Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Heppenheimer]

Even way back then, that still required massive breakthroughs. It’s not an issue of just taking a chance and more money as has been explained.

This. There was a pre-existing playbook and well-established science for developing vaccines.

For treatment, we would either get lucky that some pre-existing antivirals would work, or we would need to go back to the drawing board to come up with a completely new classes of medications with novel mechanisms of action. Well, we didn't get so lucky...

 

[mmascari]

So. The ones that do work, we are working to get supplies up now. Again, it could have occurred earlier, but we didn't take that chance. Can't go back and change that now I guess..

They have though. We're buying those treatment options.

As @Heppenheimer shows, the vaccine bet was really simple and had a high chance of working. It had lots of history that was very similar. The major reason we don't have more vaccines in general is that it's very hard to make money on vaccines generally.

For treatments, there was no easy bet, the vast majority of attempts would fail. Many of those attempts were just throwing random stuff at treatment. Many with questionable stats to show they really did anything. Once you filter those all out, we are spending money on the ones that show efficacy. There's always market forces driving treatments too, that's why there were so many presented to the FDA. There's tons of money in getting someone dozen or hundreds of doses of something for treatment, even better if they get sick again or need to continue the treatment forever. Way better business plan than giving someone even 10 vaccine doses and never selling to them again for their lifetime.

Now, if you want to talk supplies in general, that's a different matter. We've known how the at home tests and masks work for months, and we didn't ramp those up. That's a completely valid complaint, and I think everyone here would agree with that, at least the people who agree that testing and masks work. Clearly the reverse bet, that we were done and completely vaccinated our way out last summer was wrong.

 

[DisneyCane]

Age is certainly driving some of the numbers but I think the older groups are more likely to give up on fighting it and just get the shot rather than the younger. My conservative extended relative (late 60s) begrudgingly got the vaccine, complained afterwards and said he regretted it for months, despite having no real reason, and then said he wasn't getting the booster. I'd imagine if he was 40 years younger he probably wouldn't have bothered the first time around because he was young and not "at risk."

On the flip side, my mom (mid 70s) is a very entrenched Democrat (she spent her early 20's heavily involved working for the Democrat Party of NY) and somebody who has been deathly afraid of COVID since the very beginning. She got vaccinated as soon as possible and got boosted as soon as they became available.

After having pretty significant side effects from both the second dose and the booster shot and after seeing the data about the rapidly waning protection she said that she's not getting any more doses. Will she change her mind, who knows. However, this is a case where I (the Republican) want her to keep up with the recommended vaccination schedule to minimize her risk and she (the Democrat) doesn't want any more shots.

It isn't always so simple. I got vaccinated (and boosted) for personal protection after analyzing the data and concluding that it was a no-brainer risk reduction. I didn't consider who I voted for or what policies I support.

 

[Andrew C]

For treatments, there was no easy bet, the vast majority of attempts would fail. Many of those attempts were just throwing random stuff at treatment.

Wasn’t worth to take chances on companies like Pfizer earlier in the process? During a pandemic? Seems like a lot of excuses to me. Whatever. Can’t change the past.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Wasn’t worth to take chances on companies like Pfizer earlier in the process? During a pandemic? Seems like a lot of excuses to me. Whatever. Can’t change the past.

There WAS money flooding in from the very start, both from investors and governments. But there isn't an infinite amount of money (or government regulatory man-hours) to chase an infinite amount of ideas. Some need to show promise first. Even here, we still developed several monoclonal antibodies and two novel antiviral medications in less than two years. That's a pretty substantial feat.

Vaccines, on the other hand, already had a head-start. You don't need to re-invent the basic science to adapt the techniques to a novel virus. All it took was fine-tuning and testing.

 

[Communicora]

Do what you will. Even with all the precautions, you've got to step out of your bunker at some point. Omicron is waiting...

This tweet from the chair at UCSF Dept of Medicine is a better way to look at it

 

[mmascari]

So you are saying that the parents of 84% of the children 5-11 in Florida are Republicans? I think not.

Maybe they have more kids? Isn't that the plot of a movie? (That's a cheap shot, I admit it. But, it walked right into it.)

If kids rates mirrored adults rates we’d probably be at 75% nationwide, unfortunately kids rates are pitiful right now.

The nationwide rate is probably very misleading is part of this. The actual child vaccination rate is very regional.

Age is certainly driving some of the numbers but I think the older groups are more likely to give up on fighting it and just get the shot rather than the younger. My conservative extended relative (late 60s) begrudgingly got the vaccine, complained afterwards and said he regretted it for months, despite having no real reason, and then said he wasn't getting the booster. I'd imagine if he was 40 years younger he probably wouldn't have bothered the first time around because he was young and not "at risk."

However, this is a case where I (the Republican) want her to keep up with the recommended vaccination schedule to minimize her risk and she (the Democrat) doesn't want any more shots.

It's statistics, not individual prediction. And, it's clearly not anywhere near 100% even in the statistics. It's a "in this huge group, A will be true more often than B". It's not a surprise there are lots of reverse examples.

So we have three different statistics reporting problems, none of which mean "all". The vaccination rate at different ages is very regional, enough different to make the national rate questionable. The same for age and political group.

Even in my state, the state rate if very misleading. In my county, Fully Vaccinated % of Population is 84%, and 44% boosted. For over 5, it's 89% (no boosted number), over 18 it's 95% and 49% boosted. Clearly very very vaccinated. Drive an hour away, but still in the state, and it's Fully Vaccinated % of Population is 48%, 43% boosted. Sounds like everyone in that county that's vaccinated is also boosted, just about. For them, over 5, 50%, over 18 is 56% and 45%.

In my county, not everyone is vaccinated and not everyone is a Democrat. For my kids, all of their friends are vaccinated but they know kids who are not, they're just not friends with them. A little peer pressure. In the other county, I'm sure they're not all Republicans.

However, if you were going to pick a random person from each area, and make a bet about what they are, the statistics tell you which is the more likely bet. Not always the correct one, just the more likely.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Wasn’t worth to take chances on companies like Pfizer earlier in the process? During a pandemic? Seems like a lot of excuses to me. Whatever. Can’t change the past.

A big problem is that the window for any positive effect from the pills is small. You need to have felt symptoms, gotten tested, received your results, and get in touch with a doctor who can prescribe the medication. Look at how long it's taking people to even get tested right now. Then add in delays with getting results back from the lab because of the overwhelming amount of tests being submitted. For most people, the process of starting to feel sick, getting a test, and getting the results already passes the window in which the pills are useful. It's not like the pills are garbage, but they're not equal to the vaccines in any way. It's good that they exist, but they're not something that will benefit everyone who is sick, regardless of how plentiful the supply is or isn't. So yeah, there's going to be pushback when someone pushes them as a viable alternative rather than a backup plan (not that you did, but it's how this conversation began).

 

[lazyboy97o]

The breakthroughs happened but the leaders apparently did not take the leap with the companies until the meds showed promise. This isn't how we handled vaccines. I wish it would have been different. That is all.

The breakthroughs didn’t happen in the way you actually want.

It has also been reported that 20 million treatments from the Pfizer pills would keep over 1 million people out of the hospital. It would have been nice to have that supply earlier. Not sure why that it is such a controversial stance. Because it may not help a particular group with particular issues doesn't mean it is not worth having.

You’re assuming that simply tossing more money at this would fix the supply constraints. Some things don’t ramp up well because they’re very hard to make. Your numbers also assume that all of those dose get properly administered in the very small window during which they are effective.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It is amazing that people don't want to push both, when we know very well not everyone is going to be vaccinated. Heck, it can even benefit the vaccinated.

Who, and I repeat, *who* isn't pushing for anti-viral medication? I'd like names and citations, please.

The breakthroughs happened but the leaders apparently did not take the leap with the companies until the meds showed promise. This isn't how we handled vaccines. I wish it would have been different. That is all.

Wagering on several promising vaccines was the smart thing to because...

VACCINES WORK BETTER, CHEAPER, LONGER, SAFER THAN MEDS. THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.

Betting on vaccines is not the same as not wanting or **pushing** for meds. It's betting on a process that would preclude even needing the meds... which have to go through lengthy trials, just like the vaccines.

You know that it was the decision of the previous administration to bet on vaccines over meds, right? It was the right choice, to their credit.

It has also been reported that 20 million treatments from the Pfizer pills would keep over 1 million people out of the hospital. It would have been nice to have that supply earlier. Not sure why that it is such a controversial stance. Because it may not help a particular group with particular issues doesn't mean it is not worth having.

Let's talk about anti-viral pills.

If you take them *before* you get the virus to keep the virus from causing illness, then guess what? You have to take them over and over and over and over again. The anti-viral meds don't stay in your body (unlike the antibodies created from a vaccine injection). So, it's not just a million pills. It's several billion pills for years if you want to keep all the anti-vaxxers happy. Go ahead and price that out.

If you take them *after* you get the virus, it better be in the very early stage. Because, if you're at the point you need to be hospitalized, the virus is already winning, and the pill needs to target several hundred million viruses. (Which is something your immune system can do if you had gotten vaccinated). Finding a molecular protein that can shut down the viral scourge and not harm the rest of you is... way way way more difficult to discover than creating a molecular protein that mimics the shape of the virus (but isn't a virus) and then put it into a vaccine in order to jump start your immune system.

Also, if you take them *after* you get the virus, you're giving the virus time to harm your lung and internal organs. Welcome to "long COVID."

At this point, with you hospitalized, gasping for breath, begging for the vaccine and being told it won't help; you are at the mercy of *additional* medications that can keep your immune system from going into an overdrive scorched-earth response to the viruses which are exploding the cells of your lungs and internal organs. And those meds are still experimental and very very very difficult to discover.

Almost all the same companies that have worked on vaccines are also working on anti-viral meds. No one's stopping them. Yes, they didn't get Warp Speed money (the decision of the previous administration), and yet, miraculously, they're still working on them and bringing them to market without a push!!

 

[hopemax]

Wasn’t worth to take chances on companies like Pfizer earlier in the process? During a pandemic? Seems like a lot of excuses to me. Whatever. Can’t change the past.

Moderna is the company that seems to have come up with the most effective vaccine, edging out Pfizer with its higher initial dose. At the beginning of the pandemic people considered that company a joke because they had never brought a product to market. Way back at the beginning a lot of golden eggs were placed in the AstraZeneca basket because of their reputation and affiliation with Oxford. Where is a medical breakthrough going to happen? Nobody knows. This is why decision makers logically justify why throwing money around is not smart business.

 

[Andrew C]

There WAS money flooding in from the very start, both from investors and governments. But there isn't an infinite amount of money (or government regulatory man-hours) to chase an infinite amount of ideas. Some need to show promise first. Even here, we still developed several monoclonal antibodies and two novel antiviral medications in less than two years. That's a pretty substantial feat.

Vaccines, on the other hand, already had a head-start. You don't need to re-invent the basic science to adapt the techniques to a novel virus. All it took was fine-tuning and testing.

I will refer back to Dr. Eric Topol with Scripps Research and leave it at that. Or am I supposed to throw this out because he works for Scripps?

"And so the [significant] orders were only placed after the trials showed the benefit," Topol said. "That basically was part of that vaccine-only strategy: that the idea was, the government thought that vaccines were going to do the job and didn't put a bet on the pills. It was actually worth the bet at the time, especially when you look backward. I think the whole idea is, you pull out all the stops."

"I actually consider it the biggest advance in the pandemic since the vaccines, and the safety is part of it," Dr. Eric Topol, executive vice president for research at Scripps Research in San Diego, told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta. "It's very rare to see something with this much efficacy of nearly 90% reduction of hospitalizations and deaths with no safety issue beyond placebo."

In addition to patients losing out on life-saving treatments, Topol said, Paxlovid's potential for reducing transmission -- which would avert myriad disruptions such as medical professional shortages, school closings and flight cancellations -- has also been lost.
"If we started to say, 'Look, health care workers, we need you back to work, and we know that this is safe and that it suppresses the viral load by more than 10-fold quickly,' it would be a way to keep our health care work force taking care of patients, where we need them," Topol explained. "We're seeing a virus takedown, and a virus-induced lockdown, especially in our health facilities. And here we have a potential remedy. But we don't have it."

 

[mmascari]

Let's talk about anti-viral pills.

If you take them *before* you get the virus to keep the virus from causing illness, then guess what? You have to take them over and over and over and over again. The anti-viral meds don't stay in your body (unlike the antibodies created from a vaccine injection). So, it's not just a million pills. It's several billion pills for years if you want to keep all the anti-vaxxers happy. Go ahead and price that out.

This is why there's always tons of companies working on treatment medications. There's money to be made here. Create the new medication that prevents continuing harm to heart, sell it to people whose heart needs help, keep selling it to them forever for years and years and years, until the patent ends and generics come along. Someone is probably working on a drug that can reduce the COVID impact on the lungs for people to take forever ahead of time. Someone else is probably working on a drug to help with the damage COVID did to peoples lungs, that they'll need to take forever to keep the effect. Tons of money to be made there. Lots of testing, since someone it taking them forever.

Almost all the same companies that have worked on vaccines are also working on anti-viral meds. No one's stopping them. Yes, they didn't get Warp Speed money (the decision of the previous administration), and yet, miraculously, they're still working on them and bringing them to market without a push!!

Because, see above. It's like printing money when they find one. Lots of private money willing to make those bets for those possible returns.


Like creating a new limited edition Disney item. Just out there printing mad money.

 

[mmascari]

I will refer back to Dr. Eric Topol with Scripps Research and leave it at that. Or am I supposed to throw this out because he works for Scripps?

"And so the [significant] orders were only placed after the trials showed the benefit," Topol said. "That basically was part of that vaccine-only strategy: that the idea was, the government thought that vaccines were going to do the job and didn't put a bet on the pills. It was actually worth the bet at the time, especially when you look backward. I think the whole idea is, you pull out all the stops."

"I actually consider it the biggest advance in the pandemic since the vaccines, and the safety is part of it," Dr. Eric Topol, executive vice president for research at Scripps Research in San Diego, told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta. "It's very rare to see something with this much efficacy of nearly 90% reduction of hospitalizations and deaths with no safety issue beyond placebo."

I think there's some rose colored glasses in there. Looking backward, it certainly looks like we should have ordered more. However, at the very same time he says the safety is a big part of it, and that it's very rare. So, it was a good idea to order them ahead of time, even through it's very rare to be this effective and safe and we didn't know either were true until after the study was done that we were supposed to order before.

That feels very much like it's clear in hindsight knowing what we know now, only we didn't know it then.

In case we've all forgotten, the other approved pill doesn't appear to be as effective. It's not infective, just not as good. A case where the early data looked great, they went ahead full speed, then more data came in that contradicted the early data. That left them trying to figure out why. I don't remember if they did figure out why the early and later results had differences.


Personally, it's clear in hindsight that if I knew how addictive reading this thread would become, I would have stopped on the second page and never posted at all. Of course, it's to late now.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The nationwide rate is probably very misleading is part of this. The actual child vaccination rate is very regional.

I just find it interesting how many people have gotten the vaccine themselves but have not gotten their kids vaccinated. That’s clearly a sign of risk assessment.

The majority of those 5-11 year old parents probably fall into the 25-39 age group, so 77% felt it a big enough risk to get themselves vaccinated but only 27% felt it a big enough risk to get their kids vaccinated. That’s a massive difference.

Some states have done relatively well at vaccinating kids, primarily the northeast with Vermont leading at 57% one dose, but even that is well below the worst states for 18-65 (Wyoming at 59% one dose) and over 65 (Mississippi at 95% one dose).

If we’re going to reach our vaccination goals that mindset needs to change.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[DCBaker]

 

[Andrew C]

That feels very much like it's clear in hindsight knowing what we know now, only we didn't know it then.

Yes, for you and me, it may make sense in hindsight. But I would expect leaders and experts to anticipate what may be needed much better than they did. When they cannot anticipate the need for better treatments earlier than they did, when they cannot anticipate the needs for better testing capabilities through the different waves, it seems like a clear and obvious failure of leadership. If these same leaders (and people on here for that matter) supported things like closing down parts of the economy for periods of time (which cost a tremendous amount of money and hurt people directly), it seems like they should have also gotten on board with the idea of taking more chances/risks to help get further tools out earlier. I feel let down, but I guess we should all feel better with the fact that it was a worldwide failure.....

South Korea to deploy Pfizer COVID-19 pills as Omicron wave looms

South Korea will begin treating coronavirus patients with Pfizer's antiviral pills on Friday, the first Asian country to do so, as concern mounts over the spread of the highly contagious Omicron variant.

www.reuters.com

Biden says more Pfizer pills are shipping this week as U.S. doubles order to fight omicron

With the new order, the U.S. has committed to purchase 20 million courses total from Pfizer.

www.cnbc.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/06/israel-pfizer-paxlovid-covid-drug/

 

[seascape]

Court tosses out the vaccine mandate.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

 

[Andrew C]

I guessed one right...split decision.

Supreme Court blocks Biden OSHA vaccine mandate, allows rule for health care workers

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued mixed rulings in a pair of cases challenging the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

www.foxbusiness.com