CDC Notifies States, Large Cities To Prepare For Vaccine Distribution As Soon As Late October

[quandrea]

Fauci has already stated- recently in fact- that he’s in favor of getting it early if it’s truly effective and safe.

This past week scientists pledged publicly that safety would not be comp

It is truly amazing to me how many people are afraid of a vaccine. It’s rushed because the world has literally dumped all of its resources into it. Things tend to move quicker when you give something more funding and more people.

Yes, some people will have some complications. Some people have complications from everything. If my choices are the vaccine or COVID then I’ll take my chances with the vaccine.

I’m not waiting 3 years but if some of you want to sit at home until 2024 then go for it. I’ll be on the beach.

Save me a seat! Right behind you!

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I got blasted the last time I said this but I do think Fauci is part of the problem. I don't have a problem with him personally but he shouldn't be in the position he is in. There should be a panel of 3-5 doctors who are all coming to a consensus on issues. It'd be fine for Fauci to be the spokesperson but his statements should be backed by a panel of his peers. Personally, I think this is his Kobayashi Maru.

I actually agree with you here. Whether you like him as a person or not the pedestal (and I don't mean that in a negative way) we've put him on must be incredibly stressful. He is someone to be respected, that does not however mean that we should be having so much of these things from one person in terms of scientific community. Shared responsibility in this case may actually be the best (though I know how people's opinions of the CDC have changed and I think that's valid too).

I don't doubt that he discusses with people but considering how crazy people went for buying his bobble head and speak of him in such reverence it's clear that there's a lot of "if Fauci says it, if Fauci does this, if he says we shouldn't this or that", etc to the point where I see how people only believe what he says, only look for what he says and almost lose the ability to look for more than one data point. I don't say that to be disrespectful to other people though.

 

[Jonfw2]

He "believes" it "could" be available, is considered a fact?
But Ok, I'll give you this one- it is a fact that you responded to a poster with Fauci's opinion.

Good luck in the trial, I wish you a healthy future.

it is a fact that Fauci said this.

 

[godisney14]

I got blasted the last time I said this but I do think Fauci is part of the problem. I don't have a problem with him personally but he shouldn't be in the position he is in. There should be a panel of 3-5 doctors who are all coming to a consensus on issues. It'd be fine for Fauci to be the spokesperson but his statements should be backed by a panel of his peers. Personally, I think this is his Kobayashi Maru.

I disagree.
I’m not Fauci’s number one fan, and I have disagreed on some things he said in the past. But, your idea of a panel is exactly what the FDA and CDC is about. Saying that there should be a panel in his seat instead of Fauci by himself is like saying there should be a group of people in any other WH individual’s seat. Mnuchin? Vaught? Lightizer? There’s a group of people in the same department that are also advising behind each of those individuals in their respective positions/departments.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Interesting info from CEO of Pfizer

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...accine-distributed-Americans-end-October.html

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I disagree.
I’m not Fauci’s number one fan, and I have disagreed on some things he said in the past. But, your idea of a panel is exactly what the FDA and CDC is about. Saying that there should be a panel in his seat instead of Fauci by himself is like saying there should be a group of people in any other WH individual’s seat. Mnuchin? Vaught? Lightizer? There’s a group of people in the same department that are also advising behind each of those individuals in their respective positions/departments.

It probably wouldn't be as big of deal if people hadn't made Fauci their only person they'll listen to. They take advice from him on a personal level rather than that he represents a member of the scientific community which at the root of it is still the most salient part of him. So to me it's not necessarily that it's Fauci but that people stopped believing anything unless it came from him, studies done without him speaking about it to some people lack credibility, they'll only get a vaccine if Fauci will get one rather than "the scientific community reflects this vaccine xyz" it's about what he as a person does. Regardless who that person is (and I don't want to get too far down a political rabbit hole) that can be a not good way of thinking and people speak out against it when others exhibit that behavior but don't necessarily identify that behavior as the same when they do it if it's Fauci the one they are using.

 

[Jonfw2]

It probably wouldn't be as big of deal if people hadn't made Fauci their only person they'll listen to. They take advice from him on a personal level rather than that he represents a member of the scientific community which at the root of it is still the most salient part of him. So to me it's not necessarily that it's Fauci but that people stopped believing anything unless it came from him, studies done without him speaking about it to some people lack credibility, they'll only get a vaccine if Fauci will get one rather than "the scientific community reflects this vaccine xyz" it's about what he as a person does. Regardless who that person is (and I don't want to get too far down a political rabbit hole) that can be a not good way of thinking.

I think (OPINION) that Fauci's significance is not that he personally gets to make any arbitrary decisions, but rather that in a hyper-political situation, he's looked at as relatively apolitical. That's why his opinion holds weight.

 

[Hikergirl]

Just came across this
-mods not sure if this is considered political or not, I'm just posting because I thought it was relevant to the topic of getting it right away or waiting, as people have their own valid reasons for either choice. It isn't meant as a political statement of any kind.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-num...putting-politics-before-safety-203727770.html
If only 32 percent of Americans get vaccinated, it will not create enough herd immunity to stop the pandemic. For that to happen, scientists estimate that at least 60 percent of the population — and probably more like 75 or 80 percent — would need to sign up, a number that depends on many factors, including the efficacy of the vaccine itself and how widely the virus has already spread.

Regardless of political affiliation, if not enough people are willing to get it right now for it to be effective in creating herd immunity, is it worth the rush?

 

[bethbuchall]

I won't get the vaccine right away. Some testing first would be nice. I'll let some of you here try it first.

They are testing the vaccine and many will have already received it by the time it becomes available to the public. My husband and I are in a clinical trial now, but we're both pretty sure that we ended up in the placebo group. (It's double-blind, so we don't know that for sure; we're basing it on some anecdotal evidence among friends also in the study.)

 

[RamblingMad]

Just came across this
-mods not sure if this is considered political or not, I'm just posting because I thought it was relevant to the topic of getting it right away or waiting, as people have their own valid reasons for either choice. It isn't meant as a political statement of any kind.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-num...putting-politics-before-safety-203727770.html
If only 32 percent of Americans get vaccinated, it will not create enough herd immunity to stop the pandemic. For that to happen, scientists estimate that at least 60 percent of the population — and probably more like 75 or 80 percent — would need to sign up, a number that depends on many factors, including the efficacy of the vaccine itself and how widely the virus has already spread.

Regardless of political affiliation, if not enough people are willing to get it right now for it to be effective in creating herd immunity, is it worth the rush?

By the time the vaccine comes out, I expect at least 15-20% of the population to have had it at least once.

 

[Jonfw2]

Just came across this
-mods not sure if this is considered political or not, I'm just posting because I thought it was relevant to the topic of getting it right away or waiting, as people have their own valid reasons for either choice. It isn't meant as a political statement of any kind.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-num...putting-politics-before-safety-203727770.html
If only 32 percent of Americans get vaccinated, it will not create enough herd immunity to stop the pandemic. For that to happen, scientists estimate that at least 60 percent of the population — and probably more like 75 or 80 percent — would need to sign up, a number that depends on many factors, including the efficacy of the vaccine itself and how widely the virus has already spread.

Regardless of political affiliation, if not enough people are willing to get it right now for it to be effective in creating herd immunity, is it worth the rush?

In combination with better testing, better treatments, and many people already having had it, I would say yes.

 

[Hikergirl]

In combination with better testing, better treatments, and many people already having had it, I would say yes.

While I'm not on board with a rushed vaccine I can certainly hope for better testing, better access to testing and better more effective treatments while we wait for one.
And of course masks and social distancing, which so far seems to be working in parts of the US.

By the time the vaccine comes out, I expect at least 15-20% of the population to have had it at least once.

Until we have better testing, or at least better access to testing we won't really know how many people have had it. I think NY did antibody testing a few months ago, and not sure what the results of that were, were they upwards of 15-20% They were the epicenter at a time when we just started wearing masks and social distancing. I would think that the more the population did those things the less likely they are to get it.
Although there is this theory so who knows.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913

 

[TLSnell1981]

Just came across this
-mods not sure if this is considered political or not, I'm just posting because I thought it was relevant to the topic of getting it right away or waiting, as people have their own valid reasons for either choice. It isn't meant as a political statement of any kind.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-num...putting-politics-before-safety-203727770.html
If only 32 percent of Americans get vaccinated, it will not create enough herd immunity to stop the pandemic. For that to happen, scientists estimate that at least 60 percent of the population — and probably more like 75 or 80 percent — would need to sign up, a number that depends on many factors, including the efficacy of the vaccine itself and how widely the virus has already spread.

Regardless of political affiliation, if not enough people are willing to get it right now for it to be effective in creating herd immunity, is it worth the rush?

I think more may opt in than will admit it. Just my thoughts.

 

[Hikergirl]

Headline is a bit misleading, they are more concerned with the lack of info from AstraZeneca

https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-very-concerned-astrazeneca-vaccine-011505758.html

 

[amylevan]

You also have to remember that the vaccine is probably not going to be widely available immediately. First responders, high risk will likely have first choice. So the public who is saying they don’t want to be first in line (Which incidentally includes myself) may not even have access for some time. By the time that the general public can get it, an acceptable amount of time may have passed for some.

And furthermore, it’s really important how survey questions are asked. If asked “Will you get the vaccine if it is available in November?” I would probably say no. Not because I don’t intend to get the vaccine at some point, but because I’m not high risk, don’t work in a high public job (actually working from home indefinitely), don’t have regular contact with high risk family, and am naturally an introverted home-body so I don’t feel rushed to get a potentially rushed vaccine. I can afford to wait a little. If I was simply asked, “do you intend to get vaccinated?” My answer is yes.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Headline is a bit misleading, they are more concerned with the lack of info from AstraZeneca

https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-very-concerned-astrazeneca-vaccine-011505758.html

Thanks for sharing Hikergirl, I think this explains why I was told I'm not a good candidate for vaccination. Already living with chronic inflammation (high CRP) so kicking that into overdrive is probably not the best idea if they want good outcomes.

On the upside, I saw research is pointing to some JAK RA drugs that might quiet the inflammatory storm so if they figure out a solid strategy of who should get what exactly how much and precisely when, well then I think we'll do ok. People just need to be open and honest with their Physicians all the way around, this is not the time to fib out of vanity.

To me all of this is encouraging, the Dr's and Scientists are getting really close to the right strategy for us all.


In general and to no-one in particular:
I am totally on Team Fauci because he threw himself into Virology and HIV research when everything about the illness, including victims, was untouchable and often unspeakable. I lived it in NYC and remember what went on, it was an ugly time. So to me the pioneers like Dr. Fauci and Colonel Dr Birx who willingly threw themselves into the thankless abyss to save humans many thought were disposable are virtually peerless. While I'm sure they do listen to others THEY respect (can't be that successful and not be a team player) I do not, in any way shape or form, think they should ever be expected to defer to anyone because of rank or title at this point, they both earned the right to have a singular voice. The fact that their voices have an effect on things outside of human well being is not an acceptable reason to influence what they have to say and any time I hear them diminished I just get angry, science needs to be able to operate in a buffer zone, it can't be allowed to be dragged into the storm. I do sort of venerate humans who willingly step into a void to save others.

(fixed typo)

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

In general and to no-one in particular:
I am totally on Team Fauci because he threw himself into Virology and HIV research when everything about the illness, including victims, was untouchable and often unspeakable. I lived it in NYC and remember what went on, it was an ugly time. So to me the pioneers like Dr. Fauci and Colonel Dr Birx who willingly threw themselves into the thankless abyss to save humans many thought were disposable are virtually peerless. While I'm sure they do listen to others THEY respect (can't be that successful and not be a team player) I do not, in any way shape or form, think they should ever be expected to defer to anyone because of rank or title at this point, they both earned the right to have a singular voice. The fact that their voices have an effect on things outside of human well being is not an acceptable reason to influence what they have to say and any time I hear them diminished I just get angry, science needs to be able to operate in a buffer zone, it can't be allowed to be dragged into the storm. I do sort of venerate humans who willingly step into a void to save others.

You're def. not the type of person (with your above comments as evidence) I was even hinting at in my earlier comments so please don't feel like you need to defend your viewpoint on him

As I said he should be respected, he's part of the scientific community with amazing accomplishments. But there are people out there, some on this Board, that no longer look for the science behind things, no longer even want to look at differing points of research, discount research unless he's specifically spoken about it, etc and simply go with what he says go because it's him (if it was someone else saying it they would say "well I'll wait until Fauci gives the go ahead).

There's no diminishing of their careers going on though make no mistake on that. But science isn't about discounting any other research out there because it doesn't come from the source you want or not listening to the advice of anyone else in the scientific community because the source you want hasn't spoken about it (yet or at all). And to be clear Fauci isn't doing this, the people are doing it. None of my comments were against him himself but rather what we as a people have done.

 

[Pyotr]

You're def. not the type of person (with your above comments as evidence) I was even hinting at in my earlier comments so please don't feel like you need to defend your viewpoint on him

As I said he should be respected, he's part of the scientific community with amazing accomplishments. But there are people out there, some on this Board, that no longer look for the science behind things, no longer even want to look at differing points of research, discount research unless he's specifically spoken about it, etc and simply go with what he says go because it's him (if it was someone else saying it they would say "well I'll wait until Fauci gives the go ahead).

There's no diminishing of their careers going on though make no mistake on that. But science isn't about discounting any other research out there because it doesn't come from the source you want or not listening to the advice of anyone else in the scientific community because the source you want hasn't spoken about it (yet or at all). And to be clear Fauci isn't doing this, the people are doing it. None of my comments were against him himself but rather what we as a people have done.

That’s it exactly. I feel that many of us are no longer able to express any different different viewpoints or question some of the coronavirus responses without “wanting people to die,” as I’ve already been called in this thread.

I know a lot of people that had positive tests. I’m estimating around 50 at this point. I’ve seen one death so far and my uncle is very, very ill with it right now. It’s the people who are “asymptomatic” that I’m starting to question. More information is coming out about the validity of the PCR tests.

I like Fauci. He seems like a good man. I’m just not going to take everything he says as gospel.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

There’s no rule that says that “waiting” is going to exempt any one person from having a reaction to the vaccine, no matter when they get it. You can let the gunine pigs go first, and get yours later, but still have a reaction. Or vice-versa, you can be one of the first to get it and not have a reaction. It’s a crapshoot. Most common reaction is local irritation after shot. There will always be a minuscule risk of a more serious reaction with any vaccine, whenever it’s given.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

There’s no rule that says that “waiting” is going to exempt any one person from having a reaction to the vaccine, no matter when they get it. You can let the gunine pigs go first, and get yours later, but still have a reaction. Or vice-versa, you can be one of the first to get it and not have a reaction. It’s a crapshoot. Most common reaction is local irritation after shot. There will always be a minuscule risk of a more serious reaction with any vaccine, whenever it’s given.

Agreed.

I had gotten Gardasil about a month or so after it became available in 2006 I didn't really have much of a reaction other than I remember the 2nd shot IIRC hurting more than the 1st and the 3rd (at that time there were 3 doses). I also remember people a thread on here where people mentioning having much worse reactions but their child had gotten the vaccine long after I had.