Coast Resorts Open Roads Forum: Around the Campfire: 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 185  
Prev  |  Next
MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/04/20 02:27pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

GUILTY AS CHARGED. LET'S TRY

R E L E A S E D

PFIZER HAS ONE EIGHTH THE READY VACCINE ON HAND IT CLAIMS. THE REMAINDER OF CLAIMED INVENTORY IS DERIVITIVE ESTIMATES.

I trust only only Johns Hopkins press releases.

Dr Fauci had to apologize to Great Britain yesterday over his politically skewed criticism.

* This post was last edited 12/04/20 02:55pm by MEXICOWANDERER *   View edit history

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/05/20 11:04am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article........ing-approval-COVID-vaccine-red-tape.html

This is valid criticism from a professor at Johns Hopkins. I have my personal feelings about the USA Alphabet health agencies.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 12/05/20 11:29am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Quote:

The FDA and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the UK regulator, have different processes to review vaccines, Dr. Penny Ward, a visiting professor in pharmaceutical medicine at King's College London, told The New York Times.

The FDA asks drugmakers for raw data, which it reanalyzes, while British regulators rely more heavily on reports produced by the drugmakers.

The UK has approved a COVID-19 vaccine, but the US is still waiting. Here's why.


The fda process includes data review by fda scientists and independent scientists. I don’t know if the uk process has just government scientists or also has independent scientists.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/05/20 01:05pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

They have independent consultation. The USA demands the minutes taken at every vaccine developer meeting. Then everything is highly subject to leakage to foreign entities. The USA government FDA LEAKPROOF? surely you jest.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 12/05/20 02:37pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:

They have independent consultation. The USA demands the minutes taken at every vaccine developer meeting. Then everything is highly subject to leakage to foreign entities. The USA government FDA LEAKPROOF? surely you jest.
do you know that the uk does not take minutes at every meeting? Isn’t that requirement to meet the USA freedom of information act? Do you even know if the fda would legally be allowed to alter the current process they are following or what time would be required to change the process (within the allowed legislative framework)?

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/05/20 03:06pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

The UK learned early on during the Perfumo Scandal that minute documentation of insignificant data is a threat to national security. The USA seeks the slightest variance in data to conduct in depth investigation of who made the variance, who was present, when did it happen, and what is needed to meld it into a satisfactory parlay between parties.

I learned the significance of relevant versus irrelevant data during the gaining of my MBA the thesis of which was based on forensic data abbreviation. To leave data investigation and conclusion(s) in the hands of political hacks is the height of folly. Once data is verified and presented it is not necessary to pass it from committee to committee looking for errors in syntax in minutiae.

A drawing of talent of enumerated peers in the industry of virology could form a body of experts that far surpasses any GS level of permanent employees of the government. To wit. Our 2019-2020 influenza compound was approved by this same regulatory body months after the exact same compound failed utterly in Australia. I almost died as a result and it leaves me biased.

Moderator

Tennessee

Moderator

Joined: 01/19/2004

View Profile



Posted: 12/07/20 11:47am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/08/20 08:29pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

As concentration of infected amplify the easier it is to become infected yourself. This is a simple manifestation of a pandemia. I am now asking my housekeepers to run errands. My friends and I are limiting Christmas Day to members of the same household. No New Years Eve celebration. I'm saving my rejoicing to the 29th day after my 2nd inoculation.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/09/20 01:01am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Looks as though they're going to force AstraZeneca to give full strength 1st jabs instead of the ½ dose. If AZ insists on ½ dose then they are going to be forced to do several months of Phase III testing.

Looks like I'm going to pay a private physician to administer the first jab.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 12/09/20 06:29am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Phase 3 trials required a certain number of participants. If the numbers of the 1/2 dose don’t meet this requirement then a phase 3 trial has not been completed.


Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK
The Lancet
December 08, 2020


This paper also detailed additional variables with the 1/2 dose group that might be triggering additional testing.

Quote:

Prespecified subgroup analyses are not included in this report but will be presented in future analyses when a larger dataset is available. However, in response to reviewer and editorial comments, a small number of exploratory subgroup comparisons has been included to explore differences in efficacy in the LD/SD and SD/SD groups and potential confounder variables. The LD/SD cohort in the UK comprised participants aged 18–55 years who received their second dose after a substantial gap. Age and the time difference between vaccines were therefore potential confounders and were explored further in subgroup analyses, restricted to those aged 18–55 years, those with more than 8 weeks’ interval between vaccine doses, and a comparison of those in the SD/SD cohort receiving vaccines at short (<6 weeks) or long (?6 weeks) intervals. Subgroup comparisons were done by incorporating the treatment-by-subgroup interaction term in the model and reporting the p value for the interaction term.


Quote:

The timing of priming and booster vaccine administration varied between studies. As protocol amendments to add a booster dose took place when the trials were underway, and owing to the time taken to manufacture and release a new batch of vaccine, doses could not be administered at a 4-week interval. 1459 (53·2%) of 2741 participants in COV002 in the LD/SD group received a second dose at least 12 weeks after the first (median 84 days, IQR 77—91) and only 22 (0·8%) received a second dose within 8 weeks of the first. The median interval between doses for the SD/SD group in COV002 was 69 days (50–86). Conversely, the majority of participants in COV003 in the SD/SD group (2493 (61·0%) of 4088) received a second dose within 6 weeks of the first (median 36 days, 32–58; appendix 1 p 11).


Here is a comment article from the same issue of The Lancet.
Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine efficacy

Quote:

After phase 1 results supported a two-dose regimen, the trial protocols were amended where necessary to require two standard doses (SD/SD cohort) of approximately 5?×?1010 viral particles per dose administered 28 days apart, but a subset (LD/SD cohort) in one of the UK trials inadvertently received a half-dose of the vaccine (low dose) as the first dose before a change in dosage quantification methodology; additionally, the protocol amendments enabled other trial participants originally scheduled to receive a single dose to receive a booster more than 28 days after their first dose.


* This post was last edited 12/09/20 06:55am by BCSnob *   View edit history

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 185  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2025 CWI, Inc. © 2025 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.