COVID-19

24

Comments

  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 20,173
    deadendp said:
    FMe, The fall learning experience is going to be much different than the slapped together version we got this spring.  I have had several district teachers come into the gallery this week, hang out and talk to me at length about the changes and online curriculum.  

    Is it going to be the same as the in-person teaching?  No.  However, these poor teachers had a pandemic, lil used or unused resources to navigate . . . In K's district, they had 5 days to patch together something. 

    As far as the learning aspect, Lil T will learn what he needs to learn and honestly, the social stuff will come.  My guess (and it is purely a guess) is that they will address bringing everyone back together as a community after the all-clear is given.  

    In the meantime, I am glad that they have choices so that people in situations such as yours can choose the best fit for your family.  I'm sorry that we have to make these choices, but I'm glad that they are there to make.  

    :hug: 
    Thanks.
    I know this state gets high marks for public schools but I have no faith in the statements that the school board is making.
    (As we raised our nephew, every year there would be delays in shit that the state implemented and last year as our son entered there was a handful of bullshit things to deal with )
    I'll believe it when I see it - but I hope you are right.

    I'm more in line with Dankind in how I feel about the boobs running the district here....although at least the leader isn't a racist boob like the one he describes in his area.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 15,700
    mcgruff10 said:
    dankind said:
    I would like to just quit my job and homeschool them independently at this point, but I've been informed by the family accountant that we can't afford to do that.

    The district sucks. Great Schools is a scam.

    But the kid who has friends actually wants to go back to the classroom, and the little guy who gets bullied every day would obviously rather learn remotely.

    I would just rather not deal with the district's incompetence anymore.
    I'm surprised at this since Massachusetts and New Jersey are ranked #1 and #2 (depending on the poll and year) in the nation for public schools.  
    Yeah, the schools in Wellesley, Newton, Belmont, Weston, Lexington, Concord, etc. are likely as decent as they say they are. Once you get up to my area, however, you can't trust Route 1 folks to rate the efficacy of their own schools.

    Basically, just listen to one of them speak for a minute or so, and then decide if you'd like to send your child to the same school that they attended. Likely, you won't.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • deadendpdeadendp Northeast OhioPosts: 9,871
    DK and FMe,

    You are both aware we open enroll K out of district, 25 minutes away, because the junior high and high school where we live was not at all a good fit for our daughter. K-2/4 were great at her elementary. Years 3 & 5 sucked big time, with 5 being the worst teaching staff for that grade ever. Worst. Teachers. Ever.

    We open enrolled from grade 6 and on. We had to basically toss that as a shit can year due to 1. 5th grade being so fucked up and 2. there is a 2 1/2 year learning gap from school system 1-> school system 2. K lost 5th grade, then she was overwhelmed by being so far behind in the new district. She continues in math intervention and her test anxiety (thank you Mr. H from 5th grade) qualified her for a 504 to give accommodations with testing. 

    I'm thankful we have the option to open enroll. Not every district will take open enroll and in K's out-of-district school, the reason she qualifies is because she is from an underperforming school district. (Hello F rating.) The monies for her education at F school travel with her to the open enroll school, which probably pays them 3 students worth for one of their in-district kids. It is a financial help to her open enroll school to take her. 
    2014: Cincinnati
    2016: Lexington and Wrigley 1
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 11,190
    dankind said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    dankind said:
    I would like to just quit my job and homeschool them independently at this point, but I've been informed by the family accountant that we can't afford to do that.

    The district sucks. Great Schools is a scam.

    But the kid who has friends actually wants to go back to the classroom, and the little guy who gets bullied every day would obviously rather learn remotely.

    I would just rather not deal with the district's incompetence anymore.
    I'm surprised at this since Massachusetts and New Jersey are ranked #1 and #2 (depending on the poll and year) in the nation for public schools.  
    Yeah, the schools in Wellesley, Newton, Belmont, Weston, Lexington, Concord, etc. are likely as decent as they say they are. Once you get up to my area, however, you can't trust Route 1 folks to rate the efficacy of their own schools.

    Basically, just listen to one of them speak for a minute or so, and then decide if you'd like to send your child to the same school that they attended. Likely, you won't.
    You could have been my neighbor in MarshVegas, no issues with the school system here. High school is brand new (like 4 yrs old) state of the art.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 20,173
    deadendp said:
    DK and FMe,

    You are both aware we open enroll K out of district, 25 minutes away, because the junior high and high school where we live was not at all a good fit for our daughter. K-2/4 were great at her elementary. Years 3 & 5 sucked big time, with 5 being the worst teaching staff for that grade ever. Worst. Teachers. Ever.

    We open enrolled from grade 6 and on. We had to basically toss that as a shit can year due to 1. 5th grade being so fucked up and 2. there is a 2 1/2 year learning gap from school system 1-> school system 2. K lost 5th grade, then she was overwhelmed by being so far behind in the new district. She continues in math intervention and her test anxiety (thank you Mr. H from 5th grade) qualified her for a 504 to give accommodations with testing. 

    I'm thankful we have the option to open enroll. Not every district will take open enroll and in K's out-of-district school, the reason she qualifies is because she is from an underperforming school district. (Hello F rating.) The monies for her education at F school travel with her to the open enroll school, which probably pays them 3 students worth for one of their in-district kids. It is a financial help to her open enroll school to take her. 
    Glad that you guys took that route and it is working.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • RogueStonerRogueStoner Sunny AZPosts: 1,658
    I really feel for all of you parents. I hope everything works out well for each of you. 

    My kids start online school in a week and then in person school on August 17th. My 4th and 7th graders will be attending school 2 days a week, cutting the classroom size to 8 students, all in masks. I’m comfortable with that. They need that classroom time for so many reasons. 
    I have no idea what the high school will be doing and I’m fairly sure I won’t like it. 

    I’ve now had 4 friends recover from Covid. I’m very grateful for that. I hope you all stay healthy. 
  • Glorified KCGlorified KC KCMO NativePosts: 1,564
    I'm hoping businesses can bounce back, or there will be innovative new businesses on the other side of this.  One of my favorite restaurants in Milwaukee just closed permanently.  I'm not sure where the restaurant industry will go moving forward.
    Folded over, forced in a choke hold
    Outnumbered and held down
    All of this talk of rapture
    Look around at the promise NOW,...
    Here and now
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,647
    I'm hoping businesses can bounce back, or there will be innovative new businesses on the other side of this.  One of my favorite restaurants in Milwaukee just closed permanently.  I'm not sure where the restaurant industry will go moving forward.
    Many small businesses are already fucked. Many large ones too.

    I’m guessing things like shopping malls will slowly go to the wayside. 

    Maybe they’ll pave the parking lots and put up some paradises ;)

    True, we may not know what we’ve got till it’s gone, but sometimes destruction leads to reconstruction - perhaps toward efforts beneficial to all (or at least many). 
  • lastexitlondonlastexitlondon Posts: 6,045
    Amazon has  been the winner of all this. They  now are  coming everyday several times  to our block of 10 flats.
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • deadendpdeadendp Northeast OhioPosts: 9,871
    Amazon has  been the winner of all this. They  now are  coming everyday several times  to our block of 10 flats.
    We were just talking about our UPS driver yesterday.  You want to talk about a winner-- she is wonderful!  She found out that I order vinyl and she tucks it in to make sure it doesn't warp.  She wraps packages if it is to rain.  Always such a fantastic personality.  

    Amazon lost a package of mine earlier this week.  It shipped from the top of the county.  I had to reorder and now we've been waiting a week and a half.  :angry:  

    I have actually used a combination of orders and services through this.  
    2014: Cincinnati
    2016: Lexington and Wrigley 1
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,463
    pjl44 said:
    I know there's a thread on AMT, but I think putting it in the forum for political discussion has brought out all the problems you might imagine.

    My hope is that this thread can be focused on discussion of vaccine and treatment progress, apolitical analysis of case/mortality trends, good faith discussions about difficult decisions like when to reopen schools, etc. If you want to bicker about red states and blue states, mask wearing, Governors, our President, etc., the thread in AMT would be more appropriate.

    My motivation to kick things off was a couple articles that caught my eye recently:

    Despite some anecdotes, it looks very unlikely for someone to get reinfected:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/health/covid-antibodies-herd-immunity.html#click=https://t.co/cTiRddiIZm

    It hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet, but these are potentially the best treatment results we've seen so far. A well-designed study, although I wonder if it's a large enough sample.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-53467022?__twitter_impression=true

    And hopefully many people have already seen the encouraging results from Oxford's Phase 1 studies published in The Lancet:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-induces-strong-immune-response-early-trial-results-n1234191

    This is a great idea, pjl.  Everything is politicized these days and even though there are some political ramifications to how the pandemic is responded to, moving the COVID-19 discussion over to AET will help keep the focus on the medical aspects. 

    I'm not sure avoiding the topic of mask wearing here as it relates to the prevention of the spread of disease is necessary, but hopefully we can keep that sub-topic focused on the medical aspects, not the political.

    I feel fortunate to not have anyone close to me get the disease yet although I did hear recently of a close friend of a friend coming down with it- a very nice gentleman I met early this year before the disease went rampant.  He has it bad enough to be in the hospital.  I really hope he pulls through.




    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • RogueStonerRogueStoner Sunny AZPosts: 1,658
    My kids’ school just got delayed until mid-October and then they’ll reassess in-person attendance. This is causing so much anxiety but I keep reminding myself that it keeps others safe. Meanwhile, here I go again, screwing up basic math for them. :fearful:
  • deadendpdeadendp Northeast OhioPosts: 9,871
    My kids’ school just got delayed until mid-October and then they’ll reassess in-person attendance. This is causing so much anxiety but I keep reminding myself that it keeps others safe. Meanwhile, here I go again, screwing up basic math for them. :fearful:
    So in-person is delayed? Try Khan Academy, Brainly or quickmath.com . We have used all three. (Math is not my thing.)

    Quick Math actually shows step-by-step how to work through the problem. 

    Khan Academy covers several subjects. 
    2014: Cincinnati
    2016: Lexington and Wrigley 1
  • RogueStonerRogueStoner Sunny AZPosts: 1,658
    deadendp said:
    My kids’ school just got delayed until mid-October and then they’ll reassess in-person attendance. This is causing so much anxiety but I keep reminding myself that it keeps others safe. Meanwhile, here I go again, screwing up basic math for them. :fearful:
    So in-person is delayed? Try Khan Academy, Brainly or quickmath.com . We have used all three. (Math is not my thing.)

    Quick Math actually shows step-by-step how to work through the problem. 

    Khan Academy covers several subjects. 
    Thank you. I will. Much appreciated. :smile:
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,289
    Two interesting articles on the issue of Covid and vaccines. 

    The first is from Scientific American and discussed why evidence of dropping antibodies after infection may not be as much of a problem as feared. 


    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 


    I’m not even going to bother posting these in the AMT thread. Any actual info gets ignored as people argue back and forth about how much Trump and other officials are to blame for the current situation. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 12,238

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,289

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 12,238

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    Sure - my point is by the time it is available, even with accelerated testing, it will be safe.
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 12,238
    Funny - he actually just texted me this article, which is relevant re: the topic of schooling being discussed:

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2024920
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,289

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    Sure - my point is by the time it is available, even with accelerated testing, it will be safe.

    I think that's a fairly simplistic view of the situation. I work in health care, I prescribe medications, I'm familiar with the whole host of adverse and unintended effects that come even with medications and products generally viewed as "safe", i.e. those that have received regulatory approval. It isn't a binary issue, safe or not safe; it's a much more complex gradient of both potential short term and long term effects. At least one of the front-runner vaccine candidates is an RNA vaccine; however, there are, to date, no approved RNA or DNA vaccines for humans, so we do not even have a history of safety and efficacy in that modality to draw from. 

    Beyond the issue of safety there is efficacy, including the thorny issue of durability of immune response. This is impossible to determine without taking the time to measure it. 

    Thus, back to my original statement of my concern if a vaccine is made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. There is a massive push to have one or more vaccines developed in record time, with some people now estimating possibly by the end of 2020 or early 2021. In my opinion that's more quickly than is reasonable. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 12,238
    Well understood and I appreciate one's personal view of their own hesitancy. My point is, yes, basically it is that simple that when and if any vaccine is approved it will have gone through a thorough process. Is skepticism valid to an extent, sure. But my point of all this isn't for you individually. Any public messaging system/board is a place that amplifies a message. And the message that needs to be amplified is that when and if a vaccine is approved that it will be safe. Otherwise the more doubt that bleeds into the public discourse will lead to more negative effects for when and if distribution of the vaccine begins. 

    That's my greatest concern- by the time a vaccine is ready to roll out the herd immunity will never be effective because too many people will doubt its use.
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 6,296

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    Sure - my point is by the time it is available, even with accelerated testing, it will be safe.

    I think that's a fairly simplistic view of the situation. I work in health care, I prescribe medications, I'm familiar with the whole host of adverse and unintended effects that come even with medications and products generally viewed as "safe", i.e. those that have received regulatory approval. It isn't a binary issue, safe or not safe; it's a much more complex gradient of both potential short term and long term effects. At least one of the front-runner vaccine candidates is an RNA vaccine; however, there are, to date, no approved RNA or DNA vaccines for humans, so we do not even have a history of safety and efficacy in that modality to draw from. 

    Beyond the issue of safety there is efficacy, including the thorny issue of durability of immune response. This is impossible to determine without taking the time to measure it. 

    Thus, back to my original statement of my concern if a vaccine is made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. There is a massive push to have one or more vaccines developed in record time, with some people now estimating possibly by the end of 2020 or early 2021. In my opinion that's more quickly than is reasonable. 
    It sounds like they're planning to review data around the 4 month mark. Do you think that's too soon? Does that go for all endpoints or just particular ones?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,289
    pjl44 said:

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    Sure - my point is by the time it is available, even with accelerated testing, it will be safe.

    I think that's a fairly simplistic view of the situation. I work in health care, I prescribe medications, I'm familiar with the whole host of adverse and unintended effects that come even with medications and products generally viewed as "safe", i.e. those that have received regulatory approval. It isn't a binary issue, safe or not safe; it's a much more complex gradient of both potential short term and long term effects. At least one of the front-runner vaccine candidates is an RNA vaccine; however, there are, to date, no approved RNA or DNA vaccines for humans, so we do not even have a history of safety and efficacy in that modality to draw from. 

    Beyond the issue of safety there is efficacy, including the thorny issue of durability of immune response. This is impossible to determine without taking the time to measure it. 

    Thus, back to my original statement of my concern if a vaccine is made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. There is a massive push to have one or more vaccines developed in record time, with some people now estimating possibly by the end of 2020 or early 2021. In my opinion that's more quickly than is reasonable. 
    It sounds like they're planning to review data around the 4 month mark. Do you think that's too soon? Does that go for all endpoints or just particular ones?

    By "too soon", are you referring to safety or efficacy data?

    If you mean efficacy, I think that is too soon to come to any definitive answer, unless they go ahead with challenge trials. Certainly too soon if we're just talking about people being out and about in the world

    If you mean safety, 4 month data would capture immediate/short term adverse effects but not long term, of course.

    I have read that Fauci has stated that they would consider dropping the requirement for Phase 3 studies and giving emergency release to a promising vaccine after Phase 2 trials. That, to my mind, is way too soon and I'd be pretty cautious about a vaccine without robust Phase 3 data.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 15,700
    New cases in Mass are heading in the wrong direction. Fuck a duck!
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,289
    pjl44 said:

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    Sure - my point is by the time it is available, even with accelerated testing, it will be safe.

    I think that's a fairly simplistic view of the situation. I work in health care, I prescribe medications, I'm familiar with the whole host of adverse and unintended effects that come even with medications and products generally viewed as "safe", i.e. those that have received regulatory approval. It isn't a binary issue, safe or not safe; it's a much more complex gradient of both potential short term and long term effects. At least one of the front-runner vaccine candidates is an RNA vaccine; however, there are, to date, no approved RNA or DNA vaccines for humans, so we do not even have a history of safety and efficacy in that modality to draw from. 

    Beyond the issue of safety there is efficacy, including the thorny issue of durability of immune response. This is impossible to determine without taking the time to measure it. 

    Thus, back to my original statement of my concern if a vaccine is made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. There is a massive push to have one or more vaccines developed in record time, with some people now estimating possibly by the end of 2020 or early 2021. In my opinion that's more quickly than is reasonable. 
    It sounds like they're planning to review data around the 4 month mark. Do you think that's too soon? Does that go for all endpoints or just particular ones?
    Adding to my earlier answer, it would be really interesting to see if the data separates at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 11,190
    dankind said:
    New cases in Mass are heading in the wrong direction. Fuck a duck!
    Partly blamed on one of the hospital groups with a reporting data dump of tests inflating the overall total.
    The positivity rate has jumped a tick, from about 1.7% to about 2.0% the last week,
    Number still not bad, Covid hospitilazations today hit their lowest number since things ramped up in March. (347, down from a high of about 4,000).
    So if folks smarten up with the parties in Chatham and 33% capacity booze cruises that are more likely 133% capacity (they've been shut down), we'll be OK.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 6,296
    pjl44 said:

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    Sure - my point is by the time it is available, even with accelerated testing, it will be safe.

    I think that's a fairly simplistic view of the situation. I work in health care, I prescribe medications, I'm familiar with the whole host of adverse and unintended effects that come even with medications and products generally viewed as "safe", i.e. those that have received regulatory approval. It isn't a binary issue, safe or not safe; it's a much more complex gradient of both potential short term and long term effects. At least one of the front-runner vaccine candidates is an RNA vaccine; however, there are, to date, no approved RNA or DNA vaccines for humans, so we do not even have a history of safety and efficacy in that modality to draw from. 

    Beyond the issue of safety there is efficacy, including the thorny issue of durability of immune response. This is impossible to determine without taking the time to measure it. 

    Thus, back to my original statement of my concern if a vaccine is made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. There is a massive push to have one or more vaccines developed in record time, with some people now estimating possibly by the end of 2020 or early 2021. In my opinion that's more quickly than is reasonable. 
    It sounds like they're planning to review data around the 4 month mark. Do you think that's too soon? Does that go for all endpoints or just particular ones?

    By "too soon", are you referring to safety or efficacy data?

    If you mean efficacy, I think that is too soon to come to any definitive answer, unless they go ahead with challenge trials. Certainly too soon if we're just talking about people being out and about in the world

    If you mean safety, 4 month data would capture immediate/short term adverse effects but not long term, of course.

    I have read that Fauci has stated that they would consider dropping the requirement for Phase 3 studies and giving emergency release to a promising vaccine after Phase 2 trials. That, to my mind, is way too soon and I'd be pretty cautious about a vaccine without robust Phase 3 data.
    I was asking about both. Aren't challenge trials a little ethically dicey in this case? If they show 90% protection at 4 months, is your concern that they need longer exposure?

    One thing that isn't clear to me in what I've read about the primary endpoints: Are they just straight measuring infections in the vaccine group? Or is it relative risk vs. the placebo group?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,289
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    Sure - my point is by the time it is available, even with accelerated testing, it will be safe.

    I think that's a fairly simplistic view of the situation. I work in health care, I prescribe medications, I'm familiar with the whole host of adverse and unintended effects that come even with medications and products generally viewed as "safe", i.e. those that have received regulatory approval. It isn't a binary issue, safe or not safe; it's a much more complex gradient of both potential short term and long term effects. At least one of the front-runner vaccine candidates is an RNA vaccine; however, there are, to date, no approved RNA or DNA vaccines for humans, so we do not even have a history of safety and efficacy in that modality to draw from. 

    Beyond the issue of safety there is efficacy, including the thorny issue of durability of immune response. This is impossible to determine without taking the time to measure it. 

    Thus, back to my original statement of my concern if a vaccine is made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. There is a massive push to have one or more vaccines developed in record time, with some people now estimating possibly by the end of 2020 or early 2021. In my opinion that's more quickly than is reasonable. 
    It sounds like they're planning to review data around the 4 month mark. Do you think that's too soon? Does that go for all endpoints or just particular ones?

    By "too soon", are you referring to safety or efficacy data?

    If you mean efficacy, I think that is too soon to come to any definitive answer, unless they go ahead with challenge trials. Certainly too soon if we're just talking about people being out and about in the world

    If you mean safety, 4 month data would capture immediate/short term adverse effects but not long term, of course.

    I have read that Fauci has stated that they would consider dropping the requirement for Phase 3 studies and giving emergency release to a promising vaccine after Phase 2 trials. That, to my mind, is way too soon and I'd be pretty cautious about a vaccine without robust Phase 3 data.
    I was asking about both. Aren't challenge trials a little ethically dicey in this case? If they show 90% protection at 4 months, is your concern that they need longer exposure?

    One thing that isn't clear to me in what I've read about the primary endpoints: Are they just straight measuring infections in the vaccine group? Or is it relative risk vs. the placebo group?
    Absolutely ethically dicey, given the potential seriousness of an infection and the fact that there is no really good treatment for those that develop a serious infection. I’m not advocating for that. Usually only done when there is an effective treatment, like for malaria. 

    If challenge trials aren’t going to be done, then four months doesn’t seem long enough if we are just hoping for community exposure. Would also be very interested to know the duration of protection. For instance, what if there are substantially fewer infections in the vaccine  at four months but not at six or eight? 

    Will have to get back to you on the rest - got dinner guests arriving soon. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PureandEasyPureandEasy Posts: 5,488

    I won’t go into detail about my organization and our involvement in this crisis.   As far as sending your kids to school, not in America.  Not now.  Until there is a true reliable vaccine that has been through all required stages, not rushed, not pushed through, but through all scientific vaccine approval requirements.  There is no science currently that gives you immunity.  Having positive antibody tests do not protect you from re-infection.  If you’ve been diagnosed or tested positive for the virus, there is no science that says you cannot contract the virus again and spread the virus to others.

    The science is not there as far as post-infection.  Hell, we’re still trying to deal with current infection.   This is not something to take lightly, to rush to "fix"  it will take time to develop.  Best we accept that folks.  Wear your masks and limit your exposure to others.

     


    GIVE BLOOD
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,289
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:

    The second talks about several reasons why it’s not a good idea to rush to put out a vaccine without thorough testing. This is something I am personally concerned about and which may well lead me to delay getting a vaccine, should one be made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. 
    Paraphrasing things told to me by a buddy who is a doctor at a children's hospital and is working on covid research,a long with a vaccine at Penn:
    • They can accelerate some of the more challenging phases (higher bar to have necessary conditions to run the trial) by doing extra things like human challenge trials — which is a bioethics topic we could have an hours long discussion over
    • bottom line, if there is a vaccine — it will be safe
    • If anyone ever wants the science on how to counter vaccine hesitancy — happy to share the research papers. I'll follow up with him for this stuff.
    I’m familiar with the science. I am generally very provaccine, but there is no denying that some information takes time to acquire, by its very nature. 
    Sure - my point is by the time it is available, even with accelerated testing, it will be safe.

    I think that's a fairly simplistic view of the situation. I work in health care, I prescribe medications, I'm familiar with the whole host of adverse and unintended effects that come even with medications and products generally viewed as "safe", i.e. those that have received regulatory approval. It isn't a binary issue, safe or not safe; it's a much more complex gradient of both potential short term and long term effects. At least one of the front-runner vaccine candidates is an RNA vaccine; however, there are, to date, no approved RNA or DNA vaccines for humans, so we do not even have a history of safety and efficacy in that modality to draw from. 

    Beyond the issue of safety there is efficacy, including the thorny issue of durability of immune response. This is impossible to determine without taking the time to measure it. 

    Thus, back to my original statement of my concern if a vaccine is made available more quickly than I think is reasonable. There is a massive push to have one or more vaccines developed in record time, with some people now estimating possibly by the end of 2020 or early 2021. In my opinion that's more quickly than is reasonable. 
    It sounds like they're planning to review data around the 4 month mark. Do you think that's too soon? Does that go for all endpoints or just particular ones?

    By "too soon", are you referring to safety or efficacy data?

    If you mean efficacy, I think that is too soon to come to any definitive answer, unless they go ahead with challenge trials. Certainly too soon if we're just talking about people being out and about in the world

    If you mean safety, 4 month data would capture immediate/short term adverse effects but not long term, of course.

    I have read that Fauci has stated that they would consider dropping the requirement for Phase 3 studies and giving emergency release to a promising vaccine after Phase 2 trials. That, to my mind, is way too soon and I'd be pretty cautious about a vaccine without robust Phase 3 data.
    I was asking about both. Aren't challenge trials a little ethically dicey in this case? If they show 90% protection at 4 months, is your concern that they need longer exposure?

    One thing that isn't clear to me in what I've read about the primary endpoints: Are they just straight measuring infections in the vaccine group? Or is it relative risk vs. the placebo group?
    Here’s an article that describes the format of the Phase 3 studies, including primary and secondary endpoints. Placebo controlled or active comparator.  

     https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/7/icmra-outlines-shape-of-phase-3-covid-19-vaccine-t
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sign In or Register to comment.