Coronavirus (maintenance, living in, airplanes)

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

The article in your link is from trials as of June 8, 2020, and was for COVID-19 treatment, not vaccines.

Okay, oops on that.

I found Pfzier's "general eligibility" criteria, probably screened further once a basic pool was recruited.
http://www.careidresearch.com/docume...s_09172020.pdf
It did exclude people over 85 and those "known or suspected" to be immunocompromised, and that is very problematic re reported vaccine effectiveness.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Okay, oops on that.

I found Pfzier's "general eligibility" criteria, probably screened further once a basic pool was recruited.
http://www.careidresearch.com/docume...s_09172020.pdf
It did exclude people over 85 and those "known or suspected" to be immunocompromised, and that is very problematic re reported vaccine effectiveness.

What would be problematic is recruiting from that population and controlling for their comorbidities.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

What would be problematic is recruiting from that population and controlling for their comorbidities.

Huh?

What I'm saying is presenting a vaccine as a great lifesaver while excluding from clinical trials many or most at high risk for dying is dishonest and potentially deadly without openly stating that it probably won't adequately protect the immunocompromised, which I'm sure Pfizer wanted in its customer base. I vaguely recall that the high risk were given priority in receiving vaccines before they became available to adults of all ages.

I'm not even getting into the unusually short time period with much protection against transmission.

I've never been against the vaccines - I've always thought they're worthwhile for almost everyone - but the first generation was never going to be great and it's borderline despicable that major companies acted smugly satisfied with their products and focused on selling them as much as possible instead of working hard to improve them.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Huh?

What I'm saying is presenting a vaccine as a great lifesaver while excluding from clinical trials many or most at high risk for dying is dishonest and potentially deadly without openly stating that it probably won't adequately protect the immunocompromised, which I'm sure Pfizer wanted in its customer base. I vaguely recall that the high risk were given priority in receiving vaccines before they became available to adults of all ages.

I'm not even getting into the unusually short time period with much protection against transmission.

I've never been against the vaccines - I've always thought they're worthwhile for almost everyone - but the first generation was never going to be great and it's borderline despicable that major companies acted smugly satisfied with their products and focused on selling them as much as possible instead of working hard to improve them.

You do not think it might be difficult to recruit people who are over age 85?

The immunocompromised are already known to respond poorly to vaccines. You do not think that would be difficult to control for in a clinical study?

When the vaccine trials were done no one knew whether protection would wane or over what time period.

We do now have improved vaccines.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

You do not think it might be difficult to recruit people who are over age 85?

Yes, I do think that. Pfizer and any other company excluding the very elderly should have been transparent about that to the public.

The immunocompromised are already known to respond poorly to vaccines. You do not think that would be difficult to control for in a clinical study?

Whatever you mean by "control for," I don't think a high percentage of the immunocompromised themselves know that and vaccine makers seemed okay perpetuating a falsehood that their products would help them significantly.

When the vaccine trials were done no one knew whether protection would wane or over what time period.

By early 2021, vaccine makers probably knew protection against infection wasn't lasting long.

We do now have improved vaccines.

Improved, but maybe in only one meaningful way, and with maybe a majority of the public believing that vaccines work so little as to not be worth it. Some companies ruined the reputation of an important medical option and one the government stupidly put almost all its eggs into. Meaning the public might be unwilling to cooperate on anything and we have a perpetual pandemic until some truly great medical leap forward happens, a wise tyrant comes about and forces the public to adjust, or a vicious new variant pulls the public out of denial.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Yes, I do think that. Pfizer and any other company excluding the very elderly should have been transparent about that to the public.

They were. Anyone who was interested could find the information.

Whatever you mean by "control for," I don't think a high percentage of the immunocompromised themselves know that and vaccine makers seemed okay perpetuating a falsehood that their products would help them significantly.

Medical studies have to control for variables that might affect their outcome, including immunocompromise.

Which manufacturer has perpetuated such a falsehood?

I assure you that doctors who take care of immunocompromised people counsel them about vaccinations. After my son finished his chemotherapy for childhood leukemia he had to repeat some vaccines.

By early 2021, vaccine makers probably knew protection against infection wasn't lasting long.

No, they did not. Vaccination of the public only began in December 2020.

Improved, but maybe in only one meaningful way, and with maybe a majority of the public believing that vaccines work so little as to not be worth it. Some companies ruined the reputation of an important medical option and one the government stupidly put almost all its eggs into. Meaning the public might be unwilling to cooperate on anything and we have a perpetual pandemic until some truly great medical leap forward happens, a wise tyrant comes about and forces the public to adjust, or a vicious new variant pulls the public out of denial.

However, your claim that no one was working on improved vaccines is false.

There is no quick cure for the science illiteracy in this country.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

They were. Anyone who was interested could find the information.

That's not being transparent. It would have needed to at least be included in press releases. I think until tonight no one in this thread except maybe you and one other person knew early clinical trials excluded very old people.

Medical studies have to control for variables that might affect their outcome, including immunocompromise.

Which manufacturer has perpetuated such a falsehood?

All of them. They present themselves as saving high-risk people, but many high-risk people don't respond much to vaccines.

I assure you that doctors who take care of immunocompromised people counsel them about vaccinations. After my son finished his chemotherapy for childhood leukemia he had to repeat some vaccines.

Maybe if they see them regularly and are good. I know someone getting ongoing cancer treatment. When I see him next, I can ask if he knows that vaccines might not work well on him. Mind you, many immunocompromised people haven't recently or ever been given chemo, which I think might be known by most to create extreme, deal-with-it risk of infection (but usually temporary, I believe).

No, they did not. Vaccination of the public only began in December 2020.

Clinical trials began months earlier and there must have been follow-ups on those patients at fairly short intervals. It is almost preposterous to think vaccine companies didn't have antibody data by early 2021 showing that some participants weren't protected well anymore. Million-dollar question: did the government know?

However, your claim that no one was working on improved vaccines is false.

There's no indication Pfizer or Moderna worked much on improving vaccines in 2021. Companies developing intranasal vaccines, for example, of course were hard at work. (I said "some companies" earlier. I never meant that every company is extremely focused on locking in profits.)

There is no quick cure for the science illiteracy in this country.

Actual malfeasance in the medical industry only hardens anti-science attitudes.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Which manufacturer has perpetuated such a falsehood?

Originally Posted by goodheathen

All of them. They present themselves as saving high-risk people, but many high-risk people don't respond much to vaccines.

Please make a distinction between your opinion and actual fact. (We get that you believe there was a lot of "malfeasance" by vaccine manufacturers.)

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Please make a distinction between your opinion and actual fact. (We get that you believe there was a lot of "malfeasance" by vaccine manufacturers.)

Most comments in this years-long thread are opinions, and unlike some of them, mine doesn't conflict with any facts and is vaguely supported by evidence. I don't appreciate being singled out like that. How about you try an approach few people here or elsewhere use toward each other - "Yeah, you might be right."

And I'll limit the accusation to just Moderna and Pfizer, for Novavax is too new on the scene and J&J never seemed to be aggressively promoting its product, maybe because it knew it was disadvantaged in multiple ways.

[njbiodude]

Finally went to the dentist mask free. This nonsense is finally over.