Covid-19 News/Discussion

[ramssuperbowl99]

7 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

Why are we not vaccinating people under 12 yet? Or are we and I just haven't been paying attention?

Pediatric studies are ongoing. Pfizer said submission for EUA for 5-11 year olds is somewhere around Sep to Oct. Sub 5 will be after that.

[Xenos]

1 hour ago, minutemancl said:

Why are we not vaccinating people under 12 yet? Or are we and I just haven't been paying attention?

Still in trials right now. 5 to 11 may becoming in the fall.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Xenos

[Deadpulse]

My least favorite thing is when people think consequences are somehow taking away freedoms. Not how that works. I am free as a bird to call my boss and tell him he is a jack off. Pretty sure I'd be fired but I am free to do it. 

[WizeGuy]

48 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Pediatric studies are ongoing. Pfizer said submission for EUA for 5-11 year olds is somewhere around Sep to Oct. Sub 5 will be after that.

I was happy to hear that an EUA for 2-5 year old would be shortly after that. Probably sometime early October. The wifey is working with a NICU fellow who thought an EUA for that age wouldn't come until the end of the year or early next year. My son turns 2 in Sept. Aw yeah!

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by WizeGuy

[TVScout]

AstraZeneca hails trial results for COVID treatment.

Quote

The drug, made from a combination of two antibodies, was initially developed as a treatment for those who had already been exposed to the disease.

A new trial of 5,197 participants who had not been exposed showed a 77-percent reduced risk of developing symptomatic disease, with no severe cases recorded, Astra said in a statement.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08-astrazeneca-hails-trial-results-covid.html

[ET80]

27 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

My least favorite thing is when people think consequences are somehow taking away freedoms. Not how that works. I am free as a bird to call my boss and tell him he is a jack off. Pretty sure I'd be fired but I am free to do it. 

People like to (incorrectly) think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences...

[ramssuperbowl99]

9 minutes ago, ET80 said:

People like to (incorrectly) think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences...

I would argue they want freedom from consequences of their speech only for themselves, and the dissociation where they pretend to conflate freedom of speech versus consequences only for themselves is a way to make sure they can isolate their in and out group with plausible deniability when called on it.

[Forge]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Time to strip away every societal protection for the unvaxxed by choice.

Employers should be free to require it, schools should be free to require it, health insurance companies should be free to drop unvaccinated people by choice or free to not cover COVID expenses without proof of vaccination/doctor's note documenting the reason why, hospitals should be free to deprioritize the unvaccinated patients if they are full, COVID-related medical debt should not be dischargeable after 7 years, and doctors should be free to bar unvaccinated patients.

Honestly, its probably the health insurance companies that are eventually going to drive this and dictate where it goes. Too much money there.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

19 minutes ago, ET80 said:

People like to (incorrectly) think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences...

"I called this person the N word and was banned from Twitter. MY FREEDOMS ARE BEING INFRINGED UPON!"

"I refuse to vaccinate myself or my children but I insist they attend school without a mask, endangering the lives of other children and their families. As such, my children were not allowed in school. THEIR FREEDOMS ARE BEING INFRINGED UPON!"

[incognito_man]

23 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I would argue they want freedom from consequences of their speech only for themselves, and the dissociation where they pretend to conflate freedom of speech versus consequences only for themselves is a way to make sure they can isolate their in and out group with plausible deniability when called on it.

I would argue that, even more generally, they are simple turds and much of their behavior can be summarized as being selfish arses with zero situational (or general) awareness.

[BobbyPhil1781]

So how are they handling testing on kids that young? The same way as before? I'm not in the know of how these things typically work but I feel we should be a little more cautious w/ children that young. Do we have any info on when someone of that age received the first ever dose of anything?

[BobbyPhil1781]

And the FDA approval might make a small dent in the unvaccinated but I wouldn't expect too much from it. I saw a response on Twitter or Reddit or something that was along the lines of "my baby daddy ODd on Fentanyl and that's FDA approved. I'm not taking ****" so don't get your hopes up too much. The excuses are already in flight. I know it's only one person but, call it a hunch, there's probably more people who don't care. Some will, sure, but I don't think that number is large. This goes back to what I've stated before that a lot of people are too stubborn to change their views. Admitting you're wrong is hard. Keeping you head in the sand and using the "block" button on social media is easy. Most people will choose "easy" instead of "hard".

I obviously hope I'm wrong but we'll see.........

[ramssuperbowl99]

14 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

So how are they handling testing on kids that young? The same way as before? I'm not in the know of how these things typically work but I feel we should be a little more cautious w/ children that young. Do we have any info on when someone of that age received the first ever dose of anything?

We are more cautious, that's why we waited until we had established safety data in adults before we started dosing.

We still have to demonstrate safety before we dose the first human of a specific population. Obviously, safety in other humans is a big data point in the plus column, but then we have to demonstrate why the differences between the two populations won't impact the safety, correct the dose level if body weight changes, etc.

This applies for every population, so what we do with pediatrics is we compare the physiology with how the drug interacts with the body, and adjust accordingly. So let's use Advil as an example. It's metabolized by specific liver enzymes that we call CYPs or Cytochrome P450's or P450's.

That's Advil's metabolism. See all the CYPs? Those are the important enzymes.

Then we find or collect data comparing the relative amounts of each type of enzyme in each child versus adult, and scale the dose not only based on body weight/body surface area, but also based on those enzymes. 

 

 

I'm not using the vaccine here because biologics are working with the immune system and I don't know as much about how the immune system changes with age. But the same general ideas apply.

Edited August 23, 2021 by ramssuperbowl99

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

13 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

And the FDA approval might make a small dent in the unvaccinated but I wouldn't expect too much from it. I saw a response on Twitter or Reddit or something that was along the lines of "my baby daddy ODd on Fentanyl and that's FDA approved. I'm not taking ****" so don't get your hopes up too much. The excuses are already in flight. I know it's only one person but, call it a hunch, there's probably more people who don't care. Some will, sure, but I don't think that number is large. This goes back to what I've stated before that a lot of people are too stubborn to change their views. Admitting you're wrong is hard. Keeping you head in the sand and using the "block" button on social media is easy. Most people will choose "easy" instead of "hard".

I obviously hope I'm wrong but we'll see.........

You’re not wrong.

We’re not excited because the FDA approval is going to be the evidence they need to convince them to get vaccinated, we’re excited because this makes the path to employer/facility based mandates much easier.

I think we’re all sick of debating stuff like this with idiots like that.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

8 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

We are more cautious, that's why we waited until we had established safety data in adults before we started dosing.

We still have to demonstrate safety before we dose the first human of a specific population. Obviously, safety in other humans is a big data point in the plus column, but then we have to demonstrate why the differences between the two populations won't impact the safety, correct the dose level if body weight changes, etc.

This applies for every population, so what we do with pediatrics is we compare the physiology with how the drug interacts with the body, and adjust accordingly. So let's use Advil as an example. It's metabolized by specific liver enzymes that we call CYPs or Cytochrome P450's or P450's.

That's Advil's metabolism. See all the CYPs? Those are the important enzymes.

Then we find data comparing the relative amounts of each type of enzyme in each child versus adult, and scale the dose not only based on body weight/body surface area, but also based on those enzymes. 

 

 

I'm not using the vaccine here because biologics are working with the immune system and I don't know as much about how the immune system changes with age. But the same general ideas apply.

*reads post

”lemme go on ahead and like this so people think I understood what I just looked at.”