Ending Phase 3 trials early

Uncategorized 1 Minute

CNN Fauci on ending trials early

If the early results are anything close to promising(and based on phase 2, they very likely will be) then the vaccines should be distributed ASAP.  Let the high risk population as a whole volunteer in place of phase 3. The vaccine would have to be very risky to be more risky than months of added delay. Risk of action must always be weighed against the risk of inaction.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

13 thoughts on “Ending Phase 3 trials early”

    1. That was a vaccine not fully tested when 2.5 million military members were inoculated in the 1990s under threat of dismissal. How’d that turn out? What is the current status of that vaccine? What long term effects are showing up now, some 20 years later?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. The military is made up mostly of young, healthy and fit people. They are not the ones to test on.

        The people to test it on would be people like me, or Len, for whom the risk of contracting the disease far outweighs any risks not detected by phase 2 trials.

        Like

        Reply

  2. “The people to test it on would be people like me…”

    Keyword: TEST, and you used it, not me.

    We’re not testing anymore. That’s the point. The questions are “Should we begin MASS DISTRIBUTION of a vaccine that has not completed large population Phase 3 studies for low probability adverse affects, and if so, to whom do we give it first?”

    I am only saying that this has been done before, and it was the military. They are the logical group because, contrary to popular opinion, we don’t need them immediately, and unlike you and I or Len, they can be forced to comply.

    At this point, we are looking for expendables. Logic would dictate that we would give it to healthcare providers first.

    But, given that we’re taking a risk — one bullet and spinning the cylinder — but it’s better to point the revolver at the foot, and not the head.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. Oh yeah, apparently both of the top two contending vaccines have to be stored at extemely low temperatures. Not freezer temperatures, liquid gas temperatures. Wow, that’ll complicate mass distribution.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. RE: “The vaccine would have to be very risky to be more risky than months of added delay.”

    I think that’s right. Even a very low efficacy rate for the vaccine would change your personal odds of surviving the virus dramatically.

    I’m not good at math, but couldn’t we just subtract the efficacy rate from the probability of occurrence? For example, if you have a 50% chance of dying without the vaccine, wouldn’t a 10% efficacy rate reduce the odds of dying to 40%?

    Like

    Reply

    1. It’s more complicated than that.

      A vaccine that prevents 50% from contracting the disease AT ALL might also be 100% effective in preventing a serious course of the disease.

      Any head start your body get toward limiting the spread of the virus in the early stage reduces the severity of the second half of the course.

      But it would take years to test for partial protection. It is far better to make it immediately available to those who, with their doctor, decide the risk of the vaccine is less than the risk of inaction.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Isn’t longevity of the protection is an important factor to consider for population protection efficacy.

        If it turns out that the protection only lasts 6 months or even less, then is it a success or a failure? Particularly if the timeline of vaccination is close to that considering the logistics.

        The point of a vaccine is both to protect individuals and protect the economy via herd immunity.

        Sadly, there are indicators that as much as a third of the population may refuse vaccination. And that is a whole ‘nuther can o’ worms. Since the most vulnerable includes people who cannot take a vaccine for medical reasons. They are dependent upon herd immunity to stay safe or even alive.

        At what point would the antivaxxers be considered a threat to our nations health? And should we accept that non-compliance as the cost of freedom? Of course, that is freedom at the expense of my or your or anyone else’s freedom to stay healthy.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. The suspected short duration is another thing that is more complicated.

          Even if you can get reinfected some time in the future, unless you are immunocompromised, it is unlikely you will have a dangerous case the 2nd time.

          The immune system may let its guard down, but it doesn’t forget.

          Like

          Reply

          1. …”it is unlikely you will have a dangerous case the 2nd time.”

            Valid point. However, asymptomatic spread can still be an issue for those who think they are immune because of a vaccine.

            Like

Leave a comment