Democrats fear Trump will announce vaccine
Seems like I remember telling you that if President Trump delivered a cure for COVID-19, Democrats would find a reason to oppose it.
So, how many lives are they willing to lose to help Biden’s chances?
The risks posed by getting the disease if you’re over 60 so far outweigh any possible risk from the vaccine that awaiting perfect safety will cost thousands of lives. Considering the coming opening of schools in 2 months, if I could get my hands on any of the top three vaccine prospects, I would take it today without waiting for any more testing.
But now Congressional Democrats seek to use endless testing to delay the vaccine until after the election.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Did you even read the article?
There is a huge danger to rely on a vaccine that is ineffective or deadly. 10’s of millions of people could be at risk from both false assurances or bad reactions.
From my point of view, it is Trump that is trying to make this political if we rush an unknown vaccine just for votes.
Are Republicans terminally stupid or what? Yes if we look at the friggin’ disaster the push by Trump and his feckless followers in many states to open up recklessly for political reasons. And to encourage non-mask wearing as a revolt against Democrats because it is “politically correct” to wear one.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice… everything that Trump has done, or more precisely not done, in this pandemic has been solely for his re-election. And virtually all have been wrong.
Trump doesn’t care about you, me, or this nation. He could not care less if a rushed vaccine Is a flop. “Cost of doing business” as in re-election to Trump is your dead body.
Let the science work. We have already bought a couple of billion dollars in advance. That is fine. But it is critical to make sure it is more effective than not. Otherwise we are right back at shutdowns and mass graves.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 2 people
Balance the risks.
Vaccines don’t work for people who are immunocompromised, so you have to vaccinate those they come in contact with.
So, what are the risks if a vaccine is made available to high risk people, like you and me, during phase 3 testing? The vaccine has already been proven safe in phase 1. In phase 2, it has been proven to produce antibodies comparable to those produced by surviving the disease.
Phase 3 primarily checks whether those antibodies actually prevent the disease and if there are extremely rare complications.
So, at worst, you get only partial protection, and maybe a very rare complication.
Now, balance that against the risk of getting the disease in the 6 months or so of the phase 3 trial. Those risks include the risk of a fatal course of the disease for me or you, and the possibility of us bringing the disease to a vulnerable person.
All things considered, I would take the vaccine right now, without waiting for phase 3, and I bet you would too.
If it proves ineffective, we get vaccinated again later, but based on the phase 2 results, any of the three finalists arr a damn good bet right now regardless of phase 3.
LikeLike
I understand the urgency on our parts. My wife is immunosuppressed, so believe me I would love to get a vaccine tomorrow.
I think the fast track is going to be less than 6 months, but certainly not in 60 days.
You could volunteer to take the vaccine in a trial if that works for you.
The problem is the national implications of a failed vaccine. Especially when there are a dozen or more varieties in testing or development.
Yes. the pandemic is creating a worldwide economic mess, but I think throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks is a bad route to go.
On the lighter side, I wish there were a vaccine against stupidity for those who refuse to wear a mask because they just don’t care about their fellow citizens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have checked, none of the phase 3 trials is in our area.
LikeLike
Hyperbolic statement by you, Don. No one fears an EFFECTIVE vaccine. We ALL want that, regardless of when. But efficacy is the key. Just to say on October 1st, “We got one” and then find out 6 weeks later that it is ineffective would be disastrous for the country. It would set us back to square one. The only positive could be that we are CLOSER to an effective vaccine.
LikeLike
See the reply to Len.
Balance the risk against the risk you face,
If you are young and healthy, waiting for certainty might be a good bet, but for those of us at high risk, or who live with someone of high risk, the risk of the disease is many times that of the vaccine.
LikeLike
I am a cancer survivor. My 92 year old mother-in-law lives with us. Do I fit your bill of “high risk”?
LikeLike
Yes, though I assume you are no longer immune compromised. But certainly, if offered the phase 2 vaccine tomorrow, you shold take it for your mother-in-law’s protection.
LikeLike
Absolutely. But for wide scale use, especially for my children and grand children, I want a safe and effective vaccine that is available for all
LikeLike
And by the way, How many lives have been lost to help Trump’s re-election?
LikeLike
A small fraction of those lost in the effort to prevent Trump’s reelection.
Or do you think that the virus only spreads at Trump rallies but not in peaceful, and not so peaceful, protests.
LikeLike
Bars, restaurants and crowded beaches are a big contributor. If you look at the videos of Floyd protests, most are wearing masks. As opposed to the #LIBERATE boys and girls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A small fraction of those lost in the effort to prevent Trump’s reelection.:
You have zero factual information to back that statement up. You do realize that the senior health official in Tulsa believes it is “likely” that 500 of the new cases in that area are related to Trump’s 1/3 full rally? What would the number have been if the venue was filled to it’s 19000 capacity?
And as Len stated, the majority of protesters ARE wearing masks. Can you say that about Trump’ Tulsa rally or his South Dakota party? At least that one was held outside.
The GOP across the country is going to the courts because LOCAL official are cancelling their conventions because they are a public health risk. The GOP doesn’t give a crap about its own people, let alone those that won’t vote for them.
LikeLike
I read that article. The local health official is simply speculating as they have not checked to see if the new cases attended the rally. If someone actually checks that, we might have something to comment on, but as of now it’s just a guy who is pissed his recommendation to cancel the rally was not followed. Let’s wait for facts on that one.
LikeLike
THey are “connecting the dots” according to the latest story reported on buzzfeed news. “Dr. Bruce Dart, director of the Tulsa City–County Health Department…Asked again about the Trump rally, which was held on June 20, Dart discussed the average time it takes between an infection and a case to be diagnosed. “The past two days we’ve had almost 500 cases, and we knew we had several large events a little over two weeks ago, which is about right,” he said. “So I guess we just connect the dots.””
The timing is just a little too right, IMO. He says LIKELY. But, yes, wait for the facts.
LikeLike
Or simply ask the newly diagnosed patients if they attended the rally.
LikeLike
Or have been in physical contact with someone who was. Like if they shook hands with Herman Cain. This proves the importance of contact tracing.
LikeLike
RE: “Considering the coming opening of schools in 2 months…”
Dr. Tabor, what do you make of the reports that children play a limited role in transmitting Covid-19?
LikeLike
I am hopeful, but the data is not available to know.
Again, too much effort has been spent on hospital based studies and not enough on epidemiology.
We don’t really know if children spread the disease effectively among themselves or to adults.
But all we really have data on is severe cases, not the mild or asymptomatic cases children have. It’s hard to contact trace someone you don’t even know is sick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
LikeLike
I did read that we don’t know if kids are as contagious, even if they are infected. That is an unknown based on little data, as you suggested.
We know that kids do spread colds and flu like crazy and are often the source for family illnesses.
I don’t know why coronavirus would be any different, as contagious as it seems to be among adults.
If schools were just kids, no adults involved, the risk might be small. But teachers, administrators, bus drivers, janitors. coaches and, of course parents, are all susceptible.
Yesterday we hit 62,000 new infections and admissions, and the deaths are approaching 1000/day again. Younger people are not only getting infected, but are also getting hospitalized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have to agree with both of you on the lack of knowledge concerning kids and this virus. I’ve seen it in my family that when one of the little ones (petri dishes), gets sick with the flu or even a cold, it makes the journey thorough, not only my daughter’s house, but mine as well. If that is the case with COVID, then we need to be wary about schools’ opening. No one wants kids to not be in school, as some have suggested. But we need to be cautious in how we go about it.
And while the overall death rate is going down, we still need to be careful. Death really sucks, but hospitalization ain’t no picnic either. And is probably more expensive.
LikeLike
…”too much effort has been spent on hospital based studies and not enough on epidemiology.”
Agreed. But the resources seem to be going more to treatment then cure and identification of how this thing spreads. That is more than likely the primary reason that hospitalizations are up, deaths are down.
LikeLike
@ Green “Death really sucks, but hospitalization ain’t no picnic either. And is probably more expensive.”
True, and there is a way to reduce both, but again, the FDA is steering us the wrong way.
Currently, we only treat cases that are serious enough to require hospitalization. Primary Care Physicians are told to get patients reporting symptoms tested and then send them home unless they get sick enough to require hospitalization.
They should be sending them home with a prescription for HCQ, zinc, and doxycycline, with further anti-inflammatory medications, such as colchicine and an anticoagulant if they test positive.
The risk of that regimen is minimal on an outpatient basis and could keep most from needing hospitalization.
LikeLike
“The risk of that regimen is minimal”…
Is it really?
And your finger pointing at the FDA may or may not be wrong. As you said about the Tulsa rally link, let’s wait for the facts.
LikeLike
Yes really
Hundreds of thousands of people take HCQ daily on an outpatient basis for malaria and arthritis. Teenagers took doxycycline for acne for years. Colchicine has been the standard for gout for 50 years, and millions of heart patients take anticoagulants daily, all as outpatients.
Early treatment, well before hospitalization, is the key to a good outcome. Viral infection is like compound interest. Even a small antiviral effect early does more good than anything we have once the viral load has exploded.
LikeLike
COVID isn’t malaria or arthritis. There may be similarities to lupus, which it is also prescribed for, but it is not the same. There have been studies that shows it is effective and some that show it is too dangerous. To say because some studies or usage for other diseases that the risk is minimal is to ignore the differences of the diseases.
LikeLike
A drug that has been safe for patients with other problems for 40 to 50 years is safe period. There may be some risk in using HCQ with Azithromycin for some people, but the risk of HCQ alone at the recommended dosages is minimal. The only study that showed a risk was in Brazil, and used 4 times the recommended dose of HCQ.
There are two parts to COVID-19, initially the virus is multiplying rapidly and the immune system has not yet responded effectively, in the 2nd part the immune system over responds and becomes the problem.
HCQ has antiviral properties that help in the first part and anti-inflammatory properties that help in the 2nd, though by that time, colchicene and dexamethasone are better choices for the immune response.
LikeLike
“A drug that has been safe for patients with other problems for 40 to 50 years is safe period.”
Sorry, but I disagree with your absolutism.
LikeLike
One reason the Democrats want to delay everything is that they may need an excuse for canceling their convention, if they don’t have a candidate who can give a speech.
LikeLike
Get your facts straight. The DNC has already committed to a mostly virtual convention. At least the Democrats are thinking about their people and not trying to infect them with a big ol Florida cocktail party. And Jacksonville is now a “masked city” Is your boy gonna move it to Texas….Oh, wait. The Houston mayor just cancelled the Texas GOP convention in his city. And the courts, so far, have backed him on that decision.
Your attack on Biden notwithstanding, at least he can drink a glass of water with one hand, understands the difference between science and his “gut”, and knows how to govern.
LikeLike
Trump can’t give a speech period. He even misread his carefully scripted speech when he restricted some travel from Europe.
And without a teleprompter, he wanders all over the spectrum of subjects to a point of virtual incoherency except for applause lines like “lock her up”. His handlers have to spend the next days explaining what he meant. Or meant to mean. Or say what he meant to say.
Hannity gave him the ultimate “soft ball” question in an interview recently. He simply asked what his agenda for the second term was. The answer was gibberish about being from Manhattan but now he knows more people in Washington.
Biden has had to overcome a severe stuttering problem all his life which makes him seem a bit hesitant.
LikeLiked by 1 person