Coronavirus prep

Options
1424425427429430747

Replies

  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,454 Member
    Options
    SModa61 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    My dd said she's been exposed at work and they all took tests; she's negative(praying it stays that way) but she said they were able to self-administer their Covid tests. Is that a thing; guess I didn't know? And I wonder how accurate it is vs. a pro doing it? She's going to take another test soon just for extra reassurance.
    Plus wondering how well the mouth swabs work vs. the brain scraping. If mouth swabs are just as good, why aren't those typical administered instead?

    Yes, some places let people swab themselves. By BIL did that at a CVS and tested negative while several others in his house and his mom's house (where he visits often) were positive. I question whether he self-swabbed deeply enough. But he has also has a couple tests where others did the swab and he has come back negative those times also.

    He lives with a lot of people who are exposed often (a nurse and retail employees) and he is exposed often at work (meat packing plant, many factories have a constant stream of infections). How he hasn't been infected is surprising, as 3 others in his own household were positive plus risks at other places. He thinks he has a natural immunity. I think he has been lucky.

    A scenario I have always considered for those "lucky" ones is, could he have had it asymptomatically back when testing was nil, and now he is no catching it due to current immunity. I know plenty of people who have wondered if they might have had COVID in those early months when tests were only allowed if you fit all the parameters (we know a new york young man that was never sicker in his life, but was denied a test because he was too "young". This was back in March during the NY peak). One of these people has asked for an antibody test, because his wife had it and she tested positive, and he had had similar almost asymptomatic systems the week before her. He was denied. I think the antibody testing is a very important component that is not being focused on as much as I would like. It may be that many more people have had this disease than we realize, and I think that accurate data is important in understanding COVID.

    Where I live, anybody who donates blood gets the antibody test. It is free, of course. He might look into that.

    I need to follow up. I donated a few weeks ago was told they tested for antibodies and never heard back from them.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    My dd said she's been exposed at work and they all took tests; she's negative(praying it stays that way) but she said they were able to self-administer their Covid tests. Is that a thing; guess I didn't know? And I wonder how accurate it is vs. a pro doing it? She's going to take another test soon just for extra reassurance.
    Plus wondering how well the mouth swabs work vs. the brain scraping. If mouth swabs are just as good, why aren't those typical administered instead?

    Yes, some places let people swab themselves. By BIL did that at a CVS and tested negative while several others in his house and his mom's house (where he visits often) were positive. I question whether he self-swabbed deeply enough. But he has also has a couple tests where others did the swab and he has come back negative those times also.

    He lives with a lot of people who are exposed often (a nurse and retail employees) and he is exposed often at work (meat packing plant, many factories have a constant stream of infections). How he hasn't been infected is surprising, as 3 others in his own household were positive plus risks at other places. He thinks he has a natural immunity. I think he has been lucky.

    A scenario I have always considered for those "lucky" ones is, could he have had it asymptomatically back when testing was nil, and now he is no catching it due to current immunity. I know plenty of people who have wondered if they might have had COVID in those early months when tests were only allowed if you fit all the parameters (we know a new york young man that was never sicker in his life, but was denied a test because he was too "young". This was back in March during the NY peak). One of these people has asked for an antibody test, because his wife had it and she tested positive, and he had had similar almost asymptomatic systems the week before her. He was denied. I think the antibody testing is a very important component that is not being focused on as much as I would like. It may be that many more people have had this disease than we realize, and I think that accurate data is important in understanding COVID.

    Where I live, anybody who donates blood gets the antibody test. It is free, of course. He might look into that.

    I need to follow up. I donated a few weeks ago was told they tested for antibodies and never heard back from them.

    I know with the Red Cross, at least, they don't reach out to you. You can login to your donor account online to see the results. I assume you can call with your donor number or the number from that blood donation.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    SModa61 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    My dd said she's been exposed at work and they all took tests; she's negative(praying it stays that way) but she said they were able to self-administer their Covid tests. Is that a thing; guess I didn't know? And I wonder how accurate it is vs. a pro doing it? She's going to take another test soon just for extra reassurance.
    Plus wondering how well the mouth swabs work vs. the brain scraping. If mouth swabs are just as good, why aren't those typical administered instead?

    Yes, some places let people swab themselves. By BIL did that at a CVS and tested negative while several others in his house and his mom's house (where he visits often) were positive. I question whether he self-swabbed deeply enough. But he has also has a couple tests where others did the swab and he has come back negative those times also.

    He lives with a lot of people who are exposed often (a nurse and retail employees) and he is exposed often at work (meat packing plant, many factories have a constant stream of infections). How he hasn't been infected is surprising, as 3 others in his own household were positive plus risks at other places. He thinks he has a natural immunity. I think he has been lucky.

    A scenario I have always considered for those "lucky" ones is, could he have had it asymptomatically back when testing was nil, and now he is no catching it due to current immunity. I know plenty of people who have wondered if they might have had COVID in those early months when tests were only allowed if you fit all the parameters (we know a new york young man that was never sicker in his life, but was denied a test because he was too "young". This was back in March during the NY peak). One of these people has asked for an antibody test, because his wife had it and she tested positive, and he had had similar almost asymptomatic systems the week before her. He was denied. I think the antibody testing is a very important component that is not being focused on as much as I would like. It may be that many more people have had this disease than we realize, and I think that accurate data is important in understanding COVID.

    I think you can get an antibody test lots of places where you give blood, for free. Here you can also get an antibody test easily lots of places, but I don't think insurance would cover it if it's just curiosity, and since they supposedly are not all that reliable I'm not willing to pay. I volunteered for a study that is supposed to tell what percentage of the population (in my city and state) have had it, but so far have not heard back.

    My dad (who is 77) maybe had it--he tested positive (no symptoms ever) a few weeks ago when he was tested before coming in for a non emergency medical procedure, and was positive. His wife tested negative, but then tested positive for antibodies. She had no symptoms either. He has since tested negative and had his procedure, but I want to get more information from him.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    Options
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    My dd said she's been exposed at work and they all took tests; she's negative (praying it stays that way) but she said they were able to self-administer their Covid tests. Is that a thing; guess I didn't know? And I wonder how accurate it is vs. a pro doing it? She's going to take another test soon just for extra reassurance.
    Plus wondering how well the mouth swabs work vs. the brain scraping. If mouth swabs are just as good, why aren't those typical administered instead?

    Yes, some places let people swab themselves. By BIL did that at a CVS and tested negative while several others in his house and his mom's house (where he visits often) were positive. I question whether he self-swabbed deeply enough. But he has also has a couple tests where others did the swab and he has come back negative those times also.

    He lives with a lot of people who are exposed often (a nurse and retail employees) and he is exposed often at work (meat packing plant, many factories have a constant stream of infections). How he hasn't been infected is surprising, as 3 others in his own household were positive plus risks at other places. He thinks he has a natural immunity. I think he has been lucky.

    Does he know what his Vitamin D levels are I wonder.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    My dd said she's been exposed at work and they all took tests; she's negative(praying it stays that way) but she said they were able to self-administer their Covid tests. Is that a thing; guess I didn't know? And I wonder how accurate it is vs. a pro doing it? She's going to take another test soon just for extra reassurance.
    Plus wondering how well the mouth swabs work vs. the brain scraping. If mouth swabs are just as good, why aren't those typical administered instead?

    The quick results saliva tests are less sensitive so may miss a low level infection every once and awhile. I believe they are best for situations where you will be tested more than once, as it's not likely you would get multiple false results in a row.

    I haven't heard anything about any difference if you do the nasal swab yourself. I heard them coaching people through doing that at the CVS drive thru and it didn't sound like it required any prior experience to follow the steps :smile:
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,964 Member
    Options
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    My dd said she's been exposed at work and they all took tests; she's negative(praying it stays that way) but she said they were able to self-administer their Covid tests. Is that a thing; guess I didn't know? And I wonder how accurate it is vs. a pro doing it? She's going to take another test soon just for extra reassurance.
    Plus wondering how well the mouth swabs work vs. the brain scraping. If mouth swabs are just as good, why aren't those typical administered instead?

    Yes, some places let people swab themselves. By BIL did that at a CVS and tested negative while several others in his house and his mom's house (where he visits often) were positive. I question whether he self-swabbed deeply enough. But he has also has a couple tests where others did the swab and he has come back negative those times also.

    He lives with a lot of people who are exposed often (a nurse and retail employees) and he is exposed often at work (meat packing plant, many factories have a constant stream of infections). How he hasn't been infected is surprising, as 3 others in his own household were positive plus risks at other places. He thinks he has a natural immunity. I think he has been lucky.

    A scenario I have always considered for those "lucky" ones is, could he have had it asymptomatically back when testing was nil, and now he is no catching it due to current immunity. I know plenty of people who have wondered if they might have had COVID in those early months when tests were only allowed if you fit all the parameters (we know a new york young man that was never sicker in his life, but was denied a test because he was too "young". This was back in March during the NY peak). One of these people has asked for an antibody test, because his wife had it and she tested positive, and he had had similar almost asymptomatic systems the week before her. He was denied. I think the antibody testing is a very important component that is not being focused on as much as I would like. It may be that many more people have had this disease than we realize, and I think that accurate data is important in understanding COVID.

    Where I live, anybody who donates blood gets the antibody test. It is free, of course. He might look into that.

    I need to follow up. I donated a few weeks ago was told they tested for antibodies and never heard back from them.

    If you're donating through the American Red Cross, I've found you have to go online and check in your donor account; they don't contact you with the results. At least, they haven't contacted me. I was negative. Maybe they contact you if you're positive for antibodies and they want you to donate plasma.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    edited November 2020
    Options
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    My dd said she's been exposed at work and they all took tests; she's negative(praying it stays that way) but she said they were able to self-administer their Covid tests. Is that a thing; guess I didn't know? And I wonder how accurate it is vs. a pro doing it? She's going to take another test soon just for extra reassurance.
    Plus wondering how well the mouth swabs work vs. the brain scraping. If mouth swabs are just as good, why aren't those typical administered instead?

    I know they are doing self administered testing at many CVS pharmacies...not really sure if it's the nasal swab or the saliva test where you just spit in a cup.

    The mouth swabs are the rapid tests. From what I understand, they are less accurate in persons showing no symptoms as they aren't as sensitive. They use them here in hospitals for people with symptoms only as they can get results within about 4 hours...if they are positive, they are required to self isolate and the positive test is confirmed with a nasal swab.

    The rapid test mouth swabs are also used where testing is frequent as with sports teams and such...they pretty much test daily, so it's more likely to catch a positive case quickly than a nasal swab.

    I think it would be hugely beneficial in reducing the spread if they could come up with an inexpensive rapid test you could just do at home like a home pregnancy test. People could just test a few times per week or whatever before they venture out into the world and if it pops, you could get confirmed with a nasal swab, self isolating while you wait for that confirmation.

    I take my temperature at least once per day before venturing out...I also have to get it taken when I get to the office on my hybrid in office days. Adding an additional home test capability would be something I'd get behind for sure.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 2,855 Member
    Options

    The only bad thing is that not everyone who had COVID will be positive for antibodies. We have found many patients who had COVID are negative for antibodies. There is evidence the antibodies only last for a few months as well in some cases.

    I have certainly heard that info, but I think the data is still valuable for better understanding COVID.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 2,855 Member
    Options

    Where I live, anybody who donates blood gets the antibody test. It is free, of course. He might look into that.

    I had forgotten about that option, and now that you mention it, I think he may have been looking into that. We don't talk often. But of course, if Noreenmarie's comment about antibodies not lasting, testing now vs testing in May after my SIL tested positive would have made more sense.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    baconslave wrote: »
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    Pfizer just announced that their vaccine is testing at 90% effective. That would be fantastic.

    Also, BTW, Pfizer did not partake in Operation Warp Speed because they didn't want to obligate themselves to what taking public funds would mean. They did this pretty much on their own without help. Just in case you hear certain parties/people taking claim that "they alone" solved Coronavirus, that would be 100% false.

    In addition they will do the distribution themselves because they have suppliers already lined-up. They know how to do it, and I think that they don't trust the ability of the government to keep the vaccine as such low temperatures as it is needed.

    Word of caution: Pfizer just run what is called an interim efficacy analysis. They are still continuing with the study since not all participants have completed the second shot and the f/up vigilance phase. The company still needs to do the interim safety analysis (due toward the end of November), before they can apply for an FDA expedite approval. If everything is good.

    We got good news from the company but please people don't count your chickens until all the eggs have hatched. Disappointments are hard to swallow.

    Right.
    And it's very important to remember that they are saying they'll have enough vaccine for only 25 million people. The CDC has said that health care workers are first in line. Then the elderly. "Widespread" vaccine availability for everyone won't be until next year. Masking and distancing will remain our reality for the rest of this year and most of next. Even then everyone won't get the vaccine at once, many require 2 doses, and coverage of the populace won't be 100% b/c sadly many won't take any vaccine no matter what.

    We should all go forward knowing this will be over, but we still have quite a way to go. That's what is.

    Regardless of vaccine status, we are locked into this path right now crafted by consequences we've courted for 8 months. There will be suffering. Even if everyone started following guidelines right this moment, we would still have a rough month and a half ahead. A vaccine isn't a point-n-click solution either. And I hold out zero hopes that we'll get much better mask/distancing compliance at this point.

    There is a light!!! But the tunnel is still long. :disappointed:

    Sorry to be a downer, but like Mike said, we've had enough disappointment. Let's be real and not hurt ourselves more than the wounds we're already accruing here. I do hope at some point soon the leadership of this country, whomever that ends up being, will have this talk with the American people. IMO, we'd do better to frame this as a "war time" effort.

    The U.S. government is buying 100 million vaccines, not 25 million. Yes, healthcare workers get priority. We expected that as it was discussed months ago. Still, 100 million should be enough for healthcare workers plus some for people at higher risk. We need more for the rest of the country yet, but don't know how many more. I know some people won't take it and others won't need it because of a recent infection. At $1,950 per vaccine (this is what the federal government will pay Pfizer... they will be free for actual recipients), let's hope for a price discount on the 2nd order.

    Place where I used to live in IA is a small town with a prison. Last week's numbers showed 365 new infections at the prison... the capacity is 1,000 and I have heard they are at about 900 now, so 365 cases means about 40% got sick just on the same week. I anticipate the other 60% will be reported in the next 2 weeks. While some may not care about inmates, these are people also. They have families and friends, and some of them also have underlying health conditions to consider. I sure hope they give them masks, but am not convinced of that with how fast it has spread there.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    edited November 2020
    Options
    @kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?

    https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/

    ...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,055 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?

    https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/

    ...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.

    Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)

    I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.

    There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.
  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 6,948 Member
    edited November 2020
    Options
    baconslave wrote: »
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    Pfizer just announced that their vaccine is testing at 90% effective. That would be fantastic.

    Also, BTW, Pfizer did not partake in Operation Warp Speed because they didn't want to obligate themselves to what taking public funds would mean. They did this pretty much on their own without help. Just in case you hear certain parties/people taking claim that "they alone" solved Coronavirus, that would be 100% false.

    In addition they will do the distribution themselves because they have suppliers already lined-up. They know how to do it, and I think that they don't trust the ability of the government to keep the vaccine as such low temperatures as it is needed.

    Word of caution: Pfizer just run what is called an interim efficacy analysis. They are still continuing with the study since not all participants have completed the second shot and the f/up vigilance phase. The company still needs to do the interim safety analysis (due toward the end of November), before they can apply for an FDA expedite approval. If everything is good.

    We got good news from the company but please people don't count your chickens until all the eggs have hatched. Disappointments are hard to swallow.

    Right.
    And it's very important to remember that they are saying they'll have enough vaccine for only 25 million people. The CDC has said that health care workers are first in line. Then the elderly. "Widespread" vaccine availability for everyone won't be until next year. Masking and distancing will remain our reality for the rest of this year and most of next. Even then everyone won't get the vaccine at once, many require 2 doses, and coverage of the populace won't be 100% b/c sadly many won't take any vaccine no matter what.

    We should all go forward knowing this will be over, but we still have quite a way to go. That's what is.

    Regardless of vaccine status, we are locked into this path right now crafted by consequences we've courted for 8 months. There will be suffering. Even if everyone started following guidelines right this moment, we would still have a rough month and a half ahead. A vaccine isn't a point-n-click solution either. And I hold out zero hopes that we'll get much better mask/distancing compliance at this point.

    There is a light!!! But the tunnel is still long. :disappointed:

    Sorry to be a downer, but like Mike said, we've had enough disappointment. Let's be real and not hurt ourselves more than the wounds we're already accruing here. I do hope at some point soon the leadership of this country, whomever that ends up being, will have this talk with the American people. IMO, we'd do better to frame this as a "war time" effort.

    The U.S. government is buying 100 million vaccines, not 25 million. Yes, healthcare workers get priority. We expected that as it was discussed months ago. Still, 100 million should be enough for healthcare workers plus some for people at higher risk. We need more for the rest of the country yet, but don't know how many more. I know some people won't take it and others won't need it because of a recent infection. At $1,950 per vaccine (this is what the federal government will pay Pfizer... they will be free for actual recipients), let's hope for a price discount on the 2nd order.

    Place where I used to live in IA is a small town with a prison. Last week's numbers showed 365 new infections at the prison... the capacity is 1,000 and I have heard they are at about 900 now, so 365 cases means about 40% got sick just on the same week. I anticipate the other 60% will be reported in the next 2 weeks. While some may not care about inmates, these are people also. They have families and friends, and some of them also have underlying health conditions to consider. I sure hope they give them masks, but am not convinced of that with how fast it has spread there.

    They may be buying 100 mil, but it will only be available for 25 million people (50 million doses, 2 each required per person) this year.

    "Pfizer has estimated it could have 50 million doses available globally by the end of 2020, enough for 25 million people." https://apnews.com/article/pfizer-vaccine-effective-early-data-4f4ae2e3bad122d17742be22a2240ae8
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    baconslave wrote: »
    baconslave wrote: »
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    Pfizer just announced that their vaccine is testing at 90% effective. That would be fantastic.

    Also, BTW, Pfizer did not partake in Operation Warp Speed because they didn't want to obligate themselves to what taking public funds would mean. They did this pretty much on their own without help. Just in case you hear certain parties/people taking claim that "they alone" solved Coronavirus, that would be 100% false.

    In addition they will do the distribution themselves because they have suppliers already lined-up. They know how to do it, and I think that they don't trust the ability of the government to keep the vaccine as such low temperatures as it is needed.

    Word of caution: Pfizer just run what is called an interim efficacy analysis. They are still continuing with the study since not all participants have completed the second shot and the f/up vigilance phase. The company still needs to do the interim safety analysis (due toward the end of November), before they can apply for an FDA expedite approval. If everything is good.

    We got good news from the company but please people don't count your chickens until all the eggs have hatched. Disappointments are hard to swallow.

    Right.
    And it's very important to remember that they are saying they'll have enough vaccine for only 25 million people. The CDC has said that health care workers are first in line. Then the elderly. "Widespread" vaccine availability for everyone won't be until next year. Masking and distancing will remain our reality for the rest of this year and most of next. Even then everyone won't get the vaccine at once, many require 2 doses, and coverage of the populace won't be 100% b/c sadly many won't take any vaccine no matter what.

    We should all go forward knowing this will be over, but we still have quite a way to go. That's what is.

    Regardless of vaccine status, we are locked into this path right now crafted by consequences we've courted for 8 months. There will be suffering. Even if everyone started following guidelines right this moment, we would still have a rough month and a half ahead. A vaccine isn't a point-n-click solution either. And I hold out zero hopes that we'll get much better mask/distancing compliance at this point.

    There is a light!!! But the tunnel is still long. :disappointed:

    Sorry to be a downer, but like Mike said, we've had enough disappointment. Let's be real and not hurt ourselves more than the wounds we're already accruing here. I do hope at some point soon the leadership of this country, whomever that ends up being, will have this talk with the American people. IMO, we'd do better to frame this as a "war time" effort.

    The U.S. government is buying 100 million vaccines, not 25 million. Yes, healthcare workers get priority. We expected that as it was discussed months ago. Still, 100 million should be enough for healthcare workers plus some for people at higher risk. We need more for the rest of the country yet, but don't know how many more. I know some people won't take it and others won't need it because of a recent infection. At $1,950 per vaccine (this is what the federal government will pay Pfizer... they will be free for actual recipients), let's hope for a price discount on the 2nd order.

    Place where I used to live in IA is a small town with a prison. Last week's numbers showed 365 new infections at the prison... the capacity is 1,000 and I have heard they are at about 900 now, so 365 cases means about 40% got sick just on the same week. I anticipate the other 60% will be reported in the next 2 weeks. While some may not care about inmates, these are people also. They have families and friends, and some of them also have underlying health conditions to consider. I sure hope they give them masks, but am not convinced of that with how fast it has spread there.

    They may be buying 100 mil, but it will only be available for 25 million people (50 million doses, 2 each required per person) this year.

    "Pfizer has estimated it could have 50 million doses available globally by the end of 2020, enough for 25 million people." https://apnews.com/article/pfizer-vaccine-effective-early-data-4f4ae2e3bad122d17742be22a2240ae8

    That's by the end of 2020 and those 50 million doses are for the entire world. The reporting on the U.S. 100 million doses doesn't have a date attached.

    From the article you linked:
    But in July, Pfizer signed a contract to supply the U.S. with 100 million doses for $1.95 billion, assuming the vaccine is cleared by the FDA.

    But I suppose if it takes 2 doses per person, then only 50 million Americans will get it unless another order is placed. And cost is nearly $4K per patient. Either way, we are looking at several months before this becomes available to most of us.
  • Redordeadhead
    Redordeadhead Posts: 1,188 Member
    Options
    baconslave wrote: »
    baconslave wrote: »
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    Pfizer just announced that their vaccine is testing at 90% effective. That would be fantastic.

    Also, BTW, Pfizer did not partake in Operation Warp Speed because they didn't want to obligate themselves to what taking public funds would mean. They did this pretty much on their own without help. Just in case you hear certain parties/people taking claim that "they alone" solved Coronavirus, that would be 100% false.

    In addition they will do the distribution themselves because they have suppliers already lined-up. They know how to do it, and I think that they don't trust the ability of the government to keep the vaccine as such low temperatures as it is needed.

    Word of caution: Pfizer just run what is called an interim efficacy analysis. They are still continuing with the study since not all participants have completed the second shot and the f/up vigilance phase. The company still needs to do the interim safety analysis (due toward the end of November), before they can apply for an FDA expedite approval. If everything is good.

    We got good news from the company but please people don't count your chickens until all the eggs have hatched. Disappointments are hard to swallow.

    Right.
    And it's very important to remember that they are saying they'll have enough vaccine for only 25 million people. The CDC has said that health care workers are first in line. Then the elderly. "Widespread" vaccine availability for everyone won't be until next year. Masking and distancing will remain our reality for the rest of this year and most of next. Even then everyone won't get the vaccine at once, many require 2 doses, and coverage of the populace won't be 100% b/c sadly many won't take any vaccine no matter what.

    We should all go forward knowing this will be over, but we still have quite a way to go. That's what is.

    Regardless of vaccine status, we are locked into this path right now crafted by consequences we've courted for 8 months. There will be suffering. Even if everyone started following guidelines right this moment, we would still have a rough month and a half ahead. A vaccine isn't a point-n-click solution either. And I hold out zero hopes that we'll get much better mask/distancing compliance at this point.

    There is a light!!! But the tunnel is still long. :disappointed:

    Sorry to be a downer, but like Mike said, we've had enough disappointment. Let's be real and not hurt ourselves more than the wounds we're already accruing here. I do hope at some point soon the leadership of this country, whomever that ends up being, will have this talk with the American people. IMO, we'd do better to frame this as a "war time" effort.

    The U.S. government is buying 100 million vaccines, not 25 million. Yes, healthcare workers get priority. We expected that as it was discussed months ago. Still, 100 million should be enough for healthcare workers plus some for people at higher risk. We need more for the rest of the country yet, but don't know how many more. I know some people won't take it and others won't need it because of a recent infection. At $1,950 per vaccine (this is what the federal government will pay Pfizer... they will be free for actual recipients), let's hope for a price discount on the 2nd order.

    Place where I used to live in IA is a small town with a prison. Last week's numbers showed 365 new infections at the prison... the capacity is 1,000 and I have heard they are at about 900 now, so 365 cases means about 40% got sick just on the same week. I anticipate the other 60% will be reported in the next 2 weeks. While some may not care about inmates, these are people also. They have families and friends, and some of them also have underlying health conditions to consider. I sure hope they give them masks, but am not convinced of that with how fast it has spread there.

    They may be buying 100 mil, but it will only be available for 25 million people (50 million doses, 2 each required per person) this year.

    "Pfizer has estimated it could have 50 million doses available globally by the end of 2020, enough for 25 million people." https://apnews.com/article/pfizer-vaccine-effective-early-data-4f4ae2e3bad122d17742be22a2240ae8

    Also 50m GLOBALLY, not only for the US.