OT(ish?) COVID vaccine is 90% effective

Submitted by Malarkey on November 9th, 2020 at 10:33 AM
  • Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis
  • Analysis evaluated 94 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in trial participants
  • Study enrolled 43,538 participants, with 42% having diverse backgrounds, and no serious safety concerns have been observed; Safety and additional efficacy data continue to be collected
  • Submission for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) planned for soon after the required safety milestone is achieved, which is currently expected to occur in the third week of November
  • Clinical trial to continue through to final analysis at 164 confirmed cases in order to collect further data and characterize the vaccine candidate’s performance against other study endpoints

 

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-vaccine-candidate-against

 

Yay for good news for a change

outsidethebox

November 9th, 2020 at 10:55 PM ^

A slew of positive covids last week and a ton today in my wife's pediatric practice-and positive flu tests have begun as well. For you smartasses here, the medical community is facing one hell of a winter. And if you think this a somehow a hoax or joke you can go straight to hell-nothing cute or humorous about the realities here. 

UofMedic

November 9th, 2020 at 10:37 AM ^

Just beat me to it!  Fingers crossed. Need to see the long term efficacy, but hopefully this pans out. I think I read 20 million or so doses initially. Most likely at risk and healthcare population first. 

RandallFlagg

November 9th, 2020 at 10:52 AM ^

Haha...it is funny.  I work for a pretty damn big company and most of you use the products we produce, my CEO is always in DC, and a month before the election he put out an email telling the company we are going back to normal pre-coronavirus operations on 1 December.  Lol. 

bronxblue

November 9th, 2020 at 11:09 AM ^

Considering your boss will absolutely not have general access to a preliminary vaccine that is still in trials and won't be approved for months, he either is just annoyed by the bottom line with people out of the office OR y'all going to be some unpaid guinea pigs during a "free" flu shot.

bronxblue

November 9th, 2020 at 11:04 AM ^

Ah yes, noted "woke" Pharma companies out to screw the man.  And, like, completely out of the blue with the timing, with no notification that they might have delayed results as they followed such as PC-BS such as "safety" and "efficacy".

I was nervous the only crazy conspiracy people I'd see around here were those desperately trying how to remove Jim Harbaugh before the end of the season but I totally forgot that there are a bunch of COVID-19 truthers around here as well.

allezbleu

November 9th, 2020 at 11:11 AM ^

So sick of conspiracy theorists in this country. Offer up some proof or sit down.

Even if the conspiracy is true, if an industry like big pharma (which makes straight bank off of the right wing narrative that restricting prices for drugs made with publicly-funded research would somehow kill innovation) is trying to supposedly hurt you, that must say a lot about how bad you must be.

blizzardo

November 9th, 2020 at 12:57 PM ^

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/22/politics/trump-drug-prices-fact-check/index.html

 

Perhaps you'd prefer cnn. I especially like the part about industry groups fighting back. Hmmmmm

It's being stated false because most of the policy hasn't gone into effect yet

But dont be misled. Big pharma wanted biden. Full stop

username03

November 9th, 2020 at 5:49 PM ^

You find wanting proof of some rando's claims dense? Does the extremely quick jump to name calling without even bothering to try having a conversation not suggest to you at all that maybe your emotions are clouding your judgement?

What change? There is no actual change as far as I can tell. The same guy who said Mexico was going to pay for the wall said something else that he probably has no intention of doing.

Did you read the article you cited? It talks about a 6% decrease (be still my beating heart) and

"Most of this decline can be attributed to the recent approval of generics, and the biosimilar counterparts that have been on the market."

 

blizzardo

November 9th, 2020 at 7:42 PM ^

Name calling? Which name did I call you? 

Hint: I described you a dense

I will now also describe you sensitive. 

You willfully ignored my very next post with citing data

You fly off one some sort of emotional appeal 

You've move goalposts after asking for 1 example (which I provided

You contradict yourself in your own post by stating prices went down

You dont understand profit margin by downplaying the significance of a 6% decrease 

And you ignore any potential other factors contributing to the decline ( most not all)

Did I miss anything else?

 

 

username03

November 9th, 2020 at 9:56 PM ^

I didn't ignore any other factors the article you choose as your A1 piece of evidence did. Your claim was that Trump caused a decrease in drug prices, the article you cited does not support that. It specifically says the drop is due to generics and biosimilars. Further the article you cited as evidence that Trump is responsible for a drop in drug prices states that the drop started prior to Trump's executive order. Why did you pick an article that disproved your claim if this is all so obvious as to make me dense for daring to question? 

Sopwith

November 9th, 2020 at 12:39 PM ^

No. Actually Pharma stock prices (absent vaccine news) were going up today because the likelihood of Medicare being able to use its massive purchasing power as leverage in drug pricing negotiations probably disappeared with the GOP retaining the senate (probably).

Per the claim that POTUS reduced drug prices... no. Here's a Politifact blurb but there are lots of others, use whichever you like.

There is data that could conceivably support the argument that the list prices for some prescription drugs dipped in 2018. But that data doesn’t include many high-priced specialty drugs that drive costs up or the fact that some individual drug prices have increased.

Nationally, spending on drugs has continued to climb, even if that growth has slowed. There is also no evidence to support the argument that Trump himself is responsible for changes in drug pricing.

This claim has an element of truth, but it ignores key facts and context that would give a very different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False.

EDIT: SirJack beat me to it. I got Jacked Up.

Naked Bootlegger

November 9th, 2020 at 10:42 AM ^

I found this covid-related post to be a refreshing change from the recent rash of shit posts about the current state of Michigan football.  I fondly remember a not-too-distant past when we were collectively pining for football-related content, but now....

I hope this vaccine is effective.   That would be game-changing news.

I also hope there's a timely antidote that inoculates Michigan's football program from its apparent deep malaise.