How long would it take to vaccinate the entire US? I’m thinking 4-6 months. Is that accurate or way off?
Considering how many galaxy brains we’ve got that are refusing to wear a mask I don’t think getting the “entire” US vaccinated is gonna happen
Almost 50% of the US gets a flu shot every year and we do that within a few months. I was surprised that many people got a flu shot every year when I looked it up tbh
Since this is in this thread and not the other, I'll piggyback on your post. I just heard on 1A (NPR program) from a doctor who said despite all these pharma companies pledging to not seek FDA approval for their vaccines until they are confident, Trump could still force them to be manufactured and distributed under his emergency authorization powers. You'd likely have health experts, epidemiologists, and your PCP all cautioning you that the vaccine may not be effective enough because we don't have the proper data yet. If it came to that, I'd think that whatever trust the public has in our medical system now would be shattered. Another thing I kind of want to rant about is people properly being cautious about a vaccine being rushed to market by Trump and wanting to not be in the "first round" but mistaking what the process is. I'm getting more and more angry that there is no where near enough talk from experts and the media about how the vaccine research process and protocol is developed. They've done a good job explaining what the phases are, but aren't addressing how each company decides on what kind of vaccine they'll try to manufacture and what happens if it's not effective. First, It's not like Pfizer, Moderna, or any other company will be able to tweak and update their vaccines later on to make it more effective after they're released, they'd likely have to completely start all these trials over and spend another 6-12 months going from Phase 1 to 3. Second, If people mean that they'd like to wait for a more effective vaccine from a different company then that's perfectly fine, but I don't get the sense that most people understand that these are all being developed concurrently. I don't think the companies that are not yet in Phase 1 trials are all taking the protocols from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and adding changes to them, I'd assume it's a completely independent protocol that was researched and developed by their own scientists. Their vaccine won't magically be more effective just because it was released later.
the clinical trial protocols are often copied after those who blaze the trail and then often tweaked. i think you meant that next-gen vaccines aren't necessarily based on the previous vaccines. not quite true. often they are. don't have to be, though. you are right that it doesn't guarantee more effectiveness. and of course certain tweaks in vaccines are OK and don't require new clinical trials - e.g., flu vaccine every year.
If Moderna or Pfizer wanted to tweak their protocol after they get FDA authorization, they wouldn't have to at least do another huge Phase 3 trial in order to see if the effectiveness has improved? I guess I didn't think that the Flu vaccine is tweaked every year, but that's more because how quickly influenza strains mutate I assume.
Very much depends on the tweaks. if correlates of protection are established, animal studies may be sufficient along with CMC release criteria. Just want to clarify your language again - "protocol" refers to the design of the trial, not the actual product.
Right, I'm trying to use it is as correctly as possible from whatever is left in my brain from my wet-lab days. I'm referring to the steps involved, that I assume may have to be modified if things are "tweaked," that yields the end product that gets shot into your arm.
It's likely you change the actual product, rather than production steps. For example, for Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech you are changing the actual bases in the mRNA. The production itself will be consistent. Perhaps they will change the delivery technology or add an adjuvant. For the former, maybe won't require new trials IF animal data is consistent and we know the correlates of protection for the vaccine. The word "protocol" is used very specifically in the drug development industry for clinical trials, unless you are specifically talking about an experiment protocol at the wet bench.
This is a valid criticism, but it also doesn't matter one bit for a significant chunk of the population.
pperc One more thing since I'm a bit more ignorant of this process than I thought. If one of the big 3 companies that are farthest along now in clinical trials wants to change their vaccine without starting over a Phase 3 trial, is this something you can do in the middle of an ongoing Phase 3 trial without adding a huge delay? Or does this only happen after FDA approval and is it able to be streamlined without adding a huge delay after people start getting the non-tweaked version?
I think a valid question should be whether respondents would be more likely to get a vaccine approved by the Trump administration or the Biden administration. Unless it broke completely along party lines, it would be a good indication of why there is dropping likelihood of people getting vaccinated.
For the one that's closest to release, the WH already bought 150 million of the tests to put in a warehouse. That would be most of the tests made by that manufacturer for this year. From 8/27 https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...3c4eba-e8ab-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk What an incredible human being Salk preferred not to have his career as a scientist affected by too much personal attention, as he had always tried to remain independent and private in his research and life, but this proved to be impossible. "Young man, a great tragedy has befallen you—you've lost your anonymity", the television personality Ed Murrow said to Salk shortly after the onslaught of media attention.[35] When Murrow asked him, "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"[36] The vaccine is calculated to be worth $7 billion had it been patented.[37]
Nah, they don't even listen to Trump half the time. When they agree with him they listen, when they disagree with him they somehow don't hear him or discount it and ignore it. They're fucking imbeciles.
Moderna thinks it will be early December before they can do any analysis while Pfizer somehow thinks they'll have enough data in late October? I just got my second shot of this Monday fwiw. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/health/covid-moderna-vaccine.html
I guess you have to wait until you hit the 30,000 enrollment threshold before you're allowed to review efficacy data?
Pfizer expanded their enrollment recently to 44,000. BFF is a HCW and just got the 1st Pfizer shot. The amendment must be approved because her consent form from already reflects 44k+ participants.
When I received my first shot, the doctor overseeing the Pfizer test site told me they were on track to to hit 30,00 by mid September. If they've amended it to 44,000 and are still enrolling, I imagine they are pretty close to that original 30k number.
Moderna is only trying for POC now, at least in Greenville. they recruited too many coaches on the field early
I read it was to expand the other way for age. Down to minimum of 16 years of age and also including subjects with chronic viral conditions (HIV/Hep). They are at least trying to capture those populations as well.
: A 15-second treatment with an experimental povidone-iodine nasal antiseptic solution appears to inactivate SARS-CoV-2, according to an industry-supported, in vitro study in JAMA Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery. The effect was seen with povidone-iodine concentrations as low as 0.5%. The researchers caution that skin formulations could be toxic if administered intranasally and that the antiseptic should not be used in pregnant women, patients with thyroid disease, or those undergoing radioactive iodine therapy. They conclude: "Transnasal viral inactivation may not only prevent person-to-person spread of SARS-CoV-2, but may also diminish the severity of disease in patients by limiting spread and decreasing viral load delivered to the lungs. Povidone-iodine nasal irrigation may be beneficial for the population at large as an adjunct to mask usage as a means of virus mitigation." Randomized trials are under way.
It's really sad to see CDC's scientists try to wrestle their reputation back against the White House. That's gotta be a terrible place to work right now.
Sorry if this has already been asked but with some many different tests out there is there an source that brings them all together for comparisons sake? Also, are all tests sufficient for travel purposes?