaggerated 'COVID Hospitalizations' Revelation Is Significant (townhall.com)
A new study suggests that almost half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic cases. Being hospitalized *with* is very different than being hospitalized *from*
CoV2. It’s ridiculous these two are still being reported togetherOur Most Reliable Pandemic Number Is Losing Meaning


The authors of the paper out this week took a different tack to answer a similar question, this time for adults. Instead of meticulously looking at why a few hundred patients were admitted to a pair of hospitals, they analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country...The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease. This increase was even bigger for vaccinated hospital patients, of whom 57 percent had mild or asymptomatic disease.

 

Again, they utilize the data from the initial trial to limit their sample. What were the age-stratified results in the initial trial?

 

About That 'Man Died After Being Turned Away from 43 ICUs' Over COVID Story (townhall.com)
This is the latest round of fake news concerning COVID, huh? I’ve been told our hospitals are about to collapse. It hasn’t happened. In fact, this piece of fear porn has been manufactured before. It centers on Intensive care units, which are almost always near capacity, even prior to the pandemic. If they’re not, the hospital loses money.


Enter National Public Radio that peddled a story that wasn’t true at face value. The narrative was that the ICUs are so packed with COVID patients that it resulted in his death. He reportedly visited 43 and was turned away. It wasn’t COVID that killed him; it was a heart ailment. Yet, midway through the story, you can see where things go off the hinges. It’s classic misinformation (via NPR) [emphasis mine]:

‘A Man Died After Being Turned Away From 43 ICUs At Capacity Due To COVID, Family Says’ is the headline.

Well, he was admitted. He was transferred because the original hospital wasn’t properly equipped to give him the care he needed. That’s hardly being turned away.

The story is false. NPR probably knew it was false but ran with it anyway because it was a noble lie. It’s still a lie, kids. The liberal media intentionally misleads and knows it can get away with it.

 

So CRMC didn't contact 43 hospitals that were at capacity and were unable to take him? Because that is the claim, not that the initial hospital put him out because of Covid. If Townhall is going to claim somebody is lying, it is best to actually address the claims made in the article, not some other claim not made in the article.

 

Stats I've seen are MDs are 96% vaccinated. Assuming he isn't one of the 4%, it's interesting GR rejects his own professionally educated son's information in favor of whatever obscure source GR reads.

 

Not the US, but, if you know what got us here…smh…

 

Why limit their sample? Why limit the one age group that actually needs the booster? That makes zero sense to anyone who isn't a share holder in Pfizer.

 

This article does nothing to refute the 43 times. Maybe it is false or misleading, but the article provides no evidence other than "he was admitted", whatever that means.

 

Phase 1 is always small. Phase 3 trials were something like 30,000 for each vaccine. They broaden it out with each phase as the safety gets established.

Remember those nutjobs hyping hydroxycloriquin? They were hyping it based on a study of 8 patients! Turns out when it was studied in larger groups it failed. Yet misinformation peddlers were citing the early study for months and months.

As to why not study older age groups. I’m not so sure. I don’t think I believe that, certainly in a broader study they will study all age groups.

 

Well, so that answers the question about review of the Israeli data. Representatives from Israel will actual present data to the FDA the morning they discussion the expansion of the authorization for the Pfizer shot:

In all honesty, for those who took the 2 dose Pfizer shot, this is probably a no brainer and says more about how Pfizer did not get the dose for their 2 shots optimized in the first place. I know Moderna also applied for booster shots, but the people who had the Moderna shot see to be having fewer issues at this point. Maybe at the one year mark, they will both be the same?

COVID-19 tracker: FDA gears up for meeting over Pfizer booster; Biden to meet with CEOs in vax mandate push

 

Probably because if there are bad side effects an older person would die more easily from them.

 

Why do you people keep bringing up stuff like this, as though what happens in the US is in some bubble cut off from the world? Don't you think with the nearly 2.8 million people (over 1 million of whom were over 60) in Israel who have received the booster (3rd shot), plus the nearly 1 million in the US who have already received the booster that we woudl have seen these "scary bad side effects" by now.

Here is the pre-print from the Israeilis showing safety and efficacy : https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.27.21262679v1.full.pdf

 

That explains it for phase one trial of only 12 people.

The later trials will of course have to study all age ranges, or else they cannot approve for those ranges. It’s the oldest and most vulnerable that will need it first, especially as they are (mostly) the longest from their original vaccination dates if they got them early.

 

Yes it did. I am Jewish. The comparison is inappropriate and offensive. And disgusting. And it isn’t funny.

 

Depends. Typically older people have weaker immune responses and some of the side effects are related to the immune response. Given that certain side effects may actually be less.

 

Get 'Em to pull it down. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

Such a crap article. Can’t believe anyone read it much less used it as a basis for an argument.

 

What are you so angrily taking about? You must have me confused with someone else. I was simply speculating as to why they aren't using elderly people in early initial trials. Good grief. Have a better reason, then provide it.