VAKCINA

Mr.Pink wrote:Kakav yay science momenat? Meni taj pro i anti science narativ neki poslesnji trzaj akademizma pred smetliste


Dok poslesnji pakistanac ne primi vakcinu a to se nece desiti nikad, samo se inkubira neki novi kurac

bemty wrote:gospodo, ne serite. 30 godina se naucnici mrcvare da dobiju lovu u kukavnom grantovskom sistemu da istrazuju mrna vakcine, sad u godinu dana sa parama i vremenom i podrskom odjednom ode medicina pola veka unapred. i zato yay science.

Christian Drosten, the head virologist at Berlin's Charite hospital, also did not see immediate reason for alarm with the new [Indian] variant. The next generation of vaccines will only need "a slight update" to reach "most of the immune escape mutants" with comparably "little effort," Drosten had said in his regular podcast back in March.

BioNTech chief says Europe will reach herd immunity by August

ASSOCIATED PRESS  | Wednesday, April 28, 2021 7:24 a.m

BERLIN — Europe can achieve herd immunity against the coronavirus within the next four months, the head of German pharmaceutical company BioNTech, which developed the first widely approved covid-19 vaccine with U.S. partner Pfizer, said Wednesday.
While the exact threshold required to reach that critical level of immunization remains a matter of debate, experts say a level above 70% would significantly disrupt transmission of the coronavirus within a population.
“Europe will reach herd immunity in July, latest by August,” Ugur Sahin, BioNTech’s chief executive, told reporters.
His company’s vaccine makes up a large share of the doses administered in Europe and North America, where it is more commonly known as the Pfizer shot.
Sahin said data from people who have received the vaccine show that the immune response gets weaker over time, and a third shot will likely be required.
Studies show the efficacy of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine declines from 95% to about 91% after six months, he said.
“Accordingly, we need a third shot to get the vaccine protection back up to almost 100% again” Sahin said. He suggested this should be administered 9-12 months after the first shot.
“And then I expect it will probably be necessary to get another booster every year or perhaps every 18 months again,” he said.

An EU official involved in talks with vaccine makers confirmed the price cited by Borissov for the new contract but said negotiations had not been wrapped up yet.

The new contract would cover variants, meaning that the companies would offer enhanced shots if mutations of the coronavirus became prevalent, a second EU official said.

Turul madár wrote:

bemty wrote:gospodo, ne serite. 30 godina se naucnici mrcvare da dobiju lovu u kukavnom grantovskom sistemu da istrazuju mrna vakcine, sad u godinu dana sa parama i vremenom i podrskom odjednom ode medicina pola veka unapred. i zato yay science.

 politicka je odluka da se odjednom isplati veliki novac za rad i podignu sve pravno administrativne barijere i regulativa, kako bi se procesi ubrzali 5-10 puta. ubrzani su pravno administrativni, a ne naucni procesi koji bi bili jednako brzi i da se u drugim slucajevima primenio isti modus (novac + propisi).

lalinea wrote:

Turul madár wrote:

 politicka je odluka da se odjednom isplati veliki novac za rad i podignu sve pravno administrativne barijere i regulativa, kako bi se procesi ubrzali 5-10 puta. ubrzani su pravno administrativni, a ne naucni procesi koji bi bili jednako brzi i da se u drugim slucajevima primenio isti modus (novac + propisi).

Da baba ima Y hromozom bila bi deda*? Da su isti uslovi i nauka bi isto prosla? Pa da, i to bi opet bilo za "yay science". Ali nije bilo drugih uslova u kojima se primenio isti modus, nego je trebala jbn pandemija da se svet seti koliki potencijal lezi u nauci, koja nije zakazala i pored decenija marginalizacije. Sta je u ovom slucaju za ismevanje ovog vrlo zasluzenog "yay science"? Ako je zakazala politika, nije zakazala nauka, i zato yay.

*Pod uslovom da je cis.

LYING WITH STATISTICS

The manipulative Twitter propaganda of Sputnik V
 
The vaccine maker's tweets are a typical Russian mix of information and, above all, disinformation for propaganda purposes
 
Klaus Taschwer April 28, 2021, 14:55 514 posts.
 
Whether Austria will actually vaccinate with Sputnik V as well or not is still written in the stars. Because of the Biontech/Pfizer extra deliveries, the deal announced by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) with Russia regarding Sputnik V was somewhat out of the media spotlight. The new health minister also made it clear that a vaccination of the vector vaccine from Russia would in any case require approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and that no Austrian solo efforts were planned.
This is bad for Russia, as Austria could have been the first "Western" country to use Sputnik V. Which would have been a huge propaganda success for Russia's government, which is not only making strategic geopolitics and a billion-dollar business with Sputnik V, but also wants to burnish its image.
 
Lack of data security
 
But there have been repeated problems with the vaccine, including in Slovakia. And as recently as Tuesday, Brazil's National Agency for Health Surveillance (Anvisa) spoke out against the import of Sputnik V - despite the fact that Brazil is one of the hardest hit countries in the world by the pandemic. There was a lack of "consistent and reliable data," it said in a statement. More detail on the worrisome incident is provided by respected U.S. virologist Angela Rasmussen (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.) on Twitter here:
 

Они обалдели!

The Sputnik V vaccine Ad5 vector is evidently replication competent. The makers apparently neglected to delete E1, so getting this vaccine means being infected with live adenovirus 5.

Hence Brazil’s regulator correctly rejected it.https://t.co/oNojQI38bi

— Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) April 28, 2021

 
Rasmussen suspects that the vector virus of the second part of the vaccine - human adenovirus 5 - was apparently not rendered harmless during production of the vaccine. The virus, which triggers colds, is therefore still active, can multiply and spread in the body of the vaccinated. This is likely to reduce the effect of the vaccination and harm immunocompromised individuals. Rasmussen's harsh verdict: "This is a fundamental and inexcusable error in quality assurance and quality control."
Promptly, people in Russia - including on Sputnik V's official Twitter channel - lashed out at counter-propaganda (in Brazilian Portuguese, of course).
Anyone who wants to get an idea of how manipulatively the Russian manufacturers are making propaganda with Sputnik V will find plenty on this Twitter channel. Quite a few of the entries show impressively that Russia is well practiced in bending information and statistics to its own ends, sometimes to the point of complete disinformation. Here are three particularly brazen examples from the last few days.
 
1. So widespread is Sputnik V (of course not)
 

Sputnik V ranks as the second most widespread vaccine in the world, authorized in 62 countries of 3.2 billion people :v: pic.twitter.com/kCngGxgbRL

— Sputnik V (@sputnikvaccine) April 27, 2021

 
Sputnik V is thus the second most widely used vaccine in the world, approved in 62 countries with 3.2 billion people. Of course, we are not talking about absolute production and vaccination figures. For good reasons, these are not disclosed in Russia. Sputnik V would be far behind Biontech/Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca and others. The Sputnik producers simply add up the population figures of those 62 countries where Sputnik V is approved - and they promptly end up in second place.
 
2 The statistics from Hungary lack crucial information
 

The official data from Hungary showed that #SputnikV is multiple times better than mRNA vaccines on safety & efficacy. It is why big pharma and EU bureaucrats are afraid and working hard to block Sputnik V while rushing to secure a €35bn for 1.8 bn dozes contract with Pfizer. https://t.co/zwD8Il8kOE

— Sputnik V (@sputnikvaccine) April 26, 2021

 
"The Hungarian government confirmed in a report dated April 25 that Sputnik V showed the best results in terms of safety and efficacy of the five vaccines used in Hungary," Sputik V proudly announces on Twitter, extracting some figures from the report.
However, important additional information is left out here, which can be found on the Hungarian Coronamonitor, the statistical overview site on vaccinations, among others: First, Sputnik V came into use comparatively later than other vaccines, making a difference in efficacy. (Those vaccinated later have less time to develop infection.) Second, Sputnik V was vaccinated to the youngest population on average compared to all other vaccines, which obviously has a positive impact on safety and efficacy. And third, Sputnik V was - why? - was spared to particularly vulnerable groups of people.
 
3. The completely manipulated figures of "vaccination deaths"

BREAKING: #SputnikV study shows that there are significantly more deaths following vaccination with Pfizer than with AstraZeneca vaccine per 1mn administered doses, based on official publicly available data by 13 international health regulators. pic.twitter.com/2oP84Fgyxx

— Sputnik V (@sputnikvaccine) April 23, 2021

 
Here's where it gets downright kicklesque: a study of Sputnik V shows "that there are significantly more deaths following vaccination with Pfizer's vaccine than with Astra Zeneca's per million doses administered, based on official, publicly available data from 13 international health authorities." The claim, of course, serves only to inconspicuously point out that the "data" for Sputnik V are even better.
Actually, a further fact check of this disinformation is unnecessary. Because as footnote 2 is inserted small that no clear connection between the vaccinations and the reported deaths exists.
US biologist Carl Bergstrom, professor at the University of Washington in Seattle and co-author of the recently published book "Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World," has nevertheless taken the trouble to neatly dissect this tweet into all its misinformation particles in a separate thread:

1. Today’s antivax propaganda comes from a….vaccine manufacturer?

Unfortunately, yes. The manufacturer of the Sputnik V vaccine is tweeting absolutely nonsense statistics in an effort to question the safety record of its competitors. pic.twitter.com/Mizd5qo2Lc

— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) April 27, 2021

 
To summarize only Bergstrom's most important points: The numbers in the left column are unweighted by population. One cannot, of course, treat the figures from Norway (1.2 million vaccinated) on an equal footing with the USA (120 million vaccinated). There is, see Hungary, no additional information on the age of those vaccinated with the respective vaccine or when the vaccination took place. (Those vaccinated earlier have more time to die.) In those countries where Sputnik is heavily used (especially in countries of the global south such as India), one may also doubt the data basis.
Bergstrom's laconic summary: "This is terrible propaganda from Sputnik." There is little to add to this - except perhaps that confidence in a vaccine in the so-called West cannot be established in this way and that we can be glad about a close examination by the EMA as well as the lack of Austrian quick fixes.

ANVISA made a legitimate decision not to approve because they want better quality: a more intrinsically safe manufacturing process, and 300×-lower cutoff for acceptable live-virus levels. They did not make a new discovery about how Sputnik V works.

— Jason Kaelber (@Kaelberviridae) April 29, 2021

I am surprised at the credulity of many of my colleagues who FAILED TO EXAMINE THE UNDERLYING TEXTS. Now, we didn't have the full ANVISA explanation until today, just an unclear report. But there was still a lot to go on that most of covid-twitter just ignored.

— Jason Kaelber (@Kaelberviridae) April 29, 2021

rumbeando wrote:Podsećam da je pekinška verzija Sinofarma daleko bliža odobrenju SZO od Sputnjika V.

The WHO Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EUL) is a risk-based procedure for assessing and listing unlicensed vaccines, therapeutics and in vitro diagnostics with the ultimate aim of expediting the availability of these products to people affected by a public health emergency. This will assist interested UN procurement agencies and Member States in determining the acceptability of using specific products, based on an essential set of available quality, safety, and efficacy and performance data.

The procedure is a key tool for companies wishing to submit their products for use during health emergencies.

This figure shows the proportion of vaccines distributed by manufacturers to EU/EEA countries by product as of 25 April 2021.

AstraZeneca’s chief executive, Pascal Soriot, has mounted a robust defence of the drugmaker’s Covid-19 vaccine efforts, and said the business should be proud of what it has done for the world and is doing its “very best” to produce more, as the company faces legal action from the EU over delivery shortfalls, and shipments to poorer countries have also been delayed.
The company generated $275m (£197m) in revenues from the Covid vaccine it developed with Oxford University in the first three months of the year and shipped 48m doses to 120 countries through the global vaccine-sharing initiative Covax, 80% of which went to low and middle-income countries. In total, it has supplied more than 300m vaccine doses to more than 165 countries so far this year.
“We don’t regret anything, we haven’t been perfect but we did the very best, we should be proud of what we did in the world,” Soriot said. He added the company was on track to produce 200m doses ready for distribution a month from May.
In India, where Covid cases have soared in a catastrophic second wave, more than 90% of vaccinations are made using the AstraZeneca jab. “Imagine what India would look like if we had not stepped up?” Soriot said. “The world needs this vaccine.”
...
AstraZeneca’s vaccine is seen as a lifeline for poorer countries, as it is cheaper and easier to store and transport than some of the other coronavirus vaccines being produced.
However, far fewer doses than expected have been delivered through Covax, which is led by organisations including the World Health Organization, as a result of export bans, hoarding and supply shortages. The Indian government has restricted exports from its largest vaccine manufacturer, the Serum Institute, which produces the AstraZeneca jab.
Soriot said he understood the Indian government’s decision to prioritise its own population. He said: “This pandemic in India has really exploded and it’s something that has caught many by surprise. It’s not clear yet when it will be possible to export again [from India].”
...
The drugmaker also said it would submit the vaccine to the US health regulator for emergency use authorisation “in the coming weeks”, incorporating data from the US and non-US late-stage clinical trials and emerging real-world data.
It had planned to file for approval in the first half of April but putting together all the data has taken longer than expected. Compiling data from almost four months of vaccinations in the UK has added to the complexity of the submission.

Large countries such as Indonesia and Brazil have so far received about one in 10 of the Oxford/AstraZeneca doses they were expecting [from the Covax programme] by May, while Bangladesh, Mexico, Myanmar and Pakistan are among those that have not received any doses of the vaccine through the programme so far.
A handful of countries such as Moldova, Tuvalu, Nauru and Dominica have received the full amount they were allocated, but the vast majority of those in the scheme have so far received a third or less of what they were allocated.
In Africa, Rwanda has received just 32% of its allocation, the biggest percentage on the continent, ahead of countries including Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which have each received about 28% of the doses they are expecting.
Overall, as of Wednesday this week [April 21st], the [Covax] programme had delivered about 40.2m or 21.5% of the 187.2m doses it planned to distribute during or by the end of May. The analysis is based on data drawn from Airfinity, a life sciences analytics firm, and Unicef and Gavi, two of the organisations that are helping to run Covax.