Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Pfizer for teens?



  • SuzySunshine99SuzySunshine99 Member Posts: 2,281 Member Member Posts: 2,281 Member
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    On being able to afford the vaccine, at least in the U.S.: from the CDC

    Who is paying for the vaccine?
    The federal government is providing the vaccine free of charge to all people living in the United States, regardless of their immigration or health insurance status.

    COVID-19 vaccination providers cannot:

    -Charge you for the vaccine
    -Charge you directly for any administration fees, copays, or coinsurance
    -Deny vaccination to anyone who does not have health insurance coverage, is underinsured, or is out of network
    -Charge an office visit or other fee to the recipient if the only service provided is a COVID-19 vaccination
    -Require additional services in order for a person to receive a COVID-19 vaccine; however, additional healthcare services can be provided at the same time and billed as appropriate

    COVID-19 vaccination providers can:

    -Seek appropriate reimbursement from the recipient’s plan or program (e.g., private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid) for a vaccine administration fee
    -However, providers cannot charge the vaccine recipient the balance of the bill
    -Seek reimbursement for uninsured vaccine recipients from the Health Resources and Services Administration’s COVID-19 Uninsured Programexternal icon

    No one said anything about not affording the vaccine.

    Heath insurance costs came up because the question was it ethical for a "wealthy" country to vaccinate low-risk individuals when there are developing nations that can't vaccinate their most vulnerable.

    Some of us pointed out that even this "weathly" nation has many people that cannot afford to be sick with Covid, so vaccines should not be diverted away from people here, even if they are low-risk.

    We can't afford NOT to get the vaccine.

    But Suzy, vaccines are now being diverted because people are refusing it.

    Anyone in this country (U.S.) who hasn't initiated vaccination at this point doesn't want one.

    Send it where it will find a willing arm.

    The specific situation being discussed was "should we be vaccinating low-risk children instead of sending the vaccines to other countries who have not yet vaccinated their vulnerable population." It was suggested that we deny the opportunity for parents to get their kids vaccinated.

    Also, I think we need to continue efforts to convince hesitant people to get vaccinated. Not everyone is an anti-vaxxer, just scared or misinformed. I don't think we just give up and say, well, if you haven't had it by now, you never will.

    Well that's quite a leap.

    If people don't want it now they don't lose their lifetime decision. It's not now or never, it's Now or wait till the next round is manufactured. At some point in the not-that-distant future there will be enough doses for the world. If you turn away your place in line right now, well, your decision. Catch it next time around. If you're still here.

    The Pfizer in particular has a shelf-life. So we should just leave it *somewhere* until *maybe* people change their minds? Let the rest of the world fend for themselves? Wow.

    I understand the issue of expiring vaccines, and if they can be moved somewhere where they will be used before expiration, that would be great. There's logistical problems in doing that, given the sub-zero handling requirements of the Pfizer in particular.

    Since the U.S. is already donating 80 million surplus doses to other countries, I don't think there's a "fend for yourself" attitude.

    My entire point was in regards to vaccinating children, which is the topic of this thread. Again, it was suggested that it's not ethical to vaccinate children in this country when other countries need vaccines for elderly people. I disagree with that, and think we need to give the opportunity to EVERYONE here to be vaccinated, while at the same time helping people around the world.
  • tmanfivetmanfive Member Posts: 286 Member Member Posts: 286 Member
    I was just saying, I wouldn’t take it until it was approved. I’m not using that as an excuse not to get it. I just won’t.

    If a couple few rounds of e-coil, meningitis, and the many extremely unsafe things I’ve done in my lifetime hasn’t done me in this won’t.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,755 Member Member Posts: 8,755 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    As far as I can tell from reading material I can find, the key differences between emergency use authorization (EUA) and full FDA approval are that:

    * The EUA process can be used only when there's an emergency (there are criteria for this), and when there is no safe/effective alternative already.

    * With an EUA process, the safety/efficacy trials and production can occur in parallel. When the trials reach a point where there's statistically significant evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective, the FDA review of the trials happens, and - if the EUA is approved - the already-manufactured vaccine can be distributed. With a full approval, it's a two stage, non-parallel process. The trials happen first, then then the company submits a Biologics License Application (BLA). The FDA reviews the trial results, and if the BLA is approved based on those results, the company can begin manufacturing the vaccine, with distribution to follow as supply becomes available.

    A very minor and probably irrelevant point, but the kind of thing that nags at my brain -- this implies that EUAs are only for biologics, but they can also be granted for other medical products, such as drugs, devices, little radioactive pellets they insert in your body near a cancer site ...
  • NVintageNVintage Member Posts: 601 Member Member Posts: 601 Member

    ****1:07-1:12****& 5:22+
    edited June 11
Sign In or Register to comment.