Scott Gottlieb, Trump's former FDA commissioner, thinks we should use the grand majority of our first doses right now rather than waiting

[Joe]

 

 

Thoughts on this? I mean it makes sense to me.

[PaladinSolo]

Well i've read that since just the first dose is less effective you're increasing the chance the virus can become resistant to it if people only take the first dose.  So uhhh lets not do this.

[Jason]

Stupidest fucking people alive. 

[Joe]

Just now, Jason said:

Stupidest fucking people alive. 

 

Who?

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Well i've read that since just the first dose is less effective you're increasing the chance the virus can become resistant to it if people only take the first dose.  So uhhh lets not do this.

 

Has this actually been shown clinically or has it only been theorized?

[Jason]

Just now, Joe said:

 

Has this actually been shown clinically or has it only been theorized?

 

I posted a link about this in the main thread, they were worried it was completely pointless if you didn't do both but it turns out it's 50% if you just do the first shot. This was just for one of them though, the Pfizer one I think. 

[Joe]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

I posted a link about this in the main thread, they were worried it was completely pointless if you didn't do both but it turns out it's 50% if you just do the first shot. This was just for one of them though, the Pfizer one I think. 

 

Yep, so it seems like it would be better to not just sit on half the supply right now. I don't get what they're thinking.

[Jason]

9 minutes ago, Joe said:

Yep, so it seems like it would be better to not just sit on half the supply right now. I don't get what they're thinking.

 

He's not saying to sit on half the supply, he's saying to give 2x the number of people just the first shot instead of giving 1x the number of people the full course of two shots. Which is dumb not just because 50% is so much less than 95% but because I'm guessing we don't know whether you can delay the second shot by 1-2 months and still reach 95% effectiveness on the second shot.

[SimpleG]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

He's not saying to sit on half the supply, he's saying to give 2x the number of people just the first shot instead of giving 1x the number of people the full course of two shots. Which is dumb not just because 50% is so much less than 95% but because I'm guessing we don't know whether you can delay the second shot by 1-2 months and still reach 95% effectiveness on the second shot.

Making the inevitable " I got the vaccine and still got the Covid" crowd feel justified.

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

He's not saying to sit on half the supply, he's saying to give 2x the number of people just the first shot instead of giving 1x the number of people the full course of two shots. Which is dumb not just because 50% is so much less than 95% but because I'm guessing we don't know whether you can delay the second shot by 1-2 months and still reach 95% effectiveness on the second shot.

 

Huh? I'm confused now. At first I thought you were criticizing Gottlieb then I thought you were criticizing the Trump administration.

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Joe said:

Huh? I'm confused now. At first I thought you were criticizing Gottlieb then I thought you were criticizing the Trump administration.

 

He's a stupid fuck and the stupid fucking administration was stupid enough to hire the dumbfuck.

[Joe]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

He's a stupid fuck and the stupid fucking administration was stupid enough to hire the dumbfuck.

 

Lol he's not a stupid fuck at all, he's actually very well respected. You didn't even watch the video.

 

Edit: This is partially my fault though. Going to change the topic title.

[Joe]

So for people that are going to see "Trump's former FDA commissioner" and reflexively react (Scott Gottlieb is awesome): what he is suggesting here is that we give 35 million of our 40 million doses right now instead of just 20 million. We plan this out with Pfizer so that when people are ready for their second dose, Pfizer has new doses already manufactured. You sit on some doses just in case they miss those targets, but the point is much more people get vaccinated sooner this way and start to have partial immunity sooner as well.

[Joe]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

So JIT the doses basically? I'm not necessarily opposed but the risk of supply chain disruption is there and I have no idea how that will affect future immunity to the virus

[Jason]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

So JIT the doses basically? I'm not necessarily opposed but the risk of supply chain disruption is there and I have no idea how that will affect future immunity to the virus

 

Yeah, now that I understand it's not just "let's blow our wad" I guess it makes sense, but it still seems incredibly risky. It seems like it'd be better to at least see the second shipment come in without any hiccups before we start doing this to speed up deployment. 

[CayceG]

Oh man, we are TOTALLY going to fuck this up. 

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

So JIT the doses basically? I'm not necessarily opposed but the risk of supply chain disruption is there and I have no idea how that will affect future immunity to the virus

 

There's also this:

 

 

[Joe]

Just now, CayceG said:

Oh man, we are TOTALLY going to fuck this up. 

 

This is not the plan right now. We are going to sit on 20 million doses as thousands of people die each day instead.

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, Joe said:

 

This is not the plan right now. We are going to sit on 20 million doses as thousands of people die each day instead.

 

There is a risk to the plan, though. What of a lot of people don't show up for the second dose months later, if it's delayed? What if the US can't get enough doses in time for the second dose, or has to steal from others to do so?

 

If the supply management is secure and we know the next 35 million will be here in a few weeks, then it's a good idea. But if not, it isn't.

 

Edit - also, if we're relying on the idiots who can't stop themselves from seeing people at Christmas to come back a month or two later when another dose comes in for them (after they've been fine, since)...it's not a good idea. Basically making a riskier plan that relies on people acting rationally (when we know they already aren't) isn't smart.

[Joe]

29 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

There is a risk to the plan, though. What of a lot of people don't show up for the second dose months later, if it's delayed? What if the US can't get enough doses in time for the second dose, or has to steal from others to do so?

 

If the supply management is secure and we know the next 35 million will be here in a few weeks, then it's a good idea. But if not, it isn't.

 

Edit - also, if we're relying on the idiots who can't stop themselves from seeing people at Christmas to come back a month or two later when another dose comes in for them (after they've been fine, since)...it's not a good idea. Basically making a riskier plan that relies on people acting rationally (when we know they already aren't) isn't smart.

 

Yeah, he's suggesting that we do this if we know it's going to be there.

[tbca]

Maybe I am just dumb but if you have a vaccine that is 95% effective at stopping somebody from getting the virus with 2 doses and 50% effective at getting the virus from 1 dose, and in both cases the remainder get some degree positive benefit (reduced severity of symptoms, lower viral loads) I would think that guaranteeing 1 dose to twice as many people makes mathematical sense.

40 million doses/2 doses per person * 95% effective = 19 million fully protected and 1 million with reduced or no protection

40 millions does * 50% effective = 20 million fully protected and 20 million with reduced or no protection

 

And this is worst case scenario in which they get no additional vaccine doses to the group. What am I missing?

[SilentWorld]

1 hour ago, Joe said:

 

This is not the plan right now. We are going to sit on 20 million doses as thousands of people die each day instead.

Is that what's going to happen? Based on Gottlieb's phrasing when he said 20 million it sure sounded (to me, anyway) like he wasn't referring to concrete numbers but was just throwing out a hypothetical. Also in the video you included, there was an infographic that specifically referred to "2.9 million doses beginning to ship" after FDA approval, not 40 million (or 20 million). 

 

 

[TwinIon]

From the Pfizer briefing doc they sent to the FDA, on page 30 they show the efficacy after a single dose:

 

I'm not certain that using all the initial shipment on single doses is a good idea or not, but it seems like something worth considering.

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I'm not certain that using all the initial shipment on single doses is a good idea or not, but it seems like something worth considering.

 

As we discussed above the idea isn't to just single-dose everybody and hope that single-dosing 2x as many people is more effective than fully-dosing half as many people, it's to just-in-time delivery of the second dose. Which is extremely risky until we're sure we actually have the supply chain set up to JIT the second dose.

[CitizenVectron]

11 minutes ago, tbca said:

Maybe I am just dumb but if you have a vaccine that is 95% effective at stopping somebody from getting the virus with 2 doses and 50% effective at getting the virus from 1 dose, and in both cases the remainder get some degree positive benefit (reduced severity of symptoms, lower viral loads) I would think that guaranteeing 1 dose to twice as many people makes mathematical sense.

40 million doses/2 doses per person * 95% effective = 19 million fully protected and 1 million with reduced or no protection

40 millions does * 50% effective = 20 million fully protected and 20 million with reduced or no protection

 

And this is worst case scenario in which they get no additional vaccine doses to the group. What am I missing?

 

Not an expert, but I think there is some risk that the virus could evolve to be resistant to the vaccine through the surviving strains mutating. But as long as everyone who gets the first dose gets the second eventually, it could be a good idea to try. Because the alternative isn't everyone gets half vs half getting two doses. 

[Chadatog]

9 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Not an expert, but I think there is some risk that the virus could evolve to be resistant to the vaccine through the surviving strains mutating. But as long as everyone who gets the first dose gets the second eventually, it could be a good idea to try. Because the alternative isn't everyone gets half vs half getting two doses. 

It's less about the virus changing specifically to avoid the antibodies that the vaccine creates but there is always the possibility that the "spike" that has been extremely consistent in all strains of SARS-CoV-2 (and that all of the vaccines are based on) could change.

[Joe]

32 minutes ago, tbca said:

Maybe I am just dumb but if you have a vaccine that is 95% effective at stopping somebody from getting the virus with 2 doses and 50% effective at getting the virus from 1 dose, and in both cases the remainder get some degree positive benefit (reduced severity of symptoms, lower viral loads) I would think that guaranteeing 1 dose to twice as many people makes mathematical sense.

40 million doses/2 doses per person * 95% effective = 19 million fully protected and 1 million with reduced or no protection

40 millions does * 50% effective = 20 million fully protected and 20 million with reduced or no protection

 

And this is worst case scenario in which they get no additional vaccine doses to the group. What am I missing?

Not only this, but it’s actually over 50% effective, not 50% flat. Not sure what the actual number is.

[SuperSpreader]

17 hours ago, CayceG said:

Oh man, we are TOTALLY going to fuck this up. 

Super Covid-21

[Anathema-]

On 12/12/2020 at 10:19 AM, SuperSpreader said:

Super Covid-21

 

Super covid 21 turbo championship edition

[SimpleG]

1 hour ago, Anathema- said:

 

Super covid 21 turbo championship edition