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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, those young infants get older, but there always seems to be a new crop taking their place, and they are generally attached to other people that seem to move about society. So, yes, getting vaccinated if you're medically able helps those that simply can't be vaccinated. Wearing your mask until enough people have been vaccinated so that spread is less likely is also important.

Luckily infants and young children appear to be very low risk. My daughter’s daycare had an outbreak with her teacher testing positive. It spread between the teachers but I don’t know of any of the children testing positive. We had our daughter tested which returned negative. She is still in quarantine as required by the CDC.
 

Hesitant about the Covid vaccine? | Daily Mail Online

Although written by a doctor (don't know her actual credentials), it is mostly an article about her experience being part of a covid vaccine trial. I don't see any new or updated information that actually answers the question posed in the article title.
Are we reading the same article? It certainly answers questions related to concerns people have laid out. It may not answer all the questions and all the worries; seldom does any literature do that.
 
Reads a lot like several other articles I have seen in the past few months. Really basic information and didn't really see any new/different insight being provided.
 
Are we reading the same article? It certainly answers questions related to concerns people have laid out. It may not answer all the questions and all the worries; seldom does any literature do that.
She does bring up my concern... long term safety. Her answer... "it's been tested and the results are good." Huh? Oh, and "manufacturers must have plans for long term follow up studies." Yeah, this article really makes me feel better. :rolleyes:
 
/
Reads a lot like several other articles I have seen in the past few months. Really basic information and didn't really see any new/different insight being provided.
I'm not a big fan of Daily Mail myself but I can't just simply say "questions aren't being answered that is in the headline" because they actually are. You may not think they are encompassing enough or they don't address your particular concerns but that doesn't mean the person didn't answer specific concerns within the article.

She does bring up my concern... long term safety. Her answer... "it's been tested and the results are good." Huh? Oh, and "manufacturers must have plans for long term follow up studies." Yeah, this article really makes me feel better. :rolleyes:
No need for sarcasm directed at me. And paraphrasing her comments just makes you look a certain way because she went into more details that what you've posted.

Her article is written to the layman not the scientist; hopefully people are able to discern that difference.

I'd advise the same advice as the above comment. If it's not working for you research it then to see if you can find the answer. I hardly ever find one source to be the only source I use.
 
No need for sarcasm directed at me. And paraphrasing her comments just makes you look a certain way because she went into more details that what you've posted.
Just because you are quoted doesn't mean I'm directing my sarcasm at you. As far as paraphrasing, feel free to quote the article where she talks about long term safety. She really doesn't.
 
Just because you are quoted doesn't mean I'm directing my sarcasm at you.
When I say she answers questions and you respond with "Yeah, this article really makes me feel better. :rolleyes: " yeah that could be said that's being directed at me. Maybe don't add in the snipe at the end? Because that's how it came off to me. I understand not liking her answers but she does answer questions posed.
As far as paraphrasing, feel free to quote the article where she talks about long term safety. She really doesn't.
Did she say "it's been tested and the results are good." Huh? Oh, and "manufacturers must have plans for long term follow up studies." if the answer is no then you paraphrased. Paraphrasing isn't bad but you didn't like the article (which is whatever, I was commenting about the answering the questions part of the PP's comment) so you paraphrase it in a way that isn't what actually was similar. Frankly from your prior comments I'm not even sure anyone at this point will make you feel better, and I get that because a new vaccine won't have the ability to tell you what happens 10 years down the road.

But she does speak towards the governing body in the UK (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) that go over the study for what "ingredients in the jab itself, quality of the studies, which groups see the greatest – and poorest – benefit, are all considered. And manufacturers must illustrate plans for long-term follow-up studies to get approval." Additionally "If, and when, the vaccine is in use, the UK's medical regulation scheme – the Yellow Card Scheme – ensures a detailed log of every side-effect is recorded." She advises that the COVID vaccine has to adhere to the same as other vaccines.

She does speak towards testing: "Like all vaccines, before it was even put into a human, safety checks had already been done. The first part of any trial like this is conducted in a laboratory and involves injecting the vaccine into human cells in a test tube and then animals.
In the case of the Oxford vaccine, monkeys were given the jab – this is done to make sure there is no possible toxicity or harm. At this point, regulatory bodies examine the evidence and when they deem this sufficient – for instance, those monkeys were fine and also showed some immune response – the human trials start. Safety and effectiveness are then tested again in hundreds of adults. The Oxford data on this phase was published in The Lancet on July 20, and is available to read online. It shows the vaccine provoked a strong immune response, as hoped, in the volunteers. It also showed how many experienced side effects. Around half reported feeling tired a day or two after their jab and around as many had a headache." And she discusses more regarding the 3rd phase and the results of the trials thus far. Really at this point it's like I'm quoting the whole article lol (not really that's an exaggeration on my part but you get what I'm saying)

And again it's layman speak not scientific jargon. And maybe a bit more important to realize this seems aimed at UK residents so it may not be new information to a person but it could be news to people not up and up on everything. Even in the U.S. most of us hardly think about all the background stuff that goes on. More or less I commented because the headline and the content match (a rarity IMO) they may just not match to what a specific individual wants (for which is understandable but not possible to avoid). Anywho agreeing to disagree and move on for me respectfully.
 
I'm not a big fan of Daily Mail myself but I can't just simply say "questions aren't being answered that is in the headline" because they actually are. You may not think they are encompassing enough or they don't address your particular concerns but that doesn't mean the person didn't answer specific concerns within the article.

No need for sarcasm directed at me. And paraphrasing her comments just makes you look a certain way because she went into more details that what you've posted.

Her article is written to the layman not the scientist; hopefully people are able to discern that difference.

I'd advise the same advice as the above comment. If it's not working for you research it then to see if you can find the answer. I hardly ever find one source to be the only source I use.

nothing matters to some people. Not doctors, not science, not ending a pandemic.
 
When I say she answers questions and you respond with "Yeah, this article really makes me feel better. :rolleyes: " yeah that could be said that's being directed at me. Maybe don't add in the snipe at the end? Because that's how it came off to me. I understand not liking her answers but she does answer questions posed.
Did she say "it's been tested and the results are good." Huh? Oh, and "manufacturers must have plans for long term follow up studies." if the answer is no then you paraphrased. Paraphrasing isn't bad but you didn't like the article (which is whatever, I was commenting about the answering the questions part of the PP's comment) so you paraphrase it in a way that isn't what actually was similar. Frankly from your prior comments I'm not even sure anyone at this point will make you feel better, and I get that because a new vaccine won't have the ability to tell you what happens 10 years down the road.

But she does speak towards the governing body in the UK (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) that go over the study for what "ingredients in the jab itself, quality of the studies, which groups see the greatest – and poorest – benefit, are all considered. And manufacturers must illustrate plans for long-term follow-up studies to get approval." Additionally "If, and when, the vaccine is in use, the UK's medical regulation scheme – the Yellow Card Scheme – ensures a detailed log of every side-effect is recorded." She advises that the COVID vaccine has to adhere to the same as other vaccines.

She does speak towards testing: "Like all vaccines, before it was even put into a human, safety checks had already been done. The first part of any trial like this is conducted in a laboratory and involves injecting the vaccine into human cells in a test tube and then animals.
In the case of the Oxford vaccine, monkeys were given the jab – this is done to make sure there is no possible toxicity or harm. At this point, regulatory bodies examine the evidence and when they deem this sufficient – for instance, those monkeys were fine and also showed some immune response – the human trials start. Safety and effectiveness are then tested again in hundreds of adults. The Oxford data on this phase was published in The Lancet on July 20, and is available to read online. It shows the vaccine provoked a strong immune response, as hoped, in the volunteers. It also showed how many experienced side effects. Around half reported feeling tired a day or two after their jab and around as many had a headache." And she discusses more regarding the 3rd phase and the results of the trials thus far. Really at this point it's like I'm quoting the whole article lol (not really that's an exaggeration on my part but you get what I'm saying)

And again it's layman speak not scientific jargon. And maybe a bit more important to realize this seems aimed at UK residents so it may not be new information to a person but it could be news to people not up and up on everything. Even in the U.S. most of us hardly think about all the background stuff that goes on. More or less I commented because the headline and the content match (a rarity IMO) they may just not match to what a specific individual wants (for which is understandable but not possible to avoid). Anywho agreeing to disagree and move on for me respectfully.
Of course I paraphrased. Did I say I didn't? I didn't feel like writing a book. Here's one of her subjects:
They've only just invented this vaccine. Surely, we can't know that it's safe, or works, long-term?
That is specifically my concern about this vaccines... it's long term safety. The thing is, she doesn't answer "long term". Of course the virus has been tested. We've had reports of short term side effects. We can't have long-term reports because this hasn't been out long term. So I saw the subhead I quoted above and thought "oh, maybe there is something that will ease my fears." Nope. They tested in cells, then animals, then in people. First in small numbers, then in larger. Manufacturers must have a plan in place for long term testing. Yes, that's paraphrasing.

If you'd like to move on, that's fine.
 
nothing matters to some people. Not doctors, not science, not ending a pandemic.
Get off your freakin high horse. We get it. Anyone who has any questions about a vaccine is a selfish idiot who doesn't believe in science and wants the virus to thrive for the next 50 years until all of humanity is wiped out.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me why the meeting for the EUA is not until Dec 10? It is my understanding that the paperwork was filed a week ago- what is taking them so long? I understand they need to review the information but considering the dire need you would think that they could skip black friday shopping and put in some over time? (sorry don't mean to be cross about this but I truly don't understand why it is taking two weeks to meet!)
 
Can anyone tell me why the meeting for the EUA is not until Dec 10? It is my understanding that the paperwork was filed a week ago- what is taking them so long? I understand they need to review the information but considering the dire need you would think that they could skip black friday shopping and put in some over time? (sorry don't mean to be cross about this but I truly don't understand why it is taking two weeks to meet!)

My understanding is that the FDA needs a few weeks to review the submission for EUA....the 10th is the meeting of the outside panel of experts that are not affiliated with the FDA. So, checks and balances built into the system. To me, 3 weeks seems like a very accelerated schedule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top