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

[KingAugie]

Courts are slow. If it goes that route, we should just plan to shutdown again and start hoarding toilet paper and flour again.

So you advocate bypassing the law because of your feelings. Good luck to you then.

 

[RamblingMad]

So you advocate bypassing the law because of your feelings. Good luck to you then.

What law? Schools already require vaccinations. There has to be a law to bypass. There isn’t. One is being drafted now in NJ now to try to stop this university.

 

[mom2rtk]

If we wait for this to get full FDA approval, we’ll find ourselves locked down again. A big step toward getting to herd immunity is for schools to require it. We have already seen measles outbreaks due to people using loopholes to get around vaccinations. And given how quickly the UK variant is spreading right now in the US, we need to shut this virus down or shutdown again. Pick your poison.

Details, details.

Am I right?

 

[KingAugie]

What law? Schools already require vaccinations. There has to be a law to bypass. There isn’t. One is being drafted now in NJ now to try to stop this university.

I guess I misunderstood your "courts are slow" comment.
At this point it's clear you don't believe there COULD be legal issues with government requiring a vaccine that does not yet have full FDA approval and all I'm saying it is possible.
Not going around in circles anymore, have a good day.

 

[mom2rtk]

It's a bit tiring when people keep using the "experimental medical treatment". It's a very deliberate way of describing it.

As far as full FDA approval or not if you really believe the issue is it's an experimental medical treatment it won't matter one bit if the FDA gave full approval from day one because it would still be considered experimental medical treatment by the description people use when they say that phrase. Seem like just a way for people to thumb their nose at it. I thought you got the vaccine which makes it somewhat more interesting you saying experimental medical treatment. Usually people who use that don't want the vaccine because well it's experimental in their minds and they don't trust it, they don't want something they don't have all the little details of injected in their body, etc.

I actually would prefer it if my daughter's University required it. She'll have hers done before returning to campus in the fall. But I also thinks it's quite questionable to require people to inject something without full FDA approval.

 

[DLgal]

Pfizer and Moderna will likely have full FDA approval by the time the fall semester starts at Rutgers. This isn't going to be a legal issue for long. Both vaccines intend to seek full approval before summer, last I heard.

ETA: this topic is something my husband is following closely as the operations officer of one of the USMC boot camps. They would REALLY like to be able to force vaccination on the recruits and staff, but can't yet due to the EUA classifications. The virus is running rampant through every class of recruits, no matter what mitigation strategies they try. It's a huge issue. He gets his communications about this directly from the federal government and they estimate full FDA approval will be granted "within the coming months."

 

[Heigh-Ho]

The pp was discussing the legalities for requiring a vaccine that does not have FDA approval, but OK.

Not really..

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Investigational drug or experimental drug is the nomenclature the FDA uses when discussing those drugs that may qualify for an EUA or expanded access but not full FDA authorization. My issue is the government requiring something that the government agency in charge of saying whether or not drugs are safe and effective has not given full authorization to. There are also real questions of what will be the next treatment to be required. I believe that everyone should be able to make the decision for themselves if they want it or not. I made the choice myself to get it, and went far out of my way to do so. I'm also one that has two of the most significant co-morbidities, I'm Indiginous, diabetic and according to BMI, overweight. I made the decision that the possibility of serious complications from COVID outweighed the unknown possibility of complications from the vaccine. I am certainly not going to take issue with those that make a different decision. Everyone needs to make their own choices.

The FDA couldn't give it full authorization, there hasn't been nearly enough study done, nor enough follow up on those that have been vaccinated. We don't know what possible side effects there will be months or even years down the road.

How nice of you to assume my political leanings based on my word usage. But you're probably wrong.

You don't need to explain why you chose to get the vaccine I am just pointing out that those who consistently use the "experimental medical treatment" typically choose not to get the vaccine because well it's experimental. It's interesting when someone consistently uses that phrase but yet chooses to get it.

If the discussion was EUA vs FDA full approval that's really a different conversation. It's when "experimental medical treatment" is used that the conversation shifts to something else, sorry but that's really how things end up being. When that happens it's less about the approval and more about other stuff. You wouldn't know all the possible side effects for all the years something is around even with FDA approval. That's how things work. You wouldn't know when the next treatment could be required even with FDA approval. That's how things work.

I'm happy you were able to receive it and good news about your second appointment

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I actually would prefer it if my daughter's University required it. She'll have hers done before returning to campus in the fall. But I also thinks it's quite questionable to require people to inject something without full FDA approval.

Completely agree on the questionable part. I do think it's premature to use it for the fall semester right now even when we can forward think about the approval process.

 

[mom2rtk]

Pfizer and Moderna will likely have full FDA approval by the time the fall semester starts at Rutgers. This isn't going to be a legal issue for long. Both vaccines intend to seek full approval before summer, last I heard.

ETA: this topic is something my husband is following closely as the operations officer of one of the USMC boot camps. They would REALLY like to be able to force vaccination on the recruits and staff, but can't yet due to the EUA classifications. The virus is running rampant through every class of recruits, no matter what mitigation strategies they try. It's a huge issue. He gets his communications about this directly from the federal government and they estimate full FDA approval will be granted "within the coming months."

But people have to commit now on attending a certain university this fall. Will it be available in time? What if there is some last minute hitch and it doesn’t get full approval?

I would be more supportive of a policy that required vaccination within two months of final approval or something similar.

Once again, my daughter will be vaccinated regardless. She can’t wait to be done.

 

[DLgal]

But people have to commit now on attending a certain university this fall. Will it be available in time? What if there is some last minute hitch and it doesn’t get full approval?

Well, that's a choice students will have to make. I see no issue with Rutgers making their criteria for admission known in advance.

 

[Colleen27]

No, it is the state university of NJ. Which is why I think it won't happen. I have no problems if a private university decides to require it, I have a big problem with any government entity requiring experimental medical treatment for service. It would also be a somewhat different conversation if the vaccines held full FDA authorization.

Do they not require other vaccines to attend? DD had to show proof of meningitis and MMR vaccination when she enrolled. I'm not sure if it is required for attending classes or just for on-campus housing, but since freshmen are required to live on campus there's really no difference between the two. They do allow medical exemptions, of course. And from what I understand, Rutgers plans to allow a religious exemption as well.

If we wait for this to get full FDA approval, we’ll find ourselves locked down again. A big step toward getting to herd immunity is for schools to require it. We have already seen measles outbreaks due to people using loopholes to get around vaccinations. And given how quickly the UK variant is spreading right now in the US, we need to shut this virus down or shutdown again. Pick your poison.

We're still months to perhaps a year away from vaccine approval for school-age children, so I don't think one has much to do with the other. At best, when we talk about a K-12 mandate, we're talking about the '22-23 school year - 18 months from now. By that time the effect of the UK variant on the pandemic's trajectory will be old news. Even if we're only talking about colleges, a requirement wouldn't actually start affecting kids until 6 months from now... again, far too long a time horizon to assume an impact on the conditions and trends of this moment.

 

[mom2rtk]

Well, that's a choice students will have to make. I see no issue with Rutgers making their criteria for admission known in advance.

I just think they jumped the gun a bit. Tell students they will be requiring it as soon as it gets final approval and move on.

 

[tink2424]

You don't need to explain why you chose to get the vaccine I am just pointing out that those who consistently use the "experimental medical treatment" typically choose not to get the vaccine because well it's experimental. It's interesting when someone consistently uses that phrase but yet chooses to get it.

If the discussion was EUA vs FDA full approval that's really a different conversation. It's when "experimental medical treatment" is used that the conversation shifts to something else, sorry but that's really how things end up being. When that happens it's less about the approval and more about other stuff. You wouldn't know all the possible side effects for all the years something is around even with FDA approval. That's how things work. You wouldn't know when the next treatment could be required even with FDA approval. That's how things work.

I'm happy you were able to receive it and good news about your second appointment

That's not exactly true. I'm not aware of another drug or vaccine (which the mRNA ones aren't really vaccines they are gene therapy to precise) that doesn't at least have 1 year or more of data on the outcomes of the therapy and usually there is a lot more than 1 year worth of data. And you can't really count the doses outside of studies as it is very well know that less than 10% of side effects are reported when in a clinical study you capture nearly 100%. So while we may get full FDA approval this summer we don't really know the long term affects of this technology so yes it is experimental and will be for long after FDA approval.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

That's not exactly true. I'm not aware of another drug or vaccine (which the mRNA ones aren't really vaccines they are gene therapy to precise) that doesn't at least have 1 year or more of data on the outcomes of the therapy and usually there is a lot more than 1 year worth of data. And you can't really count the doses outside of studies as it is very well know that less than 10% of side effects are reported when in a clinical study you capture nearly 100%. So while we may get full FDA approval this summer we don't really know the long term affects of this technology so yes it is experimental and will be for long after FDA approval.

Speaking about the part I highlighted, which was my point. If the reasoning is about these other things then it's not really about FDA full approval. It's about the other things. If it was FDA approved today (just pretend) it wouldn't change that someone felt it was experimental (when they use that wording), that we won't know the long term side effects or that we won't know the next treatment. I don't think people want it to be a one and done thing where we don't continue to review and gather information. It wouldn't invalidate the vaccine if later on say in 2 years they said that after reviewing data for so this amount of time we've determined that every 5 years we need something to reignite our immune systems (similar to how tetanus boosters are around) but you also may not know that information when FDA approval is given.

I don't want people to get the impression that I don't understand the concern surrounding requiring something that doesn't have FDA approval. I am saying there are different types of conversations that occur in real life and throughout these threads and consistently a certain type occurs when people use experimental medical treatment instead of just discussing whether without FDA approval a place can do something or discussing what would happen if a place required it when it has been given full FDA approval. I stand by that observation

 

[RamblingMad]

That's not exactly true. I'm not aware of another drug or vaccine (which the mRNA ones aren't really vaccines they are gene therapy to precise) that doesn't at least have 1 year or more of data on the outcomes of the therapy and usually there is a lot more than 1 year worth of data. And you can't really count the doses outside of studies as it is very well know that less than 10% of side effects are reported when in a clinical study you capture nearly 100%. So while we may get full FDA approval this summer we don't really know the long term affects of this technology so yes it is experimental and will be for long after FDA approval.

By that time it will have mutated.

This is really a mixed message. Tell the public to get it to slow the spread, and then tell them to make it optional because it hasn’t gone through the normal approval process. So when I ask one of my friends that hasn’t gotten it as to why, they can respond that it hasn’t been fully approved. This pretty much guarantees that we won’t get herd immunity and that it will mutate enough to make this vaccine ineffective. We’re doomed. The CDC is right about the impending doom.

 

[EACarlson]

I am just pointing out that those who consistently use the "experimental medical treatment" typically choose not to get the vaccine because well it's experimental. It's interesting when someone consistently uses that phrase but yet chooses to get it.

If the discussion was EUA vs FDA full approval that's really a different conversation. It's when "experimental medical treatment" is used that the conversation shifts to something else, sorry but that's really how things end up being. When that happens it's less about the approval and more about other stuff. You wouldn't know all the possible side effects for all the years something is around even with FDA approval. That's how things work. You wouldn't know when the next treatment could be required even with FDA approval. That's how things work.

You are generalizing way too much about the beliefs of people that are using the proper wording. How exactly do you think experimental medical treatment becomes approved and conventional medical treatment? People choose to take the treatment and enough data is formed to prove one way or another whether the treatment is safe and effective.

EUAs are given to experimental medical treatments, the only person that shifted the conversation was you. The average time a drug is in clinical trials is 6-8 years, by then there is a lot more data that has been collected than in the four months (?) that these drugs were.

Here is a telling anecdote, my wife works for one of the largest health care systems in the midwest, I work for one of the largest regulatory compliance companies in the country. Neither of our employers is going to make the vaccine mandatory, in the case of my wife's company, their policy on the flu vaccine is if you don't get it every year you are ineligible for a raise or promotion. I also read that Rutgers is not going to require the vaccine for it's employees.

 

[KingAugie]

Speaking about the part I highlighted, which was my point. If the reasoning is about these other things then it's not really about FDA full approval. It's about the other things. If it was FDA approved today (just pretend) it wouldn't change that someone felt it was experimental (when they use that wording), that we won't know the long term side effects or that we won't know the next treatment. I don't think people want it to be a one and done thing where we don't continue to review and gather information. It wouldn't invalidate the vaccine if later on say in 2 years they said that after reviewing data for so this amount of time we've determined that every 5 years we need something to reignite our immune systems (similar to how tetanus boosters are around) but you also may not know that information when FDA approval is given.

I don't want people to get the impression that I don't understand the concern surrounding requiring something that doesn't have FDA approval. I am saying there are different types of conversations that occur in real life and throughout these threads and consistently a certain type occurs when people use experimental medical treatment instead of just discussing whether without FDA approval a place can do something or discussing what would happen if a place required it when it has been given full FDA approval. I stand by that observation

I think the impression you are giving is quite clear. You are disregarding what a poster says and making assumptions based on what you feel they mean. And you think adding a cute little emoji makes that OK.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I think the impression you are giving is quite clear. You are disregarding what a poster says and making assumptions based on what you feel they mean. And you think adding a cute little emoji makes that OK.

I think you're making assumptions now both with what I said and with your comment regarding my usage of emojis..

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Because....freedom? I'm just so over the stupidity. There's a gym in NJ where the owner, who was arrested once or twice because he kept his gym open during the lockdown.....is giving away free memberships to people who refuse to be vaccinated. He needs to go to court too.....to change his first name from whatever it is.....to Moron.

I saw this one on Twitter and I can’t wrap my head around it. Besides the idiocy of the idea, how does one prove they weren’t vaccinated? I suggested people on Twitter get vaccinated and then just not show their card and tell the gym they weren’t to get the free membership. I know he’s trying to make a political point, but the lack of common sense in his plan is astounding.