Boosters…
09-17-2021, 07:11 PM
#81
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Rick
You should read this as well. Two of the 18 authors were the ones who recently resigned from the FDA prior to this booster hearing and "vote".
Philip Krause MD and Marion F. Gruber PhD
It speaks to the reason boosting for the sake of it in the gen pop is a really bad idea.
It's published in the Lancet. Should it get deleted, I have it archived. Posted the link to Lancet here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...046-8/fulltext
You should read this as well. Two of the 18 authors were the ones who recently resigned from the FDA prior to this booster hearing and "vote".
Philip Krause MD and Marion F. Gruber PhD
It speaks to the reason boosting for the sake of it in the gen pop is a really bad idea.
It's published in the Lancet. Should it get deleted, I have it archived. Posted the link to Lancet here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...046-8/fulltext
09-18-2021, 07:55 AM
#82
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,211
Originally Posted by Drum
they just updated the boosters for age 65 and older and those high risk. That add on happened at around 1630. I know cause I'm in the Congress office building right now.
For the majority of us, airline pilots included no. No boosters.
It was one advisor that mentioned "high risk" wanting to define by exposure. Airline not being one of the categories that individual mentioned. So as of today, no boosters for us in this industry. The one advisor was specifically addressing health care workers and those with compromised immune systems.
Did you bother to read the timeline of events in the article I posted?
I guess not.
So. Not fake news Rick. See the timeline.
For the majority of us, airline pilots included no. No boosters.
It was one advisor that mentioned "high risk" wanting to define by exposure. Airline not being one of the categories that individual mentioned. So as of today, no boosters for us in this industry. The one advisor was specifically addressing health care workers and those with compromised immune systems.
Did you bother to read the timeline of events in the article I posted?
I guess not.
So. Not fake news Rick. See the timeline.
09-18-2021, 02:49 PM
#83
Gets Weekdays Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Economy Minus
Posts: 1,053
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Your timeline and your jumping the gun is not my problem. If you're going to post here, get it straight and get the full story.
that is not Fake news. That is exactly what happened…the Biden admin announced a plan for boosters for everyone to start next week, and the FDA shot that down. Of course it is not nuanced and not the whole story, but certainly not fake news.
09-18-2021, 03:35 PM
#84
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,211
Originally Posted by skywatch
All the other stuff aside, he posted “FDA just shot down boosters. Vote was 16-2”.
that is not Fake news. That is exactly what happened…the Biden admin announced a plan for boosters for everyone to start next week, and the FDA shot that down. Of course it is not nuanced and not the whole story, but certainly not fake news.
that is not Fake news. That is exactly what happened…the Biden admin announced a plan for boosters for everyone to start next week, and the FDA shot that down. Of course it is not nuanced and not the whole story, but certainly not fake news.
1. The "FDA" did no such thing, they haven't even made a determination yet but when they eventually do it will in fact have regulatory force (unlike the advisory panel's suggestions).
2. Recommending boosters for some demographics but not others is not "shooting down boosters".
Discussion over.
09-19-2021, 04:03 AM
#85
Gets Weekdays Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Economy Minus
Posts: 1,053
Originally Posted by rickair7777
For our purposes, yes it is.
1. The "FDA" did no such thing, they haven't even made a determination yet but when they eventually do it will in fact have regulatory force (unlike the advisory panel's suggestions).
2. Recommending boosters for some demographics but not others is not "shooting down boosters".
Discussion over.
1. The "FDA" did no such thing, they haven't even made a determination yet but when they eventually do it will in fact have regulatory force (unlike the advisory panel's suggestions).
2. Recommending boosters for some demographics but not others is not "shooting down boosters".
Discussion over.
09-20-2021, 12:31 PM
#86
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
For our purposes, yes it is.
1. The "FDA" did no such thing, they haven't even made a determination yet but when they eventually do it will in fact have regulatory force (unlike the advisory panel's suggestions).
2. Recommending boosters for some demographics but not others is not "shooting down boosters".
Discussion over.
1. The "FDA" did no such thing, they haven't even made a determination yet but when they eventually do it will in fact have regulatory force (unlike the advisory panel's suggestions).
2. Recommending boosters for some demographics but not others is not "shooting down boosters".
Discussion over.
I was typing on my phone. Your editor is aweful on that respect. Probably my silly android too
Anyway 2 votes happened that day.
We were provided transcripts of the 8 hours and 5 minutes of testimony later that day at my Congressman's office.
It went down pretty much like I said. If you have transcripts then maybe you can tell me where I missed that....I'm not seeing it.
When I posted, they had not had the vote for 65+ and at risk. that happened about 2 hours after my 16-2 vote post against ages 16-65.
Of course it's the FDA ADVISORY panel. The FDA administration has been following their guidelines so far. We don't see that changing, but it could.
Here's a pony so you don't get too ****ed at me🦄🦄🦄
09-28-2021, 06:53 AM
#87
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,211
There's a WSJ article on boosters in Israel, explaining their decision (paywall).
Also discusses their rapid response to all thing covid, and in part credits the fact that most of their folks have served or been involved in military/wartime crises so they're good at adapt, improvise, and overcome.
"Those involved in the decision-making process in Israel credit a culture of debate and a willingness to improvise, instilled in part by long careers in the military common among senior health professionals, and tested during national security crises."
Also discusses their rapid response to all thing covid, and in part credits the fact that most of their folks have served or been involved in military/wartime crises so they're good at adapt, improvise, and overcome.
"Those involved in the decision-making process in Israel credit a culture of debate and a willingness to improvise, instilled in part by long careers in the military common among senior health professionals, and tested during national security crises."
09-28-2021, 07:22 AM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Position: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
Posts: 2,120
For whatever reason(s), Israel is an extremely high trust society, with a huge amount of social capital upon which to draw.
Also also off-the-charts nationalistic.
It's uniqueness in those areas make it a poor comparison state for Western nations.
Also also off-the-charts nationalistic.
It's uniqueness in those areas make it a poor comparison state for Western nations.
