Keep giving our pipeline supply to Canada and Mexico. That will cut down on your vaccination and distribution constraints right there. Shame.
OK... we had 4 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine that will shortly expire. AstraZeneca is not approved in the U.S. Should we toss it in the trash or give it to our neighbors? DeSantis claims that Johnson and Johnson has no more vaccine for that state -- I can see a slowing of J&J supply over the next two weeks for some states from a country-wide basis now that the initial warehoused doses have been distributed. However most states are receiving supplies throughout March. I greatly distrust DeSantis' integrity and his statement seeing that he provides no explanation of why Florida is getting no J&J vaccine. Also keeping in mind DeSantis' unbroken record of complete COVID misinformation and false announcements . Other states are expecting more J&J vaccines. Some examples: March 17 update on COVID-19 in MN: Officials expect J&J vaccine doses to jump March 17, 2021 5:30 a.m. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/03/17/latest-on-covid19-in-mn Massachusetts is getting another modest increase in vaccine supply, including some unexpected Johnson & Johnson doses State officials say they will receive 170,000 first doses for next week. March 16, 2021 https://www.boston.com/news/coronav...cluding-some-unexpected-johnson-johnson-doses
Having answered that six or seven times over, I don't think an eighth will help. Hint: You framed the question with the only two binary answers that are allowed. There are more and I covered all that- including the right answer, many times over. Biden has already determined your right answer. It is good that we got our current vaccines while Trump was in charge. We see how quickly the process falls back into DMV mode once he is gone. Biden's "AMERICA LAST" policy well underway.
Well in that case your answer is "toss the soon-expiring vaccine doses in the trash". No one in the U.S. is going to trust a vaccine which has not completed Phase 3 safety and efficacy trials in the U.S. Can you imagine the howl of protest from Trump supporters about being injected with that EU/WHO approved juice.
In your DMV world. I can't tell whether you are purposely being dense or just leaning over backwards because my point is not convenient for you but about anyone who read my posts would see that I advocated several times over that the Americans should have collaborated early on with the other countries to review the same data and guide the original study design as the Brits did, such that the Americans would not be relying on the other entities but would be either approving or disapproving at the same time. The Brits shaved two months off of their process by doing that. If you purposely mis-state my position again, I am going with "dense." We are in a global war against a virus which requires thinking outside the box and adjusting some processes to reflect battlefield conditions. Your DMV approach is not a good fit. No doubt too, the Biden bootlickers in the CDC and the FDA will find some problems with the vaccine too. After all, their first duty now is to support Biden's redirect of Astrazenica product to Mexico and Canada. The longer it takes to approve, the more that will have to be redirected to the other countries. Guess what will happen? That's right. More study needed on some factor. It is highly unlikely at this point that AstraZ will become a significant vaccine in the American market. Biden has exercised options in Trump's contracts to increase supply with the other vaccine makers who clearly are more favored at this point and will be providing increased supply by the time they are done with AstraZ and that process. Most likely AstraZthey continue to produce for "our neighbors" that Biden needs to buy out for his political purposes and for other export.
What's the efficacy of AZ against the Trump Virus? Mexicans will likely jump at the chance since MAGAtards don't believe in vaccines anyway
Yeah let’s just rush through the AZ shot when we have 3 perfectly good vaccines that are effective and well tolerated... https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2BA2GV?__twitter_impression=true No thanks.
Maybe we should not be unloading our dangerous vaccine supplies on third world countries like Canada and Mexico then. That sounds like ugly American/colonial behavior. I wonder if Joe is going to call Mexico and Canada tomorrow and tell them we can not do that to them. Look, we have talked this through and we all see the gig. AstraZ is on the outs in the US. Joe has exercised Trump's options with the "better" companies and the pandemic and supply issue scenario will be pretty much over by the time the Biden regulatory swamp is done with them. We will end out selling/transferring our production rights or contracted supplies to those other countries. Fine, lets just cut all the bullshit. Vaccines are new currency and Biden owes Canada for slitting their throat on Keystone. And Joe needs to use the vaccine currency to buy Mexico's help on the Mongul invasion. Just cut the bullshit and make sure the other suppliers still make sure that everyone is getting vaccinated, or else the issue will rear up again bigly. AstraZ has two production facilities in the US, one in Ohio, I think, and the other in Baltimore, I think. They might still produce there for other countries and whatever crumbs are left for them in the U.S. after Biden has kept them out during the high demand period. Don't forget too, that Moderna was co-developed at Fauci's shop so you know who he is routing for. Even though you bullshiiters here are mostly worthless tits today if not every day, I have to say that you are not even in the same league with Pzaki. This is her commentary on the situation. I don't care which side of the issue anyone here is on. You have to acknowledge this is some first class spin and bullshiite right here, and I would like you worthless tits to give me an Amen on this. Frig, this is Olympic level bullshiite that you clowns can only hope to achieve: Asked Thursday whether the vaccine announcement had anything to do with conversations about addressing the border crisis, Psaki suggested the two issues were not related. “There have been expectations set outside of, unrelated to any vaccine doses or requests for them that they would be partners in dealing with the crisis on the border. And there have been requests, unrelated, for doses of these vaccines. Every relationship has multiple layers of conversations that are happening at the same time,” she said. The astute ones here will note that even though I gave her five stars for the bullshiite, she also messed up majorly by using the word "crisis" in reference to the border. The script requires that you refer to it as the "challenge at the border." Her bad.
Blood clot fears: European nations may have made a bigger mistake by suspending AstraZeneca vaccine In Europe, the misapplication of the precautionary principle is putting the public at a higher risk of getting infected. https://scroll.in/article/989802/bl...ger-mistake-by-suspending-astrazeneca-vaccine The arrival of effective vaccines against Covid-19 has been one of the few good news stories of the pandemic. However, communicating the safety of vaccines has long been difficult, as shown by most countries having some level of vaccine hesitancy, including hesitancy towards Covid-19 vaccines specifically. Just as regulatory authorities – such as the European Medicines Agency and the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency – had systems in place to assess if the vaccines worked, so too did they create carefully thought through vaccine safety plans to deal with any safety signals arising after the vaccines’ deployment. Suspension of vaccine However, this week the European Union’s plan for vaccine safety was thrown into confusion. At least 12 European Union states have suspended the use of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine because of concerns of a possible link between the vaccine and blood clots. These concerns are registered in spontaneous reports, where a patient or healthcare professional suspects a link between an adverse event they have witnessed and the vaccine. Reporters do not have to be sure of a link, and these reports do not prove there is any association between the vaccine and the event. The number of blood clots reported among people taking the vaccine, assuming even a fairly high level of under-reporting, does not seem to be higher than would be expected in the general population. Many things happen after vaccination that would have happened without the vaccine. That said, in some countries, such as Norway and Germany, an extremely rare form of a blood clot in the brain called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis has been reported. Incidence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in the normal population is hard to measure, although Johns Hopkins Medicine has said it may affect around one in every 200,000 people each year. In Germany, the incidence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis post-vaccination has exceeded this rate, so the cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is carefully examining each case to look for possible contributing factors. But so far, the World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and AstraZeneca have all said that there is no evidence of a causal link between the vaccine and clots, and the European Medicines Agency has said it is firmly convinced that the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the risks. Yet if this is the case, why have the advisory committees of some EU states decided to suspend the vaccine? Badly used tool A major reason appears to be the misapplication of the precautionary principle. This is where you take anticipatory action to avoid potential harm, even when the evidence around that harm is uncertain. It can be a useful tool when needing to make a decision in a situation that includes risk and uncertainty. The precautionary principle evolved from critiques of risk assessments that were based on scientific methods. These, it was argued, were too conservative, requiring too much evidence to prove risk, and so perhaps biased towards seeing an absence of harms. The earliest forms of the principle are thought to have arisen in West Germany in the 1970s, where “Vorsorgeprinzip” was used in environmental policy to limit actions that were suspected but not proven to cause ecological damage. Past case studies of harms for which there were early warnings but only later actual evidence – such as asbestos – show the sorts of outcomes that the principle can potentially help avoid. Regarding pausing the AstraZeneca vaccine, the principle has been cited explicitly by some EU states. Others have invoked it implicitly in interviews, saying they will “err on the side of caution”. However, there are trade-offs – and that is the primary reason why we can say the principle has been misapplied. Covid-19 vaccines are being used to prevent deaths. Decisions to suspend their use will slow vaccination campaigns by reducing vaccine availability. Suspensions might also affect vaccine uptake by sparking wider concerns about safety among the public. Confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine is already relatively low in Europe, with high-profile comments about its effectiveness having dented uptake. So rather than avoiding risk, the principle has instead moved countries away from one risk (blood clots) towards another (lower vaccine coverage). The impact of the latter could be much larger. Even if this were not the case, the principle has still, arguably, been misapplied. Plans for Covid-19 vaccine safety monitoring until now have been based around rigorous scientific evaluation of safety signals, careful communications to ensure vaccine hesitancy is not increased, and ensuring that signals are investigated to examine if any risk requires regulatory action. Because potential safety signals arise often in vaccine and drug safety, with many being false signals, the precautionary principle does not fit with such plans. It is too sensitive, and in the case of Covid-19 vaccines, does not initiate any safety assessments that are not already happening. As we have seen this week, misapplication of the precautionary principle leads to erratic decision making that fails to do the very thing it intends to: lower risk. The decisions made could potentially have long-term health effects both in the EU and globally. As a result, one might say we need to be more cautious about the application of the precautionary principle.
The Europeans have been bungling their vaccine program from the very beginning. Their biggest mistake was they put most of their eggs in one basket and chose to rely heavily on the AZ shot. Big mistake. Now they don’t have too many options because they didn’t create the manufacturing needed for large scale production of the other vaccines. This is obviously different in America. We scaled up for multiple vaccines to be produced with some vaccines would fail or have safety problems. Now this is not saying the AZ shot is ineffective or has a safety profile that makes it unusable. What I am saying is we have the capacity to manufacture plenty of vaccine that is highly effective and meets a higher safety profile than AZ. The euros are in some trouble here. They have virtually no options other than AZ. And the AZ shot isn’t as effective as mRNAs and ~J&J, on top of it looking to have a rarely occurring safety issue. Now to be fair here, the Euros should not have suspended use. For them there is a reasonable case to accept a small safety issue because they really don’t have another option. But for us we do not have to accept a lower safety profile than the vaccines we have in use. It would take the euros months to scale up for Pfizer, Moderna and J&J and there ain’t no way we’re giving those away. As to AZ getting approval in the US, I would expect a lot of paper shuffling and delays because we don’t want to publicly not authorize EUA on the premise that we have enough availability of more effective vaccine with a safer profile. That would be crushing to the European effort.