No, Yen, your stance now is the opposite to what you started with. Mine is the same. Hence the opposite to yours now... So... "Politics" has changed laws, hence the proper testing.... Hence the need for it now, yes... Only, it seems politics is pushing differently now.... So, the industry is pushing back, telling them, "OK but give us immunity from prosecution if something goes wrong and we'll speed it up"... In other words, it's on politicians' head, not theirs, in such a scenario... P.S. They do know already when a booster for the new vaccine is needed. They are already making plans to scale down GP's services in order to deliver the vaccine through them....
No, not the opposite. Two 'general' and personal assessments have changed during pandemic and informing. 1. -COVID-19 is more harmless as I previously thought. And the media are still overdo it by distorting relations / categorizations due to abnormal monopolistic focus on COVID-19. (In relation to i.e. pneumonia and specific influenza waves. The fatality rate of COVID-19 is simply not significant related to them). We do blow smoke leaving the others unconsidered. It's a sort of self-illusion. 2. -Assessment on vaccination / immunity / long term development of the pandemic. For instance I think we won't reach herd immunity by vaccination. And the pandemic will last longer than expected. Two basic changes! Summarized and reposted. I do not want to re-argue by that! Just saying I make up my mind / change my POV. Sometimes I get closer to yours (vaccine / drug safety, development, approval...), sometimes I move away (point 1 and 2)... For instance quote from article below (RCTs = randomised controlled trials). They cannot know it yet since there are no scientific data yet. They can 'suggest' it..also keeping in mind the more often, the more I do earn. I am only familiar with the original clinical Phases since I have own practical experiences. At phase II you usually try to find the right dose. (They have 'found' at Phase I/II: 30 µg dose, administered two times. After 7 days one boost to get sufficient levels at all.) At ongoing phase III (means now) you try to prove efficacy and safety. Actually a booster is needed when the levels come below a predetermined level. To figure that you need time to measure the levels relative to time and to group of individuals. You need years to: A) Have enough data to determine the right lower limit B) Find the moment of the limit when you need a boost C) Find the differences related to age, sex, ethnicity, and comorbidities. This takes years to get proper data. A proper phase III takes years!!! The complexity of efficacy: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30773-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32337-0/fulltext
If yawning, dry cough, chest pains are noted, occurs when (stress, depression, panic attack, etc.) in the lungs there is an excessive removal of carbon dioxide from the blood causing hyperventilation syndrome! Described in 1877 by the physician J. Da Costa. that is, remove stress and what is connected with it and everything is OK
Another form of vaunt. AKA rape of terms (90% 'effective'). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/health/covid-vaccine-pfizer.html Just spotted sarcasm. When zooming to the building of BioNTech (Mainz Germany) you can find a label, the name of the street and street number. "An der Goldgrube 12" "At the Gold Mine 12"
@gorski This is a quote from the Lancet article from above. "What defines an efficacious COVID-19 vaccine? A review of the challenges assessing the clinical efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2" To determine efficacy you need to have proper measures that are capable of it. The same applies generally, it is related: To make a quantitative categorisation you need exactly the same measure. The PCR test is not for given reasons. It's no problem to argue "You are influenced by gurus". But you need to know exactly what is from a guru and what is found at reputable journals of science. As I have posted basically the same more briefly (that PCR numbers and COVID-19 affected people are different numbers) but at various posts, you argued its guru talk.... I even related to the time when we should have a vaccine..I said current PCR test alone method would be inappropriate to determine any efficacy. If it's good they do not get sick for a while and at best they additionally cannot spread the virus. But the PCR test will be probably positive anyway because: "Most quantitative RT-PCR assays in use do not distinguish between RNA from live, transmissible virus and non-infectious RNA persisting postinfection." A major argument of me, too. It's not only me who should make up my mind. Just saying....all good.
You are knocking on an open door, m8.... I certainly do not have any illusions re. the issue of time needed to produce a safe vaccine.... time which many do not have.... Have you had a C-19 case in your family? Look at the above picture I posted..... Who wants to play Russian roulette with their lives? And even if it isn't your family.... C'mon, think seriously....
Nobody. What I have posted has nothing to do with that. Is it not right to have the exact numbers of people who are suffering from COVID-19 / are virulent instead of the PCR positives? We need such a value to determine efficacy of a potential vaccine either way. And we could save our limited capacities for those who really need to have them 100% gapless. A brief summary from above is: You even get positive although all 'your*' SARSCoV-2 viruses are bound to antibodies already and the viral factories are destroyed to remains. The PCR test detects specific viral fragments anyway. Broken or not. Nobody would play Russian roulette. No no case in the family I take care of my parents. One of the class of the young people in the lab was positive, but the person belongs to another company. I did a test as mentioned to keep on working.
The Big Pharmafia And you still awaiting a vaccine to save you from death? Those criminals must be laughing at us.
Yes. The article evaluates 'issues' at determining efficacy of an upcoming vaccine by referring to current ways to detect the infections. We have two ways to test. PCR Test. At each completed chain you multiply specific chosen RNA sequences (which are not everywhere the same, depends on test) of SARSCoV-2. By doing that you get exponential growth. When choosing the sequences there is no differentiation of "RNA from live, transmissible virus and non-infectious RNA persisting postinfection." And (a second factor to consider) the amount of the detectable sequences depends on amount of cycles. 'Reasonable' amount of cycles is 23-26. If there is no detection possible then you are negative. When doing more cycles the tests get far more sensitive. AFAIK we here have 30 cycles, other nations even 40. This means: You can become declared as being positive even though your viral load of viruses that are 'active' is probably not sufficient to create COVID-19, the illness and it's not sufficient to be virulent. "Numerous quantitative RT-PCR methods using different SARS-CoV-2 genomic targets (including ORF1a or ORF1b, nucleocapsid genes, spike protein genes) have been validated with varying reported sensitivity and specificity." "Most quantitative RT-PCR assays in use do not distinguish between RNA from live, transmissible virus and non-infectious RNA persisting postinfection." The second way (quick tests) detects indirectly an immune answer already, the virus's specific antibodies. It does not detect the virus itself. Issue: -When you are successfully vaccinated you create the specific antibodies without to have the real virus. Ergo the second way is useless. It gets positive anyway. -When you are successfully vaccinated and get the real virus it gets made inactive by the antibodies created from the vaccine before. Anyway the virus itself is present.(bound to antibodies). Ergo (since the test cannot distinguish) you get positive by PCR anyway.