Yes, I agree with all of this. I actually said I thought they should send out enough vaccine in 2020 to cover the 24 million people in the initial phase even though that’s more than half the 40M total doses expected, but that plan assumes that the first 8 million doses that come in Jan combined with the 16M doses left from 2020 are used for the 2nd shot of that initial 24M. The second shots should come in whatever timeline is set by the manufacturer and then we move on to the next group.The 52% efficacy after first shot is based on the Phase 3 study. But no vaccinated Phase 3 participants (Unless they are dropped from the study) received only one shot. So the 52% efficacy is base on 3 weeksX15000 participants. True efficacy of a single shot could be more or less. While the two shot 95% is base on 15000x8 weeks and counting. (For example I am close to three months post my second Pfizer shot).
When they did Phase 1 they tried a stronger dose as a single dose (100 vs 30 they chose), as well as two different two dose(10 and 30, with the second shot being the same as the first). That is when they decided the best choice to move to phase 2/3 was a two dose shot sequence. The single dose had more side effects in their small phase 1 sample, and (I do not have the data in front of me) I assume not enough additional (or even less) efficacy benefit. Will they in the future perhaps look at a different single does? Perhaps.
I understand why there is a legitimate discussion on the merits when people are dying everyday on getting more people to 52% vs getting half as many to 95%. That is not total stupidity. But going away from the phase 3 study protocol in number of doses or even timeline is doing one's own new "study". Is the risk vs benefit really there?
One dose of Pfizerâs COVID-19 vaccine offers some protection. But experts say you still need the second shot - The Boston Globe
The FDA is close to approving the Pfizer vaccine based on a two-dose regimen. Getting only one shot would mean less protection for people, infectious disease experts say. And no one knows how long that protection might last.www.bostonglobe.com
Now concerning people taking just one shot vs the two shots, because they think the second shot is just a "booster". Well they are foolish in my opinion. 95% is much better than ~52%. How much inconvenience is it to take two shots?
DeSantis said that FL was not holding any doses back because the manufacturer was already doing that. He said all the doses sent in Dec would be used right away and then they would get more doses in Jan for those people to get the second shot.
Sloui (sp?) was on CBS this morning saying the federal government, in conjunction with Pfizer logistics, was holding back the necessary doses and that as manufacturing proved effective and timely, they may well start holding back less or none at all.
FAKE NEWS. They forgot to include the microchip in the list.
Stay the course.The 52% efficacy after first shot is based on the Phase 3 study. But no vaccinated Phase 3 participants (Unless they are dropped from the study) received only one shot. So the 52% efficacy is base on 3 weeksX15000 participants. True efficacy of a single shot could be more or less. While the two shot 95% is base on 15000x8 weeks and counting. (For example I am close to three months post my second Pfizer shot).
When they did Phase 1 they tried a stronger dose as a single dose (100 vs 30 they chose), as well as two different two dose(10 and 30, with the second shot being the same as the first). That is when they decided the best choice to move to phase 2/3 was a two dose shot sequence. The single dose had more side effects in their small phase 1 sample, and (I do not have the data in front of me) I assume not enough additional (or even less) efficacy benefit. Will they in the future perhaps look at a different single does? Perhaps.
I understand why there is a legitimate discussion on the merits when people are dying everyday on getting more people to 52% vs getting half as many to 95%. That is not total stupidity. But going away from the phase 3 study protocol in number of doses or even timeline is doing one's own new "study". Is the risk vs benefit really there?
One dose of Pfizerâs COVID-19 vaccine offers some protection. But experts say you still need the second shot - The Boston Globe
The FDA is close to approving the Pfizer vaccine based on a two-dose regimen. Getting only one shot would mean less protection for people, infectious disease experts say. And no one knows how long that protection might last.
Now concerning people taking just one shot vs the two shots, because they think the second shot is just a "booster". Well they are foolish in my opinion. 95% is much better than ~52%. How much inconvenience is it to take two shots?
China will provide one with built in 5GThe Bill Gates microchip IS the cheap knock-off.
.
www.bbc.com
Sweden may need to reach out to neighbors for a lifeline as hospitals reach capacity. They have had 1,400 deaths in the last month compared to 180 in Norway and Finland combined. The population of Sweden is roughly the same as those 2 countries combined but over 7 times the deaths. Clearly the “plan” has not panned out well
Sweden's neighbours offer them emergency help as its hospitals fill up with coronavirus patients
Sweden is grappling with an alarming second wave of coronavirus infections as intensive care units in Stockholm reach capacity.news.yahoo.com
Yeah, it was just the end of Sept or Oct where someone here was saying that Sweden had beaten the virus and the pandemic was over there and they weren’t going to have a 2nd wave. That didn’t age well
Yeah, it was just the end of Sept or Oct where someone here was saying that Sweden had beaten the virus and the pandemic was over there and they weren’t going to have a 2nd wave. That didn’t age well
Yep, their way does not seem to be a quick way to herd immunity.Yeah, it was just the end of Sept or Oct where someone here was saying that Sweden had beaten the virus and the pandemic was over there and they weren’t going to have a 2nd wave. That didn’t age well
Yep, thre way does not seem to be a quick way to herd immunity.
But they are doing better than we (USA) are. But worse than their neighbors. So someone could argue their way was better than ours. But I think there are more variables involved than just shutdowns.
That’s a low bar to set unfortunatelyWell they are doing better than we (USA) are. But worse than their neighbors. So someone could argue their way was better than ours. But I think there are more variables involved than just shutdowns.
