CDC Notifies States, Large Cities To Prepare For Vaccine Distribution As Soon As Late October

[Jonfw2]

It seems you keep trying to defend your decision to be a part of the trial, and have an issue with anyone who doesn't see it the same as you.
I don't know if you just can't handle people thinking differently than you, or if you are really just trying to convince yourself that it was the right thing to do.

Not sure why the attack...I am convinced it was the right thing to do. I'm just here to convey facts.

 

[spiders]

So for the vaccine, they've picked quality & speed? OK, so who's paying the price?

Taxpayers

 

[Hikergirl]

Not sure why the attack...I am convinced it was the right thing to do. I'm just here to convey facts.

It's not an attack, it's an observation.
Every time a poster here posts something counter to your opinion (and at this point it is all opinion, there isn't enough data or time elapsed for anything to be a fact yet), you try to convince them they are wrong.
Why don't you just accept that while you feel it's a risk worth taking right now, some of us don't. And we have valid reasons that you continue to try to invalidate.
Not one single person told you you were wrong for doing, they are explaining why they think it is wrong for them.

 

[Jonfw2]

According to PP's quote (which I've heard used many times), you can pick two between cost, quality, and speed. So which one is getting left by the wayside? You just said the gov't is picking up the cost, we know speed isn't being dropped, so that leaves quality.

And what's wrong with people being cautious? Few (at least on the board) are saying they'd never get the vaccine. We just want to wait and let more people be guinea pigs. What if it turns out the vaccine makes people sterile? Or more susceptible to cancer?

I'm another one not "sitting at home". I go to work three times a week, I've been at my kids' sporting events, and we've been to church. Travel's the only thing I'm sort of missing right now.

The choice for cost means MORE cost. Which is definitely the case here.

 

[Jonfw2]

It's not an attack, it's an observation.
Every time a poster here posts something counter to your opinion, you try to convince them they are wrong.
Why don't you just accept that while you feel it's a risk worth taking right now, some of us don't. And we have valid reasons that you continue to try to invalidate.

Disagreeing is not invalidating. I will definitely use facts though to try to convince people they are wrong. I haven't used opinions.

 

[Hikergirl]

Disagreeing is not invalidating. I will definitely use facts though to try to convince people they are wrong. I haven't used opinions.

Sure, whatever you say.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree with your use of facts and not opinions here in this thread.
I will wish you the same as the other poster, even more so since you are part of the trial, I truly hope it is effective and safe for you.

 

[Jonfw2]

Sure, whatever you say.

I'll give you an example: Someone posted the other day "I'll be more likely to take it after someone like Fauci is comfortable with it". I responded that Fauci has said very recently that he believes it could be available on this timeline.

 

[RamblingMad]

If the timeline follows what’s on the Medcram videos, I should be able to get a vaccine around the same time I get a flu shot in 2021.

 

[spiders]

According to PP's quote (which I've heard used many times), you can pick two between cost, quality, and speed. So which one is getting left by the wayside? You just said the gov't is picking up the cost, we know speed isn't being dropped, so that leaves quality.

And what's wrong with people being cautious? Few (at least on the board) are saying they'd never get the vaccine. We just want to wait and let more people be guinea pigs. What if it turns out the vaccine makes people sterile? Or more susceptible to cancer?

I'm another one not "sitting at home". I go to work three times a week, I've been at my kids' sporting events, and we've been to church. Travel's the only thing I'm sort of missing right now.

If you are waiting for any type of medicine where someone can definitively say it is safe for you then you will never receive anything. They are testing now and that's the best they can do. And like every other medicine, it will have a 50 page manual on the list of possible side effects.

 

[godisney14]

My point is simply that the timeframe is enhanced here not just by money but also by the fact that all of the best minds in the world in these fields are working on it simultaneously. That will speed things up in a safe way. Would you agree with that?

Yes and no.
All the time and intellects pooled into a concerted effort will speed up R&D. No doubt about that.
But, it should not speed up the duration of trials. You need time to observe and analyze trials. No amount of money can speed up time.
I don’t work for one of these companies chosen by the WH. But, if I did, I would say the same thing.

And, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, less sensitive tests could do a better job of identifying those people who can actually spread the virus. With the PCR testing, it is so super-sensitive that there are documented cases of people testing continually positive for 6 weeks or more, but the consensus is that the virus is contagious for about 10 days (give or take) after infection. After that, it is just residual genetic material triggering the positive result. Not only would quick testing let more people isolate more effectively and self-screen before and after higher risk events, it would also mean fewer people who are subject to whole-population testing quarantining unnecessarily because they tested positive after the contagious window has passed. But it almost feels like there's no political/economic urgency for this kind of testing because we already have the "better" (more sensitive but slow) tests available.

Trust me, there is urgency for better rapid tests. Sports teams are especially looking to use such tests. But, as someone referred to, you are always balancing quality vs time. Rapid tests, by nature, will miss many true positives in comparison to the gold standard.
Rapid tests could be a good thing to get the population moving around more, but that could also lead to greater spread of the disease.
This situation is not like someone getting pregnant. Those cheap pregnancy tests are fantastic for confirming whether one is pregnant—if time is not of the essence (for a reason I won’t touch upon here).

 

[sam_gordon]

If you are waiting for any type of medicine where someone can definitively say it is safe for you then you will never receive anything. They are testing now and that's the best they can do. And like every other medicine, it will have a 50 page manual on the list of possible side effects.

Not really. I take medicines. I get the flu shot. But these are all things that have been out in the public for quite a long time. As PP said, if you want to be at the front of the line, more power to you. I'm trying to explain why *I* will wait. Unfortunately some seem to think belittling that decision (and yes, that's how it comes across) is the way to convince people they're right.

 

[godisney14]

I'll give you an example: Someone posted the other day "I'll be more likely to take it after someone like Fauci is comfortable with it". I responded that Fauci has said very recently that he believes it could be available on this timeline.

But, did he say that he’ll take it himself?
There’s a difference between saying a vaccine can be available by a certain time and saying I will take it as soon as it becomes available.

 

[godisney14]

If you are waiting for any type of medicine where someone can definitively say it is safe for you then you will never receive anything. They are testing now and that's the best they can do. And like every other medicine, it will have a 50 page manual on the list of possible side effects.

I get your sentiment on the topic.
But, exaggerating things doesn’t generally help convincing others who have a difference in opinion. The inserts don’t come with a 50-page manual.

 

[Jonfw2]

But, did he say that he’ll take it himself?
There’s a difference between saying a vaccine can be available by a certain time and saying I will take it as soon as it becomes available.

One assumes that if he felt it were safe and effective, he’d take it.

 

[godisney14]

One assumes that if he felt it were safe and effective, he’d take it.

Of course. That is the same with everyone, including all on this thread.
But, the discussion here has been concerning the “when”. Fauci never hinted at when he, himself, would take it. He could be one of the first, or, equally, he could wait it out like some here.

 

[spiders]

Of course. That is the same with everyone, including all on this thread.
But, the discussion here has been concerning the “when”. Fauci never hinted at when he, himself, would take it. He could be one of the first, or, equally, he could wait it out like some here.

I got blasted the last time I said this but I do think Fauci is part of the problem. I don't have a problem with him personally but he shouldn't be in the position he is in. There should be a panel of 3-5 doctors who are all coming to a consensus on issues. It'd be fine for Fauci to be the spokesperson but his statements should be backed by a panel of his peers. Personally, I think this is his Kobayashi Maru.

 

[LuvOrlando]

The choice for cost means MORE cost. Which is definitely the case here.

I'll agree, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" isn't a new idea by any stretch and is a fairly enduring warning against being "Penny wise and pound foolish."

 

[RamblingMad]

I got blasted the last time I said this but I do think Fauci is part of the problem. I don't have a problem with him personally but he shouldn't be in the position he is in. There should be a panel of 3-5 doctors who are all coming to a consensus on issues. It'd be fine for Fauci to be the spokesperson but his statements should be backed by a panel of his peers. Personally, I think this is his Kobayashi Maru.

Fauci is far too political for me to take him seriously. I’d rather hear from those outside of government.

 

[Hikergirl]

I'll give you an example: Someone posted the other day "I'll be more likely to take it after someone like Fauci is comfortable with it". I responded that Fauci has said very recently that he believes it could be available on this timeline.

He "believes" it "could" be available, is considered a fact?
But Ok, I'll give you this one- it is a fact that you responded to a poster with Fauci's opinion.

Good luck in the trial, I wish you a healthy future.

 

[wombat_5606]

Here's Dr. Fauci speaking 5 days ago.

If you don't want to watch it, he said, he thinks the answer as to whether we will have an effective vaccine will most likely be by the end of the year. He said if that happens, we would start vaccinating people in 2021.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/dr-anthony-fauci-on-the-race-for-a-covid-19-vaccine/