Interdimensional warfare, how close are we at this point?

[Boris Norris]

Correct, so why did it make any more sense for Trump to promise a vaccine for covid by the end of the year, and then there were 4, that all failed and the government admitted so when they discontinued the mandate

4 failed?
Failed what?

 

[Tripoli]

4 failed?
Failed what?

4 covid vaccines failed, and so badly that the government will no longer even talk about them

 

[pjmret]

covid was identified in humans in 1965

Coronavirus Evolution​

Scientists first identified a human coronavirus in 1965. It caused a common cold. Later that decade, researchers found a group of similar human and animal viruses and named them after their crown-like appearance.

Seven coronaviruses can infect humans. The one that causes SARS emerged in southern China in 2002 and quickly spread to 28 other countries. More than 8,000 people were infected by July 2003, and 774 died. A small outbreak in 2004 involved only four more cases. This coronavirus causes fever, headache, and respiratory problems such as cough and shortness of breath.

oh, a member of the coronovirus family. well, duh, no sh*t sherlock. duh.
there are many coronoviruses. duh.

but each virus is unique. duh. Hence covid was called a NOVEL coronavirus. duh

so, no "covid" wasn't identified in 1965. duh

god you are a true *****. lol

 

[pjmret]

4 covid vaccines failed, and so badly that the government will no longer even talk about them

the government still recommends them, *****. they talk about them all the time.
no they didn't fail. duh.

god you are a true ***** lol

 

[Tripoli]

oh, a member of the coronovirus family. well, duh, no sh*t sherlock. duh.
there are many coronoviruses. duh.

but each virus is unique. duh. Hence covid was called a NOVEL coronavirus. duh

so, no "covid" wasn't identified in 1965. duh

god you are a true *****. lol

Covid which is short for coronavirus was discovered in humans in 1965. See if you can prove me wrong, while you masturbate

 

[pjmret]

Covid which is short for coronavirus was discovered in humans in 1965. See if you can prove me wrong, while you masturbate

The new name of this disease is coronavirus disease 2019, abbreviated as COVID-19.

coronovirus 2019 since it was discovered in 2019. you keep omitting the 19, *****. duh.

god you are a *****. lol

 

[Tripoli]

the government still recommends them, *****. they talk about them all the time.
no they didn't fail. duh.

god you are a true ***** lol

Covid-19 vaccine trials cannot tell us if they will save lives​

None of the current trials are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospitalisations, intensive care use, or deaths

Vaccines are being hailed as the solution to the covid-19 pandemic, but the vaccine trials currently underway are not designed to tell us if they will save lives, reports Peter Doshi, Associate Editor at The BMJ today.

Several covid-19 vaccine trials are now in their most advanced (phase 3) stage, but what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”?

Many may assume that successful phase 3 studies will mean we have a proven way of keeping people from getting very sick and dying from covid-19. And a robust way to interrupt viral transmission.

Yet the current phase 3 trials are not actually set up to prove either, says Doshi.

“None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospitalisations, intensive care use, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus,” he writes.

He explains that all ongoing phase 3 trials for which details have been released are evaluating mild, not severe, disease - and they will be able to report final results once around 150 participants develop symptoms.

In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, individuals with only a cough and positive lab test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion.

Yet Doshi argues that vaccine manufacturers have done little to dispel the notion that severe covid-19 was what was being assessed.

Moderna, for example, called hospitalisations a “key secondary endpoint” in statements to the media. But Tal Zaks, Chief Medical Officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that their trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess that endpoint.

Part of the reason may be numbers, says Doshi. Because most people with symptomatic covid-19 infections experience only mild symptoms, even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease.

“Hospitalisations and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people,” he adds. “The same is true regarding whether it can save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”

Zaks confirms that Moderna’s trial will not demonstrate prevention of hospitalisation because the size and duration of the trial would need to be vastly increased to collect the necessary data. “Neither of these I think are acceptable in the current public need for knowing expeditiously that a vaccine works,” he told The BMJ.

Moderna’s trial is designed to find out if the vaccine can prevent covid-19 disease, says Zaks. Like Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson, Moderna has designed its study to detect a relative risk reduction of at least 30% in participants developing lab-confirmed covid-19, consistent with FDA and international guidance.

Zaks also points to influenza vaccines, saying they protect against severe disease better than mild disease. “To Moderna, it’s the same for covid-19: if their vaccine is shown to reduce symptomatic covid-19, they will feel confident it also protects against serious outcomes,” Doshi writes.

But Doshi raises another important issue - that few or perhaps none of the current vaccine trials appear to be designed to find out whether there is a benefit in the elderly, despite their obvious vulnerability to covid-19.

If the frail elderly are not enrolled into vaccine trials in sufficient numbers to determine whether there is a reduction in cases in this population, “there can be little basis for assuming any benefit against hospitalisation or mortality,” he warns.

Doshi says that we still have time to advocate for changes to ensure the ongoing trials address the questions that most need answering.

For example, why children, immunocompromised people, and pregnant women have largely been excluded; whether the right primary endpoint has been chosen; whether safety is being adequately evaluated; and whether gaps in our understanding of how our immune system responds to covid-19 are being addressed.

“The covid-19 vaccine trials may not have been designed with our input, but it is not too late to have our say and adjust their course. With stakes this high, we need all eyes on deck,” he argues.

The new name of this disease is coronavirus disease 2019, abbreviated as COVID-19.

coronovirus 2019 since it was discovered in 2019. you keep omitting the 19, *****. duh.

god you are a *****. lol

Technology was the studened syllabus at Caltech, with the quantum electroductory courses were exciting discoverate studental being in 1965 Nobel Prize inconcerned syllabus and to the 1965 Nobel Prize in severies in severate more exciting discoveries. At the fame, thought to gened the excitement years, many of resolved a number of the student in 1960, Rich he pinnacle of which had reconfigure the Caltechnology was the studened a number of his were the goal fundame, the studened the was at Caltech, wi

 

[pjmret]

Covid-19 vaccine trials cannot tell us if they will save lives​

None of the current trials are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospitalisations, intensive care use, or deaths

Vaccines are being hailed as the solution to the covid-19 pandemic, but the vaccine trials currently underway are not designed to tell us if they will save lives, reports Peter Doshi, Associate Editor at The BMJ today.

Several covid-19 vaccine trials are now in their most advanced (phase 3) stage, but what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”?

Many may assume that successful phase 3 studies will mean we have a proven way of keeping people from getting very sick and dying from covid-19. And a robust way to interrupt viral transmission.

Yet the current phase 3 trials are not actually set up to prove either, says Doshi.

“None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospitalisations, intensive care use, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus,” he writes.

He explains that all ongoing phase 3 trials for which details have been released are evaluating mild, not severe, disease - and they will be able to report final results once around 150 participants develop symptoms.

In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, individuals with only a cough and positive lab test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion.

Yet Doshi argues that vaccine manufacturers have done little to dispel the notion that severe covid-19 was what was being assessed.

Moderna, for example, called hospitalisations a “key secondary endpoint” in statements to the media. But Tal Zaks, Chief Medical Officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that their trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess that endpoint.

Part of the reason may be numbers, says Doshi. Because most people with symptomatic covid-19 infections experience only mild symptoms, even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease.

“Hospitalisations and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people,” he adds. “The same is true regarding whether it can save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”

Zaks confirms that Moderna’s trial will not demonstrate prevention of hospitalisation because the size and duration of the trial would need to be vastly increased to collect the necessary data. “Neither of these I think are acceptable in the current public need for knowing expeditiously that a vaccine works,” he told The BMJ.

Moderna’s trial is designed to find out if the vaccine can prevent covid-19 disease, says Zaks. Like Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson, Moderna has designed its study to detect a relative risk reduction of at least 30% in participants developing lab-confirmed covid-19, consistent with FDA and international guidance.

Zaks also points to influenza vaccines, saying they protect against severe disease better than mild disease. “To Moderna, it’s the same for covid-19: if their vaccine is shown to reduce symptomatic covid-19, they will feel confident it also protects against serious outcomes,” Doshi writes.

But Doshi raises another important issue - that few or perhaps none of the current vaccine trials appear to be designed to find out whether there is a benefit in the elderly, despite their obvious vulnerability to covid-19.

If the frail elderly are not enrolled into vaccine trials in sufficient numbers to determine whether there is a reduction in cases in this population, “there can be little basis for assuming any benefit against hospitalisation or mortality,” he warns.

Doshi says that we still have time to advocate for changes to ensure the ongoing trials address the questions that most need answering.

For example, why children, immunocompromised people, and pregnant women have largely been excluded; whether the right primary endpoint has been chosen; whether safety is being adequately evaluated; and whether gaps in our understanding of how our immune system responds to covid-19 are being addressed.

“The covid-19 vaccine trials may not have been designed with our input, but it is not too late to have our say and adjust their course. With stakes this high, we need all eyes on deck,” he argues.

Technology was the studened syllabus at Caltech, with the quantum electroductory courses were exciting discoverate studental being in 1965 Nobel Prize inconcerned syllabus and to the 1965 Nobel Prize in severies in severate more exciting discoveries. At the fame, thought to gened the excitement years, many of resolved a number of the student in 1960, Rich he pinnacle of which had reconfigure the Caltechnology was the studened a number of his were the goal fundame, the studened the was at Caltech, wi

posting something from the trial stages?
update your calendar, *****, its 2024. lol
we've had years of experience now with them, *****.
god you're stupid

 

[Tripoli]

posting something from the trial stages?
update your calendar, *****, its 2024. lol
we've had years of experience now with them, *****.
god you're stupid

And no lives were saved as mortality in vaccinated people is higher than in nonvaxxed.

 

[pjmret]

And no lives were saved as mortality in vaccinated people is higher than in nonvaxxed.

it is? you'll have to prove the rate is higher.

the story YOU POSTED said it was 6 to 8 times HIGHER in UNvaccinated people, *****. lol
you enjoy looking stupid.

 

[Tripoli]

it is? you'll have to prove the rate is higher.

the story YOU POSTED said it was 6 to 8 times HIGHER in UNvaccinated people, *****. lol
you enjoy looking stupid.

LOL, and does everyone of the three people that might read this agree with you?


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[pjmret]

LOL, and does everyone of the three people that might read this agree with you?


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

i don't know who will agree with me. nor do I care.

but I do enjoy making you look stupid since the exact story YOU posted says the opposite of what you claim is true.
and you've posted nothing to prove your claim. lol.

*****

 

[Tripoli]

i don't know who will agree with me. nor do I care.

but I do enjoy making you look stupid since the exact story YOU posted says the opposite of what you claim is true.
and you've posted nothing to prove your claim. lol.

*****

Actually you said that everyone agrees with you. So stop changing the goalpost

 

[Tripoli]

i don't know who will agree with me. nor do I care.

but I do enjoy making you look stupid since the exact story YOU posted says the opposite of what you claim is true.
and you've posted nothing to prove your claim. lol.

*****

LOL, you don't know. Well I can see that you took your thorazine

 

[pjmret]

Actually you said that everyone agrees with you. So stop changing the goalpost

i said that everyone can see, and they can see. your stupid posts aren't private. duh
*****.