Delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine to New Zealand could occur as soon as the first quarter of 2021, Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods says, if encouraging new from Pfizer and BioNTech comes to fruition.
Woods describes news from Pfizer and BioNTech of promising results from COVID-19 clinical trials of a vaccine as encouraging. She notes the New Zealand Government last October signed an agreement to buy 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines, enough for 750,000 people, from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing NZ regulatory approvals.
“As part of the agreement, vaccine delivery to New Zealand could be as early as the first quarter of 2021. Provided the vaccine is approved for use in New Zealand by Medsafe, it is possible that some doses will be available to us in the first part of 2021,” Woods says.
“Medsafe is working to optimise its processes so that any promising vaccines will be fully assessed as quickly as possible against the same criteria used for all other medicines that enter New Zealand. Pfizer and BioNTech will keep us up to date as to when data will be available for Medsafe to begin its evaluation process,” says Woods.
Medsafe is the NZ Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority.
Woods says the Government's COVID-19 Vaccine Strategy Taskforce, led by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, is negotiating with other pharmaceutical companies, with more announcements expected this month.
“The agreement with Pfizer and BioNTech is one of a number of negotiations underway as part of our portfolio approach, and good progress is being made in relation to other purchasing negotiations. The additional agreements will ensure that once the portfolio is completed, we will have sufficient COVID-19 vaccines for the whole population,” says Woods.
The Ministry of Health is developing a sequencing framework to guide the rollout of vaccines as they become available, and preparing for a range of vaccine scenarios. It will finalise the expected vaccination approach once the features of a vaccine and the supply that will initially be available are known. Woods says three broad groups are being considered being those at risk of spreading COVID-19, those at risk of contracting COVID-19, and those at risk of increased morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.
“Ensuring equity of outcomes is a key measure of success, including protection for Māori, Pacific peoples and our most vulnerable population groups, such as older people, disabled people, health workers, essential workers and border staff. The Government has set aside $66.3 million for medical supplies and infrastructure to ensure New Zealand is ready to launch a COVID-19 Immunisation Programme as soon as we have a safe and effective vaccine,” Woods says.
Here's the statement from Pfizer and BioNTech.
PFIZER AND BIONTECH ANNOUNCE VACCINE CANDIDATE AGAINST COVID-19 ACHIEVED SUCCESS IN FIRST INTERIM ANALYSIS FROM PHASE 3 STUDY
Monday, November 09, 2020 - 06:45am
- Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis
- Analysis evaluated 94 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in trial participants
- Study enrolled 43,538 participants, with 42% having diverse backgrounds, and no serious safety concerns have been observed; Safety and additional efficacy data continue to be collected
- Submission for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) planned for soon after the required safety milestone is achieved, which is currently expected to occur in the third week of November
- Clinical trial to continue through to final analysis at 164 confirmed cases in order to collect further data and characterize the vaccine candidate’s performance against other study endpoints
NEW YORK & MAINZ, GERMANY--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced their mRNA-based vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, against SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated evidence of efficacy against COVID-19 in participants without prior evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on the first interim efficacy analysis conducted on November 8, 2020 by an external, independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) from the Phase 3 clinical study.
This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201109005539/en/
“Today is a great day for science and humanity. The first set of results from our Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trial provides the initial evidence of our vaccine’s ability to prevent COVID-19,” said Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and CEO. “We are reaching this critical milestone in our vaccine development program at a time when the world needs it most with infection rates setting new records, hospitals nearing over-capacity and economies struggling to reopen. With today’s news, we are a significant step closer to providing people around the world with a much-needed breakthrough to help bring an end to this global health crisis. We look forward to sharing additional efficacy and safety data generated from thousands of participants in the coming weeks.”After discussion with the FDA, the companies recently elected to drop the 32-case interim analysis and conduct the first interim analysis at a minimum of 62 cases. Upon the conclusion of those discussions, the evaluable case count reached 94 and the DMC performed its first analysis on all cases. The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a 2-dose schedule. As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary. The DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns and recommends that the study continue to collect additional safety and efficacy data as planned. The data will be discussed with regulatory authorities worldwide.“I want to thank the thousands of people who volunteered to participate in the clinical trial, our academic collaborators and investigators at the study sites, and our colleagues and collaborators around the world who are dedicating their time to this crucial endeavor,” added Bourla. “We could not have come this far without the tremendous commitment of everyone involved.”
“The first interim analysis of our global Phase 3 study provides evidence that a vaccine may effectively prevent COVID-19. This is a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort,” said Prof. Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder and CEO. “When we embarked on this journey 10 months ago this is what we aspired to achieve. Especially today, while we are all in the midst of a second wave and many of us in lockdown, we appreciate even more how important this milestone is on our path towards ending this pandemic and for all of us to regain a sense of normality. We will continue to collect further data as the trial continues to enroll for a final analysis planned when a total of 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to make this important achievement possible.”
The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date, 38,955 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 8, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds. The trial is continuing to enroll and is expected to continue through the final analysis when a total of 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. The study also will evaluate the potential for the vaccine candidate to provide protection against COVID-19 in those who have had prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, as well as vaccine prevention against severe COVID-19 disease. In addition to the primary efficacy endpoints evaluating confirmed COVID-19 cases accruing from 7 days after the second dose, the final analysis now will include, with the approval of the FDA, new secondary endpoints evaluating efficacy based on cases accruing 14 days after the second dose as well. The companies believe that the addition of these secondary endpoints will help align data across all COVID-19 vaccine studies and allow for cross-trial learnings and comparisons between these novel vaccine platforms. The companies have posted an updated version of the study protocol at https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus.
Pfizer and BioNTech are continuing to accumulate safety data and currently estimate that a median of two months of safety data following the second (and final) dose of the vaccine candidate – the amount of safety data specified by the FDA in its guidance for potential Emergency Use Authorization – will be available by the third week of November. Additionally, participants will continue to be monitored for long-term protection and safety for an additional two years after their second dose.
Along with the efficacy data generated from the clinical trial, Pfizer and BioNTech are working to prepare the necessary safety and manufacturing data to submit to the FDA to demonstrate the safety and quality of the vaccine product produced.
Based on current projections we expect to produce globally up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021.
Pfizer and BioNTech plan to submit data from the full Phase 3 trial for scientific peer-review publication.
95 Comments
Very promising, hopefully the health department is ready to hit the ground running with vaccinating people. We don't want to be waiting months while they fumble about getting organised.
I'd suggest some sort of national/international award is warranted for the speed of vaccine development by those team(s) involved.
Megan ducking for cover.....
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/430230/man-in-miq-blown-away-seeing…
Its a breakout once a fortnight, set your clock by it.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/430205/nurses-working-on-covid-19-f…
Not all nurses are equal,
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/300154216/covid19-pm-defends-miq-booking…
- the PM being modest, its all her work, not a force of nature. The PM is stopping New Zealanders from entering New Zealand.
Whenever there is a breakout, there's always talk of a travel bubble. I can't understand how this keeps working. Last time it was Australia, now it's talk of the Cooks again. It's the most patently absurd misdirection from a government who acted like competent management of Covid19 was the only thing that mattered during the election, but this keeps happening and the 'look the other way' is always the same?
RE: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/430230/man-in-miq-blown-away-seeing…
Am seeing masks washing down rivers into the sea in Bali. I chased one but it got in the surf. Great Reset & Green New Deal, which incorporate anti-social distancing & mask wearing indefinitely acca WEF & Klaus Schwab, doesn’t look good for the oceans. Link
if.......
Gareth you are one of the best investigative journalists in the country, it would be great if you would scratch a bit deeper. Use Kendrick as a guide to delve what is actually been tested, I like him also because he is an investigator. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/10/10/a-sars-cov2-vaccine-dont-hold-…
I'm held the view from early on that the whole Covid thing is a mass propaganda campaign, but I've been asking myself why? My best guess is that big pharmaceutical companies are well entrenched in the Zombie Corporate world, and a vaccine is their last gasp attempt at solvency. So while doing your investigating a look into their financials wouldn't go astray. Big pharma has the motivation and the leverage to hold us all to ransom.
Yeah it has to be a conspiracy. No matter what the facts say. Now if we could just figure out who is behind it and why... Obviously ALL the world governments, and ALL the health experts and staff are all controlled by a few nasty pharmaceutical company execs who want more money for some reason. No credible government or health whistle blowers have popped up with evidence of this yet, probably scared of big pharma's ties to the criminal underworld.
Or it is just a nasty disease that quite obviously is killing many and causing long term harm to many more, that humanity would really like to get rid of so we can all go back to normal.
IMO it's all backed by Bill Gates who is in cahoots with the Illuminati who utilize HAARP to control the weather which forced people indoors so they use their cellphone more which created the need for 5G which actually sucks oxygen out of the air to damage our lungs which helps the big pharma who have been creating vaccines to cause autism through interactions with fluoride and then they've added nano transmitters in the vaccines so the UN (which is funded by Bill Gates ) can implement agenda 21 which will help the New World Order take over all governments and then they'll release chemtrails that will be used to mind control us so that we can all become socialist and reduce corporate profits which will damage the freemarket and then we'll all be sterilized and kept in camps and this was why JFK was assassinated because he figured it all out and this led to NWO faking the moon landing and later fabricating 9/11 to distract people from the fact the 1080 is poisoning our brains to make us more compliant with the government so that the deep state can rule.
See I have figured it all out too! Wake up sheeples!!11!1!
For all the ignorant people who still think this coronavirus is the most deadly thing since the plague, have a look at the graphs here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2
As you can see, it's dangerous for elderly people but the risks for anyone under 50 are tiny, and almost non-existent for children. These graphs are based on the most rigorous peer-reviewed antibody studies. But even these figures are pessimistic because antibodies are only part of the story - the latest T-cell studies show strong cross-immunity from SARS and the four common existing coronaviruses, and that those infected by COVID-19 show enduring immunity six months later. All great news.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4257
The WHO estimates at least 10% of the world has already been infected, and this is likely to be a conservative estimate. If you are scared by that, you are still not thinking - it means that it's not nearly as dangerous as everyone has been terrorised into thinking by sensationalist media and panicking governments.
Unfortunately panic does not make for good decisions, and governments worldwide are guilty of making the death toll far higher than it might have been by sending elderly people infected with the virus back into rest homes, where they infected all the other people who are actually vulnerable to the disease (median age of those who have died from coronavirus ranges from about 80-85).
Plain old science, no need for any conspiracy theories. The infantile ridicule and ad-hominem nature of some of the comments in this thread are absolutely cringeworthy.
For all the ignorant people who still think this coronavirus is the most deadly thing since the plague
No one is is making this claim, are you unable to read Ginger's thorough post?
The issue has always been:
1) How the health system will hold up with the increase in demand (here's a hint: badly).
2) Are there any potential unforeseen long-term sequelae.
I don't know how many times this has to be repeated before it gets in to some people's head...
From my long ass post below;
in 1967 about 100,000 Americans died from flu, 1957 116,000 died and during the Spanish flu of 1918 675,000 died. So far 244,322 have died from Covid19 AND THAT IS BEFORE THE MAJOR RESURGENCE THAT HAS JUST STARTED OVER THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER. Healthcare services have progressed significantly since 1967, let alone 1918 but what we do know, is that the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher without respiratory support and other treatments, so it's genuinely impossible to compare apples with apples, but there has been no recent flu season on record with anything like this death toll
NB I copied and pasted this from my own post (which I had actually just spent 20mins typing). Apparently that is some kind of alt-right slur these day. LOLZ
I really have to get back to some work but I shall look forward to coming back later and seeing the new fresh ways my comments are twisted so that I am presented as a MSM addicted dullard sheeple incapable of seeing the David Icke truth of it all.
PS. Sorry this doesn't fit your narratives but i read Douglas Murray and agree with much (but not all) of what he says. That still doesn't make the alt-right politicisation of the virus helpful.
Ha. I stopped commenting on the virus here for months because it was just futile. It almost certainly still is but i'm super upset about it at the moment because of the cases and deaths going up and knowing I probably won't be able to see my family and friends in the UK for ages.
I have actually been courted by "big pharma", when I used to work for the NHS. It happens all the time in the UK, they take us all out for lunches, offer to pay for stuff, host "training events" which is biased towards the research that is supporting their new medication etc. We all knew about it. On my clinic we all just used to take the free stuff and ignore them. But yeah, I have more experience of "big pharma" than most of the schmucks here and I genuinely know it to be a problem, FIRST HAND but that doesn't matter. They still want to paint me as MSM sheeple. They can't seem to separate fact from fiction. Yes there is corruption with big pharma, but that doesn't mean that everything is corrupted by big pharma or that the virus is a big pharma conspiracy. There has always been corruption, it's a constant battle.
It's so frickin tedious.
Back in the 90s, my first job was with autism and challenging behaviour. Back then, we didn't understand or even have good research on autism, so many of us genuinely considered that it could have been caused by vaccines. You know, like normal, objective, rational clinicians who aren't biased one way or another. I had patients, whose parents were adamant that their symptoms of autism occurred after the MMR. I even delayed my first child having the MMR and paid privately for them to have those vaccines separately (rather than the combined MMR) just to be safe. Because back then, there just wasn't the research to say one way or another.
Now however, there is a veritable butt tonne of evidence on autism and none of it is related to the MMR.
By nature, I am skeptical and will assess the best available evidence. I will err on the side of caution if there is insufficient evidence. It's kind of part of my professional code of conduct. But nope. I'm just MSM sheeple. Probably an elite, new world order pedo too.
You sound pretty sensible. It's frustrating reading all the misinformation day after day. It seems like anti-intellectualism has really ramped up in the last few years and now with social media and the associated algorithms, it's seems like more and more idiots are being created (or maybe they were always there but with no soapbox?).
I've heard the extent of 'big pharma' in NZ is shouting a morning tea. A rep may try and talk about new drugs but given NZ has Pharmac, there's little incentive for people to use them anyway. The US is probably rife with it but they're verging on lunatics and have a non-funded system so it's apples and oranges.
I have a good few ex-colleagues currently employed in the NZ health service and most of them don't even have time for the free "morning tea". The most we used to get was a free pen, shitty buffet and sometimes a little elasticated clip or chain thing that you could attach your keys, ID card or hand santiser to! It was only when I became "important" that fancier perks were offered, but even then, I never saw it influence a single colleague.
I predominantly watched Fox news for US election coverage (because I knew what the center and left wing media would say but have become increasingly shocked by what I hear on Fox so I like to keep appraised and avoid echo chambers) anyway, I couldn't believe how slick and manipulative their pharmaceutical adverts were. And they are constant. Every ad break is at least one pharmaceutical. That kind of thing just doesn't happen in the UK and NZ. And rightly so.
There has always been misinformation and anti-intellectualism. And equally, there have always been intellectuals trying to dismiss and ridicule the experiences of the less intellectual. My opinion is that it has all simply been amplified and exaggerated by social and internet media. And it isn't just a right wing problem, I hear some far fetched crap on the far-left too. I don't have time for political positions on data. I just try and make a balanced assessment of the data with as little bias as I can muster.
There has and probably always will be snake oil salesmen. Some will be Presidents and Prime ministers on the left and the right, some will be highly influential media personalities and journalists. A few even sneak there way into the sciences (but its far less common). It only becomes really nasty if enough people are dissatisfied in general and then they are looking for change and vulnerable to those selling "the solution".
The actual numbers of deaths is perhaps not the best comparator, as the world population is vastly different, even from 1957/1968, especially from 1918. As I recall when I last ran stats on the per capita deaths comparisons, Covid was running at less than 20% of the 1957/1968 pandemics, on current population comparator basis.
Also I assume your 675k deaths for 1918 comes from CDC (link below) for US alone. The US was less affected than many countries in 1918, and that same CDC link puts global deaths at 50m. By today's population, that's equivalent to about 216 million deaths today, compared with Covid's current nearly 1.3 million. (The 1918 pandemic death figure is uncertain. Some put it at 'only' 20m - thus 'only' 86 million by today's population equivalent). That does not minimise Covid. It is serious, of course. But, by population comparators, and its comparative impact on the global population, Covid is (thankfully) nothing like 1918 in terms of scale. Nor even 1957/1968.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
Obviously, I am well aware of that, which is why I made the comment about not being able to compare apples with apples to either the Spanish Flu or 50s and 60s. As per my comment though, we can compare to the more recent flu deaths, which are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than Covid deaths (so far). In America it varies more around 25000-45000 per year. Covid deaths are likely to at least double this year (so 2-3million) , unless something changes drastically.
Indeed, that is interesting/curious, and fewer flu deaths than normal, and fall rather than rise in winter months in NZ, and maybe northern hemisphere too in coming months despite expecting the usual rise (as we did). Easy to posit some possibilities (even the prospect Covid vs Flu miscounted for some) but may take a while for decent research to explain why.
Around June this year it became obvious that COVID wasn't the next Spanish Flu that everyone (including me) thought it was. Now it looks like deaths in hospitalised patients are going down from 27% to ~2% for whatever reason. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/covid-19-becoming-less-de… (sorry cant find the primary ref)
Could be because of mutations, for example ORF8, becoming more prevalent, but also could be something else.https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.25.267328v1
In terms of infection control, great data comes from Sweden, who despite having done very little, are having a case-demic with very few deaths, even during the second wave
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
So is locking down the New Zealand economy over the less dangerous summer months the right thing to do? Given the data. Given that the northern hemisphere didn't even do that. Is that drastic action commensurate with the risk and the cost? In my opinion the answer is a resounding NO. We're talking about a virus which is not even 1 order of magnitude more dangerous than the flu, and in terms of symptoms for most people having COVID19 would be preferable to having the flu.
Ok I'm calling bullshit on this. ^^^ We're not Sweden. We're not even Britain. We had 3 per 100,000 ICU beds when this pandemic kicked off. A few more have been made available since, but enough to withstand the spread of this virus? No way. Our public health system was tottering before covid. Without a lockdown it would have collapsed thanks to years of underfunding. We dodged a bullet.
My best guess is that big pharmaceutical companies are well entrenched in the Zombie Corporate world, and a vaccine is their last gasp attempt at solvency.
I don't think pharmaceutical companies need help with profit.
Here is the big companies profit from 2018 (pre-covid19):
Pfizer $11.1 billion
Merck $6.22 billion
Johnson & Johnson $15.3 billion
Sanofi $4.9 billion
Bristol-Meyers $4.9 billion
AbbVie $5.7 billion
AstraZeneca $2.2 billion
Do they really look like an industry that were struggling and had to start a conspiracy (in conjunction with every single country and almost every single health professional in the world)? I highly doubt it.
You really can't move past the virus denial and conspiracy theories can you?
* Sweden doesn't have herd immunity
* No one has herd immunity
* Immunity might not even last all that long. We don't know yet. We never knew. We can't know yet, because it requires learning about the virus over time. That isn't big pharma conspiracy, it's true of any new illness. It's why science suggests early caution in response to new pathogens.
* Infection and death rates are both climbing rapidly again. We can handle that up to a point, but then after that point and when healthcare systems become overwhelmed lots more people will die. It's a balancing act between the negative effects of restrictions (of which there are many) and trying to keep the virus curve below the manageable level. Not just Covid patients, but anyone who needs a functional healthcare system. IT'S NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN JUST ABOUT AVOIDING COVID DEATHS BUT AVOIDING THE BREAKDOWN OF HEALTHCARE SERVICES FOR EVERYONE WHO NEEDS A FUNCTIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
* Yes lockdowns have negative impacts. Including increases in domestic abuse, child abuse, mental illness and reduced early diagnosis or early intervention in otherwise preventable or treatable illness. There are huge opportunity costs. That is not is dispute. It never has been, not by one country in the world. Plenty of governments are messing up their responses. Human beings make mistakes and have flaws. But by all means, lets keep ranting like somehow there are perfect human beings out there and we just need to find them and appoint them to government.
*Further complicating the government response policies, are that no one knows whether the increased anxiety and tensions of living through a pandemic would have just done led to many of these other negative outcomes anyway. Certainly this is what the pages of history tell us. Either way, virus deniers have set up a strawman argument because countries that reacted quickly and with rigorous virus containment responses have much lower rates of all these other negative side effects.
*Yes the pandemic has decreased responses and treatment to non-Covid related health issues (cancer etc) but again, that's just the devastating reality of a pandemic where the world was discovered to be wholly unprepared. Some countries are better, some worse, but universally, there are also people who are scared of accessing health care because of the virus, so not seeing their health practitioners by choice. Had the pandemic not been so badly managed, become so political and divisive, had people just acted responsibly in the beginning, perhaps this wouldn't have happened. I personally blame Trump and Trumpers massively for this as they have been the main group propelling this narrative. The evidence strongly supports this because all the countries that did react early and with effective restrictions and managed to keep their outbreaks under control, have had and managed to sustain much more functional health care systems for non-Covid treatments and diagnostics throughout the pandemic (as compared to all the countries that didn't contain well). AND their citizens have continued a more normal level of independently initiated contact with healthcare providers. You can puff and bluster all you want but those are the facts as they currently stand.
*if there is some big pharma conspiracy around coronaviruses, why didn't this happen with SARS1? Why didn't the world (including MSM if that is who you blame although let's face it Trumpers blame MSM for everything) respond the same way? Why did all the pharmaceutical companies drop their research into coronavirus vaccines back then if they were planning to hatch a big scheme to later profit from a global pandemic? Why, despite several papers calling for continued research into SARS-related vaccines, did they not bother? Hmmmm. Could it be that SAR1 wasn't all that contagious and was contained relatively quickly so that big pharma saw no profit in it? Big Pharma are driven by profit but even the countries with State funded research teams dropped SARS research because there were other issues perceived as a higher priority. Could it be that the world has reacted strongly to SARS2 because over a million people have died in under a year and that death toll is likely to be more like 3 million by March even with subsequent lockdowns??? Could it be that the virus is actually extremely dangerous and it was just correct to be concerned? Or even if it had transpired not to be, the fact that it could have been, warranted such concern? When was the last time that over a million people died in under a year with an infectious respiratory disease but where the potential was and remains for many millions more?... and that is without considering the additional burden of covid-related deaths and the covid-burden related deaths. What would the death rate be now, without lockdowns or restrictions you reckon? If we just let healthcare services become overwhelmed? If we all became rapid hoo yah freeeeeedom y'all loving Trumpers and refused to wear masks or abide by any restrictions at all on a global scale, over this past year. What would the death rates have been then?
*Remember when all you virus deniers and minimisers posted that this was just a bit worse than flu and that was your big, profound argument? Let's revisit that shall we? So in 1967 about 100,000 Americans died from flu, 1957 116,000 died and during the Spanish flu of 1918 675,000 died. So far 244,322 have died from Covid19 AND THAT IS BEFORE THE MAJOR RESURGENCE THAT HAS JUST STARTED OVER THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER. Healthcare services have progressed significantly since 1967, let alone 1918 but what we do know, is that the death rate from Cobvid-19 is much higher without respiratory support and other treatments, so it's genuinely impossible to compare apples with apples, but there has been no recent flu season on record with anything like this death toll, let alone the potential death toll if we had all followed the nonsense misinformation of Trumpers.
*Dr Kendrick is a skeptic. I actually agree with him on some aspects of his investigation into Statins and chloresterol. I also agree that we need skeptics to question everything about how we are responding to the virus. We need to always questions everything. Especially governments who experience heavy lobbying pressure from big pharma. But that doesn't mean Dr Kendrick is right about the virus on all fronts. And it doesn't make your constant spread of misinformation any less irresponsible.
*so far NONE OF YOUR THEORIES ABOUT THE VIRUS HAVE BEEN PROVEN CORRECT... seriously. None of you virus deniers/minimisers have a shred of credibility and yet you keep clinging to your narrative. Why? Could it be you are irrationally wedded to your belief and even in the face of the facts, cannot find a way back to rationality?
* if the world has responded early and responsibly to the virus where would we all be now? The economic impact of the substantial second wave this winter is likely to be devastating economically, especially for people in poorer countries. Virus denial, especially by the Trump administration and alt right movement has undermined what would have potentially been early, appropriate responses to the virus and the effect of America's global leadership, in setting the tone of early, cautious policies. Yes, there are many criticisms to be levelled at the WHO, but America could have influenced and challenged that rather than just making it political and abandoning their position of responsibility.
I try to level head and balanced. I try to be objective and keep my emotions in check but virus deniers and their spread of misinformation, has likely been directly responsible for actual deaths, all the additional non-covid related ramifications AS WELL AS potentially prolonging the length of the pandemic. It's so tragic.
I said right at the beginning of this pandemic that a pinch of prevention was better than a pound of cure. I have yet to be proven wrong.
Nice cut and paste I am guessing? So you discredit yourself at the outset with an ad hominum attack, which automatically puts you in the too stupid to argue with camp (do you recally when I gave advice on how to fight the virus through lifestyle choices?) Then you finish with something I suspect is mind numbingly stupid. "I said right at the beginning of this pandemic that a pinch of prevention was better than a pound of cure. I have yet to be proven wrong." Have you counted the cost of lockdown yet? Has anyone? Or is this just nice stories you like to tell yourself?
What I'm seeing in this is the psychology of ego. People so blinded by their professionalism they simply can't see, totally captured by their own ego and the delusion of a rational voice. Not just here of course, I've got closer friends so inclined. Friends that think they can do science.
How about you and Plutocracy make some predictions? Mine is that we'll be held hostage by Covid for years to come. There won't be a vaccine that delivers any advantage over not having one (there will be a vaccine alright, too much money to be made - always follow the money). That the temporary NZ law giving powers over civil rights will remain in play for years. We've got two key states of dysfunction in the world, Covid and the US election. Lots of lesser ones. My prediction is that more will be added without those ones going away. But continue in your this neat little utopia that you desire, everything fitting into nice clean boxes, that you can control the world, and everything gets back to normal.
If you understand that the world financial system is a fraud, but that medicine isn't somehow within its clutches, as is main stream media, they there is no consistency in your thinking.
"But continue in your this neat little utopia that you desire, everything fitting into nice clean boxes, that you can control the world, and everything gets back to normal."
You're literally doing the same thing but your box has the added benefit of a big sexy globalist 1984 style operation to impose governmental control or generate money from people getting sick (people dying generally isn't profitable btw), when the far easier explanation is that a bunch of establishment departments and institutions have gotten so fat and lazy that they can't respond to a quickly evolving situation because they're not capable of the thing we think we're paying them to do - when that isn't what they do at all. They write reports about other reports that sit on someone else's desk until it sits on the desk for too long and then we have an inquiry about the shape of the desk it sat on.
If you look at the Covid19 response through the lens of a bunch of bureaucratic systems trying to respond to an actual, unfolding real world issue that doesn't knock off at 4pm on Friday for drinks - then the fact the response is disjointed and being flailing at times makes far more sense. Those systems aren't designed to respond to the thing we're dealing with. There's no vast conspiracy - there's just disjointed systems, a bit of corruption for good measure and a yawning chasm between what the public understands governments are meant to do and what governments can actually do.
But again, it's not as sexy as some sort of power-grabbing cabal, so no one considers it.
Predictions are a fools game.
I agree with a lot of your views Scarfie (monetary system being fubar, interest rates trending zero, resource constraints / LTG coming to play) but I genuinely don't think COVID19 is a conspiracy, or an over-reaction. I think our reaction to COVID19 was appropriate, it's a bastard of a virus and it has the capacity to overwhelm our health system if left unchecked. I just don't think there's any sinister motive or 'man behind the curtain' on this one sorry.
Cut and paste? I legit frequently write ridiculously long ass posts. If I post at all. Which I often don't for long periods of time.
I stand by ad hominim attacks. I am deliberately and actively choosing to intellectually attack you and all other virus deniers and minimisers. I explain why above. I consider you culpable.
My comment was not just towards you directly, but all the virus deniers/minimisers here.
I think maybe you struggle with complexity because you are so wedded to your narrative. I have never, ever suggested that anything, on any topic is in a neat box. It's actually just patently ridiculous for you to throw that at me as your response. If anything I over analyse and overthink. I'm not neat box girl. You just want me to be so it makes it easier for you to dismiss my critique.
Sure, I have an ego. We all do. Unless you think that you are some kind of anomalous human being that doesn't? Cause i've seen no evidence of ego dissolution from you, or your comments. It could also be, that maybe I am actually deeply upset that there is a pandemic, that more people are dying and suffering in the pandemic than should have, that it could have been less harmful and devastating and that I blame you and other virus deniers for propelling a narrative that has led to a worse pandemic response?
Many people have attempted to count the cost of lockdowns. I have posted some research on it here over the months. But, it's still too early to have good data too. Did i say there was no cost to lockdowns? Have I ever said that? I'm pretty sure i just wrote several paragraphs about the negative impact of lockdowns above. I'm pretty sure i have commented several times here acknowledging that there are negative impacts of lockdowns and have never dismissed that. I'm pretty sure that I have always maintained that lockdowns should only be used in very specific scenarios. I still think that in order to prevent an overwhelmed healthcare system, lockdown will still be a better strategy. I'm pretty sure I have said that one short, sharp lockdown early on would have been the best response but that after that first lockdown we needed to use more nuanced approaches, including more targeted policies for the most vulnerable (go back through the messages i said this very early on in the pandemic). And as far as i'm concerned, that has turned out to be correct. The countries that followed that response are in a significantly better position.
I'm not writing this for you. I am writing this, for those who might read your dangerous nonsense and who can then read the alternative. I genuinely don't believe that I can change your mind.
And yes I agree that we will have problems with getting back our civil liberties after the pandemic is over. We might have to fight for them after this is all over. The two issues aren't mutually exclusive. During the World Wars everyone lost massive civil liberties. Governments became more authoritarian. I think we can argue that in times of crisis, stronger more autocratic styles of leadership are helpful and that sacrificing civil liberties in the short term is sometimes what is required in a major, global crisis. But I can see that you simply want to dismiss me as a MSM supping sheeple and that you are the only one who can really understand the problems the pandemic poses?
I think you are extremely silly for boasting about making predictions. Predictions are a fools games. I can see several different outcomes playing out. I like to prepare for as many future scenarios as possible.
You don't have the capacity to intellectually attack me. You are just flailing in the breeze. I always hold the view that people turn to fallacies because they don't have a legitimate argument, and this is the case here. You actually have no moral foundation for your position, but still maintain you do. Again professional bias you can't shake, you feel like you need to manage things. I note that there are three attacks to my post, and all three use fallacies.
Prediction is everything. If you can't state an outcome to your actions what the hell do you think you are doing? Just highlights again the lack of a moral foundation. One of many that speak for the sake of making noise.
Claptrap about civil liberties, in your delusional world you are treating them as consequentialist when they are deontological. They aren't. It is the failing of your medical background again.
I have no interest in winning. I just want the pandemic to be over as quickly as possible. If I lose because I was wrong, I don't care, I would love to be wrong in that instance. If Scarfie needs to feel like the big man, with the best intellectual chops, he is welcome.
My stance is that the virus deniers and minimisers are contributing to a worse pandemic, because they are undermining the kind of combined community effort required for a more optimal and successful pandemic response. It's more of a utilitarian stance, so I am certainly demonstrating that bias. I'm not a hardcore utilitarian by any means but it's certainly a major consideration for governments and health professionals in setting health policy. And needs to be balanced with the degree of individual harm or suffering, loss of choice of liberty and the impact of those factors on each other. In a major crisis, like a war or a pandemic, it does often move more towards utiliitarianism.
Perhaps Scarfie thinks dropping in deontology wins an argument but ethicist's aren't all exclusive Kant fanboi's and they don't and can't agree on a particular deontological argument because there is subjective value system underpinning what we agree is moral, right or wrong etc. And of course this also changes and varies across cultures.
Unsurprisingly, most ethics is a little more nuanced and health policy is built on a basis of multiple ethical critiques. A little bit from column A. A little bit from Column B etc. And that way, we avoid becoming fundamentalists. I have no more time for "liberty" fundamentalist's, than I do for any other fundamentalists. I don't think the freedom to own a gun is worth all the gun deaths for example. So i definitely have that bias in some areas but it's not a hard and fast rule for me. It really depends on the individual situation.
For example, if freedom is the ultimate and highest moral stance and if we always thought that freedom was more important than the potential harm/danger one person poses to others, then we would never put anyone in prison or a mental health facility.
There is always a constant tension and state of flux between an individuals will and our nature as a social, collaborative species. Interestingly, evolutionary psychology is shedding light on this issue into our distance past, where it appears we have actually evolved with this tension. For example, we have aspects of our DNA that appear to have evolved for both "pair-bonding" *and* "tournament" sexual strategies. Tournament species are highly patriarchal, aggressive and hierarchical group sexual behaviours, but pair bonding strategies are evolved more towards collaboration and compromise. Unsurprisingly, if I had the option, I would always choose to be a Bonobo, over a Chimp. I'm a lovr, not a fighter hahah.
scarfie,
let me try and make some sense of this. So, Covid is a fabricated story from big pharma, who apparently, are almost insolvent? Why are they insolvent? have you seen any of their financial statements? If what you are saying is true, then they must have been manipulating them for many years, as they appear to be in excellent financial health.
If Covid is made up, what has killed all these people, or they they a figment of our imagination too? Your 'theory' looks a little shaky to me and I would like to see you produce some actual evidence or shut up and stop promoting ludicrous conspiracy theories.
No that is not what I am saying. You are picking parts of what I say, but miss the general thrust. But that is the way fallacy works, and those who think they know best how to manage Covid are full of that.
It is like me saying you are denying zombie companies are a thing. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zombies.asp
As interesting as the vaccine news is how it's reported. Most proclaim the headline-grabbing bits without the pesky reality in the detail, eg
Duncan Garner gushes that "the interim results from Pfzier and BioNTech's large scale trials involving 43,000 people show their vaccine is 90 percent effective"
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/11/duncan-garner-pfizer…
Putting 90% and 43,000 in the same sentence makes it sound impressive, yet elsewhere it's reported that the 90% rate applies to just 94 participants, eg:
"The US pharmaceutical giant said the interim analysis was conducted after 94 participants in the trial developed Covid-19, examining how many of them had received the vaccine versus a placebo. The company did not break down exactly how many of those who fell ill received the vaccine. Still, over 90 per cent effectiveness implies that no more than 8 of the 94 people who caught Covid-19 had been given the vaccine.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/430225/covid-19-pfizer-says-virus-vacc…
Fair call :-) Best I not mention then that Bloomberg's now openly addressing systemic risks talked about here (but not elsewhere in NZ media that often seems to repeat official statements with a few quotes rather than analysis, and fixated on housing rather than productive economic activity, plus a resolute focus on immediacy rather than consequences, until they arrive, 'unexpected'): "Japanification Stalks New Zealand Debt That’s 37% Owned by RBNZ" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/japanification-stalk…
I think the 94 participants are the once who the vaccine did not work for. As they are going to carry on till they have 164 who catch the disease. So they probably gave the vaccine to 1034 people so far, and then exposed them to the disease, of which 94 caught it.
I believe the rest of the 42000 people are simply given the vaccine to test for ill effects of the vaccine. Purposely infecting people is quite a serious thing, and they don't want to do it if they don't have to.
FYI they're not infecting people. They're following two large groups (one given placebo and one the vaccine) and comparing covid-19 infection rates between the groups. They're letting infections happen through natural exposure.
So far there have been 94 cases of covid-19 among the total 43,538 participants in the study. They haven't indicated exact numbers of how many of those cases were in the placebo group or among those that got the vaccine. However, they said the split of cases between the groups suggests that the vaccine was more than 90% effective at preventing disease (so you can infer that ~9 people vaccinated becoming infected vs ~85 unvaccinated becoming infected).
The real deal will be the peer-reviewed paper. In meantime, my guess is that of the 40k participants, some were given vaccine and some placebo, double blind, not a challenge trial so no-one's given the virus, just living in places where it's cruising about as such viruses do, then monitor who gets it and who doesn't, and check back with who got placebo/vaccine.
Fascinating that just [164] people is sufficient to base emergency authorisation. And with such small numbers, a relatively small number of failures would significantly alter the success rate.
But no need to report any of that of course, "40k participants and 90% success rate" is plenty enough to make everyone happy...
For a start, it's 164 people testing positive in the study. The rationale is statistical:
Phase 2/3 is event-driven. Under the assumption of a true VE rate of ≥60%, after the second dose of investigational product, a target of 164 primary-endpoint cases of confirmed COVID-19 due to SARS-CoV-2 occurring at least 7 days following the second dose of the primary series of the candidate vaccine will be sufficient to provide 90% power to conclude true VE >30% with high probability. The total number of participants enrolled in Phase 2/3 may vary depending on the incidence of COVID-19 at the time of the enrollment, the true underlying VE, and a potential early stop for efficacy or futility.
It's almost like the scientists know what they're doing or something...
My point was the reporting, not the science. What you and others here have added to the discussion on the science is more than most media. "40k participants, 90% success, here this year & 2021" is the dominant narrative or "message" driving perceptions (& markets), not the reality of the science or logistics. [Notably, some scientists have said they'll wait to see the paper before drawing any conclusions. That's science].
MSM are almost universally terrible about reporting on science. They always infer much greater certainty and clarity than really exists. It's a horrible problem. I used to read Bed Goldacres blog and column back in the 00's, when I was healthcare professional and it really helped me begin to build a healthy skepticism and achieve a better relationship with what we really could infer/assume from the "science" as it exists and the consensus arrived at.
And before anyone accuses me of bias in reading The Guardian, a Sunday morning for me back then was The Times, The Guardian (Observer) and the FT. I strongly feel that science should be secular and unpoliticised BUT still assessed for bias.
Very rough back of envelope: Making 1.3b doses/yr, assuming need 2 doses, it would be 2025 before everyone is vaccinated. And if protection "hopefully" lasts a year (as I seem to recall Pfizer official said) people in rich countries demanding their annual jabs before poorer/less powerful countries even get their first will push it all out past 2030. (Of course, other vaccines if successful will eat into that).
Whilst this might be a fair estimate, I am going to guess that, just like with the flu vaccines in many countries, they will be targeted towards at risk groups and essential staff. So however muc vaccine is available, will have an outsized impact on reducing the death rate and allow the rest of us, to live with the virus with a reduced impact.
If there is an effective vaccine targeted at essential staff and vulnerable groups, it will be sufficient to prevent healthcare services being overwhelmed and negating the need for lockdowns or major restrictions moving forward.
Barring any dangerous mutations etc.
Yeah. We can't know yet obviously, but if we are lucky, herd immunity might be as low as 60%. At the very least, targeted vaccination will reduce the mortality rate and also somewhat reduce the R0. With each year, the odds will be in moving in our favour. Barring some weird political agenda or social movement that rejects the vaccine, which in the modern cultural climate, seems entirely possible.
Delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine to New Zealand could occur as soon as the first quarter of 2021, Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods says, if encouraging new from Pfizer and BioNTech comes to fruition.
Israel orders 1.5 million doses of Russian coronavirus vaccine
The ones who were genuinely returning and not just using NZ as a passport office at the bottom of the world and popping back each summer for the odd Waiheke wedding and retaining their voting rights in a country they're not longer tax residents of? Those New Zealanders?
Gravy train for the pharmaceutical companies. I won't be vaccinating though.
Firstly because according to CDC figures COVID-19 is no more dangerous than flu for my age group (and the latest studies on T-cell immunity are suggesting it may be a lot less dangerous than flu for all except the elderly).
Secondly because last time an exorbitantly expensive vaccine was rushed to market (for swine flu in 2009) it was found to cause brain damage and narcolepsy in 1/16,000 people, while the risk of the swine flu itself turned out to be extremely low, once proper data was available. History does repeat.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-na…
You could consider helping herd immunity and you know, protecting others?
Your second example suggests one vaccine for swine flu had a cross reaction with a cell receptor. Whether this is an issue depends on whether anything molecular resembles the spike protein that the current coronavirus vaccines are targeted at. I'd be surprised if there's any similar molecular structures in the human body naturally. I imagine this is taken in to consideration. I also note that other vaccines against H1N1 didn't cause this issue so it seems like it was one particular vaccine.
Benefits vs risks. I suppose there are people who won't travel in cars or fly in planes due to similar odds. Fair enough if you're that way inclined.
How cool is the cool chain....
Needs be kept at minus 70 degrees Celsius (-94 F) or below.
Why Pfizer’s ultra-cold COVID-19 vaccine will not be at the local pharmacy any time soon
But the vaccine's complex and super-cold storage requirements are an obstacle for even the most sophisticated hospitals in the United States and may impact when and where it is available in rural areas or poor countries where resources are tight.
The main issue is that the vaccine, which is based on a novel technology that uses synthetic mRNA to activate the immune system against the virus, needs to be kept at minus 70 degrees Celsius (-94 F) or below
most of our cold logistics in NZ runs at a little over minus 20, i can not think of any company that has freezers that can run constantly at minus 70 temperature,
below is the company that now handles most of our vaccines
https://hcl.co.nz/logistics-services/
this vaccine needs to be stored at minus 70.
so they would have to buy in laboratory freezers and they are not cheap, i guess the government will foot the bill
https://www.thomassci.com/Equipment/General-Purpose-Refrigeration/_/TLE…
Well, flu shots are usually targeted and offered to higher risk groups, so it's likely the Covid virus will go to essential workers and vulnerable groups first. This will allow the rest of us to be able to live with the virus without posing a risk to them and without needing to have revolving lockdowns or other major restrictions to keep flattening the curve. If the vaccine can protect those who have the higher risk of suffering the more extreme case of the virus, the likelihood of healthcare services collapsing and all the devastating knock on effects of that, should be reduced massively.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.