|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
knox_harrington posted:Paxlovid is going to get approved this week. hypothetical: paxlovid will be approved. this is certain. however, the fda won't officially approve it until later this week. we're, more or less, waiting for their signature that is sure to come. given this, could pfizer legally start producing it before the official approval is signed later this week? that'd give them some stock to send out, which might help a bit. abelwingnut fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Dec 22, 2021 |
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Baronash posted:Imagine getting pissed that someone hasn’t produced your designer 4th dose when 40% of the planet hasn’t gotten a single shot. Especially with the fact the third shot works fine and the objection is just some aesthetic complaint
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:hypothetical: This gets into questions about Pfizer's manufacturing capacity, what is interchangeable between vaccines and MCA treatments, how quickly production can be swapped over, and profitability of everything involved. From a strictly legal standpoint, yes, they can almost certainly manufacture it (and even if they legally can't, nobody is going to advocate investigating them if they do it anyway). But if they don't have the capacity to adjust due to existing contracts, or if the MCA isn't significantly more profitable, or if production simply can't be swapped over rapidly (or if it can be swapped over very quickly, overnight) - there may not be much appetite to do so. Edit: As pointed out below, Paxlovid isn't a MCA, I was conflating this with another post. Oops. Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Dec 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
I don’t think it’s been established that the booster works fine against omicron, but I’m definitely not opposed to shifting vaccine production toward getting three doses to everyone in the world who hasn’t had any.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:hypothetical: Yes they definitely will be doing that. Re the US DOD nanobots, this is the paper for their preclinical work. Interesting stuff. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abi5735 e: this is the money shot from that paper: quote:We hypothesize that the breadth of immune response elicited by the SpFN vaccine may be the result of several factors. First, the quantity of the polyclonal antibody response may surpass a threshold that overcomes resistance to neutralization of antigenically distinct virus variants. Second, repetitive, ordered display of antigen on a self-assembling nanoparticle has been shown to drive an expanded germinal center reaction with resultant increases in B cell receptor mutation, affinity maturation and plasma cell differentiation (5–7). Lastly, the adjuvant, ALFQ, may drive some of the breadth through CD4 T cell activation (50, 51), especially given the high Th1 response elicited by the co-formulation. ALFQ, as compared to aluminum hydroxide (Alhydrogel), previously has demonstrated superior immunogenicity when administered with SpFN to C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice (20). As NHPs are a more predictive model with respect to adjuvant performance in humans, we are now conducting a follow-on adjuvant comparison study in NHPs to evaluate the impact of ALFQ on immunogenicity potency and breadth. Additionally, as NHPs do not exhibit the same degree of fidelity as Syrian golden hamsters in terms of developing severe COVID-19 disease (21), we have also found SpFN to protect against VOCs in challenge experiments in the latter model (52). knox_harrington fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Imagine getting pissed that someone hasn’t produced your designer 4th dose when 40% of the planet hasn’t gotten a single shot. why is it being called "designer" or "bespoke" It's just a better match for the now-dominant variant. If omicron had been the original strain, that's what they would have targeted. The NIH lab developed the target spike that went into the Moderna vaccine like a week after the first genetic sequencing was done very early in 2020. Charles 2 of Spain posted:Low income countries should be first in line to get the updated vaccine, for free. that would be great e: wanting higher efficacy like we saw against the wildtype that was actually targeted by the vaccines is an "aesthetic" complaint, lol brugroffil fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Dec 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:Yes they definitely will be doing that. Not really a nanobot, just a recombinant protein fusing a bacterial ferritin protein with a modified spike protein. Ferritin does self-assemble so you get a protein blob exposing spikes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:This gets into questions about Pfizer's manufacturing capacity, what is interchangeable between vaccines and MCA treatments, how quickly production can be swapped over, and profitability of everything involved. From a strictly legal standpoint, yes, they can almost certainly manufacture it (and even if they legally can't, nobody is going to advocate investigating them if they do it anyway). But if they don't have the capacity to adjust due to existing contracts, or if the MCA isn't significantly more profitable, or if production simply can't be swapped over rapidly (or if it can be swapped over very quickly, overnight) - there may not be much appetite to do so. Paxlovid isn't a monoclonal antibody. It shouldn't take anything special to manufacture it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:hypothetical: They don't need approval to produce it, iirc. They're already doing so I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
The manufacture of Paxlovid* is complicated, as these things go. https://twitter.com/Dereklowe/status/1473487342941974528 Some will recognize Derek Lowe from his series “Things I Won’t Work With”, many of which are explosives, but his specialty is pharmaceutical chemistry. This should be interesting. *or technically, PF-07321332. Paxlovid has two components and the other, Ritonavir, has been manufactured in scale for a quarter century.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Especially with the fact the third shot works fine and the objection is just some aesthetic complaint This is deranged, the US plan was to vaccinate our way to minimal covid with the essentially-sterilizing vaccines. We've been flailing since Delta and waning kicked in, if you think it's "aesthetic" our only tool doesn't do what we need it to, you're nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
We actually need to just ignore OOCC, if you look at the link in his title he's 0% acting in good faith, he by his own admission soothes some inner demon by getting our goats. I have no idea why he's tolerated based on what he's admitted about his posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
COVID is over https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1473631027881029634
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:hypothetical: From CBS News: quote:Pfizer expects to produce more than 180,000 packs of the antiviral by the end of the year and 21 million in the first half of next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I don’t think it’s been established that the booster works fine against omicron, but I’m definitely not opposed to shifting vaccine production toward getting three doses to everyone in the world who hasn’t had any. It's not established that a Delta-specialized vaccine would work any better vs Omicron than the current vaccine does, and it'd be way too early to have an Omicron-specialized vaccine even if anyone was working on one. And hell, we don't even know how much better an Omicron-specialized vaccine would work - some of the hypotheses I've seen floating around about the immune escape don't seem like they'd be significantly impacted by having a slightly different flavor of antibodies. Anyhow, given that people vaccinated with the current vaccines still generally have far better outcomes than the unvaccinated do, and that we're getting new variants on a regular basis thanks to the still-quite-large unvaccinated population worldwide, now isn't the time to shake up global vaccine production for the sake of anxiety-stricken first-worlders hoping to slightly reduce their chance of severe outcomes even further. It's honestly really interesting, in a dark and depressing sense, to see how global inequality shines through the prism of COVID, and boosters really seem to shine a stark light on those differences. While Israel is one of the most vaccinated countries and already starting to line people up for their second boosters, maybe a third of Gaza's population has even gotten their initial two shots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
Pfizer manufacturing plans in here and a few other interesting bits and pieces (e.g. proposed 100-day regulatory pathway for vaccine updates) https://s28.q4cdn.com/781576035/files/doc_presentation/2021/12/17/COVID-Analyst-and-Investor-Call-deck_FINAL.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:This is deranged, the US plan was to vaccinate our way to minimal covid with the essentially-sterilizing vaccines. We've been flailing since Delta and waning kicked in, if you think it's "aesthetic" our only tool doesn't do what we need it to, you're nuts. The boosters are effective against omicron. Vaccines and past infections are also incredibly good protection against omicron. As seen by South Africa having only a handful of deaths. (Or would you claim the virus itself is very mild now?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The boosters are effective against omicron. That -60 on the y axis is puttin in a lot of work
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
nexous posted:That -60 on the y axis is puttin in a lot of work How so?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
nexous posted:That -60 on the y axis is puttin in a lot of work Howso? Could you explain? Given that nothing goes below -20%, I don't see any obvious problem with cutting off at -60%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How so? What would -60% vaccine effectiveness mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:What would -60% vaccine effectiveness mean? It makes you 60% more likely to get the disease. Which none of the dots on here are placed because none of them do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
https://www.thisismetis.com/blog/misleading-graphs-manipulating-the-y-axis
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
If none of the data goes anywhere near that division, why is it even on there?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Troll or just stupid?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
how about you just say what your thought is on this very important matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Just say "extending the Y axis can make it look like the vaccines are starting from a higher base effectiveness than they really are" instead of being coy
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:What would -60% vaccine effectiveness mean? That the vaccine actually makes you more likely to get the disease, or makes the disease worse, or at the very least is so ineffective that statistical uncertainty pushes the lower bounds of a near-zero VE calculation potentially into the negatives. Can you just type an explanation already, instead of dropping links without commentary and cryptic one-liners? No one wants to sit here playing twenty questions to try and guess what the gently caress you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
For reference, where is that graph from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If none of the data goes anywhere near that division, why is it even on there? The error bar for 25 days plus does drop below 0 so at least some negative does make sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If none of the data goes anywhere near that division, why is it even on there? It's because vaccines are fake and just a plot by big pharma and you have finally cracked the case and exposed them for frauds and vaccines as being basically fake poison by not liking the axis going too low. Is that what you are going for or do you have some other secret point we are supposed to be getting here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:The error bar for 25 days plus does drop below 0 so at least some negative does make sense. It would be OK to have a slight negative margin on the y-axis to allow for that statistical artifact but not going to -60
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Owl, are you projecting? No one says anything like the things you argue against in this thread, so where do they come from? Your own intrusive thoughts? Fear not. The vaccines work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If none of the data goes anywhere near that division, why is it even on there? Platystemon posted:Owl, are you projecting? Can you please just loving explain your argument or objection already, so we can have an actual discussion with you instead of all this back-and-forth petty sniping?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
Pointing out that we should roll out omicron specific vaccines is met with “why the ones we have work fine” with a graph tailored to make the vaccines look more effective than they are. You clearly realize that the effectiveness isn’t good enough because you took the time to purposefully mislead people. This is not at all saying the vaccines are bad, just that they could be better, akin to when they were first released
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Funny graph showing increase of Yankee Candle negative reviews corresponding with the increase in COVID https://twitter.com/zornsllama/status/1473575508784955394?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Funny graph showing increase of Yankee Candle negative reviews corresponding with the increase in COVID Now these are good graphs
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Haystack posted:For reference, where is that graph from? Eh, I just went and looked it up, found it here, sourced from Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern Andrews N, et al. KHub.net preprint. December 10, 2021.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
nexous posted:Pointing out that we should roll out omicron specific vaccines is met with “why the ones we have work fine” with a graph tailored to make the vaccines look more effective than they are. You clearly realize that the effectiveness isn’t good enough because you took the time to purposefully mislead people. to the extent that the graph is misleading, it's diminishing the apparent impact of boosters relative to unboosted vaccines. the graph was made by someone trying to sell boosters and posted by someone arguing that the boosters are good enough. neither of them have an agenda trying to promote the idea that unboosted vaccines are good enough. it's bad graph design but it's pretty obvious that someone just wanted a quick & dirty place they could stick the legend without crowding anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Can you please just loving explain your argument or objection already, so we can have an actual discussion with you instead of all this back-and-forth petty sniping? He's doing the thing, AGAIN, where he is having the conversation in cspam. Then doing some dumb safari bullshit where he thinks he's being real cool by posting various "tee hee, look at me guys, touching the poop" in the actual thread. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:37
|
|