Pfizer Vaccine News

[GoofGoof]

Ticketmaster isn't requiring any kind of proof. They're working on an option -- through their app -- that they could use to allow venues to make that a requirement of buying specific tickets. And it's reliant on FDA approval for third party companies to deliver vaccination results, which has not been granted. I wouldn't be surprised if they do build it, and make the option available, but its going to be up to specific venues if they want to enable it.

That’s how I understood it too. If a concert venue or sports stadium wants to require it, Ticketmaster would have the mechanism to link back to some source of vaccination record or Covid test results. It’s ultimately up to the venue to require it for entry, Ticketmaster just facilitates the process of verifying. I could see some states or localities saying if venues want to have no capacity limits or masks or distancing rules then they have to do something like this. Concerts were mentioned but I could also see MLB doing this next summer once the vaccine is widely available. They would love to have full fans in the stands next season.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ticketmaster isn't requiring any kind of proof. They're working on an option -- through their app -- that they could use to allow venues to make that a requirement of buying specific tickets. And it's reliant on FDA approval for third party companies to deliver vaccination results, which has not been granted. I wouldn't be surprised if they do build it, and make the option available, but its going to be up to specific venues if they want to enable it.

I would take it as a good indication that Live Nation (Ticketmaster's parent) is considering such a requirement at their venues.

 

[thomas998]

I wouldn't put much faith in this vaccine, when the CEO just happened to sell a massive number of shares a couple of days after the announcement I have to wonder why? Anyone would think if your company was poised to release a godsend to the world that the last thing you would want to do is sell shares now.

 

[thomas998]

That’s how I understood it too. If a concert venue or sports stadium wants to require it, Ticketmaster would have the mechanism to link back to some source of vaccination record or Covid test results. It’s ultimately up to the venue to require it for entry, Ticketmaster just facilitates the process of verifying. I could see some states or localities saying if venues want to have no capacity limits or masks or distancing rules then they have to do something like this. Concerts were mentioned but I could also see MLB doing this next summer once the vaccine is widely available. They would love to have full fans in the stands next season.

Does anyone want to start sharing any type of medical info with a slimy company like Ticketmaster?

 

[correcaminos]

I wouldn't put much faith in this vaccine, when the CEO just happened to sell a massive number of shares a couple of days after the announcement I have to wonder why? Anyone would think if your company was poised to release a godsend to the world that the last thing you would want to do is sell shares now.

A Pfizer spokeswoman said in an email to CNN Business that the sale took place because Pfizer shares hit a predetermined price as part of a plan authorized by Bourla on August 19.


When asked if Pfizer and Bourla thought to cancel the stock sale due to the perception that Bourla might be cashing in on good news, the spokeswoman said that "these are predetermined plans managed through a third-party stock administrator."

Another Pfizer officer, executive vice president Sally Susman, also sold shares Monday as part of a prearranged plan. Susman sold 43,662 shares at the same $41.94 price that Bourla sold at, a transaction valued at more than $1.8 million.

Pfizer's CEO sold $5.6 million in stock the day he announced promising vaccine news

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla filed to sell millions of dollars of his company's stock Monday -- the day the pharmaceutical giant announced positive data about its coronavirus vaccine.

www.cnn.com

 

[MisterPenguin]

Does anyone want to start sharing any type of medical info with a slimy company like Ticketmaster?

You know that the only thing being shared is if you got the vaccine or a recent negative test, right? You know that they're not getting a dump of your entire medical history, right?

That they have your credit card number would be more concerning if you don't trust them.

 

[GoofGoof]

I wouldn't put much faith in this vaccine, when the CEO just happened to sell a massive number of shares a couple of days after the announcement I have to wonder why? Anyone would think if your company was poised to release a godsend to the world that the last thing you would want to do is sell shares now.

As is the case with all CEOs they sell shares as part of a pre-set plan that doesn’t allow them to sell based on inside information. He had no control over when those shares got sold. There is no there there. Just another conspiracy theory with no merit.

Does anyone want to start sharing any type of medical info with a slimy company like Ticketmaster?

All they get is yes I was vaccinated or yes I tested negative. What’s the harm? It’s not required anyway. You can always just skip the concert or event.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

No, we're not both right. The claim that vaccines causes autism was a false claim to begin with based on falsifying information. The original author recanted the study.

In my post I very clearly stated that science has room for opposing hypotheses, but they must be tested scientifically. Not just thrown out there and then telling people they need to prove their wild theory is wrong. That's not how science works. They have to prove their wild theory is correct. That's how science works.




You're doing *exactly* what the anti-vaxxers do: You move the goal posts and switch the argument to scientifically accepted evidence that vaccines can cause adverse reactions. I never said they don't. Don't have the slightest clue why you bring that up... except to try to give credence to the wild unproven theory that vaccines cause autism.

So? What does these adverse reactions have to do with autism? I'll tell you: nothing. If you think they might, then prove it using the scientific method. That's how science works.

Please re-read my post. Simply, my post didn't mention autism. If you thought I was talking about autism, then you were mistaken.

I said creative thinking is part of scientific research. Innovation = a continuous quest for new ideas, especially new ideas to old problems, and I gave examples.
(Please consider doing what I did suggest in my post, and read about the history of vaccines. The smallpox vaccine was developed back in 1796! It required very creative thinking. Individual viruses were not isolated/identified until 1998, over 100 year after Edward Jenner created his vaccine. In 1796, microscopes weren't powerful enough to see viruses, cell cultures to grow viruses didn't exist. Knowledge of viruses didn't exist.)

I'm all for tried and true vaccines, as I said.

If you don't read what I actually wrote, though, I don't suppose we can have a productive discussion on this topic.

 

[JusticeDisney]

Hint: what product is Pfizer best known for?

You just made me literally laugh out loud! Well freaking done!

 

[jloucks]

Does anyone want to start sharing any type of medical info with a slimy company like Ticketmaster?

Oh you were being kind. I couldn't agree more.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Edward Jenner didn’t just get to declare the idea of vaccines. He had to demonstrate that his idea worked. If you may the claim you have to provide the evidence.

Just, no.

These possibilities are all far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far less than the negative outcomes caused by the diseases they prevent.

huh?
Of course Edward Jenner's vaccine worked. I never said or suggested otherwise. I specifically said I just recently updated my vaccines. Why would I do that if I didn't think they worked? I also advised multiple times for people to follow up by visit reputable websites. Why would I do that if I was trying to spout nonsense? That makes no sense.

I should have characterized the second sentence better. Smallpox is a virus, and it was the first vaccine. There are DNA viruses and RNA viruses. RNA viruses mutate rapidly, and thus it is harder to develop a vaccine for RNA viruses. (DNA viruses are more stable) Influenza is an example of a virus that mutates rapidly, and that is why it was so hard to develop a vaccine for the flu, or at least part of why it was to develop a vaccine for it. Again, see my post- I encouraged everyone to follow up by reading more from reputable sources, and a more thorough explanation. Suggested reading: "Viral Mutation Rates" in the Journal of Virology, DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00694-10

I also found this from a June 27, 2014 Vox article:
Bacteria multiply quickly, but not as quickly as some viruses, as you can see from this chart. "In general, viruses like HIV replicate more more rapidly than do bacteria like Streptococcus," Fauci says. (Streptococcus bacteria include things like pneumonia.)

The above article also contains a nice graph that shows a nice correlation between genome size and mutation rate. Rapid replication is connected to rapid mutation rates.




As for your third comment, regarding reaction rate to vaccines, I also say, huh?

I specifically said to go look up FACTUAL reaction rates from reputable sources like the CDC. The following information comes directly from WHO's Information sheet titled, "OBSERVED RATE OF VACCINE REACTIONS DIPHTHERIA, PERTUSSIS, TETANUS VACCINES"

Mild adverse events following DTwP when administered for both primary and booster immunizations in infants and children are common and consist of local reactions (50%) and systemic reactions such as fever over 38°C, irritability (40% to 75%), drowsiness (33% to 62%), loss of appetite (20% to 35%), and vomiting (6% to 13%) .

Severe adverse reactions following DTwP:
Description Whole cell vaccines Rate/doses
Persistent screaming 3.5 per 100
Hyporesponsive hypotonic episodes 57-250 per 100,000
Seizures 6 per 100,000
Encephalopathy 0.3 - 5.3 per 1,000,000
Anaphylaxis 1.3 per 1,000,000

Persistent crying = Some infants develop continuous crying which may be unaltered, inconsolable, and lasts for a number of hours.

The information sheet is TEN pages long, which is way too long to quote in a post on a WDW forum, but it contains a long list of citations.

These specific adverse reactions to vaccines are well documented.

Because vaccines carry SOME risk potential, Pfizer plans to continue to accumulate more test subject data. See Pfizer's own website.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Nope. Measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, polio, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, varicella, HPV, rotavirus, and shingles are all viral illnesses and all have vaccines, not to mention the now-eradicated smallpox and several other viral illnesses uncommon in the US that also have vaccines available.

I should have characterized that better. See my follow up post. It is RNA viruses that mutate more rapidly. I'll happily poke around some more on the subject.

While there is now a flu vaccine, rapid mutation is part of why that vaccine was so hard to develop, why it needs to be re-formulated each season, and why we still dnt have one for HIV/AIDS.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Hint: what product is Pfizer best known for?

You just made me literally laugh out loud! Well freaking done!

That just makes them Upstanding, solid and completely non-flaccid concerning their product(s).

 

[GoofGoof]

huh?
Of course Edward Jenner's vaccine worked. I never said or suggested otherwise. I specifically said I just recently updated my vaccines. Why would I do that if I didn't think they worked? I also advised multiple times for people to follow up by visit reputable websites. Why would I do that if I was trying to spout nonsense? That makes no sense.

I should have characterized the second sentence better. Smallpox is a virus, and it was the first vaccine. There are DNA viruses and RNA viruses. RNA viruses mutate rapidly, and thus it is harder to develop a vaccine for RNA viruses. (DNA viruses are more stable) Influenza is an example of a virus that mutates rapidly, and that is why it was so hard to develop a vaccine for the flu, or at least part of why it was to develop a vaccine for it. Again, see my post- I encouraged everyone to follow up by reading more from reputable sources, and a more thorough explanation. Suggested reading: "Viral Mutation Rates" in the Journal of Virology, DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00694-10

I also found this from a June 27, 2014 Vox article:
Bacteria multiply quickly, but not as quickly as some viruses, as you can see from this chart. "In general, viruses like HIV replicate more more rapidly than do bacteria like Streptococcus," Fauci says. (Streptococcus bacteria include things like pneumonia.)

The above article also contains a nice graph that shows a nice correlation between genome size and mutation rate. Rapid replication is connected to rapid mutation rates.




As for your third comment, regarding reaction rate to vaccines, I also say, huh?

I specifically said to go look up FACTUAL reaction rates from reputable sources like the CDC. The following information comes directly from WHO's Information sheet titled, "OBSERVED RATE OF VACCINE REACTIONS DIPHTHERIA, PERTUSSIS, TETANUS VACCINES"

Mild adverse events following DTwP when administered for both primary and booster immunizations in infants and children are common and consist of local reactions (50%) and systemic reactions such as fever over 38°C, irritability (40% to 75%), drowsiness (33% to 62%), loss of appetite (20% to 35%), and vomiting (6% to 13%) .

Severe adverse reactions following DTwP:
Description Whole cell vaccines Rate/doses
Persistent screaming 3.5 per 100
Hyporesponsive hypotonic episodes 57-250 per 100,000
Seizures 6 per 100,000
Encephalopathy 0.3 - 5.3 per 1,000,000
Anaphylaxis 1.3 per 1,000,000

Persistent crying = Some infants develop continuous crying which may be unaltered, inconsolable, and lasts for a number of hours.

The information sheet is TEN pages long, which is way too long to quote in a post on a WDW forum, but it contains a long list of citations.

These specific adverse reactions to vaccines are well documented.

Because vaccines carry SOME risk potential, Pfizer plans to continue to accumulate more test subject data. See Pfizer's own website.

I have a good friend who had a seizure after getting the DTAP booster. His wife was pregnant and they suggested he get the booster. He got the shot and passed out shortly after in the doctor‘s office. When he woke up he was in an ambulance and they told him he had a seizure. After a series of tests and a visit to the head of neurology at one of the top local hospitals they couldn’t find anything else wrong and concluded it was a rare side effect of the vaccination. So he is one of the 6 in 100,000 I guess. The point of all this is that he’s fine now. This was about 10 years ago and never had another seizure or any lasting issues. It was frightening at the time but not life altering. Outside of GBS or anaphylactic shock from an allergic reaction (both exceedingly rare) he had one of the worst reactions possible and he’s perfectly fine. I don’t tell this story to try to convince you to get a vaccine, you can make up your own mind, but to point out to others that while this may look like a long list of possible bad outcomes most of them are a mild inconvenience when compared to Covid. Almost 1,500 people died yesterday alone. The vaccine isn’t without risk, but neither is potentially getting Covid.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Please re-read my post. Simply, my post didn't mention autism. If you thought I was talking about autism, then you were mistaken.

huh?
Of course Edward Jenner's vaccine worked. I never said or suggested otherwise. I specifically said I just recently updated my vaccines. Why would I do that if I didn't think they worked? I also advised multiple times for people to follow up by visit reputable websites. Why would I do that if I was trying to spout nonsense? That makes no sense.

You came to the defense of the autism claim by saying it’s approach is also science. It is not. Just making something up and demanding others disprove it is not innovative thinking. It is not science. It is just lying.

I should have characterized the second sentence better. Smallpox is a virus, and it was the first vaccine. There are DNA viruses and RNA viruses. RNA viruses mutate rapidly, and thus it is harder to develop a vaccine for RNA viruses. (DNA viruses are more stable) Influenza is an example of a virus that mutates rapidly, and that is why it was so hard to develop a vaccine for the flu, or at least part of why it was to develop a vaccine for it. Again, see my post- I encouraged everyone to follow up by reading more from reputable sources, and a more thorough explanation. Suggested reading: "Viral Mutation Rates" in the Journal of Virology, DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00694-10

I also found this from a June 27, 2014 Vox article:
Bacteria multiply quickly, but not as quickly as some viruses, as you can see from this chart. "In general, viruses like HIV replicate more more rapidly than do bacteria like Streptococcus," Fauci says. (Streptococcus bacteria include things like pneumonia.)

The above article also contains a nice graph that shows a nice correlation between genome size and mutation rate. Rapid replication is connected to rapid mutation rates.

Your first sentence was not correct either. It wasn’t poorly explained, just not true.

As for your third comment, regarding reaction rate to vaccines, I also say, huh?

I specifically said to go look up FACTUAL reaction rates from reputable sources like the CDC. The following information comes directly from WHO's Information sheet titled, "OBSERVED RATE OF VACCINE REACTIONS DIPHTHERIA, PERTUSSIS, TETANUS VACCINES"

Mild adverse events following DTwP when administered for both primary and booster immunizations in infants and children are common and consist of local reactions (50%) and systemic reactions such as fever over 38°C, irritability (40% to 75%), drowsiness (33% to 62%), loss of appetite (20% to 35%), and vomiting (6% to 13%) .

Severe adverse reactions following DTwP:
Description Whole cell vaccines Rate/doses
Persistent screaming 3.5 per 100
Hyporesponsive hypotonic episodes 57-250 per 100,000
Seizures 6 per 100,000
Encephalopathy 0.3 - 5.3 per 1,000,000
Anaphylaxis 1.3 per 1,000,000

Persistent crying = Some infants develop continuous crying which may be unaltered, inconsolable, and lasts for a number of hours.

The information sheet is TEN pages long, which is way too long to quote in a post on a WDW forum, but it contains a long list of citations.

These specific adverse reactions to vaccines are well documented.

Because vaccines carry SOME risk potential, Pfizer plans to continue to accumulate more test subject data. See Pfizer's own website.

Nobody is saying there are not side effects from vaccines. The severity and incidence of side effects are orders of magnitude less than the impact wrought by the disease. Continued monitoring is part of due diligence. It does not mean there is an expectation for side effects months to years later or that such a delay is common for vaccine side effects. Continued monitoring is also important for verifying length of immunity and determining if boosters are necessary.

 

[GoofGoof]

Nobody is saying there are not side effects from vaccines. The severity and incidence of side effects are orders of magnitude less than the impact wrought by the disease. Continued monitoring is part of due diligence. It does not mean there is an expectation for side effects months to years later or that such a delay is common for vaccine side effects. Continued monitoring is also important for verifying length of immunity and determining if boosters are necessary.

On the side effect timing there was an interview with the guy who heads the FDA division that approves vaccines and he said that the most serious adverse reactions to vaccines occur within 3 months of vaccination or less. It’s very rare for a severe reaction to occur years down the road. The multi-year tracking of a typical clinic trial is much more focused on efficacy vs safety. In some cases it’s determined several years later that the vaccine wasn’t as effective as they hoped. I think that’s a bigger risk with this than side effects.

edit, here‘s the exact quote:

Most bad reactions to vaccines come between two and three months after people get them, Marks told the symposium. "For instance, Guillain-Barre, perhaps it's six weeks, but for transverse myelitis, it's more like three months," Marks said.

FDA wants two months of safety data before considering Covid-19 vaccine | CNN

The FDA wants two months of follow-up data after volunteers get their second dose of Covid-19 vaccine as part of clinical trials testing potential coronavirus vaccines.

edition.cnn.com

 

[Heppenheimer]

I should have characterized that better. See my follow up post. It is RNA viruses that mutate more rapidly. I'll happily poke around some more on the subject.

While there is now a flu vaccine, rapid mutation is part of why that vaccine was so hard to develop, why it needs to be re-formulated each season, and why we still dnt have one for HIV/AIDS.

The problem with the flu vaccine isn't mutations in the virus, its because the seasonal genetic reshuffling of antigens is difficult to predict. The genomic structure of the antigens show little to no mutations year to year.

And the reason why the HIV vaccine has proven so hard to develope isn't because of mutations either. It is unique in that B cell stimulation has little effect, and it successfully hijacks the T cells that are needed to direct the immune response. The rapid mutation of HIV has more relevance to the selection of anti-viral treatment.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I should have characterized that better. See my follow up post. It is RNA viruses that mutate more rapidly. I'll happily poke around some more on the subject.

While there is now a flu vaccine, rapid mutation is part of why that vaccine was so hard to develop, why it needs to be re-formulated each season, and why we still dnt have one for HIV/AIDS.

Of the viruses I mentioned, only HBV, smallpox, Varicella and HPV are DNA viruses. All the rest are RNA.

 

[LastoneOn]

Nobody said the rest of the world gets the vaccine before the US. Just political banter, no truth to it. The statement made was that once the US reached enough people vaccinated to reach herd immunity that the vaccine should be shared with the rest of the world instead of kept here. It will be a tough sell to even get that many people to take the vaccine. I posted details earlier, but we would likely need to get 220M people or 2/3 of the population vaccinated to reach herd immunity

Politics has no place in discussion of the vaccine. I could care less who anyone wants to give credit to for the vaccine as long as it works and people take it. Pfizer developed the vaccine at risk and will only get paid by the US government once they deliver the vaccine. They are distributing the vaccine on their own without using McKesson who was contracted by Warp Speed to coordinate that. Other companies took upfront money for development and also are planning to use McKesson for distribution. So while Pfizer is still selling the doses to the US government under the Warp Speed program they are not using Warp Speed resources in any other way. Whether people want to say that means they are part of Warp Speed or not is irrelevant to me, just political BS.

The Pfizer clinical trial was run based on well established standards. There is nothing political about the process. People need to trust the science and do their own research once results are published instead of listening to nonsense they see on Facebook.

edit: the actual quote on the fair priority model:

This is vastly different than giving it to the rest of the world before the US gets it. Here‘s the full article:

How to Decide Who Should Get a COVID-19 Vaccine First

Medical ethicist Ezekiel Emanuel discusses a framework for equitably allocating COVID-19 vaccines based on preventing premature deaths and mitigating long-term economic impacts

www.scientificamerican.com

Did you edit this to include the article before or after my response?

No matter. Having seen the full article I understand what he's saying.

I'll also stick to my first response.

 

[LastoneOn]

The direct quote was posted. What you said was not accurate.

And I replied.
Also my comment on political banter stands.