Trump and Biden trading insults. Early vaccine adoption could be dangerous.

[Charles-Tim]

I hope we will find this from BBC new interesting

BBC News - Presidential rivals Trump and Biden spar over Covid-19 vaccine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54066852

President Trump again hinted that a vaccine might be available before the November presidential election and accused his Democratic rivals of "reckless anti-vaccine rhetoric". Mr Biden expressed scepticism that Mr Trump would listen to the scientists and implement a transparent process. The US has six million cases of coronavirus, the highest in the world. The virus has also claimed nearly 190,000 lives and fuelled a major recession, double-digit unemployment and sagging consumer confidence.

Last week it emerged the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had urged states to consider "waiving requirements" in order to be able distribute a vaccine by 1 November - two days before the 3 November election.

No vaccine has yet completed clinical trials, leading some scientists to fear politics rather than health and safety is driving the push for a vaccine.

Both Mr Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris have questioned the president's credibility on the issue. Ms Harris said on Sunday she would not trust Mr Trump's word that a vaccine was safe, and Mr Biden also questioned whether the wider public would trust him too. He has said so many things that aren't true I am worrie that if we do have a really good vaccine people are going to be reluctant to take it," Mr Biden said in Pennsylvania on Monday, Labour Day. But he added that: "If I could get a vaccine tomorrow, I'd do it. If it cost me the election I would do it. We need a vaccine and we need it now. We have to listen to the scientists."

Mr Trump, who is trailing in the polls, hit back at a White House news conference, calling Mr Biden "stupid" and Ms Harris "the most liberal person in Congress... not a competent person in my opinion". He said they "would destroy this country and would destroy this economy", and added that they "should immediately apologise for the reckless anti-vaccine rhetoric that they are talking right now". The president, at times asking journalists to take off their face masks when asking questions, again suggested a vaccine could be ready next month. "We're going to have a vaccine very soon, maybe even before a very special date." Mr Trump wants to have 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine in stock by January, and has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the hope of speeding up the development of a vaccine which in ordinary circumstances could take years.

The US top infectious diseases expert, Dr Anthony Fauci, has said that it is unlikely but "not impossible" that a vaccine could win approval in October, and Stephen Hahn of the Food and Drug Administration said it might be "appropriate" to approve a vaccine before clinical trials are complete if the benefits outweighed the risks. But both scientists, the White House and the executives of five top pharmaceutical companies have made clear there will be no compromises on safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.

Three vaccine trials in the US are in their final stages - each involving 30,000 people who will get shots, three weeks apart, and will then be monitored for coronavirus infections and side effects for anywhere from a week to two years, the Associated Press reports.

Hope Trump is not acting to fast about Covid-19 vaccine adoption?

[1714608819]

1714608819

[Gyfts]

Vaccine production is at the hands of researchers, and only researchers with oversight from the FDA. Doesn't matter who's President, they won't over rule the FDA and speed up clinical trials. Everyone should have skepticism but I don't think the U.S. will have a problem with an early vaccine with how strict the guidelines are.

[Coyster]

The thing for me is I think this pandemic came at a bad, very critical and defining year for the U.S, I say so cause of the November presidential election, at the early stage of pandemic maybe or maybe not Trumps government didn't concentrate fully on tackling the virus, and being an election year, tried to gain more trust from the citizens claiming everything was under control, well, till it clearly wasn't.

And now so close to the polls, releasing a vaccine now looks too much of a political move, even if it actually may not be. Imo, due to Trump's controversial behavior many Americans don't trust him and for me the election should come and go, so if a new president is elected or the former one remains, the whole attention would shift to ending this pandemic and restabilizing the U.S economy, for now the attention is clearly divided.

[Dorodha]

It is very difficult to offer accurate information about the vaccine without doctors and scientists scientists say the study found evidence of a rise in white blood cells in humans 14 days after the Oxford vaccine was administered. it's not clear how long these increased antibodies and white blood cells last within the physical body. Because this needs experimental application of the vaccine on a bigger scale trump is usually pushing for a fast release of the vaccine to be elected president.

[squatz1]

Vaccine production is at the hands of researchers, and only researchers with oversight from the FDA. Doesn't matter who's President, they won't over rule the FDA and speed up clinical trials. Everyone should have skepticism but I don't think the U.S. will have a problem with an early vaccine with how strict the guidelines are.

+1 to some of that.

President can put pressure on the FDA, but that pressure can only go so far without setting off any whistle blower stuff. But even with that, the President can promise as much as they want but they can't speed up research and then later they can't just make logistics and distribution work out of thin air.

Making the vaccine is tough, but effectively and efficiently distribution to hundreds of millions of people is VERY HARD as well. Across a place as big and diverse of the US is tough and not a joke at all.

[Juggy777]

Vaccine production is at the hands of researchers, and only researchers with oversight from the FDA. Doesn't matter who's President, they won't over rule the FDA and speed up clinical trials. Everyone should have skepticism but I don't think the U.S. will have a problem with an early vaccine with how strict the guidelines are.

+1 to some of that.

President can put pressure on the FDA, but that pressure can only go so far without setting off any whistle blower stuff. But even with that, the President can promise as much as they want but they can't speed up research and then later they can't just make logistics and distribution work out of thin air.

Making the vaccine is tough, but effectively and efficiently distribution to hundreds of millions of people is VERY HARD as well. Across a place as big and diverse of the US is tough and not a joke at all.

@Gyfts you’re absolutely correct as FDA chief too has also promised that he’ll stick to science only, and he has also assured the staff that they’ll not bow down to political pressure to speed up the delivery of the vaccine.

Furthermore I feel that Trump made this claim only to appease the voters, because even he knows that it isn’t possible to speed up the delivery of the vaccine, and in the end when FDA doesn’t deliver the vaccine by October he’ll blame the FDA and Democrats for not caring about Americans.

Lastly I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses the failed delivery of vaccine to target the Democrats in the run up to the elections, but I sincerely doubt that the voters would fall for his claims that the Democrats blocked the quick delivery of the vaccine.

Sources:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/will-a-vaccine-be-politicized-fda-sets-up-safeguards

https://time.com/5887254/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-political-bet/

[tvbcof]

I hope we will find this from BBC new interesting

BBC News - Presidential rivals Trump and Biden spar over Covid-19 vaccine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54066852

President Trump again hinted that a vaccine might be available before the November presidential election and accused his Democratic rivals of "reckless anti-vaccine rhetoric". Mr Biden expressed scepticism that Mr Trump would listen to the scientists and implement a transparent process. The US has six million cases of coronavirus, the highest in the world. The virus has also claimed nearly 190,000 lives and fuelled a major recession, double-digit unemployment and sagging consumer confidence.

Last week it emerged the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had urged states to consider "waiving requirements" in order to be able distribute a vaccine by 1 November - two days before the 3 November election.

No vaccine has yet completed clinical trials, leading some scientists to fear politics rather than health and safety is driving the push for a vaccine.

Both Mr Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris have questioned the president's credibility on the issue. Ms Harris said on Sunday she would not trust Mr Trump's word that a vaccine was safe, and Mr Biden also questioned whether the wider public would trust him too. He has said so many things that aren't true I am worrie that if we do have a really good vaccine people are going to be reluctant to take it," Mr Biden said in Pennsylvania on Monday, Labour Day. But he added that: "If I could get a vaccine tomorrow, I'd do it. If it cost me the election I would do it. We need a vaccine and we need it now. We have to listen to the scientists."
...

So Darwin's claim will lean toward the Trumptards this time around.  One wonders if it was a fair coin-toss or if there were some 'intelligent design' behind the timings. 

Anyway, it won't be hard to stampede the Left-wing-tard contingent over the vaccine cliff at any time of 'their' choosing so this will likely end up an equal-opportunity depopulation after all.

[squatz1]

Vaccine production is at the hands of researchers, and only researchers with oversight from the FDA. Doesn't matter who's President, they won't over rule the FDA and speed up clinical trials. Everyone should have skepticism but I don't think the U.S. will have a problem with an early vaccine with how strict the guidelines are.

+1 to some of that.

President can put pressure on the FDA, but that pressure can only go so far without setting off any whistle blower stuff. But even with that, the President can promise as much as they want but they can't speed up research and then later they can't just make logistics and distribution work out of thin air.

Making the vaccine is tough, but effectively and efficiently distribution to hundreds of millions of people is VERY HARD as well. Across a place as big and diverse of the US is tough and not a joke at all.

@Gyfts you’re absolutely correct as FDA chief too has also promised that he’ll stick to science only, and he has also assured the staff that they’ll not bow down to political pressure to speed up the delivery of the vaccine.

Furthermore I feel that Trump made this claim only to appease the voters, because even he knows that it isn’t possible to speed up the delivery of the vaccine, and in the end when FDA doesn’t deliver the vaccine by October he’ll blame the FDA and Democrats for not caring about Americans.

Lastly I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses the failed delivery of vaccine to target the Democrats in the run up to the elections, but I sincerely doubt that the voters would fall for his claims that the Democrats blocked the quick delivery of the vaccine.

Sources:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/will-a-vaccine-be-politicized-fda-sets-up-safeguards

https://time.com/5887254/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-political-bet/

See the great thing about democracy is that we don't have to take the FDA chief/commissioner word at face value. WE HAVE OVERSIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY! Congress (from both the House and Senate) can call in the FDA chief and tons of other bureaucrats below him and request information on the approval process. Private citizens can send in Freedom of Information Act requests to get information about it to.

Oversight is one of the great things about this country that keeps people honest. The sad thing is that not many people want to use it, because who wants to use oversight against their own party? Sounds like a sure fire way of not getting reelected when President Trump wont endorse you. By the way that's not me saying that Dems didn't do this with Obama, it's just a sad thing to see as oversight can be so powerful in ensuring that things stay honest, efficient, effective, etc.

So yeah, I'm expecting there to be oversight hearings on the matter that'll help once this vaccine is announced. Could be soon, could be not so soon. We'll see though.

[royalfestus]

America politics was not this bad until the recent Government, it looks crude to see the president  and aspirants trading with ugly words on the media, this are old men at over 70. They are the crop of oldest men that has aspired for such position in America, has they lost their culture and dignity. Russia has disappointed the rest of the world with the vaccine, at the moment it has only been tested with few people and result had been outstanding. I think this should encourage other countries for early approach to control the disease.

[BADecker]

^^^ Then we found out that the American people are worse. How are they worse? They put their trust in American politics.

[noormcs5]

No vaccine has yet completed clinical trials, leading some scientists to fear politics rather than health and safety is driving the push for a vaccine.

I think this is the right approach to keep the people safe from vaccine politics.

[squatz1]

America politics was not this bad until the recent Government, it looks crude to see the president  and aspirants trading with ugly words on the media, this are old men at over 70. They are the crop of oldest men that has aspired for such position in America, has they lost their culture and dignity. Russia has disappointed the rest of the world with the vaccine, at the moment it has only been tested with few people and result had been outstanding. I think this should encourage other countries for early approach to control the disease.

American politics (and politics in general) is always pretty bad. People just remember history as much rosier then it actually was. Take this commencement speech from 1997 regarding that sort of thing, it's pretty interesting:

Accept certain inalienable truths
Prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too, will get old
And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young
Prices were reasonable, politicians were noble
And children respected their elders

While we are totally more partisan now, politics is ALWAYS ugly. Don't forget that.

[franky1]

the vaccine they are creating doesnt include al the adjuncts that antivaxers think vaccines have
most vaccines in the last 20 years havnt included the adjuncts that the anti-vaxers say they did. the antivaxers are talking about vaccines from the 1960's as if they are the same batch.manufacturing process as they are now..
hint. they are not

the current vaccines dont have the adjuncts you antivaxers fear.
the current vaccines are being tested to see how effective they are to actually trigger a antibody response and also see how long that lasts. and also to see if the vaccine is a harmless varient of the virus or if the vaccine itself is a replicatable as the virus, thus just as bad as the virus.

in short its the virus identifier 'spikes' but without the replicating rna inside the nucleus. thus it should be safer by default

trump wants to rush his partnered vaccine because he wants the world to buy his partners vaccine nd not have to buy the UK/russian ones which are showing good promise

russia is going to start phase 3 in october on many thousand doctors/teachers and results will come by the new year
UK has started its phase 3 already and might get results by mid november/december
so US which started its phase 3 late july. hoping to get results by late october and approval star of november

this would have given
by november us: 6 months on a few hundred participants and 3 months of many thousand participants
by december uk: 5 months few hundred .3 months many thousands
by january russia: 6 months few hundred. 3 months many thousands

..
so if america doesnt pass in november america may end up having to use UK's or if UK doesnt pass then it may have to use russia.

lets hope trump thinks about health and safety to not over rule scientific results to just push US version just to not have to buy uk/russian ones lets hope trump actually listens to the science and picks the one that actually works.. however long that might be

[tvbcof]

the vaccine they are creating doesnt include al the adjuncts that antivaxers think vaccines have...

The word is 'adjuvant', dipshit.

The AstraZeneca RNA one which most likely just gave someone a truly horrifying condition known as transverse myelitis containes MERS components which, waddayaknow, just so happen to be good at knocking out interferon which a healthy immune system produces to knock out misbehaving plasmids.  This is necessary to make the vaccines 'work'.  ('Work' happens to mean creating antibodies which don't seem to be a big part of how the human immune system deals with coronavirus, but it's how the drug companies get government contracts.)

It is true that mRNA and DNA vaccines don't necessarily require adjuvants (generalized turbo-charging of the immune system generally which is likely why vaccines create so many auto-immunity diseases) and that's a good thing, but they have a ton of other very frightful theoretical issues.  Some of them of the "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" variety.  And the methods the researchers grasp for to try to deal with the teething issues demonstrate a complete lack of caution.  It's almost as if the researchers really don't expect the vaccine victim to survive anyway, so 'who gives a fuck' if they get life-long conditions, cancer, etc.

[franky1]

the vaccine they are creating doesnt include al the adjuncts that antivaxers think vaccines have...

The word is 'adjuvant', dipshit.

adjuvant in dipshit language = additive to increase effectiveness
adjunct in dipsit language=junk shit they throw in that can cause crappy things

in 'smart brain' language adjunct = a optional/supplement not essential

so i used the correct term for the actual description of the stuff antivaxers think are in vaccines that are not needed/have no positive/essential function

so again. the crappy non essential stuff antivaxers thought were in vaccines based on crappy stuff they found from the 1960's.. is not in the new vaccines in recent decades
adjuncts=crappy non essential stuff

have a nice day

[Gyfts]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/voters-covid-19-vaccine-opinion-poll/

Well, it seems the tables have turned. New polling data shows people are more skeptical about the vaccine with nearly a 3rd of voters who believe that if a vaccine was produced this year, that it would be rushed. Democrats are becoming increasingly skeptical about a vaccine which seems to indicate there's a notion that Trump is personally behind the production of a vaccine. Not only does that not make any sense whatsoever considering the U.S. has some of the most stringent drug production laws in the world with the FDA, but actual scientists are behind the production and they can't just magically speed up clinical trials. Not like Trump is in the lab with a microscope.

Joe Biden has spent weeks on end criticizing a "Trump" vaccine along with Kamala Harris indicating she wouldn't trust a "Trump vaccine". Are democrats going to take any responsibility for pushing anti-vax bullshit? No, I doubt it. 

You're at the point where Democrats are hesitant on lifting lock downs, and then creating an implication that Trump is rushing out a vaccine or that a "Trump vaccine" is not safe so I'm not sure what they're COVID-19 strategy is. Joe Biden hasn't made a distinction of what he would do differently in terms of policy. The only thing he's advocated for is a national mask mandate, which he's been on the fence about seeming to flip on the issue when confronted about the constitutionality. The evidence for masks actually stopping the spread isn't conclusive. So what policy is Biden advocating for that would be different from Trump, yet effective?

If you're going to make this a campaign issue, at least be prepared to lay out public policy that makes sense, not turn a pandemic into political mudslinging.