COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker (News and Updates) (Poll added)

[elec2020]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/heal ... index.html

Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine protects people for at least six months and likely longer -- even against new variants, researchers reported Thursday. Protection against the Delta variant, now dominant across the US, barely waned, the National Institutes of Health-led team found. The team will continue to look for evidence of protection beyond six months.
"High levels of binding antibodies recognizing all tested variants, including B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), were maintained in all subjects over this time period," immunologist Nicole Doria-Rose and colleagues at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
They tested blood from 24 fully vaccinated volunteers at several time points -- four weeks after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and then at three points after they were considered fully vaccinated with two doses -- up to six months out.

This is what pasts as credible research? A sample size of 24? To say definitively that now Moderna protects against new variants. Wow. How scientific standards have fallen due to the desperation to prove that these vaccines are 'better than slice bread'.

[VexXx Dogg]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/health/moderna-vaccine-protection/index.html

Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine protects people for at least six months and likely longer -- even against new variants, researchers reported Thursday. Protection against the Delta variant, now dominant across the US, barely waned, the National Institutes of Health-led team found. The team will continue to look for evidence of protection beyond six months.
"High levels of binding antibodies recognizing all tested variants, including B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), were maintained in all subjects over this time period," immunologist Nicole Doria-Rose and colleagues at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
They tested blood from 24 fully vaccinated volunteers at several time points -- four weeks after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and then at three points after they were considered fully vaccinated with two doses -- up to six months out.

This is what pasts as credible research? A sample size of 24? To say definitively that now Moderna protects against new variants. Wow. How scientific standards have fallen due to the desperation to prove that these vaccines are 'better than slice bread'.

1. People have to volunteer for the vaccine.
2. people have to volunteer for the study.

2 is a very small subset of 1, and with research you have to use what is available. Can't force participation in the study.
You can mandate a vaccine as a government, but research is independent from state activities and requires adherence to research ethics.
https://www.city.ac.uk/research/support ... principles

[Mmoney607]

How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.

[adnj]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/health/moderna-vaccine-protection/index.html

Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine protects people for at least six months and likely longer -- even against new variants, researchers reported Thursday. Protection against the Delta variant, now dominant across the US, barely waned, the National Institutes of Health-led team found. The team will continue to look for evidence of protection beyond six months.
"High levels of binding antibodies recognizing all tested variants, including B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), were maintained in all subjects over this time period," immunologist Nicole Doria-Rose and colleagues at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
They tested blood from 24 fully vaccinated volunteers at several time points -- four weeks after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and then at three points after they were considered fully vaccinated with two doses -- up to six months out.

This is what pasts as credible research? A sample size of 24? To say definitively that now Moderna protects against new variants. Wow. How scientific standards have fallen due to the desperation to prove that these vaccines are 'better than slice bread'.

Where's my previous post? What is an acceptable sample size? You keep bicthin' and moanin' but not solvin'.

It bothers me that so many scientists are publishing so many papers, they can't get their sample sizes correct and you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD TO SEE A PROBLEM.

I see a problem, too.

[adnj]

How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.

Here's my counter to what you just wrote. Support your claim. But you can't. You don't even know what ineffective means.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.

SARS-CoV-2 is a Novel Coronavirus.
That means it is new and new data is being collected from it that was not previously available.
There are also mutations resulting in numerous variants across the globe.
Each mutation occurs in different populations. Gamma / P1 variant was discovered in Brazil and Delta in India.
Vaccines work to build your immunity by various methods. There are different type of vaccines.
Immunocompromised means having an impaired immune system. That can mean many different things depending on the patient.
Lower efficacy does not mean ineffective.

In a study of more than 50,000 patients in July 2021 in the Mayo Clinic Health System, researchers found the effectiveness of Moderna is still 76% effective against the Delta variant.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-08-09/

[elec2020]

Research is used to inform/support policy decisions. Any policy decision that follows on a quite obviously flawed piece of research is dubious. Why are these studies suddenly receiving recognition when anyone who does empirical research knows that you cannot make reasonable assesments using such a small sample size? I dare you to find any research from a credible journal with a sample size of 24.

[adnj]

Research is used to inform/support policy decisions. Any policy decision that follows on a quite obviously flawed piece of research is dubious. Why are these studies suddenly receiving recognition when anyone who does empirical research knows that you cannot make reasonable assesments using such a small sample size? I dare you to find any research from a credible journal with a sample size of 24.

Where's my previous post? What is an acceptable sample size? You keep bitchin' and moanin' but not solvin'.

It bothers me that so many scientists are publishing so many papers, they can't get their sample sizes correct and you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD TO SEE A PROBLEM.

I see a problem, too.

[Mmoney607]

How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.

SARS-CoV-2 is a Novel Coronavirus.
That means it is new and new data is being collected from it that was not previously available.
There are also mutations resulting in numerous variants across the globe.
Each mutation occurs in different populations. Gamma / P1 variant was discovered in Brazil and Delta in India.
Vaccines work to build your immunity by various methods. There are different type of vaccines.
Immunocompromised means having an impaired immune system. That can mean many different things depending on the patient.
Lower efficacy does not mean ineffective.

In a study of more than 50,000 patients in July 2021 in the Mayo Clinic Health System, researchers found the effectiveness of Moderna is still 76% effective against the Delta variant.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-08-09/

Yes it's novel and we have been able to stratify persons by risk since February 2020. So why the continued one size fits all, Carter Blanche approaches, including vaccination? People with certain risk factors and compromised immune systems were always the persons being seriously affected by covid, it seems that even with vaccines, that remains the case.

It will continue to evolve and selection pressures would cause the variants that can infect the vaccinated to survive. As vaccines are update the virus will just evolve again.

Moderna is only one vaccine. If Pfizer drop to below 50%, what will happen with the others?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.

SARS-CoV-2 is a Novel Coronavirus.
That means it is new and new data is being collected from it that was not previously available.
There are also mutations resulting in numerous variants across the globe.
Each mutation occurs in different populations. Gamma / P1 variant was discovered in Brazil and Delta in India.
Vaccines work to build your immunity by various methods. There are different type of vaccines.
Immunocompromised means having an impaired immune system. That can mean many different things depending on the patient.
Lower efficacy does not mean ineffective.

In a study of more than 50,000 patients in July 2021 in the Mayo Clinic Health System, researchers found the effectiveness of Moderna is still 76% effective against the Delta variant.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-08-09/

Yes it's novel and we have been able to stratify persons by risk since February 2020. So why the continued one size fits all, Carter Blanche approaches, including vaccination? People with certain risk factors and compromised immune systems were always the persons being seriously affected by covid, it seems that even with vaccines, that remains the case.

It will continue to evolve and selection pressures would cause the variants that can infect the vaccinated to survive. As vaccines are update the virus will just evolve again.

Moderna is only one vaccine. If Pfizer drop to below 50%, what will happen with the others?

Hospitalizations and deaths have dropped significantly worldwide with vaccines.
Many factors determine efficacy and efficacy is not the only number that is considered.
New strains will require new research and mitigation.

This video was posted before but take a look at it again

[elec2020]

Research is used to inform/support policy decisions. Any policy decision that follows on a quite obviously flawed piece of research is dubious. Why are these studies suddenly receiving recognition when anyone who does empirical research knows that you cannot make reasonable assesments using such a small sample size? I dare you to find any research from a credible journal with a sample size of 24.

Where's my previous post? What is an acceptable sample size? You keep bicthin' and moanin' but not solvin'.

It bothers me that so many scientists are publishing so many papers, they can't get their sample sizes correct and you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD TO SEE A PROBLEM.

I see a problem, too.

Empirical research involves running econometrics/simulations/statistical models on samples of target populations to identify/measure something of interest. To make sure that your sample best represents that target population you must: (i) ensure that it captures key characteristics and; (ii) have enough observations to deal with issues like; bias; outliers; ambiguous information; duplicate records, etc. while allowing you to accurately capture trends and patterns within the data. In empirical research, there is no consensus on what is the best sample size. The argument is always to get as much observations as possible over a significant period of time due to things like trend, seasonality, structural breaks, etc. The minimum standard is what is known as the 'rule of ten' (in some cases it is even 'the rule of twenty') which calls for ten observations for each variable but that has been criticised for being too relaxed. Anyway, like I said before, if you are ok with using samples that capture 0.001 per cent of the target population then fine.
edit:
you see this research, with 400,000 observations is, imo, way more credible than those posted recently.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 021-08-13/

The study involving Sinopharm's BBIBP-CorV vaccine, which looked at data from February through June at a time when Peru was fighting a brutal second-wave of infections fuelled by the Lambda and Gamma variants of the coronavirus, was conducted on nearly 400,000 frontline health workers in live conditions.

[Dohplaydat]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/health/moderna-vaccine-protection/index.html

Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine protects people for at least six months and likely longer -- even against new variants, researchers reported Thursday. Protection against the Delta variant, now dominant across the US, barely waned, the National Institutes of Health-led team found. The team will continue to look for evidence of protection beyond six months.
"High levels of binding antibodies recognizing all tested variants, including B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), were maintained in all subjects over this time period," immunologist Nicole Doria-Rose and colleagues at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
They tested blood from 24 fully vaccinated volunteers at several time points -- four weeks after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and then at three points after they were considered fully vaccinated with two doses -- up to six months out.

This is what pasts as credible research? A sample size of 24? To say definitively that now Moderna protects against new variants. Wow. How scientific standards have fallen due to the desperation to prove that these vaccines are 'better than slice bread'.

Your grasp of statistics and science is shocking, a small sample size will indicate to all viewing it that it will lack statistical power and confidence behind the data, unless it is overwhelmingly so. Scientists do not draw conclusions from singular studies. They will just state their findings for others to review, use and learn from.

I know the world of science and research is new to you, but in science, in order to draw conclusions, we do meta-analysis and then associate that 'certainty' with a confidence interval or probability distribution.

Reporting that moderna in a study showed better antibody response is just that, no one is definitively saying it's the best. We can and will say that in situation X it performed better under these conditions.

No wonder you're so confused. You really need to back to school man.

[elec2020]

LOL! Ok. In 2025 I will walk out the road and take a poll of 24 people and tell you who you should bet on to win the upcoming GE.

[adnj]

Research is used to inform/support policy decisions. Any policy decision that follows on a quite obviously flawed piece of research is dubious. Why are these studies suddenly receiving recognition when anyone who does empirical research knows that you cannot make reasonable assesments using such a small sample size? I dare you to find any research from a credible journal with a sample size of 24.

Where's my previous post? What is an acceptable sample size? You keep bicthin' and moanin' but not solvin'.

It bothers me that so many scientists are publishing so many papers, they can't get their sample sizes correct and you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD TO SEE A PROBLEM.

I see a problem, too.

Empirical research involves running econometrics/simulations/statistical models on samples of target populations to identify/measure something of interest. To make sure that your sample best represents that target population you must: (i) ensure that it captures key characteristics and; (ii) have enough observations to deal with issues like; bias; outliers; ambiguous information; duplicate records, etc. while allowing you to accurately capture trends and patterns within the data. In empirical research, there is no consensus on what is the best sample size. The argument is always to get as much observations as possible over a significant period of time due to things like trend, seasonality, structural breaks, etc. The minimum standard is what is known as the 'rule of ten' (in some cases it is even 'the rule of twenty') which calls for ten observations for each variable but that has been criticised for being too relaxed. Anyway, like I said before, if you are ok with using samples that capture 0.001 per cent of the target population then fine.
edit:
you see this research, with 400,000 observations is, imo, way more credible than those posted recently.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 021-08-13/

The study involving Sinopharm's BBIBP-CorV vaccine, which looked at data from February through June at a time when Peru was fighting a brutal second-wave of infections fuelled by the Lambda and Gamma variants of the coronavirus, was conducted on nearly 400,000 frontline health workers in live conditions.

Empirical studies are definitive if and only if the undesirable event can be contained to the control group only.

You consistently fail to read the underlying assumptions of the studies and the prevalence of the assumption. You treat well-designed studies as biased when in fact they are testing the hypothesis with only a pass-fail criterion. Does a parachute work, does a boat float, does a vaccine reduce infection rates?

It is on the basis of small population tests that larger, more expensive studies can be justified.

Marketing, engineering, medicine, social sciences, etc., all use the same mechanism to justify funding research.

[elec2020]

have a good day k. tired of talking about this topic.

[Dohplaydat]

have a good day k. tired of talking about things I knew nothing about

Fixed it for you

[elec2020]

whatever makes u feel relevant

[rexsmith]

All those who took the AstraZenica, how long after taking the vaccine you started feeling the side effects, I took mine this morning around 8am and yet to feel any side effect.

[Dohplaydat]

All those who took the AstraZenica, how long after taking the vaccine you started feeling the side effects, I took mine this morning around 8am and yet to feel any side effect.

For me hard to say it was quite gradual but for my sis, cousin and side chick there's all came on about 8-12 hours after the shot. All had fever the same night. For me, it was jus chills, body aches and fatigue for the 2 days after

[RedVEVO]

Pregnant women information :

https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/do ... on-aid.pdf

Half of those for Venezuelans then

And what is the problem ? Chances are you are unvaccinated .

How does it affect YOU personally ?

T&T were given the vaccine FREE you most esteemed idiot

Seems like someone hit a nerve.

I feel he has a pregnant vene and that has him anxious

The whole World is Pregnant with Lives That Matter

Yet now some mentally malnutrition dunce Trini decides that pregnant black women should not be vaccinated ?

The vaccines such as Pfizer will protect the babies just as it will protect the school children here in the USA.

Do you know that women/babies have died in T&T due to T&T anti-vaccination policy for pregnant women .

[shake d livin wake d dead]

All those who took the AstraZenica, how long after taking the vaccine you started feeling the side effects, I took mine this morning around 8am and yet to feel any side effect.

When you looking to sleep tonight

[redmanjp]

J&J maybe on the way soon.

[st7]

All those who took the AstraZenica, how long after taking the vaccine you started feeling the side effects, I took mine this morning around 8am and yet to feel any side effect.

you might start to feel it soon... maybe. if you feel like your body about to approach like it gonna get a fever, pop panadol or paracetamol, and you'll feel fine.

[K74T]

CNC3 reported that the J&J vaccines may arrive in T&T next week.

[DMan7]

We're drowning in vaccines now, no excuses for anyone not to take them with all these various options.

[shake d livin wake d dead]

So here I am at St Augustine Private because chest pains in meh arse...facepalm

Did an ecg, they took 4 blood samples to check for clots etc. Would update accordingly

[gastly369]

So here I am at St Augustine Private because chest pains in meh arse...facepalm

Did an ecg, they took 4 blood samples to check for clots etc. Would update accordingly

When did you get your shot?

[st7]

So here I am at St Augustine Private because chest pains in meh arse...facepalm

Did an ecg, they took 4 blood samples to check for clots etc. Would update accordingly

hope iz nothing bad.

[shake d livin wake d dead]

So here I am at St Augustine Private because chest pains in meh arse...facepalm

Did an ecg, they took 4 blood samples to check for clots etc. Would update accordingly

hope iz nothing bad.

Dr said it has been a trend with the AZ vaccine(usually within the first two weeks) and well this week they had quite visits. My BP read 117/74 and my SPO2 was 99%. Waiting for results.


Ooo A&E FULL right now in this hospital

[st7]

ah ok... i took AZ on tuesday so i'll be on the lookout for any sort of weird pains