Yes, once fully approved they gave it a name for product marketing. I think it was previously just referenced as what it is. Earlier I cited the FDA on this question of how the approval applies to product already manufactured under the emergency approval It was in response to Hoosier, as I remember. The FDA said there is only one formulation, and it is approved regardless of whether it was manufactured before or after the approval, as there is the formulation is the same. Pfizer named the product after full approval in the USA, but that didn't come with a change in formulation. I don't know of ANY way that previously manufactured vaccines could be treated differently in the USA, as the FDA was clear about previously manufactured product being approved. Would there be ANY difference to Pfizer or the product based on time of manufacture? I don't know - maybe there is a tax issue, maybe Pfizer is jacking the price, etc.
It is about legal liability. You will note that the approval includes the retention of the emergency approval as well. You certainly read things differently than I do.
The FDA addressed that. Pfizer is just as covered for the vaccines created under the EUA as they are for those created after the full authorization. The FDA approved the formulation, which is not related to the date of manufacture. And, they made it clear that covered what was manufactured during the EUA period.
From the abstract of the study (emphasis mine): "Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts." The obvious answer here is to first, develop better vaccines that will stop the transmission as well as the actual disease, and secondly, make sure the entire population is vaccinated.
No vaccine prevents transmission or anything else. Vaccines cause the immune system to develop antibodies. That is all they do. The antibodies give the immune system a head start in dealing with the infection when it arrives. The antibodies don't do anything until there is an infection. It is impossible to develop vaccines that will stop transmission. See sentence above. The answer is immunity. Not vaccinations. Natural immunity is real and effective. Ignoring it is not scientific. It is political.
Until then, you are suggesting that we just totally surrender to COVID??? I'm all in favor of better medicine. But, deciding that we do nothing until some perfect solution arises is just plain STUPID. How would that "logic" apply to cancer? Should we stop treating cancer because we don't have a perfect solution? Beyond that, the vaccines we have are incredibly effective and proven to be stupendously safe, including in comparison to prescription medications for other serious disease. The point here is that I see NO evidence that people are refusing to be vaccinated on the grounds that the vaccines we hare are good, but not perfect.
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't write that very well as that was not what I was saying. I was not trying to imply that we should give up and the current vaccine but rather IF there are some issues with them, let's make them better, however, something that only partially works is still better than nothing at all. Also, I think the current vaccines are actually pretty darn good.
Yeah, I really screwed the pooch on my quote. I must have been really tired when I wrote it, because that was not what I was trying to say, I was actually refuting the idea that the vaccines don't work, but I did a terrible job at it. I think my brain must have been turned off when I wrote the quote.
Sorry for my total mistake. That's pretty much exactly my own view. We know our vaccines are not perfect. We know that vaccine protection weakens over time, requiring boosters. We know the vast reservoir of COVID in the world is allowing new variants to emerge, probably especially in areas that just don't have access to vaccines. But, it's the best approach we have when combined with use of masks and social distancing.
It was either vaccines or indoor plumbing. Smallpox survived 400 years of vaccination (China started vaccinating against it in the 1500s). It only survived about 50 years of indoor plumbing.
I get those regularly. Working in the sewer, and getting punctured by sharp objects and splashed in the mouth or eyes in the sewer (its unavoidable down there) exposes one to a bit of everything, 'attenuated' with random temperature and pH fluctuations, cleaners, fuels, and all other manner of nasties that people send down the drain. I've been sick a total of twice in the 12 years I've been working in the sewer.
Wrong. That was the first smallpox vaccine that used cowpox in order to build up immunities to smallpox. But the oldest known vaccine was variolation, in China in the 14th century. Where they would remove the scabs of somebody with the disease, and then after grinding them up blow the material into the nose. This would cause them to get a weakened form of smallpox. Normally with a mortality rate of under 3%, much lower than the 30% mortality of catching a full blown version. And when reports finally reached Europe of this practice, it spread throughout Europe as well. But there it changed and became one more familiar with what we know today. Scratching the skin and then rubbing some scab material onto the wound. By 1730 this had become very common, with the children of the British Royal Family getting vaccinated, and even Arab slave traders in Africa vaccinating their slaves before selling them for shipment to the Americas. In this. Modernpaladin is indeed correct. Vaccination for smallpox is far older than what Edward Jenner created.
Maybe he should also try the "exposure" method for polio, tetanus, hepatitis, tuberculosis, yellow fever, ...
"Several accounts from the 1500s describe smallpox inoculation as practiced in China and India (one is referred to in volume 6 of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China). Glynn and Glynn, in The Life and Death of Smallpox, note that in the late 1600s Emperor K'ang Hsi, who had survived smallpox as a child, had his children inoculated. That method involved grinding up smallpox scabs and blowing the matter into nostril. Inoculation may also have been practiced by scratching matter from a smallpox sore into the skin. It is difficult to pinpoint when the practice began, as some sources claim dates as early as 200 BCE." Early Chinese Inoculation | History of Vaccines
As I understand it, things improved when we gained the ability to disable the virus before exposing people to it. But, this seems like a clear indication of germ theory that happened in the East well before the rest of the world.
LOL!! There certainly is NO reason to read beyond that!!! Once we know that vaccines have no value, America can just surrender to viral disease, I guess.
But it is true. It does not prevent transmission. A person who has been vaccinated can still "catch" the disease from others. Their body is simply able to counteract the infection and defeat it. But it does absolutely nothing to stop you from being exposed to it and in turn contracting the source of infection itself.
We have essentially ZERO medications for ANY disease that are perfect. Suggesting that "perfect" is the measure we absolutely require makes NO sense.
This is true for ALL medicines that target invading organisms of ANY kind - bacterial, viral, fungal, etc. But, that's not an excuse for us to surrender - any more than it makes sense to stop treating bacterial infections due to concern that doing so might contribute to mutations.
Medications are not inoculations. And absolutely no inoculations or vaccinations ever work in preventing you from coming in contact with or even contracting a disease. They work by boosting your immune system so they can successfully fight it off before it becomes symptomatic. Medications are used to treat symptoms. Or to fight off an infection once it has been contracted. They are reactive, not proactive. Do you do this in all debates? Just toss out random words, thinking that they apply in any circumstance you want?
The fact that some medications are prophylactic and some are treatments is just not a useful differentiation for this discussion. If you want to use a term other than "medications", then state it. The serious force of mutation is attacking ALL our biochemical defenses and treatments.
No, its 'attacking' some of out vaccines and medications. Vaccination for Mareks disease was introduced in the 70s and was more or less completely effective up until recently. Furthermore like many veterinary viruses it was not produced to the standard (in terms of efficacy) that human vaccines are. I believe the term is 'leaky'. In fact current Mareks vaccines aren't even designed to prevent re-infection, just the symptoms of the disease. So a vaccinated chicken will survive and suffer few if any symptoms but is still infectious. The result is farmers have to vaccinate the entire flock. This is not a issue with current human vaccines which are designed to a least reduce transmission if not eliminate it entirely. And if the virus does mutate over time a new vaccine is devised. So far few human viruses have shown any sign of doing so with the exception perhaps of influenza and cold viruses which are the king and queen of rapid mutation. However even there universal (one off) shots designed to give long term protection are in the works.
