Republicans pretend they’ve always supported wearing masks – now that COVID-19 is surging in red states When blue states like Washington, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts were hit with coronavirus in large numbers, Republicans from President Donald Trump to Fox News were vehemently opposed to mask wearing. But now that coronavirus is surging in red states, like Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Georgia, they’re changing their tune – and pretending they’ve always supported mask wearing. “If Americans submit to wearing masks,” Fox News host Laura Ingraham asked one month ago, “what other rights and freedoms can be taken?”
Coronavirus vaccine WILL give long-term protection says Oxford study chief - as US experts find their own jab triggered antibody levels THREE times higher than in recovered patients Scientists predict jabs against coronavirus should last for at least several years Prof Sarah Gilbert who runs Oxford-backed study told MPs she was 'optimistic' 8,000 Britons are taking part in a major trial of drug made by firm AstraZeneca Experimental vaccines are generating levels of antibodies up to three times greater than in recovered patients https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-term-protection-says-Oxford-study-chief.html A jab against coronavirus should last for several years at least, said the British scientist whose own vaccine project is the global front-runner. Professor Sarah Gilbert told MPs she was optimistic that a vaccine would provide ‘a good duration of immunity’. She is the world-renowned expert leading an Oxford University team that is devising a vaccine, so her claim could help to dispel the fears over how long protection against Covid-19 might last. Concerns had been raised after those with other types of coronavirus – which are less dangerous and cause the common cold – were able, in tests, to be reinfected within a year. But Professor Gilbert told the Commons science and technology committee there may be a better result from a vaccine than the natural immunity acquired when individuals simply recover from a virus. She said: ‘Vaccines have a different way of engaging with the immune system, and we follow people in our studies using the same type of technology to make the vaccines for several years, and we still see strong immune responses. ‘It’s something we have to test and follow over time – we can’t know until we actually have the data – but we’re optimistic based on earlier studies that we will see a good duration of immunity, for several years at least, and probably better than naturally-acquired immunity.’ Asked for a timeline on the vaccine, after the prospect was raised of facing the winter without one, Professor Gilbert told the committee: ‘I hope we can improve on those timelines and come to your rescue.’ Some 8,000 Britons are taking part in a major trial of the Oxford vaccine, which is being manufactured by pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca. But, as rates of coronavirus have fallen in this country, researchers are also aiming to vaccinate 4,000 individuals in Brazil and 2,000 in South Africa. It comes as an experimental coronavirus vaccine being tested by Pfizer Inc and its German partner BioNTech produced neutralizing antibodies were between 1.8 and 2.8 times greater than those seen in recovered patients. The vaccine candidate uses part of the pathogen's genetic code to get the body to recognize the coronavirus and attack it if a person becomes infected. The trial, which used 45 people in three groups and a control group, showed encouraging early results. 'We still have a ways to go and we're testing other candidates as well,' Philip Dormitzer, chief scientific officer at Pfizer's research laboratories, told STAT News. 'However, what we can say at this point is there is a viable candidate based on immunogenicity and early tolerability safety data.' The key question in this trials however is whether the vaccine will protect them from becoming infected, or simply make them less ill. It may also work less well in older people because their immune systems are weaker. (More at above url including charts, etc.)
The FDA Wants a Covid-19 Vaccine That Really Works New guidelines on what will qualify as effective are appropriately strict. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...da-wants-a-covid-19-vaccine-that-really-works As the entire world awaits a vaccine against Covid-19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is explicitly rejecting one of the fastest possible paths to releasing one. That’s a good thing. On Tuesday, the agency issued guidance on the standards it will use in evaluating and approving a vaccine. Its benchmarks are nonbinding, but have teeth nonetheless. The FDA has let vaccine developers know that it won’t be enough to show evidence that their candidate can merely provoke an immune response in a blood test — the kind of data that could be available relatively quickly. Vaccine hopefuls will have to demonstrate real-world safety and effectiveness in large trials. The agency also set an explicit threshold for success: Candidates should perform at least 50% better than a placebo in blunting the risk of infection or illness. The guidance suggests that approval may take longer than some hope. However, demanding real data and setting a transparent standard is the best way to ensure that we get an effective vaccine. The FDA often approves drugs based on so-called surrogate endpoints. These are measures of the effect of a treatment that probably correlate to, but don't guarantee, favorable clinical outcomes. Such metrics can be well-validated, and using them gets medicines to needy patients faster. The process is imperfect, however, and has in the past led to the approval of drugs that, on further examination, turned out to be ineffective. Such an outcome would be more likely — and particularly catastrophic — in the case of a Covid-19 vaccine, because scientists are only beginning to understand immunity to the novel coronavirus and how potential vaccines might work. The FDA cites this uncertainty to explain its recommendation that drug makers focus on real-world performance. If using a surrogate endpoint led the FDA to approve an ineffective shot, it could not only put inoculated people at risk of contracting Covid-19 but also weaken public trust in the process, reducing the acceptance of future vaccines. The FDA has made it clear that even emergency approval will be granted only after it sees data from extensive studies that show a reasonable degree of effectiveness. The new guidance sets out a broad set of potential trial goals, ranging from preventing severe disease to stopping infection outright. This could mean that the agency initially approves a vaccine that provides imperfect protection — and that Covid-19 will plague the world for longer than hoped. But the targets give drug makers reason to run robust trials. The path the FDA outlines is a long one. It’s going to take a while to recruit and enroll 30,000 people in a trial and give half of them two shots in the arm — as Moderna Therapeutics Inc. intends to do to test its candidate. And until a sufficient number of subjects in the placebo arm of such a trial contract Covid-19, there won’t be any firm results. Any number of variables could cause further delays: bad luck, a poor vaccine performance, or slowing case growth. The FDA is by no means ignoring the urgency of the moment. Its guidance includes a variety of concessions on safety data and other issues that are meant to speed the process. But the world can be grateful the agency is willing to bend only so far.
Meanwhile, the Chinese and some of the European countries are already putting trial vaccines out there in fairly large quantities which is a good thing. I mean, I don't recommend it for this country but I don't mind seeing the results they get either. They have the luxury of skipping to large scale implementation without jumping through all the hoops. China can come up with test subjects immediately as needed. Not a problem. Beijing approves experimental Covid-19 vaccine for use in Chinese military https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/health/china-coronavirus-military-vaccine-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
Fingers crossed the new approach employed by allowing acquired immunity through the spike engineered on the cold virus ChAdOx1 (Trumpsters will think that's an autonomous community ) will just catch all the current strains neatly. This new approach if it works could save untold numbers of lives with other viruses and who knows, maybe the flu. Realtors will cry the loss of their post flu season property liquidity. Whenever you have a major crisis some highly beneficial innovation arises.
Who's first in line for a coronavirus vaccine? New info shows prioritization fraught with peril New CDC reports raise major questions about vaccination prioritization as countries struggle to create a plan https://www.foxnews.com/science/coronavirus-vaccine-prioritization New information released by the World Health Organization (WHO) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows future prioritization for a potential coronavirus vaccine could be fraught with peril. As the discussion of priority groups entered the spotlight on Thursday, the coronavirus continues to present a challenge, as studies show pregnant women infected with the virus might be at greater risk for hospitalization than women who aren't pregnant. The study also cited racial disparities among COVID-positive pregnant women, with Hispanic women exhibiting the highest infection rate at 46 percent. While pregnant women are normally the last to receive a new vaccine due to an abundance of caution, reports suggest they should be close to the front of the proverbial line. But, the question remains: who would get shuffled down the board? While Science Magazine reported Friday the coronavirus’ disproportionate toll on the elderly could put them near the top, they often also have the weakest response to vaccines. Health care workers and essential employees would likely be at the forefront of the discussion, as well. But, there are other factors to consider, and around four billion doses would be needed to vaccinate the world's priority populations. In late June, the WHO presented its "Global Allocation Framework" to member countries. They wrote that three groups -- approximately two billion people -- should receive priority vaccinations: health care workers, adults over the age of 65, and adults with comorbidities. This comes as a subgroup of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) developed its own five-tier plan for the United States. The first tier in the scheme includes 12 million "critical" health care and "other" workers, with initial doses given to the "highest risk medical, national security and other essential workers." The second and third tiers would distribute to 110 million other essential workers or Americans who are over 65, living in long-term care facilities, or have medical conditions that could potentially turn deadly if combined with a COVID-19 infection. The rest of the "general population" would receive a vaccine in the final tiers. These plans raise even more questions for many who note the vague categorizations of people, as well as the disproportionate impact the virus has had on communities of color. ACIP is scheduled to meet again to discuss the issue in August and the WHO plans to finalize "allocation" plans by the end of the summer. On Thursday, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases' (NIAID's) Dr. Anthony Fauci told the Journal of the American Medical Association that after months of experimental trials, vaccine candidates will enter late-stage clinical studies by the end of July. “We may be able to at least know whether we are dealing with a safe and effective vaccine by the early winter, late winter, [or] beginning of 2021,” he said. According to the Milken Institute, there are over a hundred vaccines under development. However, just two days prior, Fauci had a dire warning to the American public. In a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee hearing on Tuesday, Fauci told members of Congress that daily new cases in the U.S. could surpass 100,000 new infections if the outbreak rages unhindered amid reopening rollouts. "I'm very concerned and I'm not satisfied with what's going on because we're going in the wrong direction if you look at the curves of the new cases, so we really have got to do something about that and we need to do it quickly," he told senators. As states in the South and West see distressing surges in cases and hospitalization rates -- now also taking hold of the country's youth -- many state and local leaders have been forced to shutter businesses once more or scale back reopening plans. With coronavirus, many scientific choices -- like prioritization -- have turned into debates about ethics. While challenge trials have been used to test vaccines for other maladies, there is no cure for COVID-19. That said, NIAID is reportedly developing strains of the virus that could be used to infect participants.
Exactly the opposite of what should happen. Give the new vaccine to the young and healthy as they are more likely to deal with and survive any unexpected side effects. Work your way through the population giving it to the most old and frail last. Of course there is an argument to be made experimenting on the most vulnerable first is a good idea as they are on the way out anyway. Anyway you slice it the first in line are the experimental group in mass.